Topic: GAMECUBE sales quadruple!!

[getupkids]

the news about the gamecube sales is great, i hope it doesnt die down.

[Urkel]

Exactly, Bill.

If Nintendo is in any way hurting SK's creativity, Denis must be completely unaware of it. If you listened to the audio interviews PGC had with him, you can tell that the guy is genuinely enthusiastic about working with Miyamoto. I'd MUCH rather have someone who is a huge fan of the series working on it with two game designers he greatly admires, than to have Konami doing it themselves. That kind of energy is going to be great for the game. This is a game that has huge mainstream commercial appeal, and is a game that Denis really wanted to make. It's win-win if you ask me.

SK is still going to make completely new and original games. Just because they haven't been announced yet doesn't mean they don't exist.

Would SK really have more freedom with any other developer? Crystal Dynamix screwed them over, big time.

[nitsu niflheim]

Well, the GCN outsold the PS2 and Xbox again for the 2nd week.  Outsould PS2 by 20% and Xbox by a whopping 145%.  I'd say Nintendo is off to a good start for the Holiday Shopping Season.!!!!!

Umm, stories are on various sites, Gamespot.com for one.

[Ian Sane]

"Honestly now, if you were in the game industry and were offered to make a Metal Gear game, would you turn it down, especially if it was one of your all-time favorite games?"

Make a NEW game from an existing franchise?  Yes.  Remake an existing one?  No unless it was a big change like taking an old NES game and making it 3D.  But that's just my opinion and I'm sure other people would think differently.

The SK/Metal Gear example isn't that great because SK seems to be really excited about working on the project.  Still you have to wonder why Miyamoto offered the project to SK.  A game that already has the story written and the whole basic gameplay scenario worked out doesn't need the expertise of a company like SK to work on it.

I think the "problem" is more with Nintendo spreading out the Mario franchise to every developer they work with instead of encouraging them to work on something new.  Sonic is Sega's most popular franchise but you usually don't see any Sonic games being made by anyone but Sonic Team.  Each team does it's own thing and as a result Sega's games have a lot more variety than Nintendo's.  There's no reason why EAD, Intelligent Systems, Camelot, Hudson Soft, and Treasure should all be working on Mario related games.  If EAD can't handle Mario on their own then don't make as many Mario games.

[Bill Aurion]

Notice that each company is good at doing something...Camelot makes great sports games, Hudson Soft, party games, etc...EAD can't handle every single game, period.  They already have enough on their hands as it is(note that EAD is where a majority of Ninty's secret projects are) so they give different franchises to different subgroups...Did you wonder why Ninty has been giving more franchises out than usual?  F-Zero, Wario World, Star Fox, etc...Just use your imagination

[Fish]

Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
Just use your imagination

No way man, that would mean I would have to think

[Michael8983]

"I think the "problem" is more with Nintendo spreading out the Mario franchise to every developer they work with instead of encouraging them to work on something new. Sonic is Sega's most popular franchise but you usually don't see any Sonic games being made by anyone but Sonic Team. Each team does it's own thing and as a result Sega's games have a lot more variety than Nintendo's."

But pretty much of all Sega's non-Sonic games sell terribly.
Anyway, most of the other developers making Mario games are third-parties which Nintendo has no real control over. Nintendo can't just order a company like Camelot or Hudson to create an original game exclusively for the Gamecube. If they were going to make an original game, it would almost certainly be multi-platform if not PS2 exclusive. Without the rights to the mascots, these developers just don't have much reason to develope anything exclusively for the Gamecube.
 

[BlkPaladin]

There are ways to get a company to make exclusive titles for your system without telling them to do so. One is the bait that the sales a established Nintendo franchise can bring. (So they make a game plus a orginal franchise or game.) Then there is the money route.

[Ian Sane]

"If they were going to make an original game, it would almost certainly be multi-platform if not PS2 exclusive."

Well Square Enix is currently working on a non-Nintendo franchise game for the Cube and it's exclusive.  Exclusive deals are made all the time without the lending of franchise characters.  Seriously if you went up to a small third party developer like Camelot or Treasure and say "make whatever game you want and WE'LL publish and distribute it" they are going to jump at the chance.  I think most developers would love to have complete freedom from a publisher.

"But pretty much of all Sega's non-Sonic games sell terribly."

Not true.  Sega's Xbox games are the only ones the really sell terribly.  Most of Sega's Cube titles have sold quite well.  Super Monkey Ball for example was a very bizarre game but was a successful launch title.  They aren't all selling huge but they're doing well.  The only poor sellers on the Cube were the Sega sports games but those have the problem of competing directly with EA Sports' offerings.

I think having some unique games that don't sell as well as established franchises is better than turning off a huge chunk of the market because to the average person your lineup is all the same stuff.  Mario spinoffs usually sell well with the existing userbase but they don't really sell systems.  However the big hits that sell consoles are usually something that comes out of nowhere and is completely different then anything else available.  Nintendo can't make games like that if they just stick with Mario, Pokemon, etc.  GTA3 is the big game of this generation and the GTA series was never a big system selling franchise beforehand.  However once they put it in 3D and introduced a gameplay experience that no one had really experienced before the series became huge.  Halo is the big Xbox seller and it was a completely unproven franchise.  Meanwhile all of Nintendo's Mario titles are for the most part direct sequels to N64 games and unsurprisingly haven't taken off like the previous two examples have.  The big sellers of each generation are always either original titles (Halo, Goldeneye, Sonic the Hedgehog) or exisiting franchises with completely new gameplay (Super Mario 64, Final Fantasy VII).  That's why Resident Evil isn't as big of a seller this generation and Street Fighter II wasn't as big after the 16 bit generation.

[MysticGohan24]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Honestly now, if you were in the game industry and were offered to make a Metal Gear game, would you turn it down, especially if it was one of your all-time favorite games?"

Make a NEW game from an existing franchise?  Yes.  Remake an existing one?  No unless it was a big change like taking an old NES game and making it 3D.  But that's just my opinion and I'm sure other people would think differently.

The SK/Metal Gear example isn't that great because SK seems to be really excited about working on the project.  Still you have to wonder why Miyamoto offered the project to SK.  A game that already has the story written and the whole basic gameplay scenario worked out doesn't need the expertise of a company like SK to work on it.

I think the "problem" is more with Nintendo spreading out the Mario franchise to every developer they work with instead of encouraging them to work on something new.  Sonic is Sega's most popular franchise but you usually don't see any Sonic games being made by anyone but Sonic Team.  Each team does it's own thing and as a result Sega's games have a lot more variety than Nintendo's.  There's no reason why EAD, Intelligent Systems, Camelot, Hudson Soft, and Treasure should all be working on Mario related games.  If EAD can't handle Mario on their own then don't make as many Mario games.

Actually, there have been other companies outside of sega who made sonic games. Sonic 3D blast and SonicRX and even the old Spinball wasn't made by sonic teams itself.

Even sega will lend it's franchises to outside parties.

[Cap]

http://ultimategamez.com/newspro/fullnews.cgi?newsid1065718031,8453,

nintendos rise in sales could be short lived if this turns out to be true. sony must not like to be outsold, even for only a week.

[Ian Sane]

"Actually, there have been other companies outside of sega who made sonic games. Sonic 3D blast and SonicRX and even the old Spinball wasn't made by sonic teams itself."

Yeah but that was like ten years ago during Sonic' peak in popularity.  Sonic isn't as popular anymore so Sonic Team handles nearly all Sonic games.  Mario is also not as popular as he was so he should probably follow the same pattern.

[BlkPaladin]

Personally I don't think it true. I'm going to side with the Editoral that was posted on the main page of the site. Sony won't drop the price for one this it will not have the same returns because most of the people who what one or will get one has one. The only thing a price drop will do to them is hurt their bottom line.

[D-Mac Double]

MysticGohan, do somethin' about your avatar before you get punished...

[Bill Aurion]

I would rather have Mario Tennis and Mario Party then those games with generic characters...

Mario Tennis = big seller
Mario Party = big seller
Mario Golf = big seller

See a pattern?  It's common sense to make games that people buy, and it doesn't hurt that all 3 series are very fun(at least for me)

[Darc Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Actually, there have been other companies outside of sega who made sonic games. Sonic 3D blast and SonicRX and even the old Spinball wasn't made by sonic teams itself."

Yeah but that was like ten years ago during Sonic' peak in popularity.  Sonic isn't as popular anymore so Sonic Team handles nearly all Sonic games.  Mario is also not as popular as he was so he should probably follow the same pattern.

Yeah that basically holds true Ian with the exception of their GBA Sonic titles which are farmed out to outside developers.

As far as a PS2 price drop, it would make little since for Sony given the size of their lead. Sony is finally making a small profit on PS2 and they would have to eat a huge loss per unit to match Nintendo's price. MS is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They are billing themseves as a competitor to Sony and to match Nintendo's price would ruin that precieved notion. On the other hand Nintendo is going to kill them in hardware sells this holiday, just like last year when MS has the two free games deal and Nintendo failed to respond. Their lead in the US may evaporate if Nintendo's elevated sales continue.

My guess is if Nintendo's high sells continue through the holidays you'll see both Sony and MS respond after the holiday season. I think Nintendo knows this and is counting on this to close in and pass the X-box in US sales.

Darc Requiem  

[Marcus Arillius]

Quote
Originally posted by: Manny


"internet gaming is already here and its getting faster and better al the time and thats what the majority of people want."

Majority of what people?  Everyone can say they want it yet if the sales dont back up that talk then thats what a company is goin to go by.  If internet gaming is what the majority of the consumers ( which is the group I guess your assuming to when you say majority) then why havent the ps online aspect been a success and the xbox live kits?  Everything is out there for the majority to get what they want yet they arent getting it, I wonder why.

Actually, I do mean consumers but not in the context that you're making it out to be.  I was actually talking about the market of people who want internet gaming and/or LAN.  Of course, that's obviously implied, sorry I didn't clarify that for you.  When people say they want something then I feel they're classified under that market even if they don't purchase anything.  However, I feel it's important to emphasize that it's more than a matter of want when it comes to whether or not consumers purchase games for use on the Internet.  I'm sure there would be plenty more people using Internet gaming vs. LAN connection if money were no object.
In threads about what "Nintendo needs to do", I see many users complaining about lack of support for internet games from nintendo.  However, on other forums no one ever complains about lack of LAN connectivity for the PS2 or Xbox.