[TheGame]

Xantar:

It's funny you skip my third point... the most obvious scam on the part of Nintendo.

In any case, what we're talking about is how Nintendo's tactics reflect a greedier approach than its competitors. I simply don't think that's true. As I said before, Microsoft wouldn't have gotten away with a launch like the GameCube's. They were forced to do things like offer Halo at launch along with DVD-playback, a built in hard drive and ethernet out of the box. If they hadn't done all that, they would have been laughed out of the market. Really, what would the Xbox have been without all those things at launch? A flop. So by including all that stuff, Microsoft was trying to make money. Surely you didn't believe Microsoft did that out of the goodness of their collective heart?

This war Xbox IS just a gift from M$... they aren't trying to win financially this war, they are trying to have the best games and the best selling system. Why? So they can sucseed financially next generation. So yes, everything about Xbox came out of the kindness of Microsoft's heart.... especially if Xbox flops.

You can't tell me that Microsoft or Sony wouldn't have done the same thing if they were the producers of the GBA instead of Nintendo (and also had access to all these NES and SNES games). In Microsoft's case, I have only to cite the example of Windows. There's a monopoly they have that they exploit. So you do have evidence that Microsoft would exploit a monopoly if they have one.

There are two kind of monopolys, one is selling a low quality product for a high price(just because they can), and the other is buying out competition and lowering prices to the point that competition can't compete.

Nintendo and MS fit into two different categories.

And how does Windows relate to the console market? If I rememberd correctly there are two different sides to M$ now.

This might be a brilliant argument, but I'm afraid I don't follow. How exactly could the PS2 have proven my point? I don't believe the PS2 is analagous to the N64, if that's what you're saying. The PS2 had some anachronisms like not having four controller ports, but that's not nearly as blatant as going with cartridges instead of CDs. No matter what developers did, the N64 was incapable of doing anything remotely resembling what many Playstation games did (such as playing CD-quality music and FMVs). This is not the case with the PS2. It can go online. It can save things on a hard drive. It can play DVD movies. It may not do these things as well as competitors, but it's better than being incapable of doing such things in the first place.

Ps2 would have proven your point about Sony being money hungry if they would have used the same tactics as Nintendo. Ps2 could have been a lot worse of a system, selling a lot better. But sony didn't take the cheap money hungry way out of it.

You say that Nintendo price gouges and generally tries to maximize profit as much as possible, sometimes to the detriment of gamers. I agree with this. I contend that Sony and Microsoft would do the same. You either disagree or are sitting on the fence on this issue (your posts are giving me mixed messages). Whatever the case, that's fine by me. There's not a lot of evidence to go around even if we do accept the example of Windows. So I suppose we'll never know what Sony or Microsoft would do in Nintendo's position. I just like to think that I understand businesses well enough that I can predict that they would do whatever it takes to earn more money.

I agree.. You are argueing that Sony and MS would do the same thing as Nintendo, but have no evidence in the video game market to back it up. And I am saying they wouldn't, and I don't have any evidence based on the fact that they aren't in the same position as Nintendo

PS

I don't understand why you would ask so many questions in your "last" post