New OXM Rumor: Nintendo Xbox 2
- Thread starter SegaR&D
- Start date
Pepto-Bismol
Newcomer
london-boy said:
Power has very little to do with it actually. The more weighty issues are software price and availability.
June 04, 2004 - According to a story published by Reuters, Viacom Chairman and Chief Executive Sumner Redstone denied recent speculation that the cable and entertainment giant might purchase Electronic Arts.Paul said:
"We have looked at the obvious companies like Electronic Arts, which is clearly the leader in the field... but their price is so high, it would be dilutive to our earnings. We have ruled it out," he is quoted as saying at a conference in New York.
"
http://xbox.ign.com/articles/521/521327p1.html
Nintendo makes a profit on their hardware, and they are maximizing their profits on each piece of 1st/2nd-party software sold. It seems like Nintendo will make more money by selling 750K copies of Luigi's Mansion 2 on a GC2 than 1 Mil copies on the XB2. Why screw it up, especially when Nintendo's niche in the home&handheld markets are profitable?
Nintendo (hopefully) wants to expand in the teenage/older, mainstream Western market, and might be keen on having another hardware company build a HDDVD/media machine. MS certainly has an online component that could be attractive to Nintendo, too. But I just don't see an assurance that a deal with MS would ultimately deliver a substantial increase in profits for Nintendo.
One might hope that MS is really just more interested in getting a cable/Tivo/multimedia box into everybody's home, and would be willing to transfer its gaming assets to Nintendo in exchange to license next-gen Nintendo hardware in the above-said UltraBox. Perhaps the deal could go a step further and allow MS to license N's portable game technology for a direct PSP competitor. (Basically Nintendo could sell the bare-bones editions of the hardware, while MS licenses the tech and incorporates it into higher-end multimedia powerhorses. )
This could effectively knock off Nintendo's newest rival, and give N an equal footing with Sony in the next gen. I might take this gamble if it gave me a shot at eliminating two competitors. I still don't think that MS can offer this much, and it still isn't worth the risk for the big N (IMO). Of course, they could then refuse to license their next-next- gen of technology and screw MS out of the business. That might synch with the statements that the coming Revolution isn't exactly the sequel to GC.
If this rumor is true, though... it certainly will make the next generation a bit more exciting.
Nintendo (hopefully) wants to expand in the teenage/older, mainstream Western market, and might be keen on having another hardware company build a HDDVD/media machine. MS certainly has an online component that could be attractive to Nintendo, too. But I just don't see an assurance that a deal with MS would ultimately deliver a substantial increase in profits for Nintendo.
One might hope that MS is really just more interested in getting a cable/Tivo/multimedia box into everybody's home, and would be willing to transfer its gaming assets to Nintendo in exchange to license next-gen Nintendo hardware in the above-said UltraBox. Perhaps the deal could go a step further and allow MS to license N's portable game technology for a direct PSP competitor. (Basically Nintendo could sell the bare-bones editions of the hardware, while MS licenses the tech and incorporates it into higher-end multimedia powerhorses. )
This could effectively knock off Nintendo's newest rival, and give N an equal footing with Sony in the next gen. I might take this gamble if it gave me a shot at eliminating two competitors. I still don't think that MS can offer this much, and it still isn't worth the risk for the big N (IMO). Of course, they could then refuse to license their next-next- gen of technology and screw MS out of the business. That might synch with the statements that the coming Revolution isn't exactly the sequel to GC.
If this rumor is true, though... it certainly will make the next generation a bit more exciting.
Pepto-Bismol said:london-boy said:
Power has very little to do with it actually. The more weighty issues are software price and availability.
For the second time...
I'm not saying that there is causation between the 2. Only correlation.
I'm not saying that because the platform is the most powerful one, it fails. I'm saying that in the past, the most powerful platform has never won its direct competitors. SMS never beat the NES. The Genesis/SNES days were a bit confused, both in terms of power and sales. N64 never beat the PS1, Xbox or GC will not beat PS2.Just an observation.
Squidlor said:
So if they'd sell say 700k on GC2 and 400k on XB2, provided they both were compatible...? That would be even more money for no extra development effort.
Well then that can be said for everyone, why isn't MS releasing Halo on other console, they would make loads more money... Why isn't Sony releasing GT4 on other consoles, sales would go through the roof and they would make loads of money... Still, not gonna happen is it...
But current consoles aren't compatible, it would require porting.
There'd be no sense in making a console exclusive title for say, XB2 only, if both XB2 and GC2 are compatible.
There'd be no sense in making a console exclusive title for say, XB2 only, if both XB2 and GC2 are compatible.
Guden Oden said:
I guess even in the extremely remote possibility that XB2 and GC2 were compatible, Nintendo would have a lot of interest to keep its own titles within them. That way people will need to buy their console to play those games.
Even then, if the 2 consoles were "compatible" (never gonna happen by the way), how long would it take for someone to hack, say, the xb2 into being able to play GC2 games... It's just not gonna happen, Nintendo and MS would never allow their machines to be pretty much the same architecturally. Unless of course they're not "competitors".
IT could work out this way
xbox 2 - hardrive , hd dvd recording and the rest of the system for 500$
gc 2 - no hardrive , no hd dvd recording 200$
Both are the same system. Just one has less advanced features .
Gc -2 designed for younger audiance like the gc was .
xbox 2 a much nicer more of a living room or tv room looking box .
xbox 2 - hardrive , hd dvd recording and the rest of the system for 500$
gc 2 - no hardrive , no hd dvd recording 200$
Both are the same system. Just one has less advanced features .
Gc -2 designed for younger audiance like the gc was .
xbox 2 a much nicer more of a living room or tv room looking box .
^ ^ HDD would be needed in some games, therefore compatibility between the 2 would already go down the drain...
And do we really need the Xbox2 to record HDDVDs?
And do we really need the Xbox2 to record HDDVDs?
I'm feeling thick today, but I just don't understand what would MS and Nintendo benefit if they'd make compatible consoles.
How'd they share the royalties from games?
Wouldn't the amount of money they'd get from [multiplatform] games be about the same or even less, compared to if they'd remain individual.
They might agree about the Halo's and Mario's, so that they'd get their own money from those franchises, or even put a special 'chip' in their machines, so that Halo could only be played on MS version, and Mario's on Nintendo's version, effectively 'masking' the fact that they are identical hardware (still a huge benefit in multiplatform games)
MS and Nintendo agreeing on a mutual hardware, I just don't see a win/win situation there.
How'd they share the royalties from games?
Wouldn't the amount of money they'd get from [multiplatform] games be about the same or even less, compared to if they'd remain individual.
They might agree about the Halo's and Mario's, so that they'd get their own money from those franchises, or even put a special 'chip' in their machines, so that Halo could only be played on MS version, and Mario's on Nintendo's version, effectively 'masking' the fact that they are identical hardware (still a huge benefit in multiplatform games)
MS and Nintendo agreeing on a mutual hardware, I just don't see a win/win situation there.
well rabbit . If nintendo sold 20 million systems and ms sold 20 million. Of thier own non compatible systems . They would get royalties on 20 million systems each.
If they combined and sells 40 million systems its the same thing no ? except halo would now be able to be sold on 40 million systems and mario on 40 million systems . Not to mention the fact that they could take more slaes away from sony and get more third party support than they both have already.
If they combined and sells 40 million systems its the same thing no ? except halo would now be able to be sold on 40 million systems and mario on 40 million systems . Not to mention the fact that they could take more slaes away from sony and get more third party support than they both have already.
I can't believe this thread is still alive.
IMO MS is too huge, they're a frickin' GIANT, Nintendo would never even consider trusting them to play nicely, it's highly likely MS would find a way to screw them big time, with the prospect of a 10-year suit later on, settled out of court. With %1 of the money won by MS out of the whole operation.
Okay that's a bit of an exaggregation, but you get my point. It's too risky, and Nintendo is doing quite nicely without taking such a risk, not to mention the completely different vision for the future of video gaming of both companies.
The only way I see Nintendo cooperating on next-gen hardware with MS is MS buying N, if they're for sale at all...
Just my 2c.
IMO MS is too huge, they're a frickin' GIANT, Nintendo would never even consider trusting them to play nicely, it's highly likely MS would find a way to screw them big time, with the prospect of a 10-year suit later on, settled out of court. With %1 of the money won by MS out of the whole operation.
Okay that's a bit of an exaggregation, but you get my point. It's too risky, and Nintendo is doing quite nicely without taking such a risk, not to mention the completely different vision for the future of video gaming of both companies.
The only way I see Nintendo cooperating on next-gen hardware with MS is MS buying N, if they're for sale at all...
Just my 2c.
Yes, but 40 shared by 2 still equals 20.jvd said:
And, it's not exactly PS2 itself against both xbox and GameCube in this gen, is it. It's a threesome, not two against one (in the eyes of buying public). There's nothing that suggests that those who now own xb and/or GCN would remain loyal and not jump to PS3 bed.
There's nothing stopping the Halo's and Marios selling on 40 million system this gen either, only that those games are not enough to sell those 40 million systems
They might get some of the marketshare back from Sony, but it's still effectively a threesome, not one-on-one. MS and N might save in initial costs, but in the long therm it would effect little.
Rabid, it's never gonna happen, but for the sake of argument, those companies make most of their money out of software sales. If a game can be played on 40M consoles instead of 20M, then there is the potential to make double the money...
Similar threads
