Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games) Microsoft XBox (Games)

Microsoft Lusts Nintendo, To Little Avail 174

Posted by simoniker from the first-date-nerves dept.
Richard Finney writes "The online version of Forbes Magazine says that Bill Gates has expressed an interest in buying Nintendo from Japanese billionaire Hiroshi Yamauchi." Though this news seems to have been part of a theoretical 'what if' question, the story reports: "'If Hiroshi Yamauchi phones me up, i will pick up at once,' Gates told WirtschaftsWoche magazine on the sidelines of an analyst conference."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Lusts Nintendo, To Little Avail More

Microsoft Lusts Nintendo, To Little Avail

Comments Filter:

  • Giving Sony Competition (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cpt_Kirks ( 37296 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:09PM (#9879798)
    This could be interesting, the way train wrecks are interesting.

    M$ and the big N together could give Sony fits.

    MarioX, anyone?

    • Re:Giving Sony Competition (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AlexMax2742 ( 602517 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:34PM (#9880095)
      I agree wholeheartedly. I havn't played my Gamecube in months because of the lack of software for it. Nintendo should stick to what it's good at, making kick ass games. Their stupid decisions reguarding hardware got old two generations ago.
      • Three words: Tales of Symphonia.
        • Two words: 1 game.

          I recently purchased a GameCube, and I have had a grand time picking up the classics (Metroid, Zelda, etc.) but the current and future libraries are lacking.
          • Future libraries lacking? Methinks you need to get out more.
          • I've never understand the position that a platform needs to have hundreds of great games. If it merely has, say, twenty truly great games, that would provide me with hundreds of hours of great game play which would more than justify the cost of the system, so what's the problem? Why do so many people perfer a platform with tons of mediocre games (playstation) that you aren't going to play anyway? Why don't you come back in a few years after you've played through all of the great gc games and then tell us if
            • I've never understand the position that a platform needs to have hundreds of great games.

              One platform CAN survive on 5-10 really great games, but that same platform will THRIVE on 20-50 really great games. Consumers aren't happy to spend $200+ on a game console just to see it have a handful of worthwhile games in the next 2 years, especially if all those games are first-party games anyway.

              I agree with the other posts. If Nintendo was bought out by Microsoft, Microsoft would be able to make some really
              • Imagine Microsoft developing a new Zelda that'll play on both the Xbox, and the PC

                Woo, that sent shivers down my spine. No. And just so we're clear here, no. Microsoft would ruin any Nintendo franchise. The reason? They're not Nintendo.

                and, if there's a God, even play online...

                Luckily, there isn't. Online Zelda? Have you ever PLAYED Zelda? Zelda sure, four swords made Zelda multiplayer seem a little less retarded than the concept would suggest, but all the same, Zelda is not the kind of franchise you

                • Microsoft would ruin any Nintendo franchise. The reason? They're not Nintendo.

                  Funny... that kinda reminded me of something someone once said about Sega's franchises being developed for Nintendo's hardware...

                  Luckily, there isn't. Online Zelda? Have you ever PLAYED Zelda? Zelda sure, four swords made Zelda multiplayer seem a little less retarded than the concept would suggest, but all the same, Zelda is not the kind of franchise you can tranfers online.

                  Also funny... I remember lots of people saying th
                • Did you just say... "Online Zelda" [graalonline.com]?
              • Going through my game book here, and starting with the exclusive titles:

                Tales of Symphonia: Ok. I really hate the battle system

                Metroid Prime: Never thought I'd like a console-based FPS... This is a GREAT game though.

                Rogue Leader (RS2): Another great game.

                Rebel Strike (RS3): Not so great. Replay value killed by inane "out-of-ship" missions.

                Resident Evil 0: A bit easier than its predecessors, but a good game.

                Starfox Adventures: *BLETCH!* (A gift from my kid brother tho)

                Skies of Arcadia: Legends: Techni
                • So I have about 10 out of 18 games that keep the Cube alive for me. Of course, I have over 20 games for PS2 that are RPGs alone (total of about 70 PS2 games...

                  That's my point. Imagine getting all those games, but not having to spend $99 on the hardware to play them. Imagine getting the 20 RPG's from your PS2 library COMBINED with the 10-18 games, all on one system... It could be wonderful.
                  • But with only one system, you end up falling into the "Game rut" that came around in the US towards the end of the NES era, after it was clear that the SMS wasn't going to be much of a competitor (the Genesis did a lot better in that department).

                    Don't even get me STARTED on the "Wisdom Tree" games. *cringe*

            • Re:Giving Sony Competition (Score:4, Insightful)

              by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @05:20PM (#9882874) Homepage
              Well, it depends on your definition of 'great games'.

              I've got an Xbox- Knights of the Old Republic is rated as one of the best Xbox games available. I don't like that kind of game. Grand Theft Auto Double Pack is also a 'great' game on the Xbox. I don't like that one either. Same with Prince of Persia.

              But I like Splinter Cell, Halo, Crimson Skies, etc etc.

              So, out of the 50 top games on the Xbox, I probably only like 25 or so.

              In that case- (go with my logic here, not your opinion of Xbox games) does the Xbox have 50 great games, or does it have 25?

              I know that the Gamecube does not have a lot of games that appeal to me. So if it has only 20 great games, but 17 of those don't appeal to me- I'm left with 3 games.

              So I'd prefer more games- because it means I will have a better chance of finding games that *I* like.

              So this isn't a knock on the Gamecube, but me just throwing in my opinion that everyone's definition of a great game will be different- and you can never have too many great games!

              (Great game of the week? ESPN NFL 2K5 [gamingtarget.com])
              • What you say is pretty true. For example, I don't care too much for sports games or rpg's, so great games of that type don't help me much. I bought the original nfl 2k (for dreamcast), and while it was indeed good, I didn't play much of it. (On the other hand, I loved both prince of persia and grand theft auto, so I guess we have pretty different tastes).

                However, it has been my experience that the people who buy a nintendo console are very frequently the kind of people who enjoy the kinds of games that nin
          • Future: Metroid Echoes, Paper Mario 2, Fire Emblem, and Star Fox (a *real* Star Fox game, not the crappy Adventure).

            Oh, do yourself a favour and pick up F-Zero GX too - best game I've ever owned, and have played for at least 50 hours, if not more.

            • F-Zero GX is one of the greatest racers I've ever played. It's like the perfect marriage of Nintendo's F-Zero with SEGA arcade racers (complete with the '80s butt-rock music). Plus, it has a million things to unlock, and stays fun until the end. Certainly a must-have for any fan of F-Zero or racing games.
          • Then why the fuck did you buy a Cube? Try a little research next time stupid.
      • I don't think they have made any stupid decisions regarding hardware thought the GC controller is debatable. They have technically the best console out right now. The Xbox has slightly more capabilities but it is also much more expensive to produce. The problem Nintendo has is that is has not been good at attracting third party developers. They really need to get some good 3rd party exclusives to drive GC sales. Some 3rd party non-exclusives wouldn't kill them either.

        • Re:Giving Sony Competition (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Osty ( 16825 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @04:15PM (#9882321)

          I don't think they have made any stupid decisions regarding hardware thought the GC controller is debatable

          How about the decision to stick with the cartridge format for the N64 when all of the competition had moved to CDs (cost them Square's games, a major blow)? The abortion that was the N64 controller? How about the decision to use a miniature disc for the GC, thus making the GC unable to double as a DVD player while simultaneously decreasing the storage space available for media content such as voices, music, video, and high-resolution textures? Not a huge deal, but when your competition is offering that feature and you're not, it's just one more reason why a person may not buy your console. How about no backlight on the GB/GBA for years, up until the release of the GBA SP? I can understand no backlight on the GB, but when the GBA was designed there was no reason not to add a backlight. What about the aborted SNES CD expansion, which ultimately turned into the Sony Playstation and signed Nintendo's death warrant? And the worst of all ... wait for it ... VirtualBoy.


          It's too soon to tell yet how the DS will turn out, but I'm afraid that the touch screen is going to be more pain than it's worth.


          They have technically the best console out right now. The Xbox has slightly more capabilities but it is also much more expensive to produce.

          No, Nintendo may have monetarily the best console out right now (assuming it costs less to build than a PS2), but I don't think anyone would claim that the XBox is not the best technically. Two words: hard drive.


          The problem Nintendo has is that is has not been good at attracting third party developers. They really need to get some good 3rd party exclusives to drive GC sales. Some 3rd party non-exclusives wouldn't kill them either.

          Nintendo used to be the best at attracting 3rd parties, but their rash of bad hardware mistakes (mostly starting with the N64, which they still have recovered from) caused them to lose many 3rd parties. Oh, and the GC does get 3rd party non-exclusives, but the problem is that while the GC ports may be better than the PS2 (not always the case, given that the PS2 has more storage space available on the disk, and a better controller), they can't hold a candle to the XBox port (see Splinter Cell and Splinter Cell: PT). I expect that a majority of GC owners also have a PS2 or XBox, and so when it comes to 3rd party non-exclusive titles they will either buy it for the platform it's released on first (XBox or PS2, depending on the game), or where it has more/better features (better graphics, online play, better controller, etc).

          • How about the decision to stick with the cartridge format for the N64 ...

            I thought we were only talking about the current generation. Nintendo has definitely made hardware mistakes in the past. I really don't think the mini DVD is a mistake. What is the only current console that does not have widespread game copying? Nintendo knows what they are doing, I think.

            No, Nintendo may have monetarily the best console out right now (assuming it costs less to build than a PS2), but I don't think anyone would

            • Re:Giving Sony Competition (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Osty ( 16825 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @05:03PM (#9882721)

              No. The Xbox is an x86 kludge of a console. It is expensive and inelegant. The reason it has more capabilities is that has more high end (expensive) parts. Throwing money at a problem is not a good technical solution (i.e. paying for an expensive HD).

              First off, the cost for manufacturing XBoxes, like all the other consoles, has steadily been decreasing. Second, the Gamecube is a slightly more elegant PowerPC kludge of a console. The fact that the XBox is based on PC hardware doesn't make it any less of a console. And finally, what "problem" was Microsoft "throwing money at" to solve with a hard drive? You can still use memory cards, but putting a fixed storage device in a console is a very good idea.

              The GC gets 3rd party exclusives but if they are successful they get ported to the PS2 (I know, not all of them do. I am exaggerating).

              That would define the games as non-exclusive then, huh? Would you care to provide any examples of this? The marketing just doesn't make sense. "Hey, let's spend a bunch of money to write an exclusive game for a marginal console. If it does well there, then we can spend even more money and port it to PS2." Why not just start on the PS2 immediately? Oh, and I'm referring to the US market, so if you want to mention Japanese games that are GC exclusive, they should be games that have already or will be released in the States.

              Also, multiplatform games are rarely better on the Xbox than GC and sometimes, but even more rarely, better on the GC than Xbox.

              Again, I'm going to have to ask for examples. For my part, take a look at the Splinter Cell games (better on XBox than GC or PS2), EA Sports' entire lineup (they're designed for PS2, but at least now the XBox ports will have online play -- GC still doesn't get the love there, and no the Warp Pipe [warppipe.com] project doesn't count), Prince of Persia (best on XBox), Soul Calibur II (again best on XBox with better graphics and game control, though fanboys will prefer the GC version for the Link character -- personally, I like Spawn), Rainbow Six 3 (well, pretty much every Ubi Soft game), and many more. Can you provide me examples of cross-platform games that were better on the GC? And games like Skies of Arcadia don't count, because that was only cross-platform for DreamCast and GC, not GC/PS2/XBox.

              Granted, the PS2 version can sometimes be less impressive but the GC and Xbox are basically the same unless you have an HDTV

              If the port is done properly, the PS2 version will always be less impressive because both the GC and XBox support higer resolution textures. That's not to say that ports are always done well, especially when it's a port from PS2 to GC/XBox. However, I wouldn't say that the GC and XBox "are basically the same". Oh, and speaking of HDTV, that's another Nintendo hardware bungle. They dropped the component output on recent GameCube hardware revisions, which is just plain stupid. Of course, it was a self-fulfilling prophecy when their marketting department looked at the usage of component output on GC, since they only sell the component cables direct from the Nintendo store, and not at regular retail joints. And speaking of non-HDTV, I don't know why, but my GC looks much worse via composite or S-Vid than my XBox. My GC apparently has issues with red pixels, making them appear very blocky and nasty, and bleed all over the place. It seems to be an inerlacing issue, though, because I have the same problem with component cables unless I switch to progressive mode. It's most visible on the red Nintendo oval logo at the start of each game, though you can also really notice it on Mario's hat in Mario Sunshine (horrible game, sold it not long after getting it "for free" with the purchase of my GC). In contrast, my XBox looks just fine on a comp

              • Most of your points are valid to an extent, but this one is off:

                First off, the cost for manufacturing XBoxes, like all the other consoles, has steadily been decreasing. Second, the Gamecube is a slightly more elegant PowerPC kludge of a console. The fact that the XBox is based on PC hardware doesn't make it any less of a console. And finally, what "problem" was Microsoft "throwing money at" to solve with a hard drive? You can still use memory cards, but putting a fixed storage device in a console is a ve

                • Microsoft has huge losses not because of the fact that the console is "expensive to produce" (which it is not), but because the mediocre game library that consists largely of reworked PC games and Tecmo tech-demos isn't selling to make enough of a profit.

                  I'll be the first to admit that the X-Box has some great exclusives (like PDO, Halo, JSRF, etc.), but its library is obviously not attracting the attention of the PS2 crowd, or even people that want games like those on the GameCube (which I would say are b
              • Can you provide me examples of cross-platform games that were better on the GC? And games like Skies of Arcadia don't count, because that was only cross-platform for DreamCast and GC, not GC/PS2/XBox.

                I agree with you (except on that 'hardware being cheaper' point, but others have already argued over thar), but I'll play devils advocate and provide you your example. Sonic Heroes.

          • No, Nintendo may have monetarily the best console out right now (assuming it costs less to build than a PS2), but I don't think anyone would claim that the XBox is not the best technically. Two words: hard drive.

            Three words for you: source of failure. Sure the hard drive might be great now but let's see how great it is when you want to play an XBox game ten years from now when the disc is bad. Will they even be making compatible disks then?
            • Not to mention that the hard drive is a poor excuse to release games early and patch buggy titles that should have been delayed. I hope nobody wants to argue this point, because it's already being done with several games... What a shame. It's more of a PC clone than anyone could have ever believed.
              • Microsoft doesn't like companies trying to patch games after release. And the main bugs that do get patched under my observation are ones dealing with online play.

                Seriously, when you are dealing with online players, you simply can not expect the retail version to cover every single base, exploits and imbalances are GOING to be found, and they have to get patched. Take the 50 CAL from Rainbow Six 3, used to be the equivilent of the AWP of CounterStrike, now through a patch, now people can simply say they

      • With all due respect, the games Nintendo makes run on nintendo spec'd hardware. Don't underestimate the hardwares role in defining what the developer can and cannot do. Would zelda TOOT have been the same game on the PS1? Hells no. Would F-zero GC be the same game if it were for Xbox? I strongly submit it would not, despite the Xbox's superior hardware.
        Nintendo is one thing, if nothing else. A profitable company. More money in then money out.

        If I were nintendo, I would invite Mr Gates to tea, a tour
    • Um... Right.

      Nintendo is the only one that continues to show a profit (due to the reasonable Gamecube and the extreme success of the GameBoy). Like they really want to be part of Microsoft, who has a consistantly failing console game division.

      Besides... I think that we're going to see a changing of the guard with the next generation of consoles; And it will be Nintendo on top.
      • Besides... I think that we're going to see a changing of the guard with the next generation of consoles; And it will be Nintendo on top.

        Handheld or home based? Nintendo is the current king of handhelds in numbers. If the DS will play GBA and GBC games, plus good new stuff, they may remain #1.

        Or maybe not. It looks like all handheld devices are converging. The N-Gage may be a POS, but the idea is right. Combine a phone, with a nice touch screen, PDA functions, tiny hard drive, good game controls, goo
      • Besides... I think that we're going to see a changing of the guard with the next generation of consoles; And it will be Nintendo on top.

        I see that statement as foolish optimism.

        Let me preface my argument by saying that I grew up on Nintendo consoles... I was a Nintendo fanboy for most of my life. I had a Sega Genesis, with about 5 games, versus my SNES, with about 50... so don't tell me that I just don't like Nintendo.

        In the last 10 years, Nintendo has made one bad decision after another: GBA with no
  • Don't spoil my fountain of youthful fun! Bastard!

  • As a rule... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:10PM (#9879820)
    ...these stories based on idle speculation that company A might buy company B are utterly worthless. There really must be enough News For Nerds that we don't need three of these every day.

  • Behold! (Score:5, Funny)

    by rayamor ( 245814 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:10PM (#9879823)
    The Wintendo and the Super Microsoft Office Brothers.

  • Very Interesting Fishing Perhaps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by blueZhift ( 652272 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:26PM (#9880012) Homepage Journal
    The article makes it sound like idle talk, but statements from that level may actually have something behind them, but not what you may think at first. I mean Gates knows that he isn't likely to get the opportunity to buy Nintendo. But his statement lets people know that he's in the market. So maybe it won't be Nintendo, but some other prominent Japanese (or other) games company. Who knows? Would Namco, Konami, or Capcom turn him down? Any one of these, handled correctly, could get MS the traction they need in Japan to make the Xbox successor a success there and bolster the chances elsewhere in the world.

    I think the next 18 months will be very interesting.
    • Dean Takahashi's book Opening the XBox [amazon.com] has been around since April 2002. It's the first I'd heard about Microsoft's intentions and attempt to buy Nintendo back in the day.

      Here's an editor's roundtable [gamingworldx.com] from May 2002 that talks about it as well.

    • Square-Enix? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by andman42 ( 721375 )
      You negelected to mention Square-Enix. Square-Enix would be invaluable to Microsoft. Not only would Sony lose one its most prominent exclusive developers, but Microsoft would gain exclusive rights to two of the most popular Japanese RPG series (Final Fantasy & Dragon Quest). The Dragon Quest games are so popular in Japan, that they have to be released on weekdends so kids don't skip school. If that doesn't help Microsoft gain traction in Japan, nothing will.

  • This is news? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:30PM (#9880057)
    Here's some news. I am interested in buying Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony, and the company that makes generic marshmellows for Wal-Mart. Do I get a slashdot post now?
    • No, you don't get a slashdot post now, because you are an anonymous jackass with no money.

      Bill Gates, on the other hand, is an Prominent Jackass, with a LOT of money.

      Hence the article.
    • I don't know about the other companies, but I'll go in for half with you on that Marshmallow thing.

  • Microsoft or Bill Gates? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Ianoo ( 711633 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:31PM (#9880063) Journal
    From the article, this sounds like Gates is interested in buying Nintendo, not Microsoft. But I guess if he owned them both and said "now let's merge" they'd jump to it.
    • From the article, this sounds like Gates is interested in buying Nintendo, not Microsoft. I thought he already owned Microsoft. Why would he need to buy it again? :P
    • I don't know that the FTC, SEC, or whoever would allow this. Gates is the Chairman of the largest software company in the world, already under allegation of existing as a monopoly. To purchase a large company that makes a competing product I think would be rejected, but I'm not overly familiar with corporate law. He would have a majority position in two companies that directly butt heads. That's not good for competition by any means.

      I think of it this way : Warren Buffet owns a crapload of Gillette and Co

  • So ... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Did Bill turn on his "What if" machine with his finglonger?

    • Re:So ... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by EddieBurkett ( 614927 )
      Gates only watched himself turning on the WhatIf machine with his finglonger when he asked the question, "What if I invented the finglonger?"

  • Not that trick again... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scowling ( 215030 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:40PM (#9880154) Homepage
    Gates wanted to buy out Nintendo years ago; his failure to do so led directly to the decision to produce the XBox.

    If Gates is interested again in buying Nintendo, this would seem to be to be a strong indication that the XBox is underperforming, and Microsoft is looking for a new way to compete with Sony in the console market.
    • If Gates is interested again in buying Nintendo, this would seem to be to be a strong indication that the XBox is underperforming,

      As opposed to quaterly reports?

      • I'm an end user. I don't read quarterly reports, or even quaterly ones. But when I hear that Gates wants to buy Nintendo, it makes me think twice about buying an XBox.

  • Heh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by foidulus ( 743482 ) * on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:41PM (#9880165)
    wasn't it about 2 years ago or so that there was speculation that MS wanted to buy Sega? I guess that didn't pan out, so they are going down the line.
    • Microsoft wants to buy all of the major companies. They tried to buy Square once, for example; they might have succeeded if they had done it at the right time.

      Rob

  • RARE (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vasqzr ( 619165 )
    Microsoft already bought RARE (Killer Instinct, Donkey Kong Country, Goleneye, etc), and Nintendo owned quite a bit of them at one time.

    • Re:RARE (Score:5, Interesting)

      by xenocide2 ( 231786 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @01:28PM (#9880646) Homepage
      Ironically, RARE has sole ownership of very little of its software. The Donkey Kong franchise remains Nintendo's, after Rare turned the Bond brand around with goldeneye, MGM decided to keep it to themselves, and they've also done a lot of games with Disney characters, who naturally remain part of Disney.

      What I'd heard was the Stamper brothers wanted out of Rare, or possibly simply out of Nintendo's grip. Much of the talent behind goldeneye had already left to form Free Radical. Its amazing Microsoft purchased the company, really. Rare's offerings don't really mesh well with the XBox's heavily marketed demographics, and their in development titles are slowly achieving Duke Nukem Forever status.

      If Micorosft were to purchase Nintendo, it would have to be accompanied by a shift in marketing, away from the xTreme appeal they're still making and towards a group and family situation. They'd also have to tell investors to choose between another high profile acquisition and their huge dividend boost, unless Gates was planning to do this with his 3 billion dollar share of the proceeds from said dividend.
      • unless Gates was planning to do this with his 3 billion dollar share of the proceeds from said dividend.

        Off-topic, but all $3 billion US of his dividend share will be going to his charity [nwsource.com].
      • Not to mention that all of the employees that didn't leave to form Free Radical years ago have recently started to walk out as well (defecting to companies like Codemasters and Eidos).

        http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid = 11 980

        So now, Microsoft is left without any of the good franchise games that Rare made (and someone else owned), but also are without any team members that are even worth a damn.

        Well... XBox fans always have "Grabbed by the Ghoulies". ;) Personally, I think that the RARE de

  • Great (Score:5, Funny)

    by dmomo ( 256005 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @12:56PM (#9880330)
    Maybe Clippy and Mario can team up!
    "It appears you like to [eat strange mushrooms and then break bricks with your head]. Would you like me to help you create a macro to [eat strange mushrooms and then break bricks with your head]?"

    • Re:Great (Score:2, Funny)

      by tktk ( 540564 )
      That's redundant. Seeing Clippy is just like breaking bricks with your head.

      Eating strange mushrooms though...I could get behind that.

    • Wow, Fry. It's amazing how you NOTICE TWO THINGS. You really should write a book about the EAT MORE.
  • I reckon Nintendo shares are traded on the stock market. I am not sure how much of Nintendo Yamauchi owns, but if the "Super Gamecube" is a flop then investors might be only too happy to sell their shares to Gates.

  • That explains it.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shoptroll ( 544006 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @01:06PM (#9880430)
    This would probably explain why Microsoft isn't setting their sights on beating Nintendo in the actual market.

    They just plan on flatout buying them.

  • It's official (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheZalm ( 129363 )
    If Gates gets anywhere near Nintendo, I will personally throttle the damn dirty bastard.

    Nintendo is a name that brings me joy.
    Microsoft is a name that makes me want to break stuff.

  • It would be nice if... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Somebody - anybody - would buy Infinium labs and make them STFU. Should be a drop in the bucket to any profitable corporation, and it'll be an invaluable service to humanity.

  • Um...why not the current President? (Score:3, Informative)

    by GweeDo ( 127172 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @02:25PM (#9881291) Homepage
    Why would the ex-president of Nintendo of Japan call him? Maybe Gates needs to realize that Iwata is the president there now ;)
  • Nintendo takes pride in relating its hardware to its first-party software. Making games for others systems doesn't appeal to them for this reason.
    I don't care to ponder the implications of this, because it would be wrong, and can not happen!
    I don't know too much about the Nintendo brass, but from what I've heard, it doesn't seem like they would ever call Mr. Bill and make the offer to sell.
    Would anybody honestly want this to happen?

  • Why buy the cow? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday August 04, 2004 @03:21PM (#9881821) Homepage Journal
    When you can buy the milk supply for a lot less?

    I'd just hire away Shigeru Miyamoto.

    Suppose you're willing to pay X dollars for the company. What do you get? You get name recognition, distribution channels, production facilities, engineering teams, all of which Microsoft already has or can readily buy. You also get the creative talent, which is the one thing you can't just walk out and buy anywhere.

    So, insted of buying the company for X, I'd offer some hefty fraction of X to Miyamoto to jump ship, set aside a few milion to keep his noncompete in the courts for a decade or so and to indemnify him when he eventually loses.

    But that's just me with my evil overlord thinking cap on.
    • Shigeru Miyamoto doesn't own Mario, Zelda or Donkey Kong, which is the value behind Nintendo.

      Besides, I doubt you'd get him away from Nintendo, as you'd be saying: "Shigeru, here's a ton of cash, which you already have anyway. We'll give you this cash if you put your life's work aside and start again".

      I'm reasonably sure he'd decline your offer.

    • That has to be the best idea I've read in this thread. Not because I like the idea of Dr. Miyamoto working for MS, but because he's one of the most brilliant designers in the history of his field. Without DK/Mario/Zelda, he'd have to start from scratch and we might get NEW great games out of it instead of what we get now (the same four or five old series from NES/SNES days, rehashed over and over again.)
    • Do you honestly think that Microsoft has or is even capable of becoming an environment to work in similar to Nintendo's, the one Miyamoto has flourished in all these years?

      "Yeah, Shig, we're liking the new Mario game, but marketing says the princess needs to show more cleavage before it can get released. Have you considered topless scenes for her? And this water pack thing? Our test demographics say that just ain't working for the teenagers, so we're replacing it with a rocket launcher."

      I don't see Mic
  • I thik Bill Gates is just trying to undermine Nintendo with this. He of all people knows that Nintendo and Microsoft have two WAY different cultures and that would not work well. Unless MS is willing to let it work as a completely independent subsidiary.
  • Ok, first of all, gates is simply stating that, if presented with the opportunity, he'd buy nintendo.

    ANY ENTREPRENEUR WOULD DO THE SAME THING. Nintendo has the cash flow and the stability that entrepreneurs everywhere DREAM about having. You'd be a fool to NOT want them. Doesn't mean you'll have them.

    Nintendo regularly buys back a lot of their stock to prevent such hostile takeovers from happening. Hiroshi Yamauchi came up with this model, along with keeping a very big cash amount in t
  • Has Yamauchi responded yet? I would pay to see what Nintendo's iron samurai go off on one his famous tirades on this one, especially if he uses Bill's trademarked term "innovation" in it. :)

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close