>> do you mean in comparison to PS1 or PS2? I thought N64 games are bigger than PS1 games, and they still load faster. <<

N64 games are actually far smaller. PSX CD''s could hold 650 megabytes of data.. while N64 carts could hold less then 1/6th if I remember correctly.


>> oh that sounds really convenient <<

It is, considering my PC is in the lounge room to begin with.


>> sure everyone has a right to compete. but I think it sucks how Nintendo/Sega/etc have been pioneers of the industry but now have to face a multi-billion (or are we up to trillion?) dollar rival who is jumping on the bandwagon, raining on the parade. <<

Well, business is business. I think NEC found it sucky when Nintendo monopolized the console world in the 80''s. Practically anyone who tried to oppose them would either work with them or fail. Nintendo''s grip on the console world in the US at the time caused many TG-16 games to not be released here, and thus, the console failed where it might have succeeded. The TG-16(known as the PC-Engine in Japan) actually outsold the NES in Japan. However it had no chance in the US due to Nintendo''s monopoly. And thus, Great PC-Engine games never made it to our shores and the console failed.

But, business is business.
And It''s not just the pioneers that are facing them. It''s Sony. Sega itself is developing for Xbox, so I don''t really see how they are facing them.

And I don''t see how it''s considered "Raining on the Parade", competition has shown to be better for the industry. Just take a look at the Gameboy Vs. the Console Industry. No competition and Gameboy had been using nearly the same hardware for what? Over a decade? Can you imagine if Nintendo had no competition in the console world? "GameCube X.0" with slight hardware upgrades every 5 years? Handhelds should further then they are now, and they would be if Nintendo had some real competition in that area.

Competition, especially by big companies like Microsoft, is much better for the consumer.

Besides that, if people want it, why not? And I don''t see Sony or Nintendo offering an "Incubation Program" where small developers can develop an Xbox game. They''re filling a gap left by Sony and Nintendo as well.



>> In games, there simply is no other competitor. <<

All depends on the types of games you enjoy. I have yet to see a Mario/Zelda killer.


-Janus

>> Zelda and Mario are two freakin games. They alone don''t put Nintendo over Playstation in terms of games. <<

They do if you''re a Zelda or Mario fan.
I''m not debating that PS2 has more games. I''m just saying PS2 does not have the best games for all people. It just really depends on your tastes.


>> I know Nintendo may still have the best in this and taht genre, but in general Playstation still owns the market. <<

And I''m not debating that.


>> Also, I have never seen a Gran Turismo killer, Ace Combat killer, or Grand Theft Auto killer...but that''s just me... <<

And your point is...? That has nothing to do with the point I made. My point(again) was that PS2 does not have the best games for all people. For most people, sure, but not for all.


-Janus

that''s a good point you raise about competition and the gameboy, Janus. And how competition is better for the consumer in terms of technology and price. I think the Gameboy Advance is a tad recycled since it is regurgitating old SNES games.

But NEC was probably a bigger company than Nintendo which did not have a monopoly (don''t forget the Sega Master System, Atari, etc). The home games industry has never looked so unevenly matched as it does today. It''s like a couple of Davids versus Goliath. Nintendo and Sony have the history but Microsoft has the deep pockets.

If Microsoft lost that court case, they would have been split up into separate departments. And there would be a games division separate from the rest of the co. That would even the playing field I suspect.

btw if N64''s games were smaller in size than PS1''s, how can they be graphically better? compression?

"btw if N64''s games were smaller in size than PS1''s, how can they be graphically better? compression?"

Well, of course that is subjective and depends on the game.
But still, while the PSX had higher res capabilities, it ran the
games at that resolution quite a bit slower. Only in the last
few years(with a couple exceptions) did developers start using
the higher res capabilities of the PSX.

The N64 runs at...what...640x480(or is that 512x384)?
The PSX runs at 320x240, if I remember correctly...
These numbers, of course, BEFORE your tv runs the res down a bit.

-Hyatus
"da da da"

>> But NEC was probably a bigger company than Nintendo which did not have a monopoly (don't forget the Sega Master System, Atari, etc). <<

Actually, Nintendo did have a monopoly. While there were of course competitors, the competition couldn't hope to compete with the strict third party licensing policies. If you didn't make games for the NES, you could kiss large profits goodbye, because the SMS and such systems weren't near as popular. And if you did make games for the NES, you couldn't make games for other systems. Retailers who didn't want to play Nintendo's game eventually came crawling back due to their monopoly on the console industry. No doubt about it, they had a monopoly. I believe there were even lawsuits brought against them if I remember correctly.


>> The home games industry has never looked so unevenly matched as it does today. It's like a couple of Davids versus Goliath. Nintendo and Sony have the history but Microsoft has the deep pockets. <<

It's very evenly matched. While Microsoft has deep pockets, that doesn't necessarily mean that they'll be stupid about where they put their money. They're not going to put their 30 billion dollars behind Xbox. They'll put what is needed to break into the gaming industry.
If anything, Microsoft is the david here. Nintendo and Sony have brand name recognition. PS2 has an installed userbase of what? Over 20 million? Microsoft is just building their Xbox market up. Both Nintendo and Sony have lots of money. And they can just as easily compete with Microsoft.(Hell, Sony bought a large piece of Sqaure recently, It's not like they're some poor companies that can't compete, they can.)

Bottom line is, It's not like Microsoft is putting 30 billion dollars behind Xbox. Any amount of money they're putting behind it, Sony and Nintendo could put just as much behind their systems, because Microsoft will only put so much money behind it.


>> btw if N64's games were smaller in size than PS1's, how can they be graphically better? <<

Graphics have little to do with size. They contribute but just because N64 carts held way less data doesn't mean they would look worse. 3DMark2001, for example, is what? 30MB compressed?(no more then 100MB uncompressed) And that has some of the most advanced graphics on the PC. Size is not a measure of graphical quality.
Again, though, N64 carts hold less then 100MBytes(not bits) of data. CD-ROMs hold over 650MBytes of data.


-Janus

Edited by - Janus-DG on March 9, 2002 3:36:48 AM

Edited by - Janus-DG on March 9, 2002 7:21:54 AM

>>>Any amount of money they''re putting behind it, Sony and Nintendo could put just as much behind their systems, because Microsoft will only put so much money behind it.

how do you know that the other companies will match them? The home game industry is booming and Microsoft wants to ride the wave. They will spend whatever they have to. They could spend more than Nintendo could if they wanted. Microsoft has a warchest. I agree that Sony is no David though because PS@ already has a large user base, and Sony is a huge multiproduct company also.

Last week I went into the biggest department store in my city and in the "electrical dept" there was Xbox everywhere. You wouldn''t have known that there was any other system. PS2 was hiding in the background somewhere.

>>>If anything, Microsoft is the david here. Nintendo and Sony have brand name recognition.

I think most people know the name Microsoft. There''s no disadvantage there.


Anyway, I''ll see you in another topic.

>> how do you know that the other companies will match them? <<

If they don''t, then whatever happens to them is their own fault.
They have enough money to match what MS is putting behind the Xbox.


>> The home game industry is booming and Microsoft wants to ride the wave. They will spend whatever they have to. <<

They''ll spend whatever they have to.. up to a point. But that point can be matched by Sony and Nintendo. Microsoft isn''t going to waste money. They''ll spend a lot, but that money will not exceed what Nintendo and Sony can spend. Sony is a gigantic electronics corporation(not to mention they have their hands in movies, music, and even more), Nintendo has brand name, years of successful products and well known game franchises. Their brand name alone holds more value then Microsoft would be willing to spend.


>> Last week I went into the biggest department store in my city and in the "electrical dept" there was Xbox everywhere. You wouldn''t have known that there was any other system. PS2 was hiding in the background somewhere. <<

Thats because Microsoft needed to invest money into advertising. Sony and Nintendo don''t need to as much because they''re very well known video game console brands.


>> I think most people know the name Microsoft. There''s no disadvantage there <<

People know the name Microsoft, but that doesn''t mean they trust Microsoft. Microsoft has the lawsuits all over the news, the Win95/98/ME stability problems that many people blame Microsoft for, and on top of that, most of the 90+ million console gamers out there have been playing Sony Playstation or a Nintendo system for years. That''s where their games, like Metal Gear Solid''s sequel, or Zelda''s sequel, are.
Microsoft not only has to woo over consumers but also developers.


-Janus