Post by: ultrafamicom on October 29, 2003, 11:55:15 AM
You should count yourself lucky that I didn't ban you for posting that entire article in here. -Bloodworth.
http://www.egmmag.com/article2/0,4364,1364679,00.asp
Post by: Ian Sane on October 29, 2003, 12:37:21 PM
I don't like this comment though:
"Making games complicated and long-playing because you can do it doesn't necessarily mean it'll appeal to a wide range of people. I think Mr. Miyamoto tried to demonstrate with Pac-Man Vs. at E3 that you can have a lot of fun without having to necessarily commit 80 hours to something. We believe that's a big part of the future of the industry."
If that means more sh!tty beat-in-a-weekend games like Luigi's Mansion, Wario World, and Kirby Air Ride then I'm not to keen on this strategy. It seems that whenever Nintendo talks about less complicated games that take it to an extreme where the game is so simple that it has little depth and thus isn't worth buying. Overly complicated isn't that good but no one's goign to buy Pac-Man or Tetra's Trackers. There needs to be a middle ground.
"And Rare didn't deliver a single game for us at the launch, when their history had been to make some really great games for us in the past. That hurt us, and it led us into this gap of titles, starting after the launch and lasting for about seven or nine months until Mario Sunshine came out."
That's an interesting statement. So it's Rare's fault that the Cube launch sucked and thus the console never got anywhere? Sounds like some bad blood there. At least it's taught Nintendo that they can't just rely on their first and second parties to get the job done. Funny how he doesn't mention Eternal Darkness coming out between that time. Shows how important that title was to Nintendo.
From this interview I see a company that has learned from some of it's mistakes but potentially doesn't completely get everything yet.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 12:46:33 PM
Quote
f that means more sh!tty beat-in-a-weekend games like Luigi's Mansion, Wario World, and Kirby Air Ride then I'm not to keen on this strategy. It seems that whenever Nintendo talks about less complicated games that take it to an extreme where the game is so simple that it has little depth and thus isn't worth buying. Overly complicated isn't that good but no one's goign to buy Pac-Man or Tetra's Trackers. There needs to be a middle ground.
That's not what Mr. Harrison meant- what he MEANT was that you shouldn't make a game really long and really complicated just because you have the ability to do so. He never said anything about making games insanely short- in fact, I fail to see how you could have come to your opinion from what he said anyway.
And like he said, Pac-Man VS is not meant to be some big huge title- it's more of a project that proves tyou can have a lot of fun with so little. They're not even charging people for the game.
Quote
That's an interesting statement. So it's Rare's fault that the Cube launch sucked and thus the console never got anywhere? Sounds like some bad blood there. At least it's taught Nintendo that they can't just rely on their first and second parties to get the job done. Funny how he doesn't mention Eternal Darkness coming out between that time. Shows how important that title was to Nintendo.
Stop putting words in his mouth- where does Mr. Harrison blame Rare for the Gamecube's poor launch? I didn't see anything he said even hinting at that- in fact, he admitted that it was NINTENDO to blame, since they were a year late to the market, failed to give important 3rd parties development kits soon enough, and lacked variety in game types. What he was saying about Rare was that they spent a lot of money and gave Rare development kits way before anyone else, only to have them shore up and not release any game at all until a year AFTER launch. And for that Rare CAN be be blamed, and it's the primary reason Nintendo let them go. True, he doesn't mention Eternal Darkness, but then again there wasn't a big controversy about Nintendo letting go of Silicon Knights, because it didn't happen. George Harrison isn't part of some conspiracy to cover up Nintendo's mistakes- on the contrary, he points most of them out. Just because the man didn't say Nintendo was failing, which they most definitely are NOT, doesn't mean the company hasn't learned at all. Try to read a little better next time, or even reread it until you get what they're saying.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 29, 2003, 12:54:57 PM
If I were making a Mario Kart ad it would basically be like the magezine ad with people driving karts at some family place and then Mario and Bowser pull up beside the front man who looks at them and freaks out as the camera pans out and we see what he is looking at.
Nintendo made so many promises coming into this gen that they didn't deliver on. Mario 128, more mature Mario (very funny Shig, you put another finger on the character and gave them machines instead of powerups), no more delays, no more kiddy image, uber real Zelda (false advertisement, that is what that video was), GBA-GC connection that would ad more worth to games, lots of third party support, wider variety, online at some point, more mature games, and new fresh games (Pikmin and Animal Crossing along with 30 sequels and several straight up remakes). I don't hate Nintendo. I like their games more than anybodies', but I wish they would do what they say they are going to do.
They are saying the same thing as last gen. More 3rd parties, more mature games, more variety, maybe a proper Mario 64 sequel, less of a kiddy image and more of an everyone image, new games and fresh ideas, online, and portable to console connection worth something. Get what I'm trying to say. I hope they actually do what they say they are going to do. Hopefully it won't be another system that alienates (not intentionally) half the market with a purple lunchbox design, unbalanced controller, and memory cards with no where near the amount of storage space needed for Madden.
Looks like it won't be N5 in 05. MS seems like they want to wait a year after Sony so they can be sure theirs is more powerful and Sony doesn't have a clue if it can get its cell technology ready for an 06 release. Nintendo probably wants to steal the PS3's thunder about a month or 2 before PS3 comes out. I could see the commercial explaining how important and how much past Nintendo has compared to the competition. How Nintendo was in the market first and remind people of the fun of those systems and how Nintendo is going to take the rookies for a walk. Similar idea for the next GameBoy. Nintendo could really tease Sony by showing the evolution of the GameBoy to it's newest incarnation and show at the same time all of the failed systems of the past that couldn't compete with it and then show the next victim and finally the newest GB. Then ask, who would you put your money on.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 12:59:54 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on October 29, 2003, 01:00:53 PM
Post by: ultrafamicom on October 29, 2003, 01:02:00 PM
MS has said they will launch ahead of Sony, or at the latest, at the same time as Sony.
Nintendo has said they want to launch before the others, but admitted they might not be able to, but would launch no more than a few months after Sony, if worst came to the worst, and no 1 year lead for Sony.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 29, 2003, 01:02:38 PM
I do like the more serious approach Ninty is taking, and from this info, you can gather a lot more about the future than you may think...
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 01:03:46 PM
Post by: The Omen on October 29, 2003, 01:09:19 PM
And Rare were probably in negotiations with MS well before launch, and were just waiting for their contract to expire with Nintendo, hence 1 game, a year after launch. Remember, PD0 was to be a launch title...lol
Post by: nemo_83 on October 29, 2003, 01:12:48 PM
Looks as though Nintendo will fight the PSP with....wait for it....GBcamera. I hope they don't let PSP eat up their market just because of their ego. Have they already forgotten the PS vs N64/ cd vs cartridge?
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 01:12:52 PM
As for "Mario growing up", I think Miyamoto was referring to gameplay, not image. Honestly, what did you expect out of a mature Mario? And if you can't answer that, how can you complain that Nintendo didn't meet your nonexistant expectations?
And jesus, nemo, you barely read the interview! Mr. Harrison said that they were looking into a lot of new innovations for the GBA, but that he couldn't comment on the next Gameboy. Every Nintendo fan should know by now that a dismissal of that sort always means something. He never said that's all they were doing to compete with the PSP. I REALLY get pissed off when all these little hot headed kids with no life think they know how to run Nintendo better than Nintendo does
Post by: The Omen on October 29, 2003, 01:21:24 PM
Quote
As for "Mario growing up", I think Miyamoto was referring to gameplay, not image. Honestly, what did you expect out of a mature Mario? And if you can't answer that, how can you complain that Nintendo didn't meet your nonexistant expectations?
Take it easy, Mouse-Clicker. Where did i say i expected a mature Mario? I was merely stating thats probably what Nemo read. I like my Mario as is. And how do you achieve more mature gameplay? Sunshine is about the same as Sm64, except for the water pack. Is that grown up gameplay? Shiggy said it, i just relayed the message. In no way did i say what i expected from that quote. In fact, i said 'what he meant by that was beyond me.'
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 01:23:29 PM
I wouldn't call you young and hotted headed since you're most definitely not as young as most here.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 29, 2003, 01:29:00 PM
I believe that Shig meant that we would nolonger do sensless things like bust floating boxes, shrink/grow with shrooms, and fly with coon suits. I liked the series when it stuck to what it was. I don't like using waterguns or vacums. I like using Mario and Luigi. I don't think Mario's design should change too much, just the attitude of the design. The design is classic like Mickey Mouse, but the personality of Mario is far beyond absent. If Mario could create a connection with the player instead of just being the bland guy with the grey personality maybe then he won't be looked at as kiddy. Why is Mario's character development so flat. The only hints of soul in him are his seven year old style woo hoos and wee. He is a plumber not a child.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 01:32:17 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 29, 2003, 01:37:38 PM
I never wrote they haven't learned at all. Maybe you should read a little better too.
As for my opinion on simple games Harrison said that Miyamoto was demonstrating that concept with Pac-Man. Seems like a fair association to me. It isn't just this interview. Whenever someone from Nintendo talks about simple games stuff like Pac-Man and Kirby Air Ride is mentioned in the same paragraph.
I also have never got what this "Mario growing up" thing was supposed to mean. Personally I've never wanted Mario to change (I was PISSED when they gave him a voice). A "mature" Mario would suck. It's just not what that franchise is about.
"Do you want ALL your games to last 25 hours? Do you honestly want developers to add things to their game just to MAKE it 25 hours long? Did you LIKE the incredibly boring searches common in Rare's game and more recently Wind Waker that were only added to lengthen the game?"
If a game doesn't have enough gameplay or replay value to last that long then I'm not interested. Collecting useless crap to make a game longer is just as inexcusable as making a game that doesn't have enough depth or replay to last longer than a rental. It's not so much game length as it's game value. It a game only lasts two hours and provides me with no incentive to play again then then it's not worth $50 and isn't a good value. Ditto for a 40 hour game where I only had fun for 5 hours.
Anyway just so people don't misinterpret me here's my overall opinion. Nintendo has learned from some of their mistakes with the Gamecube and I think they have a chance of significantly improving with the N5. But they're not PERFECT and I think there's still a large enough potential for error that the same problems could surface again.
Post by: Sirmorphix on October 29, 2003, 01:38:18 PM
Quote
That's an interesting statement. So it's Rare's fault that the Cube launch sucked and thus the console never got anywhere? Sounds like some bad blood there.
"Also, when we launched the GameCube, we put the concentration of our development kits in the hands of only a few people"
He was making a reference that it hurt Nintendo to put most of the Dev Kits in the hands of a developer which didn't produce any titles or launch, not that they are the reason that launch wasn't a success, just a contributing factor.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 01:44:50 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 29, 2003, 01:56:02 PM
I'll agree with you there. Sony's strategy in particular relies a lot on third parties and marketing. That's working good now but it's putting less emphasis on Sony's own titles, ie: the only games that will be left if things turn sour. What games Playstation fans like are for the most part not guaranteed to remain with the Playstation brand forever. Sony is also encouraging the sales of low quality which in the end will only hurt the industry and thus Sony themselves.
However right now I'd say that both Sony and MS are more in touch with what gamers want right now. Nintendo on the other hand comes across as fairly out-of-touch. I think that Nintendo is better at concentrating on the future and the big picture but the "now" is what is going to determine how well the N5 does which will have an effect on Nintendo's future.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 02:06:09 PM
That I agree with- although Nintendo is prodigious on the business side of things, able to make a profit off of almost anything, they do need to get more in touch with the public. Like I've always said, if Nintendo had the sales of Sony, they'd be making an incredible amount of money.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 29, 2003, 02:07:17 PM
Competition against a rising competitor starts with hype and right now people are not hyping any next gen Nintendo machine the way they are the competition. Point is they need to hype the next GameBoy. Ecard readers, cameras, and wireless addons won't help the little system that could to beat PSP.
He says there may not be any specifications released on the next console next year also and that gives more of the impression of lets not worry about the future. Gamers do worry about the future and they tell their friends what they read. If Nintendo doesn't release info while the competition does then it only equals GameCube part 2. If they want to release the next console in 05 then next year is the time to begin hype, if not then all signs point to 06 release.
I would like to say if I wanted to make Mario more mature I would start with a toonish gun that shoots bullet bills. There could be fast bullets, slow bullets, smart bullets, exploding bullets, torpedo bullets in water, and bullets that take out multiple enemies in a row. The gun wouldn't be the focus of the game like the water gun was in Sunshine though. It would just be something you would grab from koopa troopas. Mario Sunshine was more like a big scavenger hunt than a trip around the world racing through platforming stages using multiple paths like in old Mario games. Mario 64 is sorta between Sunshine and Mario World in gameplay.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 02:17:30 PM
As for your ideas on Mario, THAT'S why I called you a kid, because you think like one. How on Earth could cartoon bullets make Mario better? How would it be any more mature, either? If you ask me, tha't s a very immature thing to add to a game, appealing to people's desires to see stuff blow up and get killed- it doesn't make you think at all, which is what Mario has traditionally always done. I don't care how old you actually are- you could be 99 for all I know, but you still think like a kid.
Post by: nemo_83 on October 29, 2003, 02:19:34 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on October 29, 2003, 02:38:13 PM
I think the funky cannon should also affect jumping and speed. I think it would fit well with the game, better than vacums and waterguns. I'm tired of cleaning up messes, I want to make a mess. It has to be heavy and carry disadvantages as well as advantages. The bullets could reach enemies in the sky or blow holes in the ground or wall revealing secret passages.
It would make the game seem more mature. Giving the game a new air to it. A new attitude overall would make the game appeal to wider audiences. Simply make the character more complicated and give the design some edge (maybe even toon shading). Of course I don't want anything like Jak and Daxter which is focused on weapons in Mario.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 29, 2003, 02:50:59 PM
That quote says it all.
The future of Nintendo is entirely dependant on the actions they take now.
If the N5 is set to come out in mid 2005 , then Nintendo has roughly 20 months to convice gamers that their product is the one to get. That means they have to win them over with the gamecube in order to get them to even consider looking at the N5. This wont be an easy task. How do you convince people who already have a console to buy another one, especially when the consoles themselves are similar in most ways. The price cut is a good start, so are games like MGS-TS (for the masses) and MKDD (for the loyalists). Only time will really tell, but I personally think a much more aggresive approach is needed. I have yet to see a commercial for MKDD or the twin snakes, and by now I should have. I have never seen a commercial for ED or RE. Again why not? They need to market themselves better, and not just to the niche market they already have. I see at least one PS2 ad a day on mainstream TV and I dont even watch much TV.
Well, enough of that.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 02:51:43 PM
And making one color of the Gamecube purple had absolutely nothing to do with Nintendo's less than stellar sales- people who wanted a different color quite simply bought a different color.
As for your thoughts on Mario (again), it's still the same thing- Mario shooting up bad guys. Isn't it's the younger people who want to play "mature" games and it's the older people who want to play the supposed "kiddy" games. Mario is perfect as it is, easily better than any other platforming series to date. As someone once said, if ny other company had made Super Mario Sunshine it would have been hailed as a masterpiece.
Ads, blah, blah, blah- you're just repeating the same crap I've heard time and time again. Nintendo has actually put their advertising into high gear. I've seen innumerous Mario Kart commercials, Twin Snakes isn't do out until next March (I won't get into my thoughts on that, though), and I saw quite a few commercials for Resident Evil. To say Eternal Darkness had any advertisement at all would be an overstatement, and it's really why the game flopped. Sony ads I see almost none of, and I shouldn't- when you're as far ahead as Sony is, agressive advertising becomes a waste of money. Compare how many Pepsi ads you see versus Coca-Cola ads. And of course you seem to be forgetting about the Who are You campaign entirely, which is pure genious, if you ask me, despite your personal opinions on the individual ads.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 29, 2003, 02:56:46 PM
This is strongly disagree with. You call also say that if it were made by a differant company then EVERONE HERE would have hated it.
The camera in the game was brutal, it made me ill to play. I am positve many others felt this way and I honestly could care less who made it.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 29, 2003, 02:59:57 PM
where? What are you watching?
I honestly have never seen one. As for Sonys ads, they are on quite often. Hell everyone and their uncle knows that silly voice sayong playstation at the end.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 03:01:52 PM
Post by: The Omen on October 29, 2003, 03:03:33 PM
Quote
However right now I'd say that both Sony and MS are more in touch with what gamers want right now. Nintendo on the other hand comes across as fairly out-of-touch.
I agree wholeheartedly. And i'll tell you another thing. Perri Kaplan from NOA is totally clueless. I dont know if its Nintendo feeding her(her or him?) lines or what, but i read an interview with her that just left me feeling sick to my stomach. Fire her ass and put me in charge. You need somebody that will fire back when it comes to competition, not somebody who says 'we're not concerned'. Well, Perri Kaplan, your fanbase is very concerned.
Quote
And making one color of the Gamecube purple had absolutely nothing to do with Nintendo's less than stellar sales- people who wanted a different color quite simply bought a different color.
The problem was they marketed the purple GC, not the black. All the commercials initially were for the purple cube, and that certainly didnt help bring in new fans.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 03:06:11 PM
"where? What are you watching?"
Comedy Central and Cartoon Network, mainly, although I've seen the commercial on channels like Gameshow Network and TechTV as well. Really, I've seen a lot- I wouldn't say it's a great commercial, but it's not bad either. I like the push for preordering, as well. Even if you personally didn't like the Zelda bonus disc, you have to admit it was a stroke of genious. Wind Waker preorders were through the roof and suddenly every publisher has some sort of deal for people who preorder.
Post by: KnowsNothing on October 29, 2003, 03:07:48 PM
Post by: Mario on October 29, 2003, 03:10:01 PM
Quote
Hype is a very delicate thing, something I don't think ANYONE has mastered, much less Nintendo.
Sony has.
Quote
And making one color of the Gamecube purple had absolutely nothing to do with Nintendo's less than stellar sales- people who wanted a different color quite simply bought a different color.
Bzzzt. I highly disagree, no-one wants a purple lunch box. Purple is the GameCubes main colour, people see it and think its kiddie and has crappy games that only a 5 year old could enjoy.
As for advertising, i think Nintendo wasted the "who are you?" campaign on friggin Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros 3. And Mario Kart and Twin Snakes commercials? They arent even out yet! And the Mario Kart commercial thats showing now says "Coming November 18" or something, so expect a different follow up commercial after its released.
Also i dont think Nintendo should hype their next consoles so soon, its bad marketing and people want to think that the Gamecube still has lots of life left or they will be a bit on edge about whether or not to get a Nintendo console again, since a new one will come out shortly after, thus getting them screwed... or something.
And as for Gameboy vs PSP, i dont think Nintendo really have much to worry about.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 29, 2003, 03:10:45 PM
Blue silhouette man didnt bother you at all?
"The problem was they marketed the purple GC, not the black. All the commercials initially were for the purple cube, and that certainly didnt help bring in new fans."
This is correct even if it is very illogical.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 03:13:28 PM
The outline of Mario didn't bother me at all- it's very helpful knowing where Mario is when I have the camera in another position to look at something else.
Even Sony has not mastered hype- they had pretty good success with the PS2 launch, but otherwise, I don't see too much evidence to support their mastering the technique.
Post by: Cap on October 29, 2003, 03:18:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Even Sony has not mastered hype- they had pretty good success with the PS2 launch, but otherwise, I don't see too much evidence to support their mastering the technique.
personaly, i think 50 million ps2's being sold compared to 20 million combined for gamecube and xbox is pretty good evidence.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 03:21:05 PM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 29, 2003, 03:22:36 PM
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Even Sony has not mastered hype- they had pretty good success with the PS2 launch, but otherwise, I don't see too much evidence to support their mastering the technique.
The fact they are still selling consoles by the boat load says it all.
Software sales arent bad either.
jeeez
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 29, 2003, 03:35:40 PM
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 29, 2003, 03:36:48 PM
Sorry I missed this earlier. But dont you think that the channels you mention have limited or should I say a certain type of viewer?
To attract more people, advertise to more people. Its real simple
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 03:45:16 PM
Yes, cable has historically had less viewers than network television, byt then again by comparison I see very few videogame commercials period on network television. Additionally, both Cartoon Network and Comedy Central get a massive amount of viewers, more than your "average" cable station. Seriously, you'd be surprised just how popular those two channels are. Obviously advertising to more people would have better results, but that's not just something Nintendo isn't doing, it's something that noone is doing.
Post by: Mario on October 29, 2003, 03:51:34 PM
Quote
Great sales has little to do with hype- Sony DOES have other methods of success, you know.
So hype = not much sales?
And what are these other methods?
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 29, 2003, 03:54:22 PM
You have to be joking. Sony ads are just as common on cable as they are on network TV.
Who watches the cartoon channel? Primarily children I would think?
How does a company shed its kiddie image when they primarily advertise to children?
Post by: Mario on October 29, 2003, 04:02:22 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 04:05:08 PM
To date I've never seen a Sony ad, or Nintendo ad for that matter, on network television. Granted I don't watch as much network television as cable, but then agan it's quite obvious you don't watch as much cable television as I do, so I think this point is moot.
I find it odd you're falling back on the same thing people have used against Nintendo for ages, cubed. I respect you, man, I at least expected you to be original.
"So hype = not much sales?
And what are these other methods?"
Solid advertising and marketing. Good games (Sony's talents as a developer have really come to fruit in recent times). Being in touch with the public, knowing what they want and what they don't want. I've already commented on what hype can or cannot do for sales, so I won't repeat myself there, but do realize that hype isn't the only way to get sales.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on October 29, 2003, 04:06:20 PM
I mean like, realistic racing sim fans, fighting game fans, music game fans, they're each far from a majority, but when you can wrap up all those little markets in one system, that's something special, right there. And I don't mean like, one or two, I mean a real VARIETY. There's not much of a reason to be buggered to release something like Guilty Gear XX, GunGrave, Frequency, Contra, DDR, Silpheed, anything like that on more than one system. Just the one with the most units out there (unless one somehow amazingly cheaper or more practical). It seems, like, Ikaruga is the only one of these that GC actually got, and you guys all saw how hot that was.
And, hey, once these weirdos like me got a PS2, buying ten zillion copies of GTA3 was inevitable, I mean, if you've got the system already, why not get the hot high-profile game of the year, too?
In my mind here, the recipe for success is to GET THOSE DEV KITS OUT TO EVERYBODY, PRONTO. Sure, maybe clowns you never heard of like Arc System Works won't make you a DKC or a GTA3, but when all of those guys get you you an amazing volume of niche titles, that's nothing to scoff at.
(Also make a more universal controller, guys, that'd sure help. Six face buttons, if you please.)
Quote
Also, when we launched the GameCube, we put the concentration of our development kits in the hands of only a few people -- internally, of course, with Mr. Miyamoto's EAD team, but also with Rare. And Rare didn't deliver a single game for us at the launch, when their history had been to make some really great games for us in the past. That hurt us, and it led us into this gap of titles, starting after the launch and lasting for about seven or nine months until Mario Sunshine came out. Consumers want consistency. They would never buy a DVD player that had only one or two good movies a year; they want consistency and variety, and we're trying hard to make sure that's not only resolved for the GameCube, but as we go into the next system.
YES
Quote
But, having said that, there are probably five to eight really important publishers out there, if you look at the concentration within the industry. So we're not talking about a hundred publishers who need development kits, but five to eight
NO : (
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 29, 2003, 04:13:18 PM
And I also think what Harrison was getting at was that they would look at the possibility of sending out dev kits to the biggest dev teams, such as EA, Capcom, etc...Personally I think it makes sense, but I wouldn't wait too long before handing them out to everyone else...
Post by: Mario on October 29, 2003, 04:14:12 PM
Quote
Solid advertising and marketing. Good games (Sony's talents as a developer have really come to fruit in recent times). Being in touch with the public, knowing what they want and what they don't want.
In other words, hype.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 04:19:44 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on October 29, 2003, 04:20:52 PM
I mean, if Rush, Mace: The Dark Age, Beetle Adventure Racing, NBA Hangtime, Hexen, BattleTanx and Fighter's Destiny came out last week, they probably would have been PS2 exclusive. Sure, none of them are Zelda or GTA3, but they were fun, filled out my library, and also help me make my point, I think.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 29, 2003, 04:22:32 PM
lets fix the old problems first, then and only then will people stop talking about them.
This is not about originality, this is about what needs to be done. The reason the same things keep coming up is simply because they are things that need to get done.
"n my mind here, the recipe for success is to GET THOSE DEV KITS OUT TO EVERYBODY, PRONTO. Sure, maybe clowns you never heard of like Arc System Works won't make you a DKC or a GTA3, but when all of those guys get you you an amazing volume of niche titles, that's nothing to scoff at."
I agree 100% on this. Many here will say they dont want crappy titles. Well, not all will be crappy, even if only 10% are good, at least you have a choice.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 04:24:03 PM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on October 29, 2003, 04:26:51 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 29, 2003, 04:31:47 PM
"agree 100% on this. Many here will say they dont want crappy titles. Well, not all will be crappy, even if only 10% are good, at least you have a choice."
I personally agree with you wholeheartedly here- 25% of 1,000 is still more than 50% of 200.
Post by: The Omen on October 29, 2003, 06:05:02 PM
Quote
Great sales has little to do with hype- Sony DOES have other methods of success, you know.
All of the XBOX sales can be directly connected to the massive hype built up before the launch. Did MS make some outlandish and generally cocky remarks, making me want to kick them in the teeth? Yes, but people bought it.
Quote
Yeah, it's not like the NES/SNES days where consumers can't sniff out a crap game a mile away, especially with today's huge and healthy gaming media.
That works both ways, though. Maybe we bought more crap games back then, but i can assure you that we discovered a lot more of those hiidden gems everyone likes to talk about. Games were given a chance back then. Now a game gets rated a 6, and it sells like crap.
Post by: nolimit19 on October 29, 2003, 06:11:40 PM
Post by: PIAC on October 29, 2003, 06:35:10 PM
QuoteQuote
Quote
Yeah, it's not like the NES/SNES days where consumers can't sniff out a crap game a mile away, especially with today's huge and healthy gaming media.
That works both ways, though. Maybe we bought more crap games back then, but i can assure you that we discovered a lot more of those hiidden gems everyone likes to talk about. Games were given a chance back then. Now a game gets rated a 6, and it sells like crap.
yeah, this is troubling, games like Earthworm Jim and Harvest Moon wouldn't sell these days (figurativly speaking) someone/people need to start up a website uncovering the rare and unique gems of this generation and point them out to people, or someone needs to paste a link to a website like that
Post by: joeposh on October 29, 2003, 06:35:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
I don't know if I'd like Nintendo catering to people who make console decisions based on color, though, and I don't think Nintendo wants to cater to those people, either. Then again, maybe it's for that very reason sales have been slipping.
And it's exactly that kind of elitiest, purist attitude that keeps Nintendo struggling to gain more marketshare. I mean I love the Cube as much as the next guy but can you honestly say that when you saw the Gamecube for the first time you were like "wow, that's amazing.. I have to have that!"? I for one was like "Wow these games look great but umm.. I RRRREALLY hope they reconsider on the design" I won't be so harsh as to go into the lunchpail comparisons but it's pretty much agreed that compared to the X-Box and the PS2, Nintendo's system looked like a toy. The controller with it's bright yellow, green and red buttons didn't exactly improve that image. Ever since the SNES Nintendo seems to think that they can do whatever they please and the casual gamer will fall right into line. It doesn't work like that anymore. Nintendo can keep their innovative approach, and still avoid silly pitfalls akin to the ones they've fallen into these past 2 generations.
Many newer gamers have already written off Nintendo entirely. They call it kiddy, stupid etc... we know better but you know what, that perception is still a serious problem. Nintendo needs to address that NOW because if people think Nintendo is dead now, what makes them think they'll suddenly see the light with a 1 month promotional campaign before the launch of the N5. It's serious now... the PSP is coming and that means Nintendo's cash cow is vunerable. It's essential that they make some changes and begin to COURT casual gamers again, not just cater to hardcore/old school gamers like you seem to prefer.
Post by: WesDawg on October 29, 2003, 06:41:41 PM
On the advert side I feel pretty torn. I'd love Nintendo to really hype up the N5 and for people to be really excited about it. It seems like it'd be easy to do considering how much people love retro stuff right now. Make the thing look like a NES and people'd go crazy (don't think about that to hard). Hype usually involves some lying though (see PS2, XBOX, and now PSP prelaunch) and I really like that Nintendo doesn't get into that. I don't want to see posters all over proclaiming the N5 as the most powerful game machine ever (even though it will probably be the only real "game machine" around anymore), but at the same time, people love that stuff. That's what sells XBox and PS2 most of the time I think. Not games. Just the promise of owning something cutting edge. Anyways, it seems like the gameplay-centered, truth-talking nintendo thats appeared over the past few years may have to revert to its old sly self if they really want to sell the most consoles next gen. I'm not sure if I want that or not.
Oh well, i'm just rambling.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 29, 2003, 06:57:06 PM
And Retro Studios happens to be a first-party (someone please either confirm this or totally correct me).
Post by: Ocarina Blue on October 29, 2003, 08:17:40 PM
Nolimit19: Nintendo clearly stated that that Zelda demo was NOT representitive of any game, only a representitive of the GC's capabilities.
Post by: Darc Requiem on October 29, 2003, 08:30:54 PM
Darc Requiem
Post by: Mario on October 29, 2003, 08:42:02 PM
Silicon Knights = Second Party
And i think the GameCube looks AWESOME. I dont give a crap about its colour or image, it just looks neat.
Post by: Dynamitega on October 29, 2003, 09:01:09 PM
Post by: PIAC on October 29, 2003, 10:53:44 PM
kyle: dude, this has 128 gigahurtz d ram
stan: whats that?
kyle: i don't know but it kicks ass
Post by: Plugabugz on October 29, 2003, 11:47:00 PM
Nintendo have their faults and they're slowly realising this. But, everything has to be part of the picture if they are going to get to where they want to be. Individually, nothing will make a difference.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 30, 2003, 01:35:59 AM
That is all fine to say, but then why the hell use Zelda as the game to do this with? They had to know that this would create a ton of hype. The hype was good for business IMO, the decision not to make that demo into a game and deliver on that hype was the downfalll. You can say whatever you like about Zelda's toon/cell shading style, but the truth is, the game would have sold better if it were realistic., it would have clearly appealed to a crowd outside of the Nintendo eliteist.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 30, 2003, 02:30:34 AM
Quote
All of the XBOX sales can be directly connected to the massive hype built up before the launch. Did MS make some outlandish and generally cocky remarks, making me want to kick them in the teeth? Yes, but people bought it.
And you're saying the Xbox's sales are GOOD? The thing is selling no better than the Gamecube in every region, and since we're under the impression that the Gamecube's sales need a lot of work, why aren't we under the impression that the XBox's sales need a lot of work? Yes, MS took the hype for the XBox a long way, but it's still pretty much in 3rd place, behind a company that doesn't use enough hype, so obviously they haven't mastered the technique, as I've said.
Quote
And it's exactly that kind of elitiest, purist attitude that keeps Nintendo struggling to gain more marketshare.
*ahem*
"I don't know if I'd like Nintendo catering to people who make console decisions based on color, though, and I don't think Nintendo wants to cater to those people, either. Then again, maybe it's for that very reason sales have been slipping."
I said that exact same thing, man.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 30, 2003, 02:38:41 AM
(They are stationed in Florida, I think...)
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 30, 2003, 03:27:23 AM
the big differance is that this is microsoft's FIRST attempt at a console and they already have captured the same market share as Nintendo worldwide and have surpassed them in NA. Go ask any room full of grade 7 students what system they would rather have, gamecube or x-box, and I bet x-box wins hands down. This is a big problem. Now ask a group of 30 year olds what the names of Microsofts and nintendos consoles are called and I bet you have a lot more who know the x-box.
Hype and advertising work, plain and simple, why the hell do you think mc donalds has 30,000 stores worldwide, because of the great food?
Post by: StRaNgE on October 30, 2003, 03:51:13 AM
Post by: The Omen on October 30, 2003, 04:46:20 AM
Quote
And you're saying the Xbox's sales are GOOD? The thing is selling no better than the Gamecube in every region, and since we're under the impression that the Gamecube's sales need a lot of work, why aren't we under the impression that the XBox's sales need a lot of work? Yes, MS took the hype for the XBox a long way, but it's still pretty much in 3rd place, behind a company that doesn't use enough hype, so obviously they haven't mastered the technique, as I've said.
I'm saying they're better than they would've been. Nintendo should've been able to take second with ease, just because they been around so long . Xbox stole a percentage of perspective GC buyers, and it shows in the sales. You proved my point with the last line there.
Quote
behind a company that doesn't use enough hype, so obviously they haven't mastered the technique, as I've said.
Barely behind Nintendo. Had Nintendo hyped, like you've admitted they don't, sales would've been far better, and the xbox would have been a distant 3rd. The general population/casual gamer buys into hype, and thats the sect. that Nintendo is missing.
Post by: egman on October 30, 2003, 05:37:08 AM
If the video game industry is going to be the place where the battle of convergence is going to play out, then I don't see Nintendo ever becoming number one again. Sony and MS are waging a war that is far greater than the game industry, and unfortunately Nintendo is really hurting from it. Nintendo has said in the past that they consider themselves a toy company--their console is designed first and foremost to sell their various games and peripherals. They could care less about the other stuff because they are not selling MEDIA in general like Sony and MS. However, this philosophy is clashing with what is percieved as the true direction for videogames. There isn't a whole lot Nintendo can to compete directly against MS and Sony that would make sense or not be risky. Nintendo shouldn't make a entertainment hub if they are not interested in moving outside of games. Nintendo is a software company at their core;MS and Sony are big media using videogames as the birth place for convergence products to replace the PC and other stand alone appliances. Nintendo's core philosophy hurts them more than anything in competing with MS and Sony.
However, the new add campaign is showing a different direction. Nintendo is doing what they failed to do at the beginning of the GC's life, which is clearly seperate it from MS and Sony's consoles. One poster at GA made a really good point about Nintendo providing an alternative. MS and Sony are going after the same crowd with a similar look and message--Nintendo in a sense has a responsiblity to consumers and to their survival to actually provide a clear alternative. We would be dealing with some serious saturation in the market if Nintendo just up and followed MS and Sony to the letter. On top of that, it would probably facilitate their demise because people will see through the facade. Nintendo hasn't fooled anyone in the past about being cool or on the cutting edge; consumers have more sense than that so Nintendo is ultimately doing themselves a favor by finally accepting this and developing a campaign that somehow gets to what Nintendo really is--whimsical and magical. How this will play out, I don't know. However I do think that Nintendo can at least build a pretty secure niche if they can keep up their quality and not betray those elements that make them Nintendo just to cash so they can cash in on the trends.
One other comment I want to make is about the simplicity matter. Some people are blowing it out of proportion. Streamlining design should not be looked at as a poison to Nintendo's games. There have been misses such as Kirby (which I think is actually far better then what it is credited for) and Wario World (could've used a difficulty setting or removal or adjustment of the coins for life system), but their have been behind many solid games such as SSB:Melee and Animal Crossing which expound the current Nintendo philosophy on design. People should not assume Nintendo is trying to cut corners or regress. I think there are some valid criticisms they have made about the game industry and themselves in game design that keep video games from being truly mainstream in the sense of getting the whole family around the console, rather than just some hardcore geeks or "cool" 20 something males who are pretty easy to sell to. The VG industry still hasn't found a solid way to sell to girls for instance outside of the typical Mary Kate and Ashley shovelware. I think most of us are too caught up in the hardcore nature of games to realize the industry can and does alienate potential customers. Complex game design is one the biggest offenders in that sense if you compare games today to games in the past. It's been a long time since we have some truly break through games like Donkey Kong or Pac-Man. GTA is close, but now we are going into the realm of acceptable content in games, which is for another thread.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 30, 2003, 06:54:17 AM
Variety is very important and I feel that's the big flaw with the "quality over quantity" approach. For a company that used to be known for being innovative and taking risks Nintendo has been trying a little to hard lately to make sure everything is a potential hit and thus every second game they publish has the Mario license. Variety is hard to come by when you're not the market leader but I think the variety of Nintendo's lineup would increase if they stopped relying on their franchise characters so much. Instead of having Hudson, Treasure, and Camelot work on Mario Party, Wario World, and Mario Golf have them work on their own original content. It might not sell better then another Mario spinoff but it will provide a more well-rounded lineup that in the end may attract more console buyers. Plus you never know what game will be the next huge hit. I don't think anyone knew that Goldeneye, Pokemon, or GTA3 would be the huge system sellers they became. I know for a fact that the next big seller for Nintendo won't be another Mario spinoff but an original game from Camelot COULD be.
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 30, 2003, 07:05:37 AM
Fun fact of the day: Camelot is working on a new RPG..."spinoff"?...I think not...
Post by: Ian Sane on October 30, 2003, 07:25:26 AM
Post by: The Omen on October 30, 2003, 07:48:34 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 30, 2003, 07:55:30 AM
Who says those games have to be made period? My whole arguement is that there are too many spinoffs. If they limited Mario to just the platforming games and Mario Kart I would have no problem. Does there have to be a new Mario Party every year for example?
Post by: The Omen on October 30, 2003, 09:38:54 AM
Quote
Who says those games have to be made period? My whole arguement is that there are too many spinoffs. If they limited Mario to just the platforming games and Mario Kart I would have no problem. Does there have to be a new Mario Party every year for example?
Because the demand is there for the games to be made. There will be a new Mario Party every year until we die as long as it sells. I mean the drinking games alone are reason enough to own Mario Party. And Mario Tennis rules!
Post by: BlkPaladin on October 30, 2003, 09:58:05 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 30, 2003, 10:00:47 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 30, 2003, 10:32:48 AM
Nothing on Gamecube has sold like hotcakes. Nothing comparible to the big N64 sellers anyway. I'm just saying that, as good as these games are, having a billion Mario spinoffs makes the Cube library very one-dimensional. If Nintendo concentrated on more original games it would have more variety and thus would be more appealing to the average person who isn't gaga over Mario. Although YOU and most Nintendo fans (including myself to a point) like the endless Mario and Pokemon spinoffs not everyone feels the same way. I think Cube sales reflect that sticking to the mascots doesn't drawn in buyers like it used to.
I'm not saying those games are crap. I'm just suggesting a way for Nintendo to have a more varied lineup and attract a wider audience with their next console.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on October 30, 2003, 10:40:34 AM
Post by: WesDawg on October 30, 2003, 11:00:31 AM
I didn't know that the 1080 people were an American company, but I guess it makes sence looking at their products. I hope the new one sells well, but it seems kinda dumb to put out with SSX3 on the streets now. I'd kill for a GC Golden Sun. Wasn't there a rummer of one at some point? I remember hearing that Camelot was making a GC RPG. Oh well, time will tell.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 30, 2003, 11:26:59 AM
Quote
The big differance is that this is microsoft's FIRST attempt at a console and they already have captured the same market share as Nintendo worldwide and have surpassed them in NA.
Compare Microsoft's first foray into home consoles with Nintendo and Sony's- is it really anything to be talking about? And in both those instances their success was achieved without hype.
Post by: Ian Sane on October 30, 2003, 12:01:58 PM
That's a cool point I never thought of before. Nintendo and Sony became the market leader on their first try. Microsoft's first effort is more akin to Sega's Master System.
Post by: Round Eye on October 30, 2003, 12:15:55 PM
I know this is all supposedly part of MS master plan, and they like to use the 'loss leader' to gain market share. But, to say that the one system that is making money for the company is not doing as well as the system that is losing money sounds crazy to me.
Welcome to crazy world.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 30, 2003, 12:52:17 PM
With the domination Sony had at the time of the x-box release it didnt stand a chance. The fact the MS has made the x-box a household name, even with Sony being as dominant as they are, says a lot for it. I am not saying the x-box is better than the cube, or the PS2, all I am saying is that MS has impressed me by making the box as well known as it is, especially when you figure in the sheer amount of people who hate MS thanks to windows.
I also agree with Ian, the time has come to let Mario slowly slip into the darkness. I am sick of all the sequals, and spin offs that we see, and not just by Nintendo, everyone is on the action. Be it movies, games, tv, everyone is simply trying to cash in, and in most cases originality is lost because of it.
I look at it like this, I really dont care what ends up happening next generation. Would I like Nintendo to do well, Yes, because I really like their hardware, it is their games that no longer seem to do it for me, that is why for people like me to stay with nintendo they need to get and keep as much third party support as possible. I f not, so be it, I feel just as good playing games on any system as long as I like the game.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 30, 2003, 12:54:04 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 30, 2003, 01:09:31 PM
Hey I never said fade Mario out completely. I just think they should give the spinoff habit a rest. The Mario platformers should always be a part of Nintendo's lineup.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 30, 2003, 01:14:59 PM
While I agree that Nintendo needs to diversify, they already are to some extent. And besides that, you can't act like your opinion on Nintendo's games is the way it IS. Nintendo's lack or constant originality is not the reason for poor sales, either- the same old crap sells over and over again on other systems. Not to say that it ISN'T a problem, not at all, just that it isn't THE problem. The real reason Nintendo's isn't doing as good as they should is lack of 3rd party support- Nintendo has a particular style of games, as does every developer, and without the necessary 3rd parties to fill in the of the gaps, the only people Nintendo's consoles really attract are Nintendo fans. It really goes back to what Ty said- people don't buy a PS2 for Sony's 1st and 2nd party games, they buy it for the massive amount of variation among the 3rd party titles- there's quite literally something there for everyone, and reaching as many people as possible is what has made the PS2 so popular. You can see this to a smaller extent on the XBox- while it's 3rd party support is much weaker than the PS2's, it's still stronger than the Gamecubes, and I think that's really the only reason Microsoft has made it this far. When you think about it, you're expecting Nintendo to provide the same diversity seen on the PS2 by literally hundreds of 3rd parties by themselves, and if you ask me, they're doing a tremendois job of it. I SERIOUSLY doubt Sony or Microsoft would be doing near as well as Nintendo is given the same amount of 3rd party support- in fact, I think they'd outright fail, so it's a testament to Nintendo's force that they've continued as successfully as they have despite being basically the only major supporter of their consoles. If Nintendo can win back the 3rd party support they had in the NES and SNES days, there would be nothing to keep them from dominating the industry. But until then, they're only attracting fans of their own quirky style, and although it's gotten them this far, they're going to need some real 3rd party support if they expect to go any further.
"Hey I never said fade Mario out completely. I just think they should give the spinoff habit a rest. The Mario platformers should always be a part of Nintendo's lineup."
With that I definitely agree- Nintendo is relying too much on their characters to keep them going, which is not only the reason I think people are getting sick of them but also the reason they have trouble introducing new characters. That's why I was pretty dissapointed that Nintendo's drum game, which is a great way to diversify, is being based in the Donkey Kong franchise, and although it doesn't have as many spinoffs as Mario does, now is definitely not the time to start. I was also really against this Tetra Trackers game- up until now Zelda has always remained pure, with no money grabbing spinoffs. I think Nintendo's afraid that if they don't incorporate their tried and true characters, certain games will fail, but I think that they'd find that with a little push that quite simply isn't true. I understand games like Mario Tennis and Golf are very well made games, but what's to keep them from being their own franchises with their own characters?
Post by: Ian Sane on October 30, 2003, 01:24:41 PM
Yeah but that didn't happen until the 16 bit generation. How do we know that MS won't do the same thing next gen?
"Nintendo has a particular style of games, as does every developer, and without the necessary 3rd parties to fill in the of the gaps, the only people Nintendo's consoles really attract are Nintendo fans."
Treasure, Camelot, and Hudson ARE third parties. So why are they just making more Mario games instead of filling in the gaps like Nintendo needs third parties to do?
Post by: thecubedcanuck on October 30, 2003, 01:35:26 PM
because Nintendo wants to try and tell third parties what they can and cant do. Give them licenses and let them make whatever the hell they want. Every week when I go to my local block buster I see NIN section getting smaller and smaller as they make room for more ps2 and x-box titles. I will use freedom fighters as an example, they have for both PS2 and Box, but no cube, when I asked them why, they said, because nothing rents worth a damn for the gamecube.
How do you get NIN loyalists to try other games? Most people write off anything third party as junk even before it released, I see it here all the time. The same goes the other way as well, many non nintendo fans, think anything released by NIN will be kiddy without even trying it. So how do they win here?
Post by: Dynamitega on October 30, 2003, 01:45:28 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on October 30, 2003, 01:48:12 PM
I think that's a different issue. I find that most rental stores decided that the Cube wasn't worthshile before it was released and never had a decent Cube selection. This naturally led to less rentals. It was self-fulfilling prophecy. I rarely rent Cube games from Blockbuster because they have never EVER from the very start had a good Gamecube selection so I rent from somewhere else. I feel that part of the reason the Cube isn't as popular as it perhaps should be is because some stores and rental places treated it as a non-contender from the beginning which had an effect on the customers.
I think that if Nintendo did a big promotional thing with Blockbuster for the N5 launch (maybe some rent before you buy promotion or Blockbuster gets rental units before the system goes on sale) then that by itself would greatly help the low rentals issue and get some hype going.
Post by: Berny on October 30, 2003, 01:57:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
I think that if Nintendo did a big promotional thing with Blockbuster for the N5 launch (maybe some rent before you buy promotion or Blockbuster gets rental units before the system goes on sale) then that by itself would greatly help the low rentals issue and get some hype going.
As I recall, Ninty–Buster relations are at ZERO. If they struck a deal like THAT though....man I would so go there every time I want to rent a movie and/or game.
Wait....that's pracitcally my only option anyways. Anyways, they should do that. I will be happy. If I am happy, no one gets hurt! Therefore, everyone (although in a constant state of fear) is HAPPY!Post by: mouse_clicker on October 30, 2003, 02:04:12 PM
They're all like miniature versions of Nintendo, though- even Sega, arguably Nintendo's biggest supporter, appeals to the same group of people. They;re not reaching new and varied groups of people. I'm talking about a diverse group of 3rd parties, not only from Japan, but from America and Europe, as well, and not just the big ones (although that's a start), but just about every 3rd party out there. It's those little companies that usually make the niche games Ty was talking about.
Post by: The Omen on October 30, 2003, 04:05:30 PM
Quote
Nintendo had a monopoly on the industry with the NES, but that didn't seem to stop Sega from taking away half the market from them- Sony's dominion is no excuse for Microsoft's poor entry.
Half the market? The only time Sega made any inkling of headway was when they released the Genesis first, beating Nintendo to the punch. By the time the SNES was out 6 months, Nintendo regained their stranglehold on the market, and Genesis was a very distant second.
Quote
That is a good point, everyone is tallking about how unsuccesfull Nintendos Cube has been, but hardly any mention of Xbox's mediocre launch into the console biz is made. The Xbox is losing money overall, you can't say the same thing about the Cube. Peoples scale for success and failure seems very scewed to me.
Who the hell said any of that in this thread? The fact that MS even made a dent with the Xbox is remarkable to me, and thats all thats really been stated by numerous people here.
Quote
Compare Microsoft's first foray into home consoles with Nintendo and Sony's- is it really anything to be talking about? And in both those instances their success was achieved without hype.Quote
A couple of problems with that . Nintendo went unchallenged when they released the NES. Atari,Coleco vision and intellivision were dead. If you were to buy a gaming machine, the NES was the only choice. And would you admit that hype has become a mainstay in the last 10 years, moreso than 20 years ago? With the advent of the net, and the growing sales of game systems, budgets also rose , which in turn spurred on more in your face, and more frequent, advertising. You cant compare 20years ago to 2 years ago. Things have gotten so much bigger, its just not even close.
And if you dont think the Playstation was hyped, it most definately was. There were commercials galore all bragging about 32 bit and the CD medium. I remember, because at the time , i had my trusty SNES, and i just kept seeing ads for Playstation all over the place.Quote
Nothing on Gamecube has sold like hotcakes
I'm quite certain Mario party sold a ton in Japan, and did well here. I'm not saying a million copies, but i bet it sold in the top ten of GC games for the year.
Post by: Lord of the Flying Monkey on October 30, 2003, 04:10:16 PM
I'm just kidding by the way
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 30, 2003, 04:16:41 PM
Quote
A couple of problems with that . Nintendo went unchallenged when they released the NES.
Wrong- Sega had the Master System.
Quote
Atari,Coleco vision and intellivision were dead. If you were to buy a gaming machine, the NES was the only choice.
Exactly! Atari crashed the industry- no toy store in America even wanted to hear the word videogame. Nintendo not only had a hugely successful first console, but completely and singlehandedly revived the entire industry in the US. Granted, the XBox does have more competition than the NES, but I think it's arguable that reviving and industry and making a profit off it is harder than breaking into an already hugely popular industry and make a profit off it.
Quote
And would you admit that hype has become a mainstay in the last 10 years, moreso than 20 years ago? With the advent of the net, and the growing sales of game systems, budgets also rose , which in turn spurred on more in your face, and more frequent, advertising. You cant compare 20years ago to 2 years ago. Things have gotten so much bigger, its just not even close.
That wasn't my point- my point was that the NES was incredibly popular without Nintendo having to rely on hype. Yes, I agree hype is much more commonplace now than then, but that doesn't mean it's a necessary tool to become successful.
Quote
And if you dont think the Playstation was hyped, it most definately was. There were commercials galore all bragging about 32 bit and the CD medium. I remember, because at the time , i had my trusty SNES, and i just kept seeing ads for Playstation all over the place.
And it didn't do much, did it? the Playstation had a rather poor launch, and sold rather badly for the 2 years between it and the N64's launch. Only when the N64 had a deplorable launch selection and nothing to follow it up did the PSX finally start gaining momentum. the PSX's success had nothing to do with hype and everything to do with Nintendo's faulter.
Omen:
Quote
Half the market? The only time Sega made any inkling of headway was when they released the Genesis first, beating Nintendo to the punch. By the time the SNES was out 6 months, Nintendo regained their stranglehold on the market, and Genesis was a very distant second.
Not quite- Nintendo barely won that generation, and even that is still in dispute. Sega had nearly half of the market and Nintendo had the other half- Sega was not in a "distant second".
Quote
Who the hell said any of that in this thread? The fact that MS even made a dent with the Xbox is remarkable to me, and thats all thats really been stated by numerous people here.
The point wasn't about just this thread, but the media and industry as a whole. 3rd parties are dropping their support for the Gamecube, Nintendo is getting flack from both consumers and publications, all because of Nintendo's supposedly poor sales. Why, though, has there been no talk about Microsoft? People only talked about Nintendo's earnings when they (for the first time ever) went in the red, but why has there been very little talk about the incredible amount of money Microsoft is losing? Nintendo made a huge profit with the NES, and I'm sure Sony made a sizable profit with the Playsation, so why is it suddenly okay for Microsoft to lose money on their first console? When you think about it, in the modern era of gaming only the companies who had very successful entry consoles have stuck around- Sega's gone under, Atari exists in name alone, 3DO went out of business, and do we even need to talk about the likes of the CDi or the Turbo Grfx 16? If we're looking at trends, Microsoft won't be around much longer. But that's only if we look at trends.
Quote
I'm quite certain Mario party sold a ton in Japan, and did well here. I'm not saying a million copies, but i bet it sold in the top ten of GC games for the year
Super Smash Bros. Melee certainly sold EXTREMELY well.
Post by: the_zombie_luke on October 30, 2003, 04:23:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker<br
The point wasn't about just this thread, but the media and industry as a whole. 3rd parties are dropping their support for the Gamecube, Nintendo is getting flack from both consumers and publications, all because of Nintendo's supposedly poor sales. Why, though, has there been no talk about Microsoft? People only talked about Nintendo's earnings when they (for the first time ever) went in the red, but why has there been very little talk about the incredible amount of money Microsoft is losing? Nintendo made a huge profit with the NES, and I'm sure Sony made a sizable profit with the Playsation, so why is it suddenly okay for Microsoft to lose money on their first console? When you think about it, in the modern era of gaming only the companies who had very successful entry consoles have stuck around- Sega's gone under, Atari exists in name alone, 3DO went out of business, and do we even need to talk about the likes of the CDi or the Turbo Grfx 16? If we're looking at trends, Microsoft won't be around much longer. But that's only if we look at trends.
I wholeheartedly agree. I don't see how Microsoft is going to profit with X-Box 2 either. Heck, they are spending more than $500 million on advertising for the current box. If Microsoft wants to make the next X-Box have even more features than the current X-Box, they will lose even more money.
Post by: The Omen on October 30, 2003, 04:40:19 PM
Quote
Exactly! Atari crashed the industry- no toy store in America even wanted to hear the word videogame. Nintendo not only had a hugely successful first console, but completely and singlehandedly revived the entire industry in the US. Granted, the XBox does have more competition than the NES, but I think it's arguable that reviving and industry and making a profit off it is harder than breaking into an already hugely popular industry and make a profit off it.
What i was pointing out was being the only game in town, whoever bought a system bought the NES. It was great that Nintendo revived the industry, but that wasnt the focalpoint of my argument. When Nintendo revived the gaming industry, the NES was alone.
Quote
And it didn't do much, did it? the Playstation had a rather poor launch, and sold rather badly for the 2 years between it and the N64's launch. Only when the N64 had a deplorable launch selection and nothing to follow it up did the PSX finally start gaining momentum. the PSX's success had nothing to do with hype and everything to do with Nintendo's faulter.
And they continued to hype, and still do, and how is the Playstation brand doing? Its one of the best selling brands ever. Sony is far more aggresive in their advertising, and have been , and i dont think its a coincidence that they dominate the market .
Quote
Not quite- Nintendo barely won that generation, and even that is still in dispute. Sega had nearly half of the market and Nintendo had the other half- Sega was not in a "distant second".
You're correct, for some reason i was remembering when the Saturn came out. Though i think the SNES did eventually overtake the Genesis because of the stupid CD add on and the horrible cd games.
Quote
The point wasn't about just this thread, but the media and industry as a whole. 3rd parties are dropping their support for the Gamecube, Nintendo is getting flack from both consumers and publications, all because of Nintendo's supposedly poor sales. Why, though, has there been no talk about Microsoft?
I agree with that. In no way did i state that the XBOX is selling great, merely Nintendo has lost consumers to MS because of the hype machine. I seriously dont think the Xbox would be close to the GC if the GC was marketed aggressively. Thats the only point im making. In terms of publications not mentioning Xbox lackluster sales, thats because people like to kick the former kings, Nintendo, while , in their eyes, theyre down.
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 30, 2003, 04:58:20 PM
Quote
What i was pointing out was being the only game in town, whoever bought a system bought the NES. It was great that Nintendo revived the industry, but that wasnt the focalpoint of my argument. When Nintendo revived the gaming industry, the NES was alone
And my point was that it should have been the focalpoint of your argument.
You can't even began to discuss the reasons for the NES's success without first discussing how Nintendo singlehandedly revived the industry. Had Nintend simply released the NES, it would not have sold near as well as it did- in fact it would have flopped, despite being the only console on the market. Nintendo first had to restore interest in videogames period, and I think that that is a very important obstacle you can't just pass over.Quote
You're correct, for some reason i was remembering when the Saturn came out. Though i think the SNES did eventually overtake the Genesis because of the stupid CD add on and the horrible cd games.
And then when we start thinking about Sega's CD addon, we eventually get to the Playstation. Oh what a tangled web we weave.
Post by: Mario on October 30, 2003, 06:15:00 PM
And, am i gonna have to bust out some sales charts on some of your asses?
Post by: mouse_clicker on October 30, 2003, 06:18:23 PM
Post by: ultrafamicom on October 31, 2003, 12:13:30 PM
Quote
How long was the NES out here in the U.S. before the Master System? Exactly what i'm talking about. I know the NES was released unchallenged. Of course i know the Master system was the main competition later.
The NES came out fall/late 1985 - The Sega Master System came out around June 1986, so the NES was out about 6 months before.
In Japan, the Famicom came out in late 1983, the Sega Mark III sometime in 1984. There was a relaunch by Sega, of the Japanese Master System that was more like ours, in 1986 I believe.
Post by: ultrafamicom on November 02, 2003, 04:20:40 PM
As long as Nintendo has billions in cash, it can survive in the console environment
Post by: mouse_clicker on November 02, 2003, 04:28:56 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 02, 2003, 04:32:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
Nintendo should lay off Mario (or Pokemon) for about 3 to 5 years, and then have it come storming back! I thought there were doing this with Donkey Kong, having the next DK game be for the launch of Nintendos next console, but alas, here come a port of DKC and Donkey Konga.
I would be incredibly pissed if that happened...I need my Mario and Pokemon fix to live...
Post by: The Omen on November 02, 2003, 05:47:32 PM
Post by: ultrafamicom on November 07, 2003, 03:37:37 AM
