There really is no war with Nintendo.

If anyone really compares Nintendo to Sony or MicroSoft, they're an idiot. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Nintendo is TOTALLY different from Sony/MicroSoft.

Everytime Nintendo makes a new idea, it usually turns out good.

They added in the L and R buttons on the controllers and Sony and MicroSoft copied their idea. The same with the memory card, analog sticks, rumble pak, X/B/Y/A buttons, and GBA to GameCube connection (PSP to PS3 connectivity).

Also, Nintendo made something new (like always) about the DS. It has 2 screens and a touch-screen. A lot of people seem to like it. Even the ones in Japan. That is why they're in the lead against the Sony PSP.

Nintendo thinks that video game systems should be for VIDEO GAMES. I, personally, don't think any video game system should go online. If they make them go online, what's the use of buying them when you can buy a computer? It's basically the same thing, but with a computer you don't have to upgrade it for several years.

When they announced their controller people started making fun of them. It's something new, so it may just turn out good.

I've heard it on nearly every video game website. Every XBox MicroSoft sells, they LOSE 100 dollars. But they gain that 100 dollars back from the other stuff they sell from computers. The last I checked, XBox was struggling against Nintendo and Sony. Sony and MicroSoft are too busy fighting each other and Nintendo is gaining up in the ranks.

When I go to Wal*Mart, Best Buy, Target, I do see aisles and shelves. But when I see the XBox section, all they got is Halo and Halo 2. That's the ONLY game I see the reason why people buy that system. If it wasn't for that game, XBox will be worse than the Sega DreamCast. They have to go around and buy/bribe companies from Sony and Nintendo to make themselves games. They bought Rare from Nintendo. Then after that, they were thinking about buying Capcom. (which is also in financial debt)

I read an article here at GameSpot that MicroSoft lost a lot of money from the XBox.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/09/20/news_6133951.html?tag=lastword_xbox_image

"However, the original Reuters article focuses on how Microsoft lost $4 billion on the first Xbox,..."

Yes, that is what it said.

If you read the polls, 2% of Japanese owners wants an XBox 360. So I wonder how many of them have an XBox? The last time I checked less than 600,000

Overall, Sony is in the lead. Due to their library of a lot of games. Nintendo is 2nd, leaving MicroSoft in 3rd. That is OVERALL. As in, globally.

BUT, in the USA, Sony is in 1st and MicroSoft is in 2nd and Nintendo is in 3rd. MicroSoft and Nintendo are fighting for 2nd place in the USA. MicroSoft is BARELY competing against Nintendo. If that's not the case, then Nintendo is in 2nd. It always changes.

Each game for the XBox 360 is going to cost $60-80 dollars. That is a lot for a frickin' video game.

3rd party companies will go to MicroSoft and ask if they can make games and when they see that MicroSoft demands good graphics for their games they're going to pass and go to Nintendo and Sony. They're going to think to each other "Why spent a lot of time making a game with good graphics for MicroSoft when we can make several games with weaker graphics for the other 2 systems?"

Just because XBox 360 is most likely going to be the best system, graphics wise, doesn't mean it'll be the best out of the other 2. Graphics doesn't mean anything to most gamers. A game could have the worse graphics and still be good. Take The Legend of Zelda for example, the first one. It has weak graphics, but after 20 years later, people are still buying the game. The same with Pac-man and Tetris.

One of the main reasons Nintendo switched from cartridge to CD is that it's easier to make CD's than cartridges. The average new game that came out for the N64 was $60-90. So what's the point of switching to CD's if they are still going to cost the same on the XBox 360?

I agree that graphics don't make a game good. It's the gameplay.

Out of the PS2, GameCube, and XBox, the XBox has the best graphics, but it's in last place. The PS2 has the worse graphics, but it's in 1st place. That is because the games are the easiest, and there are A LOT of them for the PS2.

Out of the Nintendo DS and the PSP, the PSP has around 3-5 times better graphics, but which handheld is in the lead? The Nintendo DS. Why? It can do more stuff, and there are more and better games for it, and it's 120 dollars cheaper.

Nintendogs sold almost 300,000 copies in the first week. I never heard any PSP game selling that much.

All in all, people shouldn't talk about Nintendo, if it wasn't for them, the video game industry wouldn't be where they are today.