Microsoft tried to buy Nintendo

[Shadow_Link]

I heard different between the broken joint venture between Nintendo and Sony.

Well, apparently, it was nearly a done deal, when Nintendo had a change of heart after closely charting the process of the flopped CD add-ons for the Mega drive, aka Mega cd/32x. Hence, Nintendo thought it wouldn't be such a good idea as it would most likely flop, as 'most' add-ons do . So Nintendo pulled the plug, and Sony went on with their plans.

[Jason1]

Hmmm...I cant believe Nintendo actually considered being bought out by Microsoft....and thank god they had enough sense not to do it...

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by Jason1
Hmmm...I cant believe Nintendo actually considered being bought out by Microsoft....and thank god they had enough sense not to do it...

What bad would it have done?

I don't think Xbox or Gamecube would exist right now (in thier current form)... it would have been somthing different (maybe they would have bench marked the systems aganst each other and chose one chipset for the harware, then toss on X-Box's extra features and GCN's controller)

and we would have got both line-ups on sone console...

Maybe it would have been a mistake (who knows?)

But I know one thing for a fact, if MS and Nintendo put thier efforts into one console, that one console (game quality) would be out-right better and Xbox or Gamecube in it's current form.

but oh well... maybe next generation.

[thatmariolover]

The same thing that assimilation always does. It destroys innovation and individualism; thus forcing us to by an inferior product. If MS had bought out Nintendo they wouldn't have worked any harder than they do now to make the consumer happy. In fact, they probably would have tried even less because they would have had only one major competitor. It's not about you, it's not about me, it's about money.

Monopolization. Exploitation of the underdogs - the true innovators. Microsoft has had the same thing going for Windows forever. It is popular because Bill Gates knew how to market his product and not how to make it good. Mac OS and Linux (among others) exist because they have something better to offer for many people. If they didn't have the reasons for people come back to support them, they would be dead.

The underdog has to innovate first to keep their product on top. This system encourages progression rather than regression.

The monopolizer has no need to innovate because they're already on top. Since people keep buying their products anyway they can just pump out poop in a purple package (but you can't polish a turd).

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by thatmariolover
The same thing that assimilation always does. It destroys innovation and individualism; thus forcing us to by an inferior product. If MS had bought out Nintendo they wouldn't have worked any harder than they do now to make the consumer happy. In fact, they probably would have tried even less because they would have had only one major competitor. It's not about you, it's not about me, it's about money.

Microsoft, coming into this war, isn't even considering Nintendo to be competition. They have higer goals... like destroying Ps2.

Why would they work less hard than they are doing now?

You seem to forget that Sony is the target of both Nintendo and Microsoft. Sony also came into this generation with a 20 million console sale head start. So I think that The Nintendo-Microsoft system wouldn't have been worked any less hard on than the singular Xbox or GCN.

The only difference would be, the games would be released in different order than they are now. But I wouldn't expect any less from third parties and thier support for this console.

Monopolization. Exploitation of the underdogs - the true innovators. Microsoft has had the same thing going for Windows forever. It is popular because Bill Gates knew how to market his product and not how to make it good. Mac OS and Linux (among others) exist because they have something better to offer for many people. If they didn't have the reasons for people come back to support them, they would be dead.

Monopolization is the goal in a buisness. What do you think GBA is?

If somthing better comes out, Nintendo could simply drop the price on GBA (with a profit) and it will stomp all over the competition. Nintendo is using 1992 technology, and guess what? It will continue to be dominate no matter what comes out because of it's support and cheapness. AND, if someone were to release a handheld that is created just as cheap, it would be a joke on the market. (wonder swan anyone?)

Now, if you are pissed at MS for thier "Monopolization. Exploitation of the underdogs" look for the last innovative handheld game not created by Nintendo and it should make you equally pissed.

The underdog has to innovate first to keep their product on top. This system encourages progression rather than regression.

Once again, just like GBA, 1992 technology.

The monopolizer has no need to innovate because they're already on top. Since people keep buying their products anyway they can just pump out poop in a purple package (but you can't polish a turd).

I agree 110%

but 2 things:

1) Microsoft isn't the only company in this deal who likes to monopolize. (the only reason I used GBA as an example.

2) What makes you think Sony wouldn't be at least competitive?

[thatmariolover]

Originally posted by BigJustinW


I agree 110%

but 2 things:

1) Microsoft isn't the only company in this deal who likes to monopolize. (the only reason I used GBA as an example.

2) What makes you think Sony wouldn't be at least competitive?

Alright. Yeah. I understand what you're saying.

But...

1) I understand that there are monopolies all over the place. But there's a difference between a friendly, competative monopoly and a monopoly that buys out its competitors. Nintendo didn't buy out NeoGeo or Wonderswan's respective companies.

2) I think that Sony would still be fairly competitive. But then developers would flock to Sony's console because there would be only one major competitor. The installed user base alone would be enough for devs to make that decision. Then Sony could just send us poop in a purple package.

[BigJustinW]

Originally posted by thatmariolover


Alright. Yeah. I understand what you're saying.

But...

1) I understand that there are monopolies all over the place. But there's a difference between a friendly, competative monopoly and a monopoly that buys out its competitors. Nintendo didn't buy out NeoGeo or Wonderswan's respective companies.

True. But you can't deny the fact that they are holding any new competition down.

By releasing old technology they will always have a price advantage. If Neo Geo pocket became a threat to GBA, they could lower the price so far down that Neo-Geo would be insane to try and compete. Like I said before, if another company came out with Technology just as bad, it would be laughed off the market.

It's a double standard. GBA will never have competition it can't crush, so Nintedno will continue to release out-dated hardware in the form of a handheld system, sell it for a rip off price, and continue to dominate.

Nintendo is the main reason for slow progression in the handheld market. There is no such thing as a friendly monopoly.

Just replace the name "Nintendo" with "Microsoft" and "Neo-Geo" with "Linux" and it's just like the computer market over the last few years... am I wrong?

2) I think that Sony would still be fairly competitive. But then developers would flock to Sony's console because there would be only one major competitor. The installed user base alone would be enough for devs to make that decision. Then Sony could just send us poop in a purple package.

Well, it will come down to the classic issue that keeps some games from coming out for Ps2... development diffuculty.

3rd party developers WANT Microsoft or Nintendo to win this generation, because of the development ease. If GCN or Xbox were to pass up Ps2 in world wide console sales, Ps2 would immediatly flop (or all it's exclusive games will be multi platform).

The problem is, this won't happen because Gamecube is holding Xbox down (in Japan and Euro) and Xbox is holding Gamecube down (in US).

If you take away that third company, or mix the efforts of Nintendo and Microsoft, they would have a better chance of coming on top, and it would make for a more competitive war. (and when competition starts, games start to get better for some reason.)

[Idiot]

Well, let us pray that Gates & co. get their comeupance one day. The theiving b******s.......