Game Boy VS. Game Gear

Bobblun

This question may be too old for most forum members but I'll give it a shot.
When I was a punk kid the Game Boy came out, and it was the greatest thing known to man and I played it non-stop. Then one day a friend of mine showed up to school with a Game Gear. I was floored at how awesome the Game Gear was, it had awesome graphics, and awesome color. I begged and begged him to play it. But then I thought, ah ha, Nintendo shouldn't be too far behind and the Game Boy what ever will come out and it will be glorious. It took Nintendo 7 years to come out with the Game Boy color, and it was basically the original Game Boy with a splash of color. The graphics seemed pretty much the same, it was just crap. Why did it take Nintendo almost 8 years to improve the Game Boy and end up barely any better than where they started, and yet the Game Gear was awesome from the get go?

One Sin

You forgot to mention that the Game Gear devoured batteries in an instant.

Dkong

You forgot to mention that the Game Gear devoured batteries in an instant.

And that it's a fucking brick. Doesn't it take like 8 AA batteries or some shit? I know one of my friends has one and not only does the battery life blow, it uses a lot of batteries...and it's fucking huge.
And it lacks a good library. It has a few good games, but certainly not as many good games as the GB/GBC had.

One Sin

It's six, actually. The GBC only needed two batteries for triple the running time.

Σπεκωσποκ

There are almost no compelling reasons for the Game Gear side of this argument, and the Gameboy had the best Mario ever (Super Mario Bros. Deluxe).

Sail

This isn't even a question.

Railith

Gameboy wins because it has pogeymans.

nlatimer

Gameboy wins on the power of Tetris alone.

Bronzdragon

The gameboy was way cheaper.

Omnutia

Game gear, PSP; relation?

Rym

And that it's a fucking brick.

It's actually not that big, especially for what it did.

Doesn't it take like 8 AA batteries or some shit?

It took six AA batteries and lasted about four hours of continuous play with the contrast all the way up. Also, if you swapped the batteries in a particular way after they were run down, you could get another hour or two, due to the way it drew power. Battery packs from third parties lasted at least six hours.

Hitman Hart

I remember the Game Gear had a pretty fun baseball game, World Series Baseball '95 I think, and a surprisingly enjoyable Power Rangers fighting game. Sonic 2 was a bloody evil game on it though.

Bobblun

My question wasn't which one is better. The question is why did it take Nintendo almost 8 years to come out with something that barely improved the original? And still paled in comparison to the Game Gears graphics and color scheme, not to mention the stereo sound. Was it that Nintendo saw the battery draw to be a big problem, or did Nintendo not see the future of portable gaming, or was the Game Gear ahead of it's time or was Nintendo more focused on game development?

Rym

My question wasn't which one is better. The question is why did it take Nintendo almost 8 years to come out with something that barely improved the original?

Nintendo only makes a new product when the previous product stops printing money for them, and they make the new product just better enough to start printing money again.

Nintendo is not your friend. The only think Nintendo cares about is getting you to give them money as fast and reliably as possible. Nintendo has no interest at all in making a better gaming system, except in the case that this would be requried to continue getting you to give them money.

The Game Boy was making money all that time, largely because it was cheap to manufacture and its games were cheap to produce. If it had stopped making money, Nintendo would have updated it much more quickly.

Never forget. Nintendo is not your friend. Nintendo wants your money.

MrRoboto

Because they could get away with it and they knew it?

Bobblun

Nintendo wants your money.

That makes a lot of sense, but they would have gotten a lot more of my money sooner if they had come out with a much better product that was more comparable to the Game Gear sooner. Do they just not care what other companies are doing, or do they just know that people will always buy Nintendo? Were the research and development costs at that time too great for there to be a beneficial increase in return? Or is it just straight up evil corporation?

Rym

Nintendo wants your money.

That makes a lot of sense, but they would have gotten a lot more of my money sooner if they had come out with a much better product that was more comparable to the Game Gear sooner.

Not bloody likely. Everyone who tried failed miserably, and people were still buying Game Boys and Game Boy games like crazy. They had a practical monopoly, proven, easy-to-manufacture hardware, and a solid pricepoint. Remember, the Game Gear failed largely because it was better, and thus more expensive.

Do they just not care what other companies are doing?

They cared quite a bit. They saw what the market wanted at the time, and saw that everyone making something "better" was failing miserably. There was no real demand for a better product, nor was there any competition.

lackofcheese

Or is it just straight up evil corporation?

There are two types of corporations. Ones that want your money, and insolvent ones.

In the absence of significant competition, Nintendo can get away with releasing hardware that is significantly below what is technologically possible.
There is a significant amount of demand for handhelds and handheld games. Let's face it, Nintendo has a significant majority of it.

So, the simple fact is, it doesn't take very much from Nintendo to beat the competition.
Sure, if they spent more money on it, they could completely annihilate the competition, and perhaps sell handhelds to people who wouldn't buy them if they weren't so awesome - but that would be too expensive for them for it to be worthwhile.

Apreche

Also remember that you can't simply beat the competition, you have to crush them. If you come out with a handheld system that is just a little bit better than Nintendo, you're not going anywhere. Nobody will go through the trouble of switching. That's where the genius, and the problem, lies. Let's say you made the best handheld gaming system that is technologically possible. It still wouldn't be better enough than the DS or DSi to get people to move. Thus, it is never in the best interests of Nintendo, or any other company, to ever make the best product that can be made. It's cheaper and more profitable to make a sub-optimal product that simply can not be defeated in the marketplace.

That's why the iPhone doesn't sync over the air, and doesn't need to. If a competitor comes out with a player that has that feature, it still wouldn't be better enough to get enough people to switch.

Because of good business sense, consumer technology will always be in the past.

Bobblun

My counterpoint to this would be, if Nintendo cared so much about what other people are doing why have they not developed a gaming console that compares more closely to the PS3 or the X-box 360? Sure the price of the PS3 and the X-box 360 are far more than the Wii, but they offer so much more. Of the people that I know that play games maybe 2 or 3 own Wii's where as almost all have 360's and 5 or 6 own PS3's. Even the Gamecube (only 1 person I know owns/owned 1)fell so far enough away from the bar I didn't even bother buying it, because the x-box was so much better, and honestly I think I only played the Gamecube once. Is Nintendo falling too far behind? Are they relying too heavily on their games, or are they right where they want to be?

...

but they offer so much more

Head-tracking potential. The Wii has much more possibilities than the 360 or the PS3. Why would the Wii be more like the 360 and the PS3 anyway? The Wii is a ton more popular than those systems, it would never be that popular if it was similar to the 360 or PS3. Seriously, you don't need to have 1080p with boob physics to have a good console.

Rym

if Nintendo cared so much about what other people are doing why have they not developed a gaming console that compares more closely to the PS3 or the X-box 360?

They made a lot more money this way. I don't think you understand how profitable the Wii is. The majority of people aren't willing to spend the extra money: you're thinking too much like a gamer and not like someone who wants to make money.

but they offer so much more.

Only to self-identified gamers, and even then at a much lower profit margin.

Of the people that I know that play games maybe 2 or 3 own Wii's where as almost all have 360's and 5 or 6 own PS3's.

Yet the Wii has outsold everything and has likely made more money than the Xbox360 and PS3 combined. Again, you're basing this on a very limited worldview and small sample group: the numbers back Nintendo.

honestly I think I only played the Gamecube once.

Nintendo couldn't care less if you play it after you buy it: you've already bought it, and they've already made their money.

Is Nintendo falling too far behind?

Nintendo is verymuch ahead in terms of profitability and sales.

You're looking at all of this from your own personal perspective. Most people aren't like you, and don't want what you want. Targeting those people is much more profitable than targeting you.

Bobblun

The Wii has much more possibilities than the 360 or the PS3.

Without hackery you do not have the ability to play a dvd movie on the Wii. The disc format is limited in size and a lot of the extras that you find in the PS3/ 360 versions of cross-platform games have to be removed to fit on the Wii. And as I stated before the Wii is not the game console of choice here, that may be different in other areas. Though the Wii has it's simplicity and ease of use, I still believe that they could easily have added some features with very little expense, but they don't.

Edit: Rym you do made a good point about my limited world-view, but you kinda have to admit that the Wii could easily have been a better system.
P.S. I never owned a Gamecube. :P

Rym

Without hackery you do not have the ability to play a dvd movie on the Wii.

And no one cares. Having DVD capabilities certainly wouldn't have increased sales, for a variety of known reasons.

The disc format is limited in size and a lot of the extras that you find in the PS3/ 360 versions of cross-platform games have to be removed to fit on the Wii.

And yet they still sell just fine. Also, note that Nintendo couldn't care less if they sell: their first party games are the moneymakers.

I still believe that they could easily have added some features with very little expense

One, you're dead wrong there. Two, even a little expense is a waste if you'll sell just as many, for more money, without it.

You've not made a single standing point in this thread as far as I can see. As an ad hominem, your grammar has been pretty bad. I hereby declare you the loser in this argument. ^_~

Andrew

What you may not know is that Sony and Microsoft sell each console for a loss, hoping to make up the profits in game sales. However, the Wii makes a profit just from hardware sales! So not only is it cheaper to produce, but it appeals to a broader audience which doesn't depend on the market to keep up game sales. They could sell the console and not expect the consumer to purchase ANY games and they make money. It's even outsold the PS3 and 360 in the US. PS3 hasn't turned a profit yet and the 360 only just became profitable THIS year!

Bobblun

I humbly bow and hand my shattered soap box off to Rym, and his infinite wisdom.
So, in conclusion, Nintendo relies more on profitable business practices and solid technology.

Edit: If you ever have any interest in coming up to Alaska for the awesome skiing let me know.

...

Without hackery you do not have the ability to play a dvd movie on the Wii.

Who the hell cares for that? I'll restate what I said before the specific line you quoted:

Head-tracking potential.

People have done a great amount of awesome things, with only the Wiimote. You try to do the same things with the 360 or the PS3 controller.

Edit: Rym you do made a good point about my limited world-view, but you kinda have to admit that the Wii could easily have been a better system.

The 'better' you use is not the same 'better' Nintendo uses. Rym pretty much destroyed any potential of you making an argumetn with this:

Again, you're basing this on a very limited worldview and small sample group: the numbers back Nintendo.

What you want is not what Nintendo wants, that's the entire point, if you still don't understand that you're pretty hopeless.

Bobblun

This is not a debate on if the Wii is awesome or not, it's a debate on unused potential. And Rym clearly pointed out the reasons why Nintendo does what they do.
I own a Wii and I think it is awesome and has a lot of potential. My only beef with the Wii is that a lot of cross-platform games have to cut out a lot of "goodies" for the Wii. To say that I am hopeless, is far from the truth, I pride myself on looking at things from all possible angles, which was what I was trying to do. If you read every thing I have stated, you'll see huge gaping holes, which most are done intentionally because if I stated the filler I would have debunked my own statement. My intention was to bring up new points that I myself have not thought of and discuss those that I need clarification on. All in all I have learned a lot not only about Nintendo as a business but about the people within this forum. Thanks for your time.

...

No, you were whining about why Nintendo does not serve your every need upon a satin cloth. Yes, you are hopeless, you still did not understand that profit is more important to most companies than the users after being told so several times.

Bobblun

you still did not understand that profit is more important to most companies than the users after being told so several times.

See below.

So, in conclusion, Nintendo relies more on profitable business practices and solid technology.

Complaining about something does not necessarily mean whining. And I have come to terms with the fact that the Nintendo isn't going to fulfill my every need, a long time ago.

...

See below.

I know you said that. At that point you were already told multiple times that Nintendo would not please you as much as you'd like. My apologies for the previous post though. The blatant lie that I do not have to have twitch aiming skills to play Portal: Prelude pissed me off. And I already like the humour! But I can't get further without the twitching.