Post by: )Dark-LInk( on February 13, 2003, 12:41:01 PM
so NOW i think that NINTENDO should make the GC2 backcompatible with GC and N64 games AL IN ONE!
IT WOULD really bring in more sales and COSTUMER for those who wana try the ssytem but cant buy a game right away OR WHO have HUGE gc/n64 libaries and dont want to take THE DUSTY n64 out...
DO ya think N can do this? IF THEY CAN I HOPE THEY DO!(smartest thing ever to do)
Post by: MarioFoxZelda on February 13, 2003, 12:46:47 PM
OOOOR they could make it so you can play Virtual Boy games on it. They could also make it into a toaster too and put little wheels on it and you can use it as a scateboard. If they know what they are doing im sure the thing could hold a bazooka in there just incase some1 wants to steal you skatecube. But of coures we would only pay $50 bucks most for this and if they charge more we will b/tch at them. Hell, if Nintendo doesn't make this then I sure will. I AM A FINANCIAL GOD.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 13, 2003, 01:01:29 PM
Backwards compatibility is more like a bonus but I don't think it plays that big of a part in console sales. The PS2 and GBA may be backwards compatible but how many people actually put that feature to good use? Most gamers I meet only care about new games anyway and ignore titles that are even a year old let alone from a previous console generation.
The "GC2" will be backwards compatible with the "GC1" but not the N64. Besides by then the average person won't care about N64 titles anymore and Nintendo will likely port some of the major titles.
Post by: RickPowers on February 13, 2003, 02:22:15 PM
Post by: KrazyJ1098 on February 13, 2003, 05:24:58 PM
Post by: Resemvla_Syria on February 13, 2003, 07:18:18 PM
I don't think that backwards compatabillity would really help Nintendo. Its just simply not Nintendos consoles' style, what have they been screaming since 96? quality not quantity while Sony has really played it the other way around and in the eyes of a playstation customer backwards compatability was a key selling point for the first year in the market. As the psx market went down the importance went with it. Its all how Sony and Nintendo have market it their consumers.
Many would say that thats the basis for the current generation and it would surely help explain how Playstation with so few AAA titles but inmense catalog is the market leader and not Nintendo which dedicates to quality game play.
Post by: The Omen on February 13, 2003, 07:44:51 PM
Post by: theaveng on February 14, 2003, 04:54:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: )Dark-LInk(
IT WOULD really bring in more sales and COSTUMER for those who wana try the ssytem but cant buy a game right away OR WHO have HUGE gc/n64 libaries and dont want to take THE DUSTY n64 out...
First off, I think you need to calm down. You are a very excitable individual. Second, in the entire history of gaming only two consoles have been off-the-shelf backwards compatible:
(1) Atari 7800
(2) Playstation 2
(1) Atari 7800 was backwards compatible with the most popular console of the early 80s: The Atari 2600/VCS. Did this backwards compability help Atari dominate the late 80s? HA! No way! The 7800, despite being compatible with over 1000 previously-released games like Space Invaders and Asteroids, was totally and completely demolished by the Original Nintendo ES.
(2) PS2 is backwards compatible for two very simple reasons: The joystick controller chip is also a PS1 CPU; The player can read the old CDs. So, Sony could make the PS2 backwards compatible with no additional cost. A no-brainer.
Point (2) shows that Nintendo would have to spend additional dollars installing extra hardware (cart connector/N64 CPU). Point (1) shows that GameCube would not receive a signifigant boost in sales. So basically Nintendo would just be wasting money. It doesn't make good business sense.
Post by: WesDawg on February 14, 2003, 05:40:22 AM
Post by: bubba23 on February 14, 2003, 06:11:34 AM
Post by: ink on February 14, 2003, 06:19:29 AM
Quote
As the psx market went down the importance went with it. Its all how Sony and Nintendo have market it their consumers.
Two PSX games appear in the charts before any GCN game in the combined Japanese console charts right now. I'd wager that a good number of people playing those PSX games, are doing so on their PS2; after all, graphics aren't everything. Nintendo must make their next console backwards-compatible, if they want to grow their userbase. I wish I could transfer my OoT saved games to my GCN, but alas...
Post by: Ian Sane on February 14, 2003, 06:36:36 AM
Well that arguement doesn't really make any sense when you consider that the GBA is backwards compatible. Why would Nintendo's "quality over quantity" mantra only apply to the Gamecube? That whole "quality over quantity" doesn't really mean anything anyway. It's just something Nintendo's spin doctors made up in 1997 to explain why the N64 had so few games. If Nintendo REALLY cared about quality over quantity then the GBA library wouldn't be made up mostly of SNES ports and licensed crap. If Nintendo could make the Gamecube library the size of the PS2's they would.
N64 backwards compatibility wasn't added only because of the difference in media. If the N64 used mini-discs the Gamecube would have been backwards compatible.
Post by: theaveng on February 14, 2003, 08:21:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: inkQuote
Nintendo must make their next console backwards-compatible, if they want to grow their userbase. I wish I could transfer my OoT saved games to my GCN, but alas...
I guess I need to repeat myself for those who weren't listening: "Atari 7800 was backwards compatible with the most popular console of the early 80s: The Atari 2600/VCS. Did this backwards compability help Atari dominate the late 80s? HA! No way! The 7800, despite being compatible with over 1000 previously-released games like Space Invaders and Asteroids, was totally and completely demolished by the Original Nintendo ES."
Given that backwards-compatibility did not help the Atari console succeed, why do you think it would help the Nintendo console? Answer: It would not.
Post by: Resemvla_Syria on February 14, 2003, 08:57:59 AM
Quote
Two PSX games appear in the charts before any GCN game in the combined Japanese console charts right now. I'd wager that a good number of people playing those PSX games, are doing so on their PS2; after all, graphics aren't everything. Nintendo must make their next console backwards-compatible, if they want to grow their userbase. I wish I could transfer my OoT saved games to my GCN, but alas...
ink you make a good point but I was actually just thinking of North America
Quote
Well that arguement doesn't really make any sense when you consider that the GBA is backwards compatible. Why would Nintendo's "quality over quantity" mantra only apply to the Gamecube? That whole "quality over quantity" doesn't really mean anything anyway. It's just something Nintendo's spin doctors made up in 1997 to explain why the N64 had so few games. If Nintendo REALLY cared about quality over quantity then the GBA library wouldn't be made up mostly of SNES ports and licensed crap. If Nintendo could make the Gamecube library the size of the PS2's they would.
Thats why I purposely left out the GBA. I'm with you about Nintendo don't really believing the quality over quantity and like you said it was just a marketing thing and thats my point that Nintendo has marketed their customers not to see quantity as a key feature up to this GameCube days. There is very little doubt that if backwards compatability was more feasible (meaning cheaper solution) Nintendo would have implemented it.
Post by: Sean on February 14, 2003, 09:42:50 AM
Okay, aside from that, I admit that it would be cool if we could play GCN discs in the next console, but it's not really a big deal to me. It would be easier for people like me who have been gaming for a long, long time and keep everything and try to keep everything hooked up (I think I should just go ahead and get another RCA splitter-box.....ugh....). So, for that reason: cool. By the same token, let's keep the thing a gaming rig where EVERY LAST DOLLAR is spent by Nintendo on making it the best console available (and not the console with the most features, please).
Post by: Mario on February 14, 2003, 10:34:37 AM
Post by: ink on February 14, 2003, 11:10:19 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: theavengQuote
Originally posted by: inkQuote
Nintendo must make their next console backwards-compatible, if they want to grow their userbase. I wish I could transfer my OoT saved games to my GCN, but alas...
I guess I need to repeat myself for those who weren't listening: "Atari 7800 was backwards compatible with the most popular console of the early 80s: The Atari 2600/VCS. Did this backwards compability help Atari dominate the late 80s? HA! No way! The 7800, despite being compatible with over 1000 previously-released games like Space Invaders and Asteroids, was totally and completely demolished by the Original Nintendo ES."
Given that backwards-compatibility did not help the Atari console succeed, why do you think it would help the Nintendo console? Answer: It would not.
Well, if Nintendo's next-gen console is as inferior to it's peers as the 7800 was to the NES, then it will fail as well. Your non sequitur argument only shows that backward compatibility won't guarantee the success of the console in and of itself; it will need other characteristics such as graphics, sound, games and competitive pricing. The fact that PSX games are still being sold at higher rates than the best GCN games are would seem to validate this hypothesis (although, I suppose that all those people could be using PS1s to run the games). The 7800 (and 5600, and Jaguar) are all case studies in why brand-recognition and silly marketing (it's 64 bits!!!) mean nothing. The games are what make a system, and great games from the past can definately help a system.
I still wish I could transfer my OoT saved games to my GCN...
Post by: theaveng on February 14, 2003, 02:25:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: inkQuote
Originally posted by: theaveng
Given that backwards-compatibility did not help the Atari console succeed, why do you think it would help the Nintendo console? Answer: It would not.
Well, if Nintendo's next-gen console is as inferior to it's peers as the 7800 was to the NES, then it will fail as well. Your non sequitur argument only shows that backward compatibility won't guarantee the success of the console in and of itself;
First, I must disagree that the 7800 is inferior. In a side-by-side graphical comparision, 7800/NES are equal. In audio, 7800 has the advantage (on-cart chips). In stats, the 7800 is again superior to NES (4K vs. 2K RAM/128 vs. 64 sprites/256 vs. 52 colors). Not surprising considering the 7800 was developed about 2 years (84) after the NES (82) and used newer technology. So you can't blame technology for Atari 7800's failure.
Second, I agree with you. Backwards-compatibility doesn't ensure a system's success (look at the 7800). So why propose the silly notion that a backwards-compatible GameCube would suddenly make the console a mega-hit seller? History shows that backwards-compatibility adds little, if any, sales.
Okay, now I'm done. I've totally demolished the "N64-compatibility would boost GC sales" theory.
Post by: theaveng on February 14, 2003, 02:30:27 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ink The fact that PSX games are still being sold at higher rates than the best GCN games are would seem to validate this hypothesis
Can you show me the numbers to support this ridiculous claim? I check the monthly sales, and all I see are PS2, GCN, and XBX sales. I don't see any evidence that PS1 games are out-selling GC games. Show, just back up your claim with some stats please. Thank you.
Post by: ink on February 14, 2003, 05:01:35 PM
Quote
First, I must disagree that the 7800 is inferior.... [snippage]
Technology is one thing. Games are another.
Quote
Can you show me the numbers to support this ridiculous claim? I check the monthly sales, and all I see are PS2, GCN, and XBX sales. I don't see any evidence that PS1 games are out-selling GC games. Show, just back up your claim with some stats please. Thank you.
Check the Japanese numbers sometime. I don't know if I am allowed to quote from them on this website without "violating the copyright" of the magicbox (do a google search).
You're welcome. Also, while you're there, take a look at all the GBC games in the top 20 that are available for the backwards compatible GBA...
Post by: Mingesium on February 14, 2003, 05:17:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: theaveng
Can you show me the numbers to support this ridiculous claim? I check the monthly sales, and all I see are PS2, GCN, and XBX sales. I don't see any evidence that PS1 games are out-selling GC games. Show, just back up your claim with some stats please. Thank you.
Top 10 PSX Games Dec 2002
YU-GI-OH! FORBIDDEN 188,611
SPONGEBOB SUPERSPONGE 150,284
TONY HAWKS PRO SKATR4 122,666
HARRY POTTER: CHAMBER 108,988
GH 3RD PTY FAM VALUE 108,971
FAMILY VALUE 101,467
SPIDER-MAN 97,287
YU GI OH! PREMIUM ED 96,142
SCOOBY DOO & CYBER 91,696
SPYRO: YEAR OF DRAGON 87,739
The number 11 game is interesting:
MK TRILOGY 83,117
A 6 year old game out sold these games in the month of Dec.
ETERNAL DARKNESS 11,568
PIKMIN 17,946
SW: ROGUE SQUADRON II 23,073
MK Trilogy - average retail is only $11.16, but it is still making money after 6 years.
Post by: Gamer Donkey on February 14, 2003, 05:52:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
The next Nintendo console should be a blend of portable gaming and console gaming and should play NES, SNES, N64, GC, GB, GBA games on it and when you play GBA games on it, you can use 2 controls to play 2 player. *shakes fist at Gameboy Player*
The GC actually can be a completely portable console. I have the LCD screen and love the games so much I'm considering buying the battery pack for it. That way I can play anytime, anywhere. Only on a 5.5 inch screen. If that came off like a jerk it wasn't meant to be.
Post by: Dr Synthetic on February 14, 2003, 06:19:20 PM
People seem to have this idea that Nintendo is losing the console war because they're in 3rd place as far as install base goes. Last time I checked, the whole point of the console war was to make money. Microsoft is *definitely* not making money. They get the third place slot easily. And between the GC and the GBA, it seems very possible to me that Nintendo could easily be raking in nearly as much cash as Sony is.
If they don't turn the Xbox into anything other than a multi-million dollar loss every quarter, eventually the stockholders are going to have something to say about it, I would think.
Post by: Windwaker on February 14, 2003, 08:46:31 PM
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on February 15, 2003, 02:35:33 AM
I never use my 64 and im thinking the next GBA will have N64 ports, or even GCN games(you know the speculation about the small disks etc). ANd im also fairly sure that the GCN2 will be GCN1 compatible, because it will most likely use disks.
Post by: theaveng on February 15, 2003, 04:02:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mingesium
Top 10 PSX Games Dec 2002
The number 11 game is interesting:
MK TRILOGY 83,117
A 6 year old game out sold these games in the month of Dec.
ETERNAL DARKNESS 11,568
Well! Color me surprised. That doesn't make any sense. I'd rather purchase Eternal Darkness than Mortal Kombat. Maybe backwards-compatiblity does NOT help console sales, but it does help older titles. Perhaps if the GameCube was N64-friendly, we'd still see Zelda, Paper Mario, and Perfect Dark on the charts?
Quote
Originally posted by: Hemmorrhoid
Yes I agree fully. Why would you want to play N64 games now or even when the next GCN is released?
Several reasons:
(1) A fun game is a fun game. It doesn't matter that it's aged. I still play Super Mario, Yoshi's Island, and Link to the Past via emulation.
(2) Mario Sunshine sucked. So I spend a lot of time enjoying Mario64 instead.
(3) Playing old games is cheaper than buying new ones.
See? Even though making the GC backwards-compatible doesn't make good business sense (too costly to manufacture), I'm sure a lot of players would love to continue playing their "old" N64 games.
Post by: MH-001 on February 15, 2003, 06:19:32 AM
