* On strategy

We wanted to be the guy with the small box that costs less. We wanted to have the most compelling or better than anyone else' s box. We wanted to have the most games. We wanted to play to our software strength, and tools and online. We wanted to get most respects, except for the online capability, we wanted to swap positions with Sony. We wanted to not be a year late, not be a big box, not be a more expensive box. How are we doing on that?

* On Sony

They [Sony] were going to have the Cell be the video processor. But they didn' t know what they were doing. They said the Cell is the video processor. But they turned to Nvidia at the last minute, but Nvidia can' t do embedded DRAM. Go look at the bandwidth problems. Go ask the guys running ... now. They took their year and burned it by not having a decent CPU strategy and then turning to Nvidia at the last minute. It' s a very unusual thing. Those processors are isolated from each other.

Hit the jump for his thoughts on Nintendo.

* On Nintendo

Nintendo of course is a competitor... Say to yourself, how in terms of using a game for a long period of time, what kind of accuracy and capability do you want? Look at the classic Nintendo positioning. Look at the graphics. Look at Nintendo' s execution in terms of online capability. We have this thing that nobody has ever seen before. When you say to your friend, hey let' s play online, you say then you have to buy an Xbox. That' s what 10 million people say. If you want to play online, get an Xbox. We' re not standing still. Look at what you saw today connecting up the world to the Windows PC. Do you expect Nintendo to rev up a team to create cross-device gaming and tool kits to develop those things? Not very likely. We clearly think that Nintendo did some things right.

His comments about Nintendo sound a little stupid, and his comment about not being a year late is daft because Microsoft actually launched a year earlier than everybody expected, but i like Bill Gates, he' s a funny guy.

Entire Interview

I read the Nintendo part a few times and I really don' t even understand what he' s saying, probably because I just woke up. He doesn' t even need to dissect the PS3 though everyone who knows anything about videogames know they fucked up royally. IMO Nintendo will do very well in the short term but within two years everyone will discover that the DS strategy will not work very well with consoles.

Wii will never have any title that will really impress people, no one will ever be knocked on their ass out of shock because a Wii title is so good. The best Wii games will probably be newer version of games we already played with slightly better graphics and the wiimote which I' ve heard doesn' t work nearly as well as it should. I' ll never buy any consoel without soem sort of Online infastructure, at least Sony made some effort. Nintendo is just being lazy about it.

DS strategy will not work very well with consoles.

What strategy is that, innovation? :P

I think Nintendo is going to look like the winner for awhile, but yeah they will fall behind...I do no doubt see Sony being in 3rd spot this gen though.

Gates is well spoken, & sounds intelligent, which is more than I can say for anybody doing public speaking in any part of Sony Computer Entertainment.

Nintendo is just being lazy about it.

Think before you speak man.. Nintnedo?? LAZY????????? WTF?? lol.

If Nintendo was to simply keep their old pad, upgrade power to 360 levels, copy Xbox live and launch it with Mario Kart online with ' Nintnedo 128' slapped on the Box. That would be Lazy..

Nitendo have took an extremely risky and totally different approach.. Their online system is totally unique and they choose not to copy Xbox live. They are doing things the creative and HARD way..

Nintendo chose the way they did because they knew it was their only chance.
Sony had taken the number one spot in the industry and Microsoft had money in abundance.
They had to make something different in order to survive.
Nintendo says that the industry will die if it keeps moving in the same direction. That' s wrong, it will die if everyone keeps moving in that direction. And since Nintendo clearly showed they couldn' t compete with traditional videogames they were the ones who had to think out new ways to compete.
Luckily, Nintendo' s new way seems to bring more fun than ever before so I' m happy they had to go that way

People say that (and it could be true), but why did Nintendo choose to completely Risk their Handheld market with the DS when they clearly had a massive share hold?

They even went against alot of Nintendo Fans and kept the spec down in turn to introduce a high-risk New Handheld medium.

Whiles there’s no doubting Nintendo choose to Go a different Path as a strategy, I believe that they genally was bored of the standard way we play games.

They feel that they needed a new challenge as they have already pushed analogue pad gaming to its limits in alot of genres IE ive still haven’t played a Plat former that plays anywhere near M64 or a Adventure that plays anywhere near as good as OOT, Windwaker..

Anyway the question was if Nintendo went the Hard way or not, obviously you wouldn’t want to directly agree with me (hence the twisting of things), but of course they Did.

but why did Nintendo choose to completely Risk their Handheld market with the DS when they clearly had a massive share hold?

Because they knew the PSP was coming. It was obvious Sony would try with a handheld and Nintendo didn' t want to get slaughtered once again so they chose to make the DS.
But even though the DS is unique the PSP is still doing a good job. I can' t imagine how it would' ve been if Nintendo would' ve done a GBA2.

I believe that they genally was bored of the standard way we play games.

It' s a company, they don' t get bored with how we play games, they get bored when they' re not getting enough money.
Of course, many of the developers are really working with their hearts but the bosses who run Nintendo doesn' t.
It' s even been said that the president of Nintendo said something like:
" Do something new with the handheld, put two screens on it or whatever"
They stuck with the idea.

Anyway the question was if Nintendo went the Hard way or not, obviously you wouldn’t want to directly agree with me (hence the twisting of things), but of course they Did.

I don' t think they chose the hard way. They chose the obvious way for them. Doing something else would' ve just been another Gamecube = The end of Nintendo.

Think before you speak man.. Nintnedo?? LAZY????????? WTF?? lol.

I was talking about the online plan.

Their online plan isn' t lazy, it' s dumb

I really wonder sometimes why its is that the japanese do not focus on online play as both a viable and integral part of gaming today. I have yet to read articles on why they do not put much effort into consolodating their place in this sector. Mind you, I do not believe online gaming is the end all be all of a game, nor what the main focus should be in most genres, but it certainly plays an integral part, and should be considered important in almost any game today.

I hoped sony would take microsofts initiative when Live first was announced and proved succesful. 4 years on, they still have not given online development the funds and interest it deserves. Nintendo has the same issue(though they have far less funds and support than sony, and thus are more justifiably not a part of the online sector).

Anyhow, thats just how I see it, its friday, and I just got back from a pub crawl, so I apologize if this post is rather incomprehensible.

Bill is full of Shit.
Look at his expected day of launch and actual launch date.
His comments on being the most inexpensive console. When the 360 came out the was the most expensive console on the market.
As for the BS to nintendo, what he don' t get is *Slash* *must type even with blood dripping must tell the world nintendo secrets....* *body drops*

Of course, all the people thinking Bill has no idea of what he is talking about, go
withdraw some money now and see how many 0' s are at the end of what they have.

But of course... Bill Gates has no idea about a business.

$53.0 billion. 35% of which is enough to buy every single major league baseball, football, basketball and hockey team in America and Canada.

I thought Gates' fortunes were all estimated. Nobody knows exactly how much it is, but we all know he' s one of the richest people on the planet. We do know that he' s donated billions to charities, which is very cool. $29 Billion since 2000. Makes my $30 a month look pitiful.

You englishmen made him a knight too.
It' s sir Gates from now on.

Because they knew the PSP was coming. It was obvious Sony would try with a handheld and Nintendo didn' t want to get slaughtered once again so they chose to make the DS.
But even though the DS is unique the PSP is still doing a good job. I can' t imagine how it would' ve been if Nintendo would' ve done a GBA2.

Nintendo has had a stranglehold on the Handheld market for sometime when Sega stepped into the arena they seemed to be doing well, but still ending up losing in the end. Nintendo wasn' t afraid of Sony, being afraid of Sony would be like a freaking Rottweiler backing down to an ant. In the realm of Handhelds Nintendo knew they were king, that is why it was a RISK for them to make the DS especially with people throwing out the ol' gimmick phrase...which honestly for that first year DS did seem like a gimmick, but it has picked up steam like no other.

As well Nintendo has some Cahones (Blargh if I spelled it wrong) to even attempt another system like this (innovative I mean) because the last time they went out of their way to push a completely different handheld aside from the Gameboys they tanked fast. (Virtual Boy anyone?). Anyone my opinion on this whole situation is that Gates had his information about Nintendo a little messed up and that his comments on Sony are completely true, but then again he could simply be jumping on the bandwagon...although it may be a true bandwagon I am getting tired of hearing " Sony Fucked up!" Cause we all know they did...and they will continue to.

Their online plan isn' t lazy, it' s dumb

Nintendo has never wanted to push online. And honestly it isn' t a bad thing, Xbox live only has a (if I remember correctly) a little over 50% of the console owners out there subscribed. Although without a doubt 100% are using the online features it is doubtful that that is their main purpose behind owning the system. You buy a gaming system for games and if only over 50% of gamers are playing over live than that means that 100% are still playing games. Nintendo knows that, of course another thing that can easily be assumed from this was that Nintendo did want to focus on games...why is it that they are trying to make as many NES/SNES/N64/T16/GEN games available as possible? They are trying to be there for the gamers, since that is what game systems are for.

All in all everyone in the industry has some realm tagged now...except Sony.

Microsoft has Online.
Nintendo has Games.
Sony has...I could put anything in here to be insulting, but I won' t :)

I don' t think you can compare Sega with Sony.
With Sony' s huge success with the PS brand and the Nintendo home consoles selling so bad, Sony entering the handheld bussiness was a big threat to Nintendo.
Just as Nintendo lost their dominance with home consoles, they could' ve easily lost their dominance in the handheld market.
Nintendo' s competitors on the handheld market before Sony were... lame.
And Nintendo' s competitors on the home console market before Sega were... also lame.
The people saying Nintendo wasn' t threatened by Sony' s interest in the handheld market probably said the same thing when Sony decided to make the PS1.
" HAHA, Sony' s trying to compete with Nintendo, they don' t have a chance. Nintendo dominates blablabla" .

Just look at the Gamecube. If Nintendo would' ve done a GBA2 to compete against the PSP then it would' ve gone the same way the GCN went.

Anyway, if Nintendo has such a stranglehold on the market as you say, then Sony are the ones who took the biggest risk ever, simply by deciding to challenge Nintendo, don' t you think?

Nintendo has never wanted to push online.

Neither did I, I prefer good singleplayer games or playing games with friends in the same room.
What I think is dumb with Nintendo' s online strategy is that now when they do have one they should' ve made it great. Right now it' s not offering very much.
I think the only reason Xbox Live doesn' t have near 100% of users is because it costs. A little over 50% is a great amount of people concidering the hourly/daily/monthly/yearly/decadilly/centurially/milleniumally cost.
And Nintendo doesn' t have 100% because it doesn' t offer much.
I think Sony' s free online service will see lots of users.

the monthly cost.

It' s not a monthly cost, it' s annual, buy a card for the price of a game and you' re connected for a year plus about 6 more months in all the free offers you' ll get in that time. Unless you happen to be a masochist and like using your credit card so MS will charge you monthly.

Nintendo' s competition prior to PSP was Wonderswan Crystal and NGAGE.

Sony launched with what could have been the greatest handheld gaming device yet. It promised PS2 quality games, DVD quality movies, playback from memory sticks, MP4 and MP3 support, Wi-Fi and it' s own online network complete with downloadable content. DS once PSP was announced/shown/released looked like it would be beaten senseless.

What happened?!

The machine was poorly designed. Not only did Sony not have a plan in place to cut manufacturing costs and reduce the price, but the digital pad and analog nub were heavily criticized, as were the battery life and overly shiny shell. Sony didn' t expect UMD movies to fail but when you can rip a DVD and stick it on your memory stick instead the format seems ill conceived.

DS has a far longer battery life, better controls, almost zero loading times, and games that are purposely developed for gaming on the go. PSP games on the other hand generally end up being portable versions of console games with a console blueprint. they are no good for just 5 minutes, and some even take 5 minutes to load...

The price has probably been the biggest factor, but remember that Nintendo aren' t selling DS to gamers, they' re trying to get non-gamers interested in games. Nintendogs and Brain Training were genius as both utilize the touchscreen properly. It' s these kind of games that have outsold everything else in Japan, even awesome games like Mario 64 DS and Metroid Prime Hunters. It' s not a technical achievement by far but Nintendo recognized the need to attract a new audience and the original plan was to have DS and Gameboy 2 co-exist. DS was always meant to be the " 3rd pillar" but because it' s been so successful GB2 never materialized.

What Sony need to do is revise their machine. Slim it down, lower the power consumption whilst also supplying better batteries etc and release it at the same price the current model goes for while cutting the price of the original and phasing it out. I love PSP but i also have one eye fixed on what' s around the corner and i have high hopes for iRiver G10...





...and XGP...





Right now though all i want to do is play Portable Ops. I want to know where DMC PSP is too!