[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

There's no surprise that the gameboob (hahaha Tim Schafer reference ) is not getting any love. We (or people in general) buy consoles to play games on them, and its tough to do that when Nintendo releases a few games a year. I don't necessarily blame third party, because third party usually goes for the platforms that are the most profitable to them.

Also I attribute this to the audience they are mainly targetting. They definitely have some M games, but most of their games are the cutesy type, and the audience of games has changed from the Mario days. I personally can look beyond the graphics to play a cutesy game like Advanced Wars, but a lot of people can't. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the gaming demographic has changed since the old days of Mario, but Nintendo didn't change to target that demographic. Unless they really capture the casual gamer with the revolution controller or they go after the 18-30 males like the other 2 consoles are doing, I can't see how they can stay in business as a console manufacturer.

Simple- they will always have people like me buying their products who look for the highest quality. Popular opinion aside, they're the Pixar of the game world- they don't churn out games by the truckload but when you get one you know:

1. It's going to be great.
2. It's going to be original.
3. You're going to have a lot of fun.

Let me look through the Nintendo-published games I have bought so far for GCN: Super Smash Bros., The Wind Waker, Metroid Prime, Metroid Echoes, Four Swords Adventures, Super Mario Sunshine, Pikmin, Animal Crossing, F-Zero GX. (I've omitted my sister's copies of Mario Party 4 and 6, although they are tremendously fun, because they're not great or original.) Of all of these, only Mario is a misfire and even that is a ton of fun to pick up every now and then. EAD has yet to release a Zelda game which isn't brilliant. I don't know what my life would be like without Metroid. And you don't want to know how much time I spent training myself in F-Zero. If they have good software, fans like me will buy their consoles. If they don't run out of creativity (and that hasn't happened in these twenty-odd years), they're going to make money no matter what.

I am sorry I miss out on some other good games- Ico, Metal Gear Solid, certain less traditional RPGs. But no one makes 'em as good as Nintendo.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

If they have good software, fans like me will buy their consoles. If they don't run out of creativity (and that hasn't happened in these twenty-odd years), they're going to make money no matter what.

I am sorry I miss out on some other good games- Ico, Metal Gear Solid, certain less traditional RPGs. But no one makes 'em as good as Nintendo.

But judging by the article, they are NOT making money no matter what. They are losing money on the gamecube, although you and a lot of other Nintendo fans have bought the console. Creativity by itself is not enough. Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil were very creative, but they sold like crap. Some people attribute their lackluster sales to bad marketting, but I personally attribute it more to the current taste of the market. Just take a look at the 360 lineup, and I think you can have a good idea of what the majority of the mainstream market is playing or wants.

[wildcat]

Originally Posted by Reflection

I made a list of GameCube that I wanted to check out.

Animal Crossing
Baten Kaitos
F Zero GX
Harvest Moon - It's A Wonderful Life
Mystic Heroes
Paper Mario Thousand Year Door
Phantasy Star Online 1 and 2
Skies of Arcadia
Tales of Symphonia

Any of them worth buying?

Animal Crossing for me was the best purchase ever but it's a love it or hate it. I played it every day for a year until the events started ton repeat and even now I play it at times to visit my friend's town.

Not played Baten Kaitos, Mystic Heroes or Tales of Symphonia.

F-Zero GX is an excellent but difficult and very fast racing game.

Harvest Moon is enjoyable but as the village is quite small and you are only playing the same sections over and over again, it's a game for short bursts-very endearing though.

Paper Mario is absolutely fantastic, humourous dialogue, different battle system and sidequests. One of my fave games for the Cube.

Phantasy Star Online is only really worth it if you can go online with other players. Offline it's fun at first but the novelty wears off very quickly, very hack-and-slash type game.

Skies of Arcadia Legends is a terrific RPG and comes fully recommended.

[pleto4_ryan]

Well, it's always bad to see a console go, but her time has come. Next year we have Revolution ( ) so i don't think there's a big problem.

I just hope Revolution does what's it meant to do; call out to non-gamers and learn them what gaming actually means.
Like what DS has started to do.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

But judging by the article, they are NOT making money no matter what. They are losing money on the gamecube

The amount they lose on the GCN (if any) is tiny, when compared to their competitors losses and the amount they make on handhelds, nintendo isn't going anywhere for a very loooong time.

(in fact most of the loss in profits was due to R&D on the REV)

(They could probably sell maybe one REV and still make mad profits)

See the thing is as long as they make profit they have no reason to leave the console industry.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

But judging by the article, they are NOT making money no matter what. They are losing money on the gamecube, although you and a lot of other Nintendo fans have bought the console. Creativity by itself is not enough. Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil were very creative, but they sold like crap. Some people attribute their lackluster sales to bad marketting, but I personally attribute it more to the current taste of the market. Just take a look at the 360 lineup, and I think you can have a good idea of what the majority of the mainstream market is playing or wants.

Let's get our facts straight. You seem certain that Nintendo regularly loses money on GCN, I'm quite certain that up to last year they were consistently showing a profit. At least one of us is wrong.

There's no justice in a world where a piece of trash like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time gets good sales and two sequels, and no one even hears of BG&E. Now that you have me thinking about it, I think this can be avoided in the future by putting more emphasis on the creator's name. People buy games they know they'll be happy with, and they're not comfortable buying anything else. (This goes for me as well as the general public.) If a game is in a franchise they know and like, they'll buy the game. BG&E is just the beginning of a franchise, though. So you plaster Ancel's name all over the place -even put it in bold letters on the front of the box!- and make sure your marketing always mentions "From the creator of Rayman 2". If Ubi had been playing up Michel Ancel from day one (when he made Rayman), he would have gained a reputation by now for quality and creativity in the eyes of the public. Then creativity would be enough.

As it so happens, Miyamoto does have such a reputation. So when he released Pikmin, not related to any other franchise (unless you count the silly references to Mario) and a brand new concept, it sold well. On a broader scale, Nintendo has earned a reputation for quality by limiting the quantity of their releases in favor of quality. They held up Geist for years until they felt it was a good enough game to be sold. They're holding up Zelda now to make sure it's as good as its predecessors. By so doing, they are holding onto their reputation as a company which makes creative and fun games. With this reputation, creativity is enough.

When I look at the 360's line-up, the only game that catches my eye is Mass Effect. Since I didn't particularly love KotOR (It was a good game, but nothing special.), that isn't enough to make me even remotely interested in the console. Apart from that, what is there? Sports games, racing games, brutal action games, more sports games. These are the same games I didn't want to buy this generation, but with a new coat of paint. There is nothing to appeal to me. Let's compare that with the games I know I'm going to love on Revolution: Super Mario, Metroid Prime 3, whatever the Tokyo division comes up with next, the next Zelda, whatever new franchises pop up to take advantage of the hardware, and a decade's worth of games I haven't played yet from SNES and N64. Nintendo hasn't told us anything about most of their new games, but I know from experience that they're going to be remarkably creative and fun, because they've never let me down yet.

So Nintendo already has the sales of all their fans guaranteed. Add to this the sales of people who already have 360 or PS3 but don't want to miss out on motion-sensor games (FPSs, aforementioned new franchises). Add to this the number of current non-gamers who will come for whatever new franchises Nintendo makes specifically for them (Nintendogs). Add to this the gamers who aren't willing to pay 400 bucks for a new system. Add to this the parents who will buy it for their kids because Nintendo's games are known for being family-friendly. I'd say we're looking at a whole lot of sales, no?

[squarejawhero]

I read both Sony and Microsoft lost a lot of money on R+D for both the PS2 and Xbox consoles that they're only just recouping, but they've again spent it on the next-gen consoles. I don't think Nintendo want to take this route. If something like the PSP or PS3 fails (unlikely) then there's a big price to pay.

[Starflux]

I just bought Viewtiful Joe 2 for the Gamecube for a moderate 30 Euros (which is in any way far more than Americans pay for a brand new title, but hey I'm not complaining =_=). The first one offered exquisite gaming and I look forward to playing this sequel.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

So Nintendo already has the sales of all their fans guaranteed. Add to this the sales of people who already have 360 or PS3 but don't want to miss out on motion-sensor games (FPSs, aforementioned new franchises). Add to this the number of current non-gamers who will come for whatever new franchises Nintendo makes specifically for them (Nintendogs). Add to this the gamers who aren't willing to pay 400 bucks for a new system. Add to this the parents who will buy it for their kids because Nintendo's games are known for being family-friendly. I'd say we're looking at a whole lot of sales, no?

Aside from the motion sensor point, all of those features were present in the GameCube. So they certainly don't guarantee huge sales.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Aside from the motion sensor point, all of those features were present in the GameCube. So they certainly don't guarantee huge sales.

Now that's just wrong. Did you even read my list, or just immediately write your response? Of the five potential markets I named, three were not targeted by Nintendo for GCN:

1. Since the Revolution will have brand new types of games which are simply not possible on the other consoles, many gamers who buy X360 or PS3 will also get Revolution. Revolution will have most of the innovative and wacky games while the other consoles will have most of the conventional games. Since many gamers want both familiar and new experiences, it will make much more sense to buy both consoles than it does now.
2. Nintendo's push toward women and older people who have never played games before will continue on the Revolution, opening up large new markets which will come to Revolution simply because it's the only console with games designed for them. Look at the success of DS so far in these areas for proof that it does help sales tremendously.
3. In this generation, all three consoles were in the same ballpark of price. So if someone didn't particularly care which console he got, he'd go with whichever was more popular. Not so in the next generation, when both competitors will be much more expensive than Revolution. If someone doesn't care one way or another, he'll get Revolution. For the brief period of time when GCN was much cheaper than the competition, sales soared. The price difference next generation will be much greater, and it'll be sustainable since Revolution won't be quite as fast as the others.

These are three new significant sources of revenue. But even if that won't be enough to make a profit (which is pretty inconceivable from a business perspective), they're going to have at least twice as many software sales as with GCN from the online distribution of their twenty-year back-catalog. Even if Nintendo completely screws up (and they won't), they'll still show a profit. That's how good this business plan is.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Aside from the motion sensor point, all of those features were present in the GameCube. So they certainly don't guarantee huge sales.

Backward compatibility? Internet access? Out of the box wireless connectivity? DVD playback? Flash memory used as a hard drive? You don't say.

[avatar_58]

The gamecube doesn't interest me too much, but the revolution is looking to be VERY interesting. The controller alone makes you think....

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Let's get our facts straight. You seem certain that Nintendo regularly loses money on GCN, I'm quite certain that up to last year they were consistently showing a profit. At least one of us is wrong.

I really don't have the GC sales numbers in front of me for the first couple of years to have an accurate answer, but it is obvious that the sales of the cube has been dwindling compared to say the XBOX, which has closed the gap in terms of its losses. So going forward, Nintendo has to account to a very strong and new competitor that is expected to dominate the American market in addition to Sony which is already a market leader. Not a very easy task being the underdog to 2 giants that can afford losses whereas you can't.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

There's no justice in a world where a piece of trash like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time gets good sales and two sequels, and no one even hears of BG&E. Now that you have me thinking about it, I think this can be avoided in the future by putting more emphasis on the creator's name. People buy games they know they'll be happy with, and they're not comfortable buying anything else. (This goes for me as well as the general public.) If a game is in a franchise they know and like, they'll buy the game. BG&E is just the beginning of a franchise, though. So you plaster Ancel's name all over the place -even put it in bold letters on the front of the box!- and make sure your marketing always mentions "From the creator of Rayman 2". If Ubi had been playing up Michel Ancel from day one (when he made Rayman), he would have gained a reputation by now for quality and creativity in the eyes of the public. Then creativity would be enough.

You are so wrong here. First of all, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is one of my favorite games , and if you look at the reviews, one of the favorites of the reviewers as well. And unlike what you have mentioned, POP: SOT did not sell well, and it wasn't until they bundled it with Splinter Cell that it started selling. That is why the next iteration of the game was more gory and sexual. To capture more sales.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

As it so happens, Miyamoto does have such a reputation. So when he released Pikmin, not related to any other franchise (unless you count the silly references to Mario) and a brand new concept, it sold well. On a broader scale, Nintendo has earned a reputation for quality by limiting the quantity of their releases in favor of quality. They held up Geist for years until they felt it was a good enough game to be sold. They're holding up Zelda now to make sure it's as good as its predecessors. By so doing, they are holding onto their reputation as a company which makes creative and fun games. With this reputation, creativity is enough.

All these games are good (Geist is okay), but the game cube still sells like crap. It shows you that having a few good games is not enough.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

When I look at the 360's line-up, the only game that catches my eye is Mass Effect. Since I didn't particularly love KotOR (It was a good game, but nothing special.), that isn't enough to make me even remotely interested in the console. Apart from that, what is there? Sports games, racing games, brutal action games, more sports games. These are the same games I didn't want to buy this generation, but with a new coat of paint. There is nothing to appeal to me. Let's compare that with the games I know I'm going to love on Revolution: Super Mario, Metroid Prime 3, whatever the Tokyo division comes up with next, the next Zelda, whatever new franchises pop up to take advantage of the hardware, and a decade's worth of games I haven't played yet from SNES and N64. Nintendo hasn't told us anything about most of their new games, but I know from experience that they're going to be remarkably creative and fun, because they've never let me down yet.

I agree, it is not a lineup I personally am very excited about, but it is what the current crowd wants. Just look at the sales of Madden, or of Halo or a game like GTA and you'll see. Again the main demographic in gaming is the 18-30 male currently, and Microsoft and Sony are going after that. Nintendo is singing their own tune.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

So Nintendo already has the sales of all their fans guaranteed. Add to this the sales of people who already have 360 or PS3 but don't want to miss out on motion-sensor games (FPSs, aforementioned new franchises). Add to this the number of current non-gamers who will come for whatever new franchises Nintendo makes specifically for them (Nintendogs). Add to this the gamers who aren't willing to pay 400 bucks for a new system. Add to this the parents who will buy it for their kids because Nintendo's games are known for being family-friendly. I'd say we're looking at a whole lot of sales, no?

Well it all depends what they end up doing with the hardware, and how many games they make for it, and what types of games are they. If they are all kiddy looking games, and no big publishers sign to make games for it (i.e. total lack of games like the cube), then I don't see how having the best hardware is going to change anything. Also counting on non-gamers to save the system is all hypothetical and we really can't tell how the remote-like controller is going to attract more non-gamers. It all sounds good in theory, but it could be that these nongamers are just not interested in games, or are just satisfied with playing sollitaire on the net.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Backward compatibility? Internet access? Out of the box wireless connectivity? DVD playback? Flash memory used as a hard drive? You don't say.

None of those were mentioned in what I quoted. Or, indeed, in MoriartyL's post. I'm well aware of those benefits, but we simply weren't discussing them.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Now that's just wrong. Did you even read my list, or just immediately write your response? Of the five potential markets I named, three were not targeted by Nintendo for GCN:

Nintendo have tried to push the Gamecube to a larger market. I also specifically mentioned the wireless point as being one that was the case. Oh, and has a definitive, final price for the Revolution actually been announced yet?

Either way, sorry if my tone came across as accusatory. It certainly wasn't intended.

[rio]

I really don't have the GC sales numbers in front of me for the first couple of years to have an accurate answer, but it is obvious that the sales of the cube has been dwindling compared to say the XBOX, which has closed the gap in terms of its losses

This could be wrong, but I think Microsoft made little to no profits on the actual xbox hardware, due to the exorbinant cost of the hardware. Which isn't to say that they didn't more than make up for it with software sales.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by rio

This could be wrong, but I think Microsoft made little to no profits on the actual xbox hardware, due to the exorbinant cost of the hardware. Which isn't to say that they didn't more than make up for it with software sales.

That is correct, but remember one thing. Microsoft was a brand new console to the market 4 years back, entering the stage late, with the PS2 having already established a foothold in the market. It's expected that people won't buy a brand new console from a brand new manufacturer right away. According to recent sales, the losses of the XBOX have been reduced significantly since launch. Going into this coming generation, I suspect the numbers to change a lot.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

I really don't have the GC sales numbers in front of me for the first couple of years to have an accurate answer, but it is obvious that the sales of the cube has been dwindling compared to say the XBOX, which has closed the gap in terms of its losses.

That's not such a big deal. Like MoriartyL already said, prior to this year Nintendo used to sell less than both Sony and MS, but had bigger profits. It's profits that count, not sales.

So going forward, Nintendo has to account to a very strong and new competitor that is expected to dominate the American market in addition to Sony which is already a market leader. Not a very easy task being the underdog to 2 giants that can afford losses whereas you can't.

Maybe, but in Japan it's a completely different situation. PS2 is the leader, GameCube still very strong, and in the last five years Japanese probably bought less Xboxes (Xboxen? ) than private jet planes.

And with the new contoller and Japanese love for interesting gadgets, Nintendo might just take the lead this generation. Probably not, but it doesn't have to.

Just look at the sales of Madden, or of Halo or a game like GTA and you'll see. Again the main demographic in gaming is the 18-30 male currently, and Microsoft and Sony are going after that. Nintendo is singing their own tune.

Actually, Nintendo is supposedly working on that, too. The new controller is better adjusted to genres that hardcore gamers prefer (FPS and RTS) than any gamepad.

If they are all kiddy looking games, and no big publishers sign to make games for it (i.e. total lack of games like the cube), then I don't see how having the best hardware is going to change anything.

I'm not sure why some people always claim there are not enough games for the Cube. Just look at the numbers at MobyGames, Xbox has 587 games listed and GameCube 381, it's not such a huge difference. And most of the biggest non-exclusive titles have been released on all 3 platforms. Also, due to their similar CPU organization (not architecture) seems like porting between PC, Xbox 360 and Revolution will be much easier than porting from and to PS3.

Also counting on non-gamers to save the system is all hypothetical and we really can't tell how the remote-like controller is going to attract more non-gamers.

It's not counting on non-gamers to save the system, it's counting on them to win this round. It'll most probably survive even without them. And the best thing is, the new controller might not attract just non-gamers, but hardcore gamers as well. Ain't that sweet?

Nintendo has a very interesting platform this time around

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by RLacey

Nintendo have tried to push the Gamecube to a larger market. I also specifically mentioned the wireless point as being one that was the case. Oh, and has a definitive, final price for the Revolution actually been announced yet?

How has Nintendo tried selling Gamecube to a new market? I don't understand what you're trying to say about wireless, so it's possible you've answered this and I just didn't catch what you were saying.

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

All these games are good (Geist is okay), but the game cube still sells like crap. It shows you that having a few good games is not enough.

You're forgetting a crucial point- until they reduced the price of the Gamecube, they made a profit on every system sold. After that price cut, they only suffered a slight loss on each system. Microsoft, on the other hand, has lost a significant amount of money on every console sold since the beginning. Nintendo has never been in any danger here. And if there is ever a lack of games, the back-catalog should almost make up for it.

I really don't have the GC sales numbers in front of me for the first couple of years to have an accurate answer, but it is obvious that the sales of the cube has been dwindling compared to say the XBOX, which has closed the gap in terms of its losses. So going forward, Nintendo has to account to a very strong and new competitor that is expected to dominate the American market in addition to Sony which is already a market leader. Not a very easy task being the underdog to 2 giants that can afford losses whereas you can't.

I don't have the sales numbers either, and I can't figure out where to get them, so I'm just going by what I've heard from the press. Nintendo's systems are never the most powerful (look at the Game Boy and all its competitors over the years), so they never have to take any major losses. As a result, they have a lot of reserve money. I remember reading that the figure was 6 billion dollars of reserve money, but I could be mistaken. In any case, it's a lot. If Nintendo had to, they could take a loss on a system. But they won't because they can make a profit more easily by not doing so.

As for dealing with the competition, again I don't think they have any problem at all. As I have already mentioned, there will probably be many gamers buying Revolution in addition to another console- in these cases the competition is completely irrelevant. We are also seeing them push into new markets, which I'm sure they'll do even more now that Nintendogs and Brain Training have proven themselves in sales. Here again the competition is irrelevant- there are no games like these on any other consoles so 360 and PS3 aren't even a choice! With Nintendo fans, again the competition is irrelevant- we'll keep buying their consoles as long as they keep making classics for them. A lot of them might buy 360 as well- if so, then Microsoft may be said "eating into Nintendo's market share", but Nintendo won't mind because they'll have no fewer purchases. Even if Nintendo becomes a niche, it will always remain profitable. So the competition is almost irrelevant.

You are so wrong here. First of all, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time is one of my favorite games , and if you look at the reviews, one of the favorites of the reviewers as well.

Okay, sorry I brought it up. Clearly we have very different tastes, and there's no point discussing it here.

I agree, it is not a lineup I personally am very excited about, but it is what the current crowd wants. Just look at the sales of Madden, or of Halo or a game like GTA and you'll see. Again the main demographic in gaming is the 18-30 male currently, and Microsoft and Sony are going after that. Nintendo is singing their own tune.

What's wrong with that? It's a good tune. Personally, I cannot relate to this "main demographic" who only buys half-assed rehashes. Who is this guy? And more importantly, why should this guy, whom I've never met and apparently share no interests with, interfere with the types of games I like to play? Yes, Nintendo is singing their own tune. Thank god for Nintendo.

Well it all depends what they end up doing with the hardware, and how many games they make for it, and what types of games are they. If they are all kiddy looking games, and no big publishers sign to make games for it (i.e. total lack of games like the cube), then I don't see how having the best hardware is going to change anything. Also counting on non-gamers to save the system is all hypothetical and we really can't tell how the remote-like controller is going to attract more non-gamers.

No one's counting on non-gamers to "save the system", because the system's not in any danger. Is there some kind of universal law stating that if you're not serving the lowest common denominator, you are a failure?


Enough with the prophecies of Nintendo's doom already. We heard it all when they made DS, and they're still doing great.

[MoriartyL]

Sorry about the overlap there- it takes me a while to write these posts up since I always stop for very long intervals to consider my own positions before writing them down.

As for the price issue, which I forgot to mention: They haven't announced the final price point yet, but they keep hinting it will be much cheaper than 360 or PS3 (which looks like it could be the most expensive of the three), and not as powerful (although more powerful than GCN). IGN- Revolution Less Powerful

[Avinash_Tyagi]

You know I wonder how much of the supposed grpahical jump of the 360 and PS3 is just overinflation, because if you remember the early part of this gen, sony and ms were spouting out massive numbers in comparision to the GCN in terms of graphics, the final result of which was three systems with comparable graphics and the GCN being better than the PS2 and only slightly worse than the xbox.

So how much of these claims are more of the same?

(it would be freaking hilarious if the result is small like in this gen...I mean could you imagine if the PS3 and 360 are only slightly more powerful and yet cost hundreds more.)