Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Gaming Central

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-03-02, 02:28 AM   #13
Nephilim
Slacker extraordinaire
 
Nephilim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nashvegas, TN
Posts: 502
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by StealthHawk


as if Capcom has released anything good lately, just rehashes of old Resident Evil games. MS has actually published some good PC games as well
Onimusha, Onimusha 2, Devil May Cry, Devil May Cry 2 (soon), Heavy Metal: Geomatrix, Maximo, among others....

...and yes, all the Resident Evil games.

I rather like the Res Evil games...well, any games that manage to scare me really good (Clive Barker's Undying) or give me a good case of the creeps (Res Evil, or Eternal Darkness).

Either way, they have a cash cow that is actually paying off. Why quit now?
Nephilim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-02, 02:52 AM   #14
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Nephilim
Either way, they have a cash cow that is actually paying off. Why quit now?
creative integrity?

anyway, Capcom was the one bitching that the Resident Evil remake wasn't selling up to their expectations.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-02, 06:03 PM   #15
PsychoSy
 
PsychoSy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Monroe, MI
Posts: 489
Send a message via ICQ to PsychoSy Send a message via AIM to PsychoSy
Default

Of course, because, aside from prettier graphics and maybe a few other tweaks, the game is the same. It doesn't qualify as the "killer app" that'll sell GameCubes. On the other hand, Resident Evil 0 is a new game and totally uncharted waters, thus it'll probably sell more and may even help sell more consoles.
__________________
[b][i]A man's ambition must be small,
To write his name on a s**t-house wall.[/b][/i]
PsychoSy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 01:14 PM   #16
CainSyris
This is MY boomstick!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 179
Default

I always thought the assumption was that since Resident Evil had not been made many times for Nintendo's last system (N64), it was not rehashed out for Nintendo, so they thought that by switching systems, they could sell more of all the games (RE1, RE2, RE3, RE:CV) rather than make a remake for an audience who has already played it. This being the assumption that the PS2 and NGC audiences are different. I suspect the reason they did not choose X-Box is because of Japanese performance.

That said, I think there might be some truth to the MS is looking to buy Capcom rumor. Not that they will. MS looked at Nintendo a couple of years ago. MS looked at Sega twice, as far as I know, to buy. MS looks at these companies because they desperately need the Japanese marketshare. Netting Capcom might be a good first step towards winning some of that thus-far non-existent Japanese support.

Anyone who talks about monopolizing the gaming industry should look at Sony. They still sell more PS2's than the X-Box and GC combined each week and their marketshare is already way ahead. So who is monopolizing again? Who bought exclusive rights to GTA? Who bought exclusive rights to MGS2 for a year? I'm sorry. MS isn't the big bad monopolizer here. Its Sony.

Buying Capcom would mean that MS would not only get an arcade division, a respected Japanese developer, but they would get Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, Ominushu, Steel Battalion (the rest of them), Street Fighter series, Vs games, Dino Crisis series, Mega Man, among others. Capcom has never struck me as the most honorable of the honorable Japanese game companies, though. They dumped Sony to go to Nintendo with Resident Evil series, probably thumbing their noses up at Sony in the process. Not exactly tit for tat that.

I doubt, though, that MS will buy Square. Sony's got too much invested in that one and too much invested in the relationship between them. Like Kingdom Hearts, for instance.

I would look for MS to buy developers in financial uncertainty like Blizzard/Sierra (Vivendi's troubles), Capcom, Sega, or Infrogram/Atari. Imagine MS buying Blizzard. What a coup that would be for MS. If stupid Vivendi wasn't losing money out their pores now, then Blizz wouldn't be a needless asset for Vivendi.
CainSyris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 07:03 PM   #17
WCG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 87
Default

Meh I for one would have no problem with MS buying ever game company out there.. then I wouldn't have to worry about spending all my cash on multiple consoles for just a few games on each.
WCG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-02, 07:23 PM   #18
PsychoSy
 
PsychoSy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Monroe, MI
Posts: 489
Send a message via ICQ to PsychoSy Send a message via AIM to PsychoSy
Default

But you would end up spending more for each game due to lack of competition. A one-company monopoly isn't a good thing. Just ask the PC Linux folks or Netscape fans.
__________________
[b][i]A man's ambition must be small,
To write his name on a s**t-house wall.[/b][/i]
PsychoSy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-02, 05:02 AM   #19
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Microsoft likely wouldn't want to buy Square since they've been losing money. a lot of money. i don't know if things have turned around for them yet or not.

Vivendi has already stated that Blizzard is not for sale
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
$79.99 - Resident Evil 6 Archives Edition Xbox 360 Game CAPCOM News Newegg Daily Deals 0 10-29-12 06:00 AM
$15.99 - Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor Xbox 360 Game CAPCOM News Newegg Daily Deals 0 09-29-12 01:00 PM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.