Post by: ruby_onix on May 14, 2004, 04:07:53 PM
I made a rough count of the "third party" games at E3 (not counting the GameBoy, NDS, NGage, or PSP, of course). It's not exact, but here's basically how it breaks down.
The number of 3rd party GameCube exclusives: 5
(Want me to name them all? "Amazing Island" from Sega. "Baten Kaitos" from Namco. "Resident Evil 4" from Capcom. "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" from Atari. And "WWE Day of Reckoning from THQ".)
The number of multiplatform games that include the GameCube: 56
The number of multiplatform games that exclude the GameCube (meaning PS2/XBox games): 66. If you want to include the PC as a console, the number shoots up to 85.
Wanna look at how the PS2 and XBox fared?
Number of 3rd party PS2 exclusives: 70
Number of times the PS2 was excluded (meaning GCN/XBox games): 2
Or if you toss in the XBox-PC ports: 16
Number of 3rd party XBox exclusives: 20
Number of times the XBox was excluded (meaning GCN/PS2 games): 11
Or if you toss in the PS2-PC ports: 17
I don't even feel like blaming Nintendo for this. They've had a damn fine show with just their own games, and the exclusive games they managed to arm-twist out of third parties, so I don't really see any excluse for this kind of lackluster attitude the GameCube's been getting since day one.
Third parties = Teh Suxxzors. They can all rot on the NGage for all I care.
Post by: Draygaia on May 14, 2004, 04:42:27 PM
I also blame Nintendo partially in a way. They've done so much for us in gaming entertainment that I think they should focus much more time getting companies to make their hit sellers on the GCN and actually well made, maybe even exclusive. Also lack of online support but I think I'll count on the DS for that. Its free.
3rd parties
-they wonder why their CRAPPY ports don't sell
-by now they should know that when you multiplatform its obvious that the PS2 and xbox versions will sell more. They should put more exlclusives on the GCN something they expect might happen for once.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 14, 2004, 05:23:49 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 14, 2004, 08:49:05 PM
Anyhoo it doesn't really matter because we've got Zelda. That's the game that's going to sell Cubes. GTA3 and Halo have shown that one game alone can trigger massive sales. Combined with the cheap console price I think Zelda has the potential to be the Cube's Donkey Kong Country, the game that ultimately decides what place the console finishes in the console wars. If Zelda doesn't sell Cubes to mainstream gamers NOTHING will and Nintendo might as well officially become niche developers.
As regards to multiplatform games I've always associated them with low quality since the 16 bit era. Although there are exceptions most of the best games of all time were, at least for a period of time, exclusive to one system. Back in the day if a game was being made for the SNES and Genesis at the same time there was a really good chance it would suck. Earthworm Jim and Mortal Kombat II would be exceptions but most of time the exclusives were always the really good stuff. It even happened with the N64. How many games that were available on both the N64 and the PSX were really worth buying? Very few.
And it makes perfect sense too. An exclusive game is going to be optimized for the console's hardware and controller, and it's going to be designed to best suit the interests of the userbase. Mario Kart for example would not sell as well on the Xbox because the Xbox fanbase doesn't like those types of games. By that same token something like Morrowind would probably sell like crap with the Cube userbase. A multiplatform game is going to go for the lowest common denominator in terms of graphics and sound and will base it's controller on the market leader's design thus automatically ensuring that the port is going to be underwhelming for at least one userbase. And in order to be marketable the game has to be generic and generic games are kind of dull. Thus it makes sense why these games don't sell as well particularly on the Cube as the Nintendo fanbase has been "trained" by Nintendo to be more interested in innovative games.
The ideal approach is to make only exclusives and in the case of a big hit (ie: GTA big, not Cel Damage "big") release delayed ports. The exclusives will make better use the hardware and can be marketed to which userbase best suits them. Then if one of those games becomes a huge hit and has a lot of buzz going it's ported (not in a lazy fashion) to the other platforms to cash in. Tony Hawk's Pro Skater and Resident Evil both did this very effectively. Ironically Sega, whose strategy has been criticized, has the best idea. The problem is they suck at it, releasing games on the Xbox that appeal to the XBox userbase the LEAST of the three options and failing to port some of their bigger hits (Soccer Slam gets ported, Virtua Fighter 4 doesn't?).
Post by: akdaman1 on May 14, 2004, 09:29:16 PM
Games and items such as Mario 128 and the new GCN perihepal were all missing, Silicon Knights new game and an explantation on what happened, Fire Emblem and Squares new GCN game, Konamis exclusive and Buzz ( Miyamotos DS game ) are all yet to be revealed. A chance to show off a new trailer for Zelda?
All this would be perfect for Spaceworld. Also companys like Namco and N-space can show off updated versions of thier game. Also N-space can reveal Hope.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 14, 2004, 10:28:24 PM
Considering Spaceworld is Nintendo, they would have more Nintendo-only software there.
And clearly, if there IS a Spaceworld this year, then what's being shwon now at E3 isn't all of it.
The thing with Nintendo players is that there is such a great amount of HIGH quality first-party software that it makes it hard for the 3rd parties to compete. Pretty much anything on a Nintendo console is going to be compared to their games. So Prince of Persia would be compared to Zelda, Crash Nitro Kart to Mario Kart, Spyro to Mario.....
So why bother buying a questionable 3rd aprty game when you can buy a NIntendo game, ASSURED that its going to be great?
Post by: jasonditz on May 15, 2004, 09:36:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
That really sucks. Only getting a quarter of the amount of exclusives the Xbox has doesn't make sense. The Cube userbase is obviously much more than a quarter of the Xbox's. I guess third parties feel that there can only be two consoles at a time. Why they chose the Xbox over the Cube doesn't make much sense though. Well I guess it does now but it's been like this from the beginning. A lot of third parties decided what consoles to support before the consoles launched. Why they chose the newcomber over the veteran doesn't really make sense particularly when the newcomber has a history of monopolizing tactics.
The Cube userbase also gets a vast number of high quality 1st and 2nd party titles, all of which are exclusive. The 3rd party exclusives aren't just competing against each other, they're competing against the 1st and 2nd parties.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 15, 2004, 10:50:05 AM
Quote
The Cube userbase also gets a vast number of high quality 1st and 2nd party titles, all of which are exclusive. The 3rd party exclusives aren't just competing against each other, they're competing against the 1st and 2nd parties.
Exactly- since 3rd parties only have eachother to compete with on the PS2 and XBox, those two consoles get many more games than the Gamecube. It's not Gamecube owners fault- as much as people like to paint hardcore Nintendo fans out to be arrogant and stuck up, we don't comprise the majority of Gamecube owners (if we did, Eternal Darkness would have sold incredibly well)- 3rd parties could fix their own problem of lack of interest if they would not only give us something to be interested in, but more things to be interested in, as well.
Post by: ruby_onix on May 15, 2004, 01:05:04 PM
When Nintendo makes a good game, and it pushes some hardware units, they complain "Yeah, but you made a good game on the system now. That's not good."
But that's just absurd, because things don't really work like that. I think I heard a figure once saying that Nintendo's first party games contribute to at most maybe a 10-15% drop in 3rd party game sales, compared to what the game sales "should be" at their hardware base level. "Average people" only ever really want to buy one or two of the "top notch" titles from Nintendo. The rest of their game purchases are somewhat random.
But for that extra little slice, they demand the logic-defying "self-fulfilling prophecy" that's been pulled off by Sony with the PS2.
And it doesn't even make sense, because in very short order, the PS2 got filled with some pretty great titles. MGS2 (and MGS3). Final Fantasy. Gran Turismo. Grand Theft Auto. Every sports title that comes out of EA. People want to compete with these games?!? Sure, Nintendo is hard to keep up with, but they're really only one great developer (maybe two).
And then you just look at the "scale" of it all. In America, the hardware installed bases are PS2: 30 million, XBox: 8 million, and GameCube: 7 million. The attach rate (games sold per-console) ain't bad either, with PS2: 8, XBox: 6.5, and GameCube: 6.
Then look at those E3 support numbers. Not only was there almost zero ("five", actually) "support" for the GameCube, but look at the "multiconsole" games. There were 120 "multiconsole" games at E3. The PS2 got snubbed twice. Not bad, considering everyone always says the PS2 is an outdated lemon. The XBox got snubbed 11 times. Not bad, considering how the XBox has sold squat in the region where most of these game-developers live. Now the GameCube, got snubbed 66 times! On games that were already being made as "multiconsole" games (not specialized system-exclusives, which there are a crapload of for other consoles anyways), more than 50% of developers chose not to even bother making a GameCube version at all.
That's just totally absurd. Developers are fighting each other tooth and nail for postion over each other at the bottom of a PS2 bargain bin. And they're selling their souls to Sony to do it. "Healthy competition? That's someone else's problem." Someone like Mikami makes it Capcom's job? "Frick no! Give us back that contract! Rip it up! Burn it! Write a new one for Sony! As we said, someone else's problem. Not ours. You can finish RE4 if you insist, but then let's get back to the clawing and biting."
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 15, 2004, 01:50:53 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 15, 2004, 02:21:26 PM
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 15, 2004, 04:10:14 PM
Im sick of those games... Somehow they sell enough to justify one after another... I think one good way for Nintendo to have third parties is the divy of liscences... They just seem to not do this enough... F-Zero, Star Fox, and the GB Zeldas... How bout Exitebike,Punch Out, ect ect... just lend them to third parties..
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 15, 2004, 04:23:09 PM
(And Mario Party to Hudson Soft, so it's not really a Ninty-developed game)
Post by: Mario on May 15, 2004, 04:24:02 PM
And about this whole third party thing, I really don't give a crap if we don't get generic joe gas station sim by generic developer #14 for GCN. "It simply doesn't matter".
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 15, 2004, 06:29:49 PM
You might like Mario Party, and thats fine but after a while they seem the same to me with the same mini games..
Crappy games sell well at times... The Matrix game for one and yes Third Parties do matter, maybe not the the Nintendo Hardcore faithfull but to gain access to that lucrative mainstream gamer market. those Generric developer games do matter.
Post by: Chongman on May 15, 2004, 07:30:19 PM
third parties are essentialy a numbers game, for the most part. When you walk into EB, what section impresses you the most? PS2 of course! Just because of the sheer number of games, its more impressive. Also, its like a random grab bag. For every, oh, 5-10 or so crappy, poor 3rd party games, you get one really nicely polished console seller. that's why nintendo needs em.
Post by: Urkel on May 15, 2004, 11:10:30 PM
I also don't get why 3rd parties refuse to release a Cube version of a game, even when there is no 1st or 2nd party title to compete with it. I mean, why does the Cube get so few RPGs? Nintendo seldom makes those kinds of games, yet most RPG makers decided "Let's only release RPGs on the PS2, so that we'll have more competition with other RPGs". See, Namco gets it. Why are they making ToS and Baten Kaitos for the Cube, even though it has so few RPGs on it? Oh, right. It's because the Cube has so few RPGs that it makes perfect sense to make them for it. It's beyond me why most would rather compete directly with the likes of Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior, and the million other smaller RPGs, when they could make a killing on the Cube with so little competition.
I'm really starting to get fed up with a lot of 3rd parties, especially with the ones that release shoddy ports. I find it extremely insulting when they do that, because they're essentially saying that if you don't own the most popular console, you don't deserve a good version of a game, or you're too dumb to tell the difference. Why are PS2 and Xbox owners the only ones that get ports with effort put into them? It's because they know they can't piss off their largest markets, and it doesn't matter how they treat us. They'll just sell however many copies they can to the uninformed gamer that thinks the version they're buying is as good as the one that came out on the PS2 six months ago. PS2 owners get the royal treatment while us Gamecube peasants get the royal screwjob. They're not even the least bit concerned of their name being dragged through the mud because of it, because they know they can just blame Nintendo and its "kiddy" userbase for it not selling.
I would even go so far as to say that Konami is the same as these other companies, though they do it in a slightly different way. Instead of releasing crappy ports on the Cube, they simply release games that are crappy to begin with for the Cube. The PS2, and to a lesser extent the Xbox, get all the good stuff, while those of us who had the audacity to dare choose the console that has a smaller userbase gets the bottom of the barrel. Mickey Mouse and other forgettable crap. Remember, Konami is supposedly a top-tier developer. So why does the Cube get so much crap from them? Again, they don't care how they treat the customers of the console with the smallest userbase. They can get away with it. Konami gets accolades for each good game they release on PS2 or Xbox, but manages to make Nintendo look bad for each sh*tty Disney sports game on the Cube. Just blame Nintendo for being such a kiddy company, which is why they didn't release something like Silent Hill instead, and it deflects the fact that they're making bad games for the system. Oh, but Konami will always make sure to release the good Castlevania/Metroid rip-off rehashes for the GBA. Can't afford to piss off a userbase that big.
Konami can just go to hell. Twin Snakes doesn't make up for anything. Did you know that they almost let all the voice actors go, because the voice actors wanted to be paid the same amount they got for MGS2, but Konami was only willing to pay the same amount they got for doing the original MGS (which was supposedly very little). Cheap bastards. Fortunately, David Hayter was willing to give up part of his paycheck to the others. God, just imagine Twin Snakes with C-list voice actors. Again, Konami makes sure that the PS2 Metal Gear game gets the royal treatment, while they're barely willing to even pay the damn voice actors for a game they hardly even made. Don't forget the fact that they didn't even advertise the damn game. Yeah, most people blame Nintendo for not doing that. Konami's the publisher, it's their responsibility! What's next, should Nintendo start wiping Konami's ass for them?
...I think I went off on a bit of a tangent there.
Post by: BrianSLA on May 16, 2004, 12:57:19 AM
Better make that 4 exclusives. T3 Rise of the Machines came out last year for Xbox & PS2 around the time the actual movie released. That game sucked and got horrible reviews.
Post by: BrianSLA on May 16, 2004, 01:37:07 AM
It makes perfect sense when Gamecube owners don't buy their products or don't fit their sales demographic. Why waste money porting or creating an entirely new game that won't sell on the Gamecube? The Gamecube is for Nintendo fanatics and kiddie game fans. If the game is in some other genre you are A LOT better off making it a PS2 game and or Xbox game.
>> Why they chose the Xbox over the Cube doesn't make much sense though. Well I guess it does now but it's been like this from the beginning. <<
GTA 3 won't sell big on the Gamecube as it will on the Xbox. Pikimin won't sell on the Xbox as it did on the Gamecube. Games generally go where they sell big. If Gamecube owners bought games like crazy..... there would be a ton of games for the Cube. They don't sell, there aren't that many.
>> A lot of third parties decided what consoles to support before the consoles launched. Why they chose the newcomber over the veteran doesn't really make sense particularly when the newcomber has a history of monopolizing tactics. <<
Game companies would be tripping over themselves if Gamecube owners bought games and lots of them. It is only money and profit for them. Microsoft has also shown it will seriously advertise and make other companies games major hits ( Splinter Cell, KOTOR, etc.). And those games also latter become cross platform to sell more units later.
>> Anyhoo it doesn't really matter because we've got Zelda. That's the game that's going to sell Cubes. GTA3 and Halo have shown that one game alone can trigger massive sales. Combined with the cheap console price I think Zelda has the potential to be the Cube's Donkey Kong Country, the game that ultimately decides what place the console finishes in the console wars. <<
Yeah you got Zelda. Big deal. Seriously. It won't sell as big as HALO 2. It is like Wind Waker and Metroid Prime.... I come to these boards and all I see is how those two great titles will be mega massive system sellers....... NOPE! I have been on these boards for a very long time and when Metroid Prime was coming out and going basically head to head versus Splinter Cell all you guys here said MP would beat down SC big time and I said it wouldn't. Guess who was right. Yes I do think the new BETTER LOOKING Zelda will sell some systems, maybe even a good amount of systems....... BUT it won't beat HALO 2 and how many Xboxes it sells. It won't even be a contest..... the Xbox will blow away the GC in sales by a wide margin.
>> If Zelda doesn't sell Cubes to mainstream gamers NOTHING will and Nintendo might as well officially become niche developers. <<
Well I do think Zelda will sell Cubes...... it won't bring Nintendo into the #2 spot. This video game console generation is basically over. PS2 won by a landslide. Xbox came in second. Nintendo put on a ok show. This generation's game consoles are on the dying end of their lifespans..... no game or games are going to make people go out and buy in numbers older machines to change that. The next generation is close enough..... this generation is almost done.
As for the comment about Nintendo becoming niche developers....... they already are. They make great kiddie games / Nintendo type - style games. That isn't the mainstream gamer anymore.
Post by: Mario on May 16, 2004, 02:57:58 AM
Quote
GTA 3 won't sell big on the Gamecube as it will on the Xbox.
What makes you so sure of that? I'd think GTA3 would sell amazing on GameCube, better than what it did on Xbox.
Quote
This generation's game consoles are on the dying end of their lifespans..... no game or games are going to make people go out and buy in numbers older machines to change that. The next generation is close enough..... this generation is almost done.
Two and a half years is a whole generation to you? This generation is nearing the halfway mark, the way I see it. Nintendo GameCube is already ahead of Xbox in worldwide sales, and I believe that if Nintendo play their cards right, they will take over Xbox in North America too. There are still millions and millions of potential GCN owners who don't have GCNs yet, and it's up to Nintendo to attract them.
Post by: DrZoidberg on May 16, 2004, 05:06:58 AM
Quote
It makes perfect sense when Gamecube owners don't buy their products or don't fit their sales demographic. Why waste money porting or creating an entirely new game that won't sell on the Gamecube? The Gamecube is for Nintendo fanatics and kiddie game fans. If the game is in some other genre you are A LOT better off making it a PS2 game and or Xbox game.
lol. I heard that GCN controllers give off electric shocks to anyone with a cool factor above 10%, so no-one cool plays gamecube because they get electricuted.
Quote
Yeah you got Zelda. Big deal. Seriously. It won't sell as big as HALO 2. It is like Wind Waker and Metroid Prime.... I come to these boards and all I see is how those two great titles will be mega massive system sellers....... NOPE! I have been on these boards for a very long time and when Metroid Prime was coming out and going basically head to head versus Splinter Cell all you guys here said MP would beat down SC big time and I said it wouldn't. Guess who was right. Yes I do think the new BETTER LOOKING Zelda will sell some systems, maybe even a good amount of systems....... BUT it won't beat HALO 2 and how many Xboxes it sells. It won't even be a contest..... the Xbox will blow away the GC in sales by a wide margin.
Halol 2 isn't coming out because it will cut into sales of Halol 1
Post by: The Omen on May 16, 2004, 05:20:36 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 16, 2004, 05:37:20 AM
All sales can prove is which game was hyped the most, and means nothing when up against what game is better, so arguing about sales is pointless...My God, BrianSLA is starting one of those "My daddy can beat up your daddy" arguments, and guess what? It's childish, so stop...
Post by: Chongman on May 16, 2004, 06:09:42 AM
halo....xbox killer app
ocarina of time....best. game. ever.
halo 2....xbox killer app
legend of zelda....best. game. ever.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 16, 2004, 09:52:28 AM
I don't see how Halo 2 is going to be such a big system seller. If you're interested in Halo 2 odds are you already bought an Xbox for Halo 1. If you don't already own Halo I don't see why you would have any interest in the sequel. Make no mistake, Halo 2 will sell really well but I don't think it will sell systems. The first game already did that.
Zelda at least has the advantage in that a lot of people who bought Ocarina of Time didn't buy a Cube for Wind Waker. Since the graphics turned off a lot of people I think it's fair to assume they'll come back now that the Zelda they were interested in is back. Ocarina of Time sold a lot of systems so don't be surprised if the game that returns to that style does the same.
"I have been on these boards for a very long time and when Metroid Prime was coming out and going basically head to head versus Splinter Cell all you guys here said MP would beat down SC big time and I said it wouldn't. Guess who was right."
I've never quite understood why Metroid Prime didn't sell systems like it probably should have. I mean that game had everything going for it. It appealed to older gamers, was undeniably cool, and it absolutely rocked. I think the reason SC did so well was because MS provided a huge incentive that Christmas for people to buy Xboxes with the JSRF double pack. People bought that and then bought Splinter Cell because it was the big new Xbox game at the time. Nintendo didn't provide any sort of deal for the Cube so there wasn't a big increase in Cube owners to buy MP. I'll bet if they had done the $99 price drop then, Metroid Prime would have sold much better.
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 16, 2004, 02:04:14 PM
MP2 looks bigger and better on all fronts.
Post by: Uncle Rich AiAi on May 16, 2004, 05:10:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Urkel
Konami can just go to hell. Twin Snakes doesn't make up for anything. Did you know that they almost let all the voice actors go, because the voice actors wanted to be paid the same amount they got for MGS2, but Konami was only willing to pay the same amount they got for doing the original MGS (which was supposedly very little). Cheap bastards. Fortunately, David Hayter was willing to give up part of his paycheck to the others. God, just imagine Twin Snakes with C-list voice actors. Again, Konami makes sure that the PS2 Metal Gear game gets the royal treatment, while they're barely willing to even pay the damn voice actors for a game they hardly even made. Don't forget the fact that they didn't even advertise the damn game. Yeah, most people blame Nintendo for not doing that. Konami's the publisher, it's their responsibility! What's next, should Nintendo start wiping Konami's ass for them?
Source please? I'm not calling you a liar, but I did not know about this (did anyone else?).
But yeah, Konami are pissing me off.
Post by: BrianSLA on May 16, 2004, 11:38:07 PM
No but this generation is on it's downside. Two years of good prime time and now the tech is old. All consoles have their prime time and then they plateau out and then peter out.
Post by: BrianSLA on May 16, 2004, 11:54:38 PM
It has nothing to do with cool or whatever..... it is about the type of game the audience the game is meant for. Nintendo fans like Mario & Pikimin type games. Sony and Microsoft fans like GTA3 and HALO type games.
>> Zelda and Halo 2 wont even be going head to head, will they? <<
I seriously doubt it but that wasn't my point. The poster I replied to said something to the effect that Zelda was going to be some super duper mega system seller that ' saves ' Nintendo and kicks it into second place or the like. I say it won't. I said big deal about Zelda and how all the other so called Gamecube system sellers have all basically fallen on their face. Yeah the new Zelda looks good and I am sure it is probably a great game but it isn't going to be some magic potion to cure all Nintendo's ills.
I just don't get why SOME or even a lot of Nintendo fanatics on this site need to have their system become #2 or why they bitch and complain about 3rd party support when the those games don't fit Nintnedo's demogrphics and aren't the type of games Nintendo gamers want. The overwhelming majority of those games aren't games that Nintendo owners want. They aren't kiddie / family / Nintendo type games. They are PS2 / Xbox type games. The games you guys want are the games you are getting. You guys are all freaky about the new Zelda..... you are getting it. The new Metroid.... you're getting that too. That is the reason you bought a Gamecube for Nintendo games... you are getting them.
Nintendo isn't going be number one again... atleast not in the forseeable future considering that mainstream gamers tastes are now different. Mainstream gamers want more mature / action games than kiddie family Nintendo games. Am I wrong? No I am not. If mainstream gamers wanted that, Nintendo would be #1 instead of #3. You guys would get all the third party games you want, etc.
Post by: BrianSLA on May 17, 2004, 12:10:31 AM
Thats your opinion. It isn't your cup of tea. I love the game and think it is one of the best games ever ( and most game sites and magazines and professional game developer awards ( GOTYs ) seem to agree w/ me ). But who cares. You like it or hate it. I like it or hate it. Who cares.
>> All sales can prove is which game was hyped the most, and means nothing when up against what game is better, so arguing about sales is pointless... <<
No sales don't prove which game was most hyped. Yes it sometimes does ( i.e. Enter the Matrix - a really crappy game ) but usually good games sell, crap games don't. As for why I was arguing about sales..... read my post. I was responding to the guy talking about how great the new Zelda is and how it will basically cure Nintendo's ills and sell like hotcakes and sell systems with it, etc.
>> My God, BrianSLA is starting one of those "My daddy can beat up your daddy" arguments, and guess what? It's childish, so stop... <<
Again read the post. I don't know where you get the idea it is a ' My Daddy can beat up your Daddy post ' when it isn't. My post is just a RESPONSE. Your post seems to say I am name calling without arguing anything and then goes on to say my post is childish. All my posts argue my points, agree with them or not. I argued my points and didn't name call. You on the other hand didn't argue anything and just name called. Yours is a childish post based on your own statements and post. As for your comment " so stop "..... it is a free country..... atleast where I am living. If you want to debate me..... POST something with atleast some point or arguement.
Post by: BrianSLA on May 17, 2004, 12:54:03 AM
>> don't see how Halo 2 is going to be such a big system seller. If you're interested in Halo 2 odds are you already bought an Xbox for Halo 1. If you don't already own Halo I don't see why you would have any interest in the seque<<
My response: PS2 owners. The Xbox is still superior hardware and while the PS2 is technologically maxed out and IMHO it is close to being maxed out on how many PS2 owners there can be. IF you want a PS2 and if you look at how many PS2s have been sold....... it is close to capacity. Those guys have nowhere else to go until the next generation comes out except Xbox and Gamecube and Gamecube doesn't appeal to them. The Xbox is now cheap and it is definitely better hardware. Nintendo Gamecube doesn't appeal to PS2 owners... they still have a place to go before the Next generation comes out. HALO still sells big because there are newer and newer Xbox owners.... first timers. Old Xbox owners are NOT buying ADDITIONAL copies of Halo that keeps Halo in the best seller lists. It is brand new first time Xbox owners. I have had one copy and one copy of Halo since launch. Newer copies of Halo don't have anything new on them. It is the first time new Xbox owners who keep buying Halo. AND once Halo 2 comes out and gets its massive advertising push it will sell mega millions and PS2 owners have a another and better reason to get a new reasonably cheap Xbox. My evidence to prove my point..... the current sales for the Xbox.
>> Zelda at least has the advantage in that a lot of people who bought Ocarina of Time didn't buy a Cube for Wind Waker. Since the graphics turned off a lot of people I think it's fair to assume they'll come back now that the Zelda they were interested in is back. <<
A good point BUT IMHO.... those same people who bought Ocarina of Time ( myself included ) - their tastes have changed. I bought Ocarina of Time but I am older now and it just isn't me anymore. If you bought Ocarina of Time and remember the N64 days..... you aren't a teeny bopper anymore. You are probably in your late teens or twenties or thirties. Chances are your tastes have changed and skewed older, more mature. Hard core Nintendo fanatics being the exception. The majority of those gamers are now mainstream adult mature title gamers. Look at the latest statistics of VG gamers.... they avg. 29 years old. Those are the guys making the PS2 #1 and Xbox second.
>> I've never quite understood why Metroid Prime didn't sell systems like it probably should have. I mean that game had everything going for it. It appealed to older gamers, was undeniably cool, and it absolutely rocked<<
I agree. Metroid Prime's problem was that is was on the Gamecube. If it was on Xbox or PS2 it would have been a major hit and sold alot more. It was on the wrong system. Plus the ads sucking didn't help either. Am I wrong ? Do you disagree that MP on PS2 or Xbox would have sold better?
>> I think the reason SC did so well was because MS provided a huge incentive that Christmas for people to buy Xboxes with the JSRF double pack. People bought that and then bought Splinter Cell because it was the big new Xbox game at the time. <<
here I disagree. People bought SC because SC is a kick butt game and it was handled properly and sold well because of it. It also sold like hot cakes in that they released it at Christmas time when all the best stuff comes out and people are buying tons of stuff. I am sure the JSRF double pack didn't hurt sales but SC sold because it was an awesome GOTY game that deserved to sell big. The problem w/ Metroid Prime was it was on the wrong system ... great game. wrong audience. Same w/ Eternal Darkness. Do you think ED would have sold as lousy as it did if it was on the PS2? Nope.
>> I'll bet if they had done the $99 price drop then, Metroid Prime would have sold much better. <<
Agreed. A cheap Gamecube at Xmas with a game worth buying would have sold alot more copies of MP.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 17, 2004, 07:52:41 AM
I don't see how this new Zelda is not "mature" enough for that demographic of gamers. It looks quite similar to Lord of the Rings which obviously has huge appeal across all all demographics. I can understand the lack of interest in Wind Waker because it looks like a cartoon but this looks very mature and realistic, far more so than Zelda ever has. If Final Fantasy appeals to older gamers I don't see how this doesn't. Plus in regards to age if you're 29 now you were 23 when Ocarina of Time came out and I doubt your game tastes would have changed much in that time. Odds are you would be even more open minded.
I don't think Metroid Prime was released on the wrong system. It's Metroid. It's a classic Nintendo franchise that appeals to Nintendo's fanbase. It didn't sell poorly it just didn't sell systems so it was limited by the size of the Cube userbase. Wind Waker and Super Mario Sunshine, two games that obviously appeal to the Cube demographic, hit the same roadblock as well in regards to sales. I don't think MP would have done much better on the Xbox because it's too experimental. It looks like an FPS but doesn't play like an FPS. The Xbox userbase tends to be the least appreciative of innovative game design. All of the big Xbox hits are very generic "safe" titles that play exactly like one expects them to. MP would quickly be dismissed as a sucky FPS because it has no mulitplayer and has lock-on aiming. On the PS2 its total sales probably would have been better but only because of the sheer size of the PS2 userbase. Realistically any game would sell better on the PS2. However in proportion to the total userbase I think MP would have sold better on the Cube.
The sales of Metroid Prime were limited by Nintendo's sh!tty marketing of the Cube. They only recently have started to create mainstream interest with the price drop. I don't think the problem has to do with demographics especially since kids are more likely to own a PS2. It entirely has to do with Nintendo doing a really sh!tty job of informing people of the quality of the Cube's lineup. Microsoft has always advertised the Xbox and its games as an amazing console with the best games that everyone MUST own. Nintendo has merely pointed out that the Cube and its games exist without giving any indication to their quality.
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 17, 2004, 09:04:01 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 17, 2004, 11:36:42 AM
Quote
"The only one worried about being too much of a kid is in fact a kid. We adults worry about not having enough time to be a kid."
-giroml
Post by: jasonditz on May 17, 2004, 12:52:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
Nintendo isn't going be number one again... atleast not in the forseeable future considering that mainstream gamers tastes are now different. Mainstream gamers want more mature / action games than kiddie family Nintendo games. Am I wrong? No I am not. If mainstream gamers wanted that, Nintendo would be #1 instead of #3. You guys would get all the third party games you want, etc.
Nintendo is already #1 unless for some reason handheld games don't count.
If the "Mainstream gamers" only want mature titles why do more people own GBAs than own PS2s?
Saying Nintendo is #3 based on Gamecube sales is like saying the EyeToy sold less than the Dreamcast and calling Sony #4.
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 17, 2004, 03:47:21 PM
I dont nececarily think that nintendo does not cater to older gamer,s it tries to go for both younger and older. Its simply not been fully succesfull in brining in more of the older demographic. Something that i admit is odd, since Nintendo seems to at least try. Stuff like bringing in Resident Evil, seems like an attempt, just not a good one.
Its simply the Nintendo policy, you can see it through its magazine, that tries to avoid covering mature games as much as possible. If games like RE and Eternall Darkness would have gotten as much hype on the magazine as other games did they would have sold better.
Nintendo can atract older gamers, it just takes a shift of policy.. Something that i dont know if Nintendo really wants to.
Btw. I dont think the reason third parties dont sell on the Cube, is because Nintendo fans prefer Nitendo games. I personally have plenty of third party games. I can name some examples of third party games that sold better on the cube. Soul calibur 2, Godzilla DAMM, Vietifull Joe, and Sonic Batle 2/Sonic Heroes.
These games either took advantage of the GCN hardware, provided superior exclusive options like Link in SC, or appeared on the Game Cube first. Problem is Third Parties dont actually acknowledge this only when games like Turok sell worst on the Gamecube.
If Third Parties would release games on time, and didnt look worse than their PS2 Versions then sales would increase. The Third Party situation is partly Nintendos fault, partly Nintendo fans fault and partly the actual third parties faults...
It is something that should be rectified if Nintendo plans on gaining market share on both its competitors.... Its possible but it takes alot of work
Post by: Chongman on May 17, 2004, 05:12:42 PM
Quote
Chances are your tastes have changed and skewed older, more mature. Hard core Nintendo fanatics being the exception.
Hmmm...let's recap...nintendo's pre-E3 conference when everyone in the room simultaneously peed their pants...
Right, nintendo fanatics are the exception. This is afterall, not an older, more mature game.
Post by: jasonditz on May 17, 2004, 05:54:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Perfect Cell
Nintendo isnt number one... Its arguable whether its number 2 or 3... Thats besides the point.
I'd love to know exactly how you're determining #1.
But even beyond that, if that's "besides the point", what the hell is the point?
I mean, if the measure of a video game company's success is not hardware shipped, profitability, or software sold... what's left?
Is the whole raison d'etre of the video game industry to sell the most hardware to 14 year olds who think they're part of the "mature" audience?
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 17, 2004, 05:59:32 PM
Quote
I mean, if the measure of a video game company's success is not hardware shipped, profitability, or software sold... what's left?
If you ask me, it's determined by the quality of their games, and in my opinion Nintendo is, has been, and always will be number 1.
Hell, even if you go by profitability, Nintendo's still number 1.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 17, 2004, 06:16:20 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 17, 2004, 06:21:12 PM
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 17, 2004, 08:05:09 PM
That hasnt been the case recently. I think the last Nintendo economic thing or whatever they call it, Nintendo was actually at a loss... It led to the price cuts with the Gamecube... Nintendo has been making money... until recently.
Post by: jasonditz on May 17, 2004, 08:07:09 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 17, 2004, 08:55:05 PM
Yeah I know that. That's what being number 1 in profits means. I'm just saying that fact isn't going to sell systems and thus doesn't provide the same advantage that being the percieved number 1 has. So it's a moot point in this situation. No one's going to think "hey technically Nintendo makes more profit so I'm buying an N5". They are going to think "man that PS2 was the best I'm so getting a PS3". Profit is important obviously but to a gamer it means nothing so in regards to system sales, hype, and third party support that technical number 1 doesn't matter.
Post by: jasonditz on May 17, 2004, 09:57:19 PM
And yet Nintendo is still the most profitable, still selling more hardware than anyone else, still producing many the highest quality titles in the industry.
So I guess my question is, why should they change?
I mean, Mario isn't going to sell to the 14-16 year old crowd... that's no reason he should go shoot a hooker.
Post by: Myxtika1 Azn on May 17, 2004, 10:48:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
A good point BUT IMHO.... those same people who bought Ocarina of Time ( myself included ) - their tastes have changed. I bought Ocarina of Time but I am older now and it just isn't me anymore. If you bought Ocarina of Time and remember the N64 days..... you aren't a teeny bopper anymore. You are probably in your late teens or twenties or thirties. Chances are your tastes have changed and skewed older, more mature. Hard core Nintendo fanatics being the exception. The majority of those gamers are now mainstream adult mature title gamers. Look at the latest statistics of VG gamers.... they avg. 29 years old. Those are the guys making the PS2 #1 and Xbox second.
If the people who did not buy Wind Waker because they were disappointed by the art style, I would say that their tastes did not change at all. If their tastes changed, why be disappointed at all? What kind of people would cry over something they do not care about?
Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
I agree. Metroid Prime's problem was that is was on the Gamecube. If it was on Xbox or PS2 it would have been a major hit and sold alot more. It was on the wrong system. Plus the ads sucking didn't help either. Am I wrong ? Do you disagree that MP on PS2 or Xbox would have sold better?
I DO disagree that MP would have sold better on the Xbox. First of all, going by YOUR statement, Xbox owners like Halo-type games. To me that means generic FPS. MP does not control like a generic FPS. Since MP does not control like a generic FPS, MP is not a Halo-type game. Therefore, MP would not sell as well, if at all, on the XBox.
On the PS2, it's possible that it could have sold as much because of its massive userbase. But then again, I think the controls would still be an issue.
Now, if you take out all the explorations and puzzles, and add in mindless shooting, unimaginative level designs, and repetitive gameplay, then MP might become a Halo-type game.
Quote
Originally posted by: BrianSLA
here I disagree. People bought SC because SC is a kick butt game and it was handled properly and sold well because of it. It also sold like hot cakes in that they released it at Christmas time when all the best stuff comes out and people are buying tons of stuff. I am sure the JSRF double pack didn't hurt sales but SC sold because it was an awesome GOTY game that deserved to sell big. The problem w/ Metroid Prime was it was on the wrong system ... great game. wrong audience. Same w/ Eternal Darkness. Do you think ED would have sold as lousy as it did if it was on the PS2? Nope.
What is so great about SC that makes it a "kick butt game"? Before the game came out, I read all these previews about how cool the lighting effects are. Big deal. The gameplay on that is based on frustrating trial-and-error. For being a highly trained spy/asassin/WhateverHeIsSupposedToBe, Fisher has sh*t for self-defense moves. It sucks to me. What was so good about it that made it game of the year? Cool light effects?
Another thing, I see you throw the word kiddie around a lot. What is the definition of kiddie? What are kiddie games? Are E-rated games considered kiddie games?
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 18, 2004, 04:09:26 AM
Quote
I agree. Metroid Prime's problem was that is was on the Gamecube. If it was on Xbox or PS2 it would have been a major hit and sold alot more. It was on the wrong system. Plus the ads sucking didn't help either. Am I wrong ? Do you disagree that MP on PS2 or Xbox would have sold better?
Why because you shoot stuff? Metroid Prime's main gameplay element was exploration and puzzle solving, something Nintendo fans love. You have a really flawed logic, Brian- it's not as simple as this "kick butt" game not doing well because it's on the wrong console. Metroid Prime was a Nintendo game through and through. Your statements lead me to believe you haven't even played it, although I'm hoping that's not the case.
Post by: Shift Key on May 18, 2004, 04:38:25 AM
Quote
>> Halo more like "Most overhyped game of century, plus the worst game in my collection" (Yes I do own it, so I can talk down to it all I want) <<
Thats your opinion. It isn't your cup of tea. I love the game and think it is one of the best games ever ( and most game sites and magazines and professional game developer awards ( GOTYs ) seem to agree w/ me ).
BUPBOW. GAMERANKINGS DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU! DOES THAT MAKE IT HARDCORE NINTENDO OR JUST IMMATURE? AND LOOK WHAT GAME IS NUMBER ONE?
Post by: Bill Aurion on May 18, 2004, 05:33:34 AM
Ahahahahaha!
(Let's all laugh at newbie gamers like BrianSLA)
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on May 18, 2004, 10:07:27 AM
Quote
Why waste money porting or creating an entirely new game that won't sell on the Gamecube. The Gamecube is for Nintendo fanatics and kiddie game fans
Hey brian, thanks for proving why drugs are bad for you. There have been some 3rd party games that have sold better on the Cube than the Xbox and/or the PS2; why? Because those companies actually put time into making their games good and/or giving cubers a reason to buy, it has to do with quality more than anything else, there are too many good ninty games on the cube for mediocre games to have the same success on the cube that they experience on the other systems.
Quote
it won't bring Nintendo into the #2 spot. This video game console generation is basically over. PS2 won by a landslide. Xbox came in second.
Actually WW the cube is second not the Xbox
Post by: jasonditz on May 18, 2004, 10:11:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Avinash_TyagiQuote
Actually WW the cube is second not the Xbox
Actually the cube is third and the Xbox is 4th... the PS2 is second.
Assuming we're going by units sold of course.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on May 18, 2004, 10:17:16 AM
Post by: jasonditz on May 18, 2004, 10:19:31 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
Proof?
All the sales figures show the Japanese lead of the GC surpassing the lead the Xbox holds in other regions.
That fact is not disputed. What is disputed is that either could lay claim to the #2 spot in sales when it so clearly belongs to Sony and their venerable PS2.
Post by: jasonditz on May 18, 2004, 10:26:18 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
I mean consoles not incl. Handhelds
Why shouldn't handhelds be included?
That's like asking who the largest American video game software maker is and then saying "Sports Games don't count" so EA isn't on top.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on May 18, 2004, 10:34:25 AM
Post by: Perfect Cell on May 18, 2004, 10:52:05 AM
Post by: Shift Key on May 18, 2004, 06:03:59 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 18, 2004, 06:18:11 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on May 18, 2004, 06:49:45 PM
Plus it's inconsistent to count the GBA and declare Nintendo the winner because Sony treats the PS1 as an active system so thus you have to count ALL of the PSX/PS1 unit sales as part of Sony's total. You're probably thinking that we should still count N64s, etc. for Nintendo's side but those are no longer supported formats. You probably could argue the GBC as a current format but once you start counting ANY of these older systems it just gets f*cking ridiculous.
The bottom line is this: when deciding what console to support no third party considers the GBA or PS2 as competing consoles. Microsoft even has games released on the GBA (with THQ publishing) and they wouldn't if the GBA competed with the Xbox.
Post by: Darc Requiem on May 18, 2004, 06:56:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Public image doesn't account for jack if you're not making any money. You may rail on Nintendo's poor image with the public all the time, Ian, but the fact remains that Nintendo is making an assload of money, not just on the GBA but the Gamecube, too. Do you know what that means, Ian? Nintendo is guaranteed to be in this industry for a very long time. You could have the best selling product in the world, but a loss is still a loss. The only role public image plays is getting you to that point of profitability, but it seems Nintendo has found an alternate route to that particular destination.
Yes Mouse but you are ignoring something obvious. Nintendo's usebarse continues to erode with each generation and the number one reason for that is their image. Nintendo reminds me of the Chevy Camaro. The Camaro continued to appeal to its core base and basically ignored anyone else. That sounds fine but it caused the sales of the Camaro to continually erode and eventually it got canned. As much as I don't like the Mustang, it basically stayed true enough to its fans to keep them buying, and it changed enough to draw in new fans and continue to supplement its fan base. Nintendo can still stay Nintendo and draw in more casual fans. Nintendo can continue to make their style of games, all they have to do is insure that 2nd and 3rd parties make the types of games that appeal to casual gamers. Nintendo can only maintain a healthy fanbase by insuring that their games are exposed to as many gamers as possible. I think thats what Ian may have been getting at.
Darc Requiem
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 18, 2004, 07:35:23 PM
Quote
Plus it's inconsistent to count the GBA and declare Nintendo the winner because Sony treats the PS1 as an active system so thus you have to count ALL of the PSX/PS1 unit sales as part of Sony's total.
Even if you count the Playstation and the PS2, Nintendo is STILL ahead, with the Gameboy alone, I'd bet.
Dar: You raise a very good point- I hadn't given that much thought. If that's what you were you trying to say, Ian, sorry for lashing out at you.
Post by: Chongman on May 18, 2004, 07:35:52 PM
The only thing that really angers me about your argument, Bryan, is your stereotyping of nintendo gamers to a certain demographic. Nintendo has mature games...NO DOUBT about it. Many of them have sold well, there's no denying that either. Yes, they're more family friendly, but they're not constricted to that in the LEAST. I find you argument to be unbased and immature. That part at least.
Post by: jasonditz on May 18, 2004, 08:10:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Portable and console systems are different because they don't really compete with each other. The GBA is unaffected by the success of the PS2 and vice versa. When someone buys a PS2 there's a very good chance that they won't buy an Xbox or Cube. However they may still buy a GBA because it provides a completely different experience and they want to be able to play games on the go.
I couldn't disagree more. The money is still coming out of the same limited gaming budget for the vast majority of people, and there are a large number of people who own a GBA who don't own a PS2, Xbox, or Cube... the largest selling system is almost always the #2 system of choice for people with multiple systems who don't own it yet... that doesn't mean its an entirely seperate market.
Quote
Plus it's inconsistent to count the GBA and declare Nintendo the winner because Sony treats the PS1 as an active system so thus you have to count ALL of the PSX/PS1 unit sales as part of Sony's total. You're probably thinking that we should still count N64s, etc. for Nintendo's side but those are no longer supported formats. You probably could argue the GBC as a current format but once you start counting ANY of these older systems it just gets f*cking ridiculous.
But the GBA is not "an older system" that's just marginally supported... it gets hundreds of titles every year. It gets more titles in a given year than the Cube, so if we're only going to count one or the other as the main system that is being supported, it should be the GBA.
Quote
The bottom line is this: when deciding what console to support no third party considers the GBA or PS2 as competing consoles. Microsoft even has games released on the GBA (with THQ publishing) and they wouldn't if the GBA competed with the Xbox.
That doesn't mean they don't compete. When a third party plans on making a game that requires more horsepower than a PS2 can provide they only consider the Cube and the Xbox, that doesn't mean the PS2 doesn't compete with them.
Post by: Urkel on May 19, 2004, 08:46:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: AiAiQuote
Originally posted by: Urkel
Konami can just go to hell. Twin Snakes doesn't make up for anything. Did you know that they almost let all the voice actors go, because the voice actors wanted to be paid the same amount they got for MGS2, but Konami was only willing to pay the same amount they got for doing the original MGS (which was supposedly very little). Cheap bastards. Fortunately, David Hayter was willing to give up part of his paycheck to the others. God, just imagine Twin Snakes with C-list voice actors. Again, Konami makes sure that the PS2 Metal Gear game gets the royal treatment, while they're barely willing to even pay the damn voice actors for a game they hardly even made. Don't forget the fact that they didn't even advertise the damn game. Yeah, most people blame Nintendo for not doing that. Konami's the publisher, it's their responsibility! What's next, should Nintendo start wiping Konami's ass for them?
Source please? I'm not calling you a liar, but I did not know about this (did anyone else?).
But yeah, Konami are pissing me off.
I read it off mgcentral.com
It's a MGS fansite, but I would be inclined to believe it because they have actually interviewed the voice actors. They have (or had) audio transcripts available for download, so I know they actually talked to these people.
Unfortunately... the site appears to be down. So, uh, I have no proof.
Sorry.
