Nintendo doesn't have to follow the Xbox Live model. It could simply do what Sony does, allow the games' developers to take care of the online plan used. With Nintendo having a broadband and dail-up adapter, they can support their own system with online games as much as Sega does, and Sega was much smaller than Nintendo when a) They took the Dreamcast online, and b) When developing Phantasy Star games for the GCN. Nintendo has options; they just chose the one that reads, "Do nothing."


I specifically said in my last sentence that the example was merely to show Nintendo's business practices, which are quite "money-whoring."


Did Sony know their hardware was defective before shipping it out?


So what? You attacked RemyRedAssassin for saying Nintendo isn't money whoring compared to the other two, and what you just said is exactly being the money-whoring one of the three. Whatever the reason, Sony and Microsoft have more, cheaper titles than tNintendo, so if you go out and get one GH/PH/PC game from each system, which company would you be giving more money to?


But they are far from being a monopoly in the video game industry. Sony would likely be the monopolist of the three, but the economic model that best describes the industry is an unbalanced oligopoly. As far as video games are concerned, Microsoft doesn't have the dominance in the industry as it does in the computer industry, and that's what's relevant. Nintendo makes more profit than Sony and Microsoft in video games, even if the latter two sell more units in software and hardware in America. Who's the one getting richer?


.

Ah, but that's every MMORPG of its magnitude. If Nintendo were to make an RPG that big, it would have to charge just as much, if not more. Big MMORPGs have always been known to cost expensive monthly fees, long before Final Fantasy XI showed up at the scene. Still, I will give you a freebie. The HDD from Sony has yet to show the usefulness we've all expected to have, with only FFXI and Resident Evil Outbreak taking advantage of it.


I see your point, but here's mine: What's the purpose of each game? S.O.C.O.M. is a game designed and intended for online play, and all you need is a network adapter and a headset, both of which you'll use often in pretty much 80% of PS2 online games, so purchasing these is somewhat of a necessity if you want to play almost any game online. On the other hand, you have Crystal Chronicles, which is intended to be played by four people simultaneously. You'll need four link cables and four GBAs, and when are you likely to use all that equipment again? With Legend of Zelda: The Four Swords, and that Pac-Man game. That's it.

You might argue that you could instead play with fewer people on FF:CC, and that people may want to play S.O.C.O.M. offline, but where's the reality (or logic) in that? Playing S.O.C.O.M. online gives you the same experience as playing offline, the only difference being that it's much cheaper and you play with people from different parts of the world, not from your living room. Playing with two or three players on FF:CC however, is not the same as playing with four, since the main draw of the game is having three other people in your room having fun along with you, creating more strategy in battles and whatnot. It's only cheaper, but it's potentially less fun.

In other words, getting the most out of S.O.C.O.M. (online play) is cheaper than getting the most out of FF:CC (4P gameplay).

As far as im aware, the GC doesnt come with a hard drive, DVD player or any other "extras" the xbox and ps2 have. Therefore it costs less to make. They're also cheaper to buy. Im willing to bet they have the largest profit margin per unit of any of the big 3. PS2s and Xbox's wern't always 200 bucks. Not everyone has 400-500 bucks to spend on a console. They also make kid games(as well as mature games, despite the smaller selection) PS2 and Xbox have very few kid type games.

Its a cheaper, more family suited solution.

PS2 has more kid games than any other console, it's just that they get lost with so many PS2 games that come out.

And by "profit margin", yeah, Nintendo are making the least loss per console. MS are losing £250-£300 per console sold these days.

I doubt they're loosing that much...even if they claim it to be so.

They have pockets deep enough to be able to afford it, but I doubt they'd willingly lose that much money in a market where they wont own a monopoly.

Now, if they we're losing this much money to put sony out of business, I could see it happening. But Sony isnt going anywhere, and as long as they're in the gamming console market, they'll be #1 ahead of MS in terms of units sold, games avalible, and every other stat.

You're probably right about PS2 having more kids games, but they dont have the image of catering to kids needs(and parents desires). Thats why its not a bad thing for Nintendo to have this image. Something the parents feel more comfortable buying for their wee one.