Post by: Husker02GT on April 13, 2003, 06:44:31 PM
Post by: MickeyD on April 13, 2003, 07:22:06 PM
Post by: The Omen on April 13, 2003, 07:24:26 PM
Post by: Husker02GT on April 13, 2003, 07:35:32 PM
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 13, 2003, 08:00:13 PM
Darc Requiem
Post by: WesDawg on April 13, 2003, 08:12:47 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on April 13, 2003, 08:26:48 PM
The stores in my area all tell me that they aren't responsible for ordering games, they just get them when they do, so I am not overly mad at them. I have no idea who makes these decisions... but it's them that I am mad at. I am right positive it's the publisher's fault though, as a lot of games make it here with no problem at all.
Post by: StRaNgE on April 13, 2003, 10:04:33 PM
Was a royal pain. Not to mention the 2 blockbusters and one Hollywood video carry almost no games not even half of the cube selection and I live in a very populated town in S. cal.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 14, 2003, 02:18:33 AM
They are the ones that created this mess for themselves. They are the ones who tried to buck the trend with the N64 cartridges. Yes, it may have been the one only real mistake they made, but it was a huge one, and IMO, one they may never recover from.
Post by: egman on April 14, 2003, 06:38:51 AM
I'm having the same problems that everyone is having here. I spent a whole week looking to rent Rayman 3. Hollywood had friggin' 3 copies; Blockbuster was, with the exception of Wind Waker, behind in their stocking by like a couple of months it seemed. And don't get me started with buying games. If have to run around town this week to get Ikaruga like I have done with some other titles, then that will be pretty much over for me shopping for games at B&Ms. It's bad enough I already have to do this with DVDs.
There is little for us to do but send in formal complaints, but I agree Nintendo does bare the most responsibilty and by far their actions will have the most effect on both 3rd parties and retailers. Recent changes in their game plan, however, makes it look as though they are finally playing the 3rd party game that Sony has mastered. I think a few huge 3rd party titles hite the Cube could change the way some retailers and renters are looking at the system. Nintendo are really the only ones with power to break the cycle Cube owners are in now.
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 14, 2003, 06:42:27 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
If you want to blame anyone for this, blame Nintendo.
They are the ones that created this mess for themselves. They are the ones who tried to buck the trend with the N64 cartridges. Yes, it may have been the one only real mistake they made, but it was a huge one, and IMO, one they may never recover from.
What the hell does that have to do with companies not shipping copies of a Gamecube game. There are no cartridges for GC and eventhough game prices were too high I never had any problems finding an N64 game, and it sure as hell is affecting my ability to find GBA games. Nintendo's cartridge decision has nothing to do with a companies inability to ship enough copies of a title to meet demand. It did have an effect on Nintendo's hardware sales last generation but then again it also was a reason for their mammmoth profits and reduced losses to piracy. Its also the reason why we have disks this time, and the reason that despite the GC only being out a year and half we already have Mario, Zelda, Metroid, with F-Zero and Starfox just around the corner. Anyway this is completely off topic.....we were talking about how we can't find copies of games we want.....with Nintendo now using disks this is inexcusable. Unlike cartridges, disks and be mass produced quickly so even if you initial miscalcuate the demand you can churn out a ton of disks to meet it. Cartridges required a tremendous lead time and they cost a lot more. I don't wanna hear, Mature titles don't sell on GC. If you don't advertise them, i.e. Splinter Cell, and you ship limited or no copies to stores what the hell do you expect? Its like Squaresoft in the 16-bit era. "Rpg's dont sell in the US" Which was complete crap. They never adverstised, the first game Squaresoft had with a REAL ad campaign was FF7 which coincedently sold very well. Was FF7 better than any of the previous FF games?....not hardly but people actually new the game existed so they kept it in mind when they went to store. The same thing applies to mature GC games or any game for that matter. If you don't advertise its not gonna sell. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. If you don't produce any mature title for GC and if you don't advertise the ones you do...they aren't gonna sell. Which you'll then use as an excuse not to make any titles. Its all about perception. Look at the PS1, it was called Playstation had a colorful logo and the most childlike design of the 3 consoles last generation. That didn't stop it from selling well did it?
Darc Requiem
Post by: MickeyD on April 14, 2003, 06:47:33 AM
(by the way that was sarcasm
)
Post by: nonjagged on April 14, 2003, 06:49:31 AM
Nintendo would have been a 3rd party around the same time as Sega did if it wasnt for Nintendo's genius to stick with predominately anti-piracy format.
Why dont gamers just face the facts and you cant compete for shelf space against multi-media or electronics conglomorates who use budget funds from any of its departments including non-gaming departments and also who make deals with eg. Blockbuster with free vouchers etc and in the deal get Blockbuster to block support for competitors such as Nintendo.
Nintendo cant play block the competition tactics anymore because the competition use funds from non-gaming departments to fund their aggression and instead Nintendo will focus on software and some favourable deals with 3rd parties.
Wait until E3 comes around to see some surprise software that Nintendo & co has been working on and in the meantime if your local mainstream retail stores dont stock GCN software, look around for dedicated gaming stores which specialise only in gaming that do.
Post by: BlkPaladin on April 14, 2003, 06:54:30 AM
And as for CD systems not selling before the PSX, the PSX didn't sell all that well in the first year or so that it was out, it had a very distinct problem with finding good titles. Until Nintendo lost all of its third party support because of their second party vision. (It wasnt really sticking with the carts that did it, though it was a contributing factor, but their treatment of the third parties on a whole. After that Sony had no trouble getting good games.)
The Retail situation is a mixture of Nintendo not offering retailers any real incentive to stock their titles, and Sony and Microsoft offering their own Retailers incentives. Why waste storage space on games that may not sell and have usless titles on your hands and no money, when you can stock games that may not sell and have some sort of blow back that makes it worth while if it doesn't sell.
Another reason is market pull, Gamecube games, even the third party games which its the third party publisher's responsiblity to advertise them, don't recieve as much exposure as their conterparts on another system.
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 14, 2003, 06:55:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MickeyD
Has anyone seen the new splinter cell comericial where they mostly talk about the new ps2 verison. They have a review from a playstation magazine and show the ps2 box and talk about the added levels. Then off in the corner you see a small gamecube logo. Thanks for that guys if you hadn't of put that little gamecube logo in the corner we would have never known it was coming to cube.
(by the way that was sarcasm
Now I could have sworn I've mentioned that a few times in this thread already. Does anyone read my post at all or am I just wasting my time
Oh and nonjagged I completely agree with you on both counts. People ream Nintendo for their decision to stick with carts but its part of the reason they made so much money. They didn't have to worry about every Tom, Dick, and Harry burning games that they rent in their CD-Rs and giving copies to their friends.Darc Requiem
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 14, 2003, 07:00:57 AM
My post was completely ON topic.
Quote
Its also the reason why we have disks this time,
The type of disk the gamecube used is another example of Nintendo yet again bucking the trend. Regardless of what some say, I am sure this is again a factor in lack of 3rd party support.
Quote
I don't wanna hear, Mature titles don't sell on GC. If you don't advertise them, i.e. Splinter Cell, and you ship limited or no copies to stores what the hell do you expect?
You dont wanna hear it? Why? Because its true, mature titles dont sell well on the cube, the numbers speak for themselves on this subject.
As for them not shipping a lot of copies, I dont blame them. I would guess that the Cube pre-orders for SC were well below that of the PS2. I would go as far as to say the Cube port was a "lets hope we break even on this project" because the developer is already sure it wont sell. This might seem like a bad way for a developer to look at things, but be honest, can you really blame them.
Look at RE for an example, it is a great game and didnt sell worth beans. Why, because to many cube owners wont touch anything that isnt made by Nintendo becase they assume it will be inferior.
Nintendo drove away fans with the N64, which drove away developers. Now witht he cube they again use a different format of disk, which again will cost a few supporters, which in turn will again mean less support.
So it is on topic after all.
Post by: egman on April 14, 2003, 07:29:22 AM
Yeah, I also forgot to mention the incentive thing as well. I agree Nintendo made it hard for 3rd parties with their royalities, so that definitately influenced the situation when the new kid on the block started to give the developers better deals. But still, CD systems up till that time were not selling because they were bad. CDs gave developers a huge amount of storage space that got squandered on bad FMVs and stuff that really did not change the games from their cart counterparts. It wasn't until the PS that developers had finally figured out how to use the storage space for better games. It also help that processoring abilites caught up with the storage capablities, so now developers had real reasons to go with CDs. Nintendo second guessed the situation and loss big time.
Post by: AlphaDragoon2002 on April 14, 2003, 07:32:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
Dark
My post was completely ON topic.Quote
Its also the reason why we have disks this time,
The type of disk the gamecube used is another example of Nintendo yet again bucking the trend. Regardless of what some say, I am sure this is again a factor in lack of 3rd party support.Quote
I don't wanna hear, Mature titles don't sell on GC. If you don't advertise them, i.e. Splinter Cell, and you ship limited or no copies to stores what the hell do you expect?
You dont wanna hear it? Why? Because its true, mature titles dont sell well on the cube, the numbers speak for themselves on this subject.
As for them not shipping a lot of copies, I dont blame them. I would guess that the Cube pre-orders for SC were well below that of the PS2. I would go as far as to say the Cube port was a "lets hope we break even on this project" because the developer is already sure it wont sell. This might seem like a bad way for a developer to look at things, but be honest, can you really blame them.
Look at RE for an example, it is a great game and didnt sell worth beans. Why, because to many cube owners wont touch anything that isnt made by Nintendo becase they assume it will be inferior.
Nintendo drove away fans with the N64, which drove away developers. Now witht he cube they again use a different format of disk, which again will cost a few supporters, which in turn will again mean less support.
So it is on topic after all.
God, why is it that whenever I see you talking about the GC you always have something bad to say? Do you secretly dislike it or something? Does one of your family members own one so you just happen to have in your house?! Because from what I've seen (and these are from the last THREE posts coming from you) you have no love or respect for it. We get it, PS2 is cool. I have a PS2. But continually bagging on Nintendo is simply bad form, man.
Anyway, back on topic. Here in Phoenix we really don't have that problem, I'm able to find all the GC games I need, and Blockbuster has a good selection. Of course they're sometimes a bit late in updating it (I've been waiting for Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter on PS2 to be on the shelves for about a MONTH now...) but as long as they do, and they don't slight Nintendo, it's good with me.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 14, 2003, 07:42:08 AM
Well that's a self-fulfilling prophecy on the third party's part if they think like that. If they assume that the Cube version will sell the least and then don't promote the game as well as the other versions then obviously the Cube version isn't going to sell as well.
I can't stand it when third parties do that. If a Gamecube game is released months after the PS2 and Xbox versions and recieves no advertising and is full of bugs then OF COURSE it's going to sell the worst of the three versions. The third party basically sabotaged the game from the beginning. This of course gives the Gamecube an image of always having the worst versions of each game (despite being technically superior to the PS2), which then results in lower system sales, which then results in a lower userbase, which then results in good third party games not selling as well.
Basically a whole whack of third parties decided before the Gamecube was released that it would be the least successful of the three consoles and their decisions as a result of this pre-concieved bias has ensured that the Gamecube is the least successful of the three consoles. While the N64 was hurt by a lack of third party games the Gamecube ironically is being hurt by having more of them.
Post by: loserfish13 on April 14, 2003, 09:24:08 AM
Post by: egman on April 14, 2003, 09:35:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
While the N64 was hurt by a lack of third party games the Gamecube ironically is being hurt by having more of them.
I never thought of it in that way. I may sound like a heretic, but shoot, if we are going get crap these developers should just save their money. However, I do think there are some things that Nintendo themselves can do in this matter to help. Actually, I think Nintendo is the only one who can really break this crappy cycle we have to go through because I don't see too many 3rd parties willing to do so. Some incentives or guarentees could go a long towards that. Lately though, it looks like Nintendo has been rolling up their sleeves so maybe we won't have to deal with this any longer.
Post by: Strell on April 14, 2003, 10:02:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
I would go as far as to say the Cube port was a "lets hope we break even on this project" because the developer is already sure it wont sell. This might seem like a bad way for a developer to look at things, but be honest, can you really blame them.
Look at RE for an example, it is a great game and didnt sell worth beans. Why, because to many cube owners wont touch anything that isnt made by Nintendo becase they assume it will be inferior.
Nintendo drove away fans with the N64, which drove away developers. Now witht he cube they again use a different format of disk, which again will cost a few supporters, which in turn will again mean less support.
So it is on topic after all.
You're wrong because:
1. RE is, unfortunately, really showing its age. Same control the ENTIRE TIME, not even attempting to make use of analog sticks and better schemes. That's just uncalled for. The game is gorgeous, but it's a sad state of affairs that there has been no innovation in the series at all. Silent Hill, at least, adds a brooding aura to the genre. RE just rehashes what it already has. More Capcom's fault than anyone else's. 9 times out of 10, if a game is good, it will sell. Hopefully RE4 will have some innovation and better control schemes. I personally don't mind it, but people act like it's reason enough to dislike a game.
2. If developers are sure a game won't sell, and they put out 10K copies, and then they whine because "OH BOOHOO WE ONLY SOLD 10K COPIES," how is that Nintendo's fault? It's not. Good circular logic, though. Why not advertise the game to Gamecube? SC comes out and all I see are commercials for PS2. I don't see any GC commercials. Wth. Nintendo doesn't handle other companies' games, people.
3. 30 million N64's does not equal driving away fans. Did some go to Sony? Of course. But you act like Nintendo labeled their console as "Hitler approved!" on it or something.
4. Reason for new disk = no piracy. Let's compare how many millions Sony and Microsoft lose per year versus Nintendo in terms of pirating. WAIT, I BELEIVE...YES, I AM SURE IT IS MILLIONS TO ZERO.
Post by: Perfect Cell on April 14, 2003, 10:39:44 AM
Post by: Strell on April 14, 2003, 10:48:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Perfect Cell
This happned to me also, people on the stores telling me, no Splinter Cell is never coming out for the GCN but i do have PS2 versions.... This is the sort of Grass Rooots campaigning that Nintendo needs to work with to improve their sales and image... Maybe make a Nintendo street team? or something like that.
Heh, already been done. I was on it last year.
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 14, 2003, 11:27:11 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
Dark
My post was completely ON topic.Quote
Its also the reason why we have disks this time,
The type of disk the gamecube used is another example of Nintendo yet again bucking the trend. Regardless of what some say, I am sure this is again a factor in lack of 3rd party support.Quote
I don't wanna hear, Mature titles don't sell on GC. If you don't advertise them, i.e. Splinter Cell, and you ship limited or no copies to stores what the hell do you expect?
You dont wanna hear it? Why? Because its true, mature titles dont sell well on the cube, the numbers speak for themselves on this subject.
As for them not shipping a lot of copies, I dont blame them. I would guess that the Cube pre-orders for SC were well below that of the PS2. I would go as far as to say the Cube port was a "lets hope we break even on this project" because the developer is already sure it wont sell. This might seem like a bad way for a developer to look at things, but be honest, can you really blame them.
Look at RE for an example, it is a great game and didnt sell worth beans. Why, because to many cube owners wont touch anything that isnt made by Nintendo becase they assume it will be inferior.
Nintendo drove away fans with the N64, which drove away developers. Now witht he cube they again use a different format of disk, which again will cost a few supporters, which in turn will again mean less support.
So it is on topic after all.
Well first of all its Darc, and second of all thanks for proving my point. "Lets hope we break even on this project" Did you miss the part about the self fulfilling prophecy? I guess so. I said it before and I said it again. I dont' wanna hear it. I'll tell you why AGAIN. Lets take Skies of Arcadia for example. Sega stated that they will make a sequel to the game depending on how well it sells. How many dozens of times have you heard a forum member complain that they couldn't find a copy of the game, how many times have you seen an ad for Skies of Arcadia on TV? You haven't because there isn't any. Now if the game bombs, they will complain that game didn't sell well. Of course a game isn't gonna sell well when isn't adverstised and is undershipped. Did you even bother reading my post or did you just pick out what you'd thought would be of use to you. You didn't even address my point with Final Fantasy. Square never attempted to market a FF game in the states until FF7 and that was more of Sony's doing than their own. They shipped a lot of copies had a huge ad campaign and what do you know FF7 is the first FF game to sell over a million copies in the states. Not because it was the best, not because gamers in the US changed, but because they actually tried marketing the game and made people aware that it existed. Now lets take Dragon Warrior 7, it didn't sell as well as FF7 did here, it also lacked the massive advertising push. DW7 IMO is a better game than FF7 but sales don't reflect that. Shenmue and Shenmue 2 are another example. Shenmue 1 for DC has greatly outsold Shenmue 2 for X-box. Shenmue 1 also had the better ad campaign. Did you see a massive holdiay push for Shenmue 2 on X-box? I sure didn't. I saw one for Splinter Cell though....hmmm and it sold damn well coincedence? I think not. Splinter Cell is the latest of example of poor marketing on GC. If the game doesn't sell well it would be blamed on the GC's kiddie userbase, not the lack of adverstising. Saying that "Splinter Cell has been redefined for Playstation 2" and slapping a small GC logo at the end isn't an ad campaign. RE hasn't met sales expectations? Your right it hasn't, and since Capcom actually marketed the game they have a right to bitch, but l can guarantee you that Capcom averages better sales numbers per title on GC than any other third party. Would you rather be Sega scratching your head over the 45,000 copies of Skies of Arcadia sold, or Capcom bitching about the 300,000 RE0's you sold? RE1 and RE0 are two of the best selling GC third party games and they are also two of the best marketed. I think I know why Capcom sells more titles.... get this they actually use TV ads and actually ship copies of the games to stores!! I mean who knew thats how you actually move units. I thought releasing a shoddy port after all other consoles get it, with no ad campaign, and no copies shipped to stores was the way to go. You have to spend money to make money. If you aren't even gonna advertise a game and just quietly slip in onto shelves nobody is gonna know the game exists. Most gamers aren't on the net, aren't in forums, like we are. If I wasn't a hardcore games I would have never known Splinter Cell was on GC. I wouldn't have bought Skies of Arcadia because I wouldn't have had any idea it was out. I have Knockout Kings 2003 for GC, only got it because I saw a review of it on Nintendophiles....EA never adverstised it so it probably bombed. Are you getting my point? Are you understanding the general concept of what I'm saying here or do I have record a MP3 of me explaining my point slowly and send you a copy of the file. Wait I'll just make it simple for you. Consumers won't buy what they are unaware of BTW Sorry for the length of the post everybody. I'll try to make it more concise next time.
Darc Requiem
Post by: BlackGriffen on April 14, 2003, 11:42:10 AM
Great post, Darc! I couldn't have said it better, myself. Perhaps Nintendo should start doing "general gamecube ads" that feature one exclusive plus two other games (exclusive or not). I think doing something like that (start before halloween, say second week Oct) would be really helpful. I would especially try to highlight games that are only available on 2 of the three consoles, and the 'must haves' (like EA sports titles). Perhaps with a tag line like, "and there's only one console where you can find every one of these three games, Nintendo Gamcube." Granted, it's a little bit misleading because it could leave the impression that they're all exclusives, but since you're technically talking about the games as a group, the only console that has that group of games is GC, so it wouldn't be lying.
BlackGriffen
Post by: MickeyD on April 14, 2003, 12:31:17 PM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on April 14, 2003, 05:54:01 PM
Post by: Ninja X on April 14, 2003, 05:54:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: StrellQuote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
I would go as far as to say the Cube port was a "lets hope we break even on this project" because the developer is already sure it wont sell. This might seem like a bad way for a developer to look at things, but be honest, can you really blame them.
Look at RE for an example, it is a great game and didnt sell worth beans. Why, because to many cube owners wont touch anything that isnt made by Nintendo becase they assume it will be inferior.
Nintendo drove away fans with the N64, which drove away developers. Now witht he cube they again use a different format of disk, which again will cost a few supporters, which in turn will again mean less support.
So it is on topic after all.
You're wrong because:
1. RE is, unfortunately, really showing its age. Same control the ENTIRE TIME, not even attempting to make use of analog sticks and better schemes. That's just uncalled for. The game is gorgeous, but it's a sad state of affairs that there has been no innovation in the series at all. Silent Hill, at least, adds a brooding aura to the genre. RE just rehashes what it already has. More Capcom's fault than anyone else's. 9 times out of 10, if a game is good, it will sell. Hopefully RE4 will have some innovation and better control schemes. I personally don't mind it, but people act like it's reason enough to dislike a game.
2. If developers are sure a game won't sell, and they put out 10K copies, and then they whine because "OH BOOHOO WE ONLY SOLD 10K COPIES," how is that Nintendo's fault? It's not. Good circular logic, though. Why not advertise the game to Gamecube? SC comes out and all I see are commercials for PS2. I don't see any GC commercials. Wth. Nintendo doesn't handle other companies' games, people.
3. 30 million N64's does not equal driving away fans. Did some go to Sony? Of course. But you act like Nintendo labeled their console as "Hitler approved!" on it or something.
4. Reason for new disk = no piracy. Let's compare how many millions Sony and Microsoft lose per year versus Nintendo in terms of pirating. WAIT, I BELEIVE...YES, I AM SURE IT IS MILLIONS TO ZERO.
So RE sold poorly due to its game mechanics? What about Devil May Cry 2 for the PS2? That had the same mechanics, just like the RE remake. Look how wildly that is selling.
Yes, RE would have sold wildly, but not many people bought it for many reasons, most of them directly relating to GCN and Nintendo.
Many people don't buy third-party games for the GCN because most people who buy GCN buy the Nintendo games. That's GCN's only real strong point. That's why I bought a GCN and I'm betting most of you bought a GCN just for that.
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 14, 2003, 06:00:23 PM
Darc Requiem
Post by: Armed on April 14, 2003, 06:14:54 PM
Post by: MickeyD on April 14, 2003, 07:11:12 PM
Post by: VideoGamerX on April 14, 2003, 07:39:07 PM
--------
And just for some proof that the Resident Evil series is losing its touch...
Code Veronica sales on the PS2 (March 23, 2003): 1,009,571
Ooh... ouch. Outsold by a Gamecube remake of the original.
Resident Evil Zero for the Gamecube has sold 618,000 copies. I don't think that's all that bad. It should sell close to a million when all is said and done. The lesson to be learned here is that hype and advertisement goes the distance. Resident Evil for Gamecube was anticipated. I went to Best Buy (of all places to go for a video game....) and picked up my copy two days after release. They had plenty of copies available. It was no hassle at all.
This is an example of how a company can do well on the Gamecube. Advertise, produce, and do a decent job and it'll sell. That's all Nintendo owners ask for. We don't get that, though. We only get excuses from third parties.
By the way, here's some more world-wide sales figures of Resident Evil sales:
Resident Evil (including Director's cut) PS1 - 3,445,585
Resident Evil 2 PS1 - 3,441,745 (Japanese Biohazard boom, reduced sales in America)
Resident Evil 2 N64 - 334,870 (Who says there's been no improvement since N64?)
Resident Evil 3 Nemesis - 2,379,817 (Obviously there was a decrease in interest... in Japan)
I might also add that before Director's cut, RE wasn't doing so hot in America. I don't know why that is. Perhaps Resident Evil 2 created a craze or maybe the PS1 hadn't picked up sales until after Director's cut released. Whatever the cause, I think it should be noted that Resident Evil has once again sold over a million copies world-wide on the Nintendo Gamecube. Not bad for remake, rehash of a game nearly everyone has played before.
Quite honestly, Japan is more of a reason for a lack of sales. The Japanese market has had its feel of Resident Evil. Each incarnation does worse and worse. Code Veronica sold 337,761 copies in Japan. It sold nearly double in America. This is PS2's big massive flaming userbase we're talking about. Anyone who wants to point out poor sales would be blind not to use this as a perfect example. How many people worldwide own a Playstation 2? How many bought Code Veronia. Man, I bet they produced at least two million copies of Code Veronia in anticipation of PS2 sales of their game. It barely cracked a million. There's probably 40 times the users compared to what that sold.
I suppose all of PS2's games sell very spectacularly well. I, on the other hand, think that's terrible for the amount of advertisement resources they pour into it. Not to mention the shelf space they give their titles. The little blinking neon Playstation 2 sign I have to look at while entering the electronics section.
If I were Capcom, I'd be shifting my support elsewhere, too...
Come to think of it, did any of you see a Code Veronia commercial? I don't recall it if I did... perhaps there's a connection.
Post by: Zelda on April 14, 2003, 08:01:34 PM
Quote
Code Veronica sales on the PS2 (March 23, 2003): 1,009,571
Ooh... ouch. Outsold by a Gamecube remake of the original.
um, the gamecube RE is a REMAKE. Code Veronica on the PS2 is just a PORT of the Dreamcast version.
Post by: VideoGamerX on April 14, 2003, 08:09:33 PM
Allow me to repeat myself.
Ooh... Ouch. Outsold by a Gamecube remake of the original.
If you don't believe me: Resident Evil Code: Veronica X review
Even though it sold quite well on Dreamcast (considering), those sales are still pretty low. The Playstation 2 port was changed. I would think it could have sold better than that.
Post by: Zelda on April 14, 2003, 08:17:44 PM
Just because it was on a less popular console before and doesn't sell that well it doesn't make it a new game. Look at Skies of Arcadia: Legends. It's not a new game.
Post by: cyrus420 on April 14, 2003, 08:26:21 PM
Post by: Strell on April 14, 2003, 09:21:25 PM
DMC2 and RE are completely different styles of gameplay. Completely. DMC was fresh and new in it's introduction, and the success from it is carrying the sales of DMC2 by name alone.
RE0 is, what, the sixth RE game? RE1, RE2, RE3(Nem), RECV, RE1(Remake)? That's not including the Director's Cut of RE1, or the RE:Gun Survivor game.
Capcom, unfortunately, is really known for milking franchises. With 56 different incantations of Street Fighter, 406 Megaman Titles, ports of SEVERAL games, a third Onimusha ALREADY, and already a sequal to Maximo, they are the absolute kings of repackaging.
So when a game that is essentially like all it's kindred ancestors, only with the introduction of a buddy system, shows up and it STILL has pretty horrible gameplay, and you compare it to a game that is fresh and new, you wonder why the new one (assuming it's done well, which DMC was) is outselling it?
Yes, DMC2 is horrible compared to DMC (at least from what I know, because I haven't had a chance to play them yet), but you're arguing apples to oranges and calling them both banana ice cream.
I'm not going to deny that Nintendo's advertising sucks, and that they really need to get off their high horses and lazy arses. I guess it's hard to be motivated to give a crap about third parties when your own games sell really well. What's the saying? Laughing all the way to the bank?
Post by: RahXephon on April 14, 2003, 09:29:55 PM
cyrus420, books are good for yuo and prevent senility. You should read one.
On Topic-the major reason i think nintendo should advertise more- LOTS OF KIDS OWN CUBES, THEY DONT KNNOW WHAT IS GOOD SP THEY WATCH COMERCIALS, AS WELL AS THE PARENTS. THEY SEE A GAME THA LOOKS "COOL" AND SAY I SHOULD BUY THAT, BUT IT ISN"T ON GC. GO TO STORE, SEE LOTS OF MICKEY GAMES ON SHELVES, THEY MUST BE GOOD. OH THE HUMANITY, THE GAME IS NOT GOOD. WAIT, WHAT IS THIS, A ZELDA COMMERCIAL. GO TO STORE AND SEE LOTS OF PEOPLE TALK ABOUT AND LOTS OF SIGNS. WOW THIS WOULS BE GOOD TO GET I BET. WOW IT IS GOOD. ADVERTISING CAN SHOW GOOD GAMES. LOOK AT ALL THE PS2 ADVERTISING. I SHOULD BUY PS@ BECAUSE MORE COMMERCIALS.
---exit mind of semi-casual gamer-----
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 15, 2003, 02:38:24 AM
Quote
God, why is it that whenever I see you talking about the GC you always have something bad to say? Do you secretly dislike it or something? Does one of your family members own one so you just happen to have in your house?! Because from what I've seen (and these are from the last THREE posts coming from you) you have no love or respect for it. We get it, PS2 is cool. I have a PS2. But continually bagging on Nintendo is simply bad form, man.
Lol, you should read a little more. I have 3 systems, in order of use at the moment, Cube, box, ps2.
Quote
you have no love or respect for it
that is correct, I try not to love or respect electronic components as it is usually a pointless venture.
its a games console to me, nothing more.
Post by: Mario on April 15, 2003, 04:17:37 AM
Quote
Perhaps Nintendo should start doing "general gamecube ads" that feature one exclusive plus two other games (exclusive or not). I think doing something like that (start before halloween, say second week Oct) would be really helpful. I would especially try to highlight games that are only available on 2 of the three consoles, and the 'must haves' (like EA sports titles). Perhaps with a tag line like, "and there's only one console where you can find every one of these three games, Nintendo Gamcube." Granted, it's a little bit misleading because it could leave the impression that they're all exclusives, but since you're technically talking about the games as a group, the only console that has that group of games is GC, so it wouldn't be lying.
WOW! Thats a great idea, someone send this to Nintendo! Oh yeah, and to all those "M titles dont sell on cube coz cube is kiddy" people, im gonna be LMAO when RE4 breaks a million in its first month. And also, i think some of you are forgeting about a little game called Metroid Prime
Post by: BlackGriffen on April 15, 2003, 05:01:08 AM
Think of it this way, Nintendo needs to advertise the GC (whether you feel the image needs a change, or if they just need to boost system sales). How does one advertise a console? At the beginning of the lifetime, you can do it on hype and performance promises. Now, and somewhat early in the system's life, the way to advertise a console is to say, "Look at the great games we have!" And not just the first party titles, either. By making Gamecube ads that contain exclusive titles and just general third party titles, Nintendo can leverage the money being spent to advertise for other consoles to draw attention to the Gamecube (and whatever other titles are in the ad).
Something I'd like to change about the original Cube commercials (the glass box ones) is that I don't recall hearing the title of the games. I remember seeing the title, and maybe hearing it if there was only one game, but I don't remember the name hitting my hear. The first thing Nintendo needs to do is get itself better brand awareness in its GC commercials. The PS2 has it's logo and sound, the XBox has a logo and speech snippet, hell, who here doesn't remember the constipated, "SEGA!"? I think something as simple as the end flourish to the GC boot up sequence (pic and all) would do. The one that PGC puts at the front of its videos, except the xylophone (is that the sfx they use?) at the beginning would only reinforce the kiddy stereotype and take too long. After all, a xylophone is a child's toy here in the U.S. Yes, the point of this paragraph is that you remember what you hear and see better than what you just hear or just see. Combine that with a powerful and simple mnemonic (I should add that it shouldn't be annoying) that you hit the customers with over and over again ("Now you're playing with power, super power!"), or some kind of simple audible theme that all the ads have, and you have a powerful advertising mechanism.
The scary thing is that I'm sure the ad execs at Nintendo already know this (I'm just a layman observer, after all), and I don't know why they aren't doing it. Is there a fad in the ad industry to lay off these time tested tactics for fear of annoying the consumer?
I also have to agree that they need to advertise the rated M games more. Maintaining a family friendly image is one thing, but not nearly as important as effective advertising.
BlackGriffen
Edit: spelling.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 15, 2003, 07:24:14 AM
Have you ever watched the trailers on the Zelda bonus disc? The logo flash at the beginning of each trailer is awesome and would be great for TV commercials. In fact Nintendo's game trailers are usually so impressive they could probably just use them for commercials. With titles like Metroid Prime and Wind Waker in-game footage is way more impressive than people in costumes taking up 80% of the ad. If graphics sell why not show off the graphics? Final Fantasy VII had probably the most effective commercial ever and all it showed was FMV footage from the game.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on April 15, 2003, 09:03:25 AM
silks
Post by: Bloodworth on April 15, 2003, 09:18:39 AM
Post by: The Doc on April 15, 2003, 10:16:29 AM
The Doc
Post by: VideoGamerX on April 15, 2003, 11:53:56 AM
I see Nintendo changing their approach to being competitive in this market, but I can't wait for them to unveil their new plans. I can't wait to start to see some real change under the new president. The person who said those trailers on the bonus disc were awesome is absolutely right. Those trailers, alone, would suffice for commercials. They would be effective! Just the intro makes me go "Whoa! What's that?! So cool..." and the footage hasn't even began. I wouldn't even have to know what the commercial was about. Just the logo introduction is enough to convince me.
The Xbox's logo introduction is like that.
Nintendo's commercials are certainly stupid. They've done a decent job with a few titles, but their Mario Sunshine commercial might have been better suited for the 70s or 80s. Even their old Zelda commercials are better than the Mario Sunshine commericals. *still has the Zelda rap in his head*
Post by: Ninja X on April 15, 2003, 01:33:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VideoGamerX
You're not reasoning with a couple of KEY details. One, it's a port from a system that's nearly equal (maybe even superior) to the PS2's graphics capabilities. Two, the Dreamcast had a very limited userbase. This WAS, for all intents and purposes, a BRAND NEW GAME to a market that hadn't had Resident Evil for a while.
Allow me to repeat myself.
Ooh... Ouch. Outsold by a Gamecube remake of the original.
If you don't believe me: Resident Evil Code: Veronica X review
Even though it sold quite well on Dreamcast (considering), those sales are still pretty low. The Playstation 2 port was changed. I would think it could have sold better than that.
You don't understand the difference between a REMAKE and a PORT. Learn it.
Remakes cost money. The RE remake for GCN cost mad money. Those photorealistic graphics? Capcom had, my guess, double the profit off Code Veronica than the RE remake for GCN. Even though the RE remake outsold Code Veronica, not much profit was made, I think.
Oh, and the PS2 port was not changed by much. A couple new cutscenes. Wow. And look at its immense sales. If it could nearly tie a totally huge remake of a pioneering game in terms of copies sold, that is sad, my friend.
Post by: Ninja X on April 15, 2003, 01:47:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Strell
Ninja I'm too lazy to edit a quote message, so I'll just respond.
DMC2 and RE are completely different styles of gameplay. Completely. DMC was fresh and new in it's introduction, and the success from it is carrying the sales of DMC2 by name alone.
RE0 is, what, the sixth RE game? RE1, RE2, RE3(Nem), RECV, RE1(Remake)? That's not including the Director's Cut of RE1, or the RE:Gun Survivor game.
Capcom, unfortunately, is really known for milking franchises. With 56 different incantations of Street Fighter, 406 Megaman Titles, ports of SEVERAL games, a third Onimusha ALREADY, and already a sequal to Maximo, they are the absolute kings of repackaging.
So when a game that is essentially like all it's kindred ancestors, only with the introduction of a buddy system, shows up and it STILL has pretty horrible gameplay, and you compare it to a game that is fresh and new, you wonder why the new one (assuming it's done well, which DMC was) is outselling it?
Yes, DMC2 is horrible compared to DMC (at least from what I know, because I haven't had a chance to play them yet), but you're arguing apples to oranges and calling them both banana ice cream.
I'm not going to deny that Nintendo's advertising sucks, and that they really need to get off their high horses and lazy arses. I guess it's hard to be motivated to give a crap about third parties when your own games sell really well. What's the saying? Laughing all the way to the bank?
Yes, I must admit DMC is rather fresh. But then again, a RE: Code Veronica port for the PS2 has, according to VideoGamerX, sold over one million worldwide. Pretty damn good.
The series has gotten quite old, but I don't think it has shown its age with slow sales. The series still gets good reviews and the RE remake are in the hands of one out of every six GCN owners.
If you want to talk milked series, look at Pokemon. That series is just about as milked as RE and it is one of Japan's best selling games. Not to mention American sales did nicely for all the games (maybe except for Snap)
Post by: manunited4eva22 on April 15, 2003, 02:09:11 PM
Post by: VideoGamerX on April 15, 2003, 02:23:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ninja X
Oh, and the PS2 port was not changed by much. A couple new cutscenes. Wow. And look at its immense sales. If it could nearly tie a totally huge remake of a pioneering game in terms of copies sold, that is sad, my friend.
Then what is the big stinking deal about making ports for the Nintendo Gamecube? All we ever hear is how low sales hurt third parties. So, while Capcom reaped huge profits on Code Veronia's port to the PS2, which I stress did not sell impressively, EA has to rethink whether or not to send last minute ports of high demand sports games to the Gamecube. How costly can that be...?
It did cost a lot more money to completely reproduce Resident Evil, but you practically negate the cost of porting and pretend that profit is my argument. I never claimed that profit was the issue, but did go out of my way to make a statement that Capcom probably expected better sales. Afterall, they are the ones who voiced disappointment at not being able to sell PS1 ports on the Gamecube at full price.
It does not matter the difference between the Resident Evil remake and the port of Code Veronica. You only wish I didn't know the difference (serves you right for trying to belittle other people's intelligence. Learn that yet?). I'm making a comparison in sales. Code Veronica sold fewer than 500,000 units in North America. It did the same in Japan. It didn't come close to selling a million. When it was ported to PS2, it was a superior port. The graphics were top notch for the PS2. It was, "for all intents and purposes," a new game for PS2 and 90% of its gamers. If no one ever mentioned that it was previously on another console, they'd all assume it was brand new. It, bottom line, didn't sell. A remake of an old story in a userbase about one tenth the size of the PS2's did better. I don't know whether we attribute that to the fact that it may not have gotten a lot of exposure or if Resident Evil simply isn't stacking up to competition in the survival horror genre.
To even get back to my original (read: "real") point is that mature titles can, have, and will sell on the Gamecube. The Resident Evil remake did sell pretty well. It beat an appropriate counterpart on the PS2, and that's a shocker.
What really seems to be hurting sales these days is a lack of availability now. Resident Evil Zero is a hard one to find. And it appears Splinter Cell has no chance of doing well before it even got out of the gates. I think Nintendo's being sabotaged...
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 15, 2003, 02:33:51 PM
Darc Requiem
Post by: Ian Sane on April 15, 2003, 02:43:07 PM
Maybe someone with good writing skills (so a staff member would be ideal) could write an email and we could all "sign" it. Of course where would we send it to where the email wouldn't get completely ignored or just acknowledged with a form letter? This isn't like one of those "make this game" petition scenarios. It's a real problem that affects many of us and is actually worthwhile for Nintendo to take action on. However would they even be able to do anything about it since the problem seems to be with third party games? Maybe it would be better to address individual companies.
Post by: ShockingAlberto on April 15, 2003, 03:04:07 PM
In any case, Nintendo reps were always in and out of Rhino. However, they always gave advance notice and our manager would always put up a Nintendo display that would put the "World Of Nintendo" from the 80's to shame. They should make unannounced visits, I think.
-- ShockingAlberto
Post by: VideoGamerX on April 15, 2003, 03:18:08 PM
I've seen my share of the politics floating around in the retail sector of the gaming industry. It's not fair to Nintendo, and it's not fair to Nintendo gamers (or gamers in general). I've witnessed employees working in electronics completely lying to would-be consumers looking at buying games and consoles. It goes beyond the simple "misinformed" employee who (quote for quote) told this guy wanting to purchase a Nintendo Gamecube for his kids, "They might not be making those anymore. I wouldn't expect them in stock much longer. They don't have any games, either. My choice would be the Xbox or PS2. The Xbox is better than PS2, though. It's like 160 bits or something and pretty soon will have all of the games. Right now the PS2 takes up most of the shelves, but Xbox will have this whole shelf and that other one behind us."
I really wanted to say something that day, but didn't bother because I didn't want to make a scene. The guy already spotted me giving him a hard look of disbelief. I might seem like I like argue here on the boards, but here is more of a place where it's not so harsh to push the issue on someone for what they say. I overlooked him, left the electronics section. This was actually at a Wal-Mart. I haven't even been back to that Wal-Mart sense.
Post by: Tycoon__ on April 15, 2003, 04:54:16 PM
but in showcase months... you dont get a lot of shelf space (GC, XBX)-heh.. except PS2
Post by: Tycoon__ on April 15, 2003, 04:58:29 PM
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuck
I would go as far as to say the Cube port was a "lets hope we break even on this project" because the developer is already sure it wont sell. This might seem like a bad way for a developer to look at things, but be honest, can you really blame them.
Look at RE for an example, it is a great game and didnt sell worth beans. Why, because to many cube owners wont touch anything that isnt made by Nintendo becase they assume it will be inferior.
FALSE!
They will touch good 3rd party, but RE and 0 were released to close together.. wait for RE4... more sales will come... ppl were pondering RE or RE0.. they were to close.
Post by: snorgasmo on April 15, 2003, 05:56:33 PM
Post by: MickeyD on April 15, 2003, 06:25:31 PM
Post by: lastexit on April 16, 2003, 07:08:07 AM
The only difference is that GC discs offer copy protection. It is still not possible to distribute cheaply produced copies of gamecube games. This means that anybody who wants to play Resident Evil Zero has to pay for it in some form or another. This is not true with XBOx and particularly Playstation. It is a HUGE INCENTIVE for game developers and will become a bigger incentive over the next year as DVD copying becomes more widespread. As you may recall, PSX had a few good years in it before everyone could copy games. Once that happened, everywhere you looked people had books full of Playstation CDR's.
As this was going on, Nintendo was publishing games like Zelda in copy-proof format. Zelda went on to sell MILLIONS of copies. Nintendo reaped a HUGE profit and other developers took note.
Now, with music CD's, copying and online distribution has actually INCREASED sales of non-pirated versions. This has to do with COST. A music CD only costs $10-20 US. A video game on the other hand usually costs $40. Big difference. Is that booklet worth fourty bucks? No, it's not. And it's on sale on ebay for seven.
The problems with shelf-space and stocking have EVERYTHING to do with Sony and Microsoft's business practices. Blockbuster and EB are not exactly impartial companies. they are corporate mobsters with EXTREMELY POOR TRACK RECORDS IN THE ARENA OF CUSTOMER SERVICE. Blockbuster, for example, was nailed in court for systematically charging late fees randomly for about TEN YEARS. For some reason people think these guys are a good, upright company. They are simply LYING when they say that "gc games are kiddy, they don't rent well, etc." They are being payed off.
Now let me explain a bit about Sony's advantage in the retail arena. Sony publishes music, movies AND video games. This means that they can group these items together (this is called a monopolistic practice) and use their size to "encourage" retailers into supporting them in ways that would ordinarily be stupid for the retailers themselves. Microsoft is well known for doing this very thing in the software world. Nintendo has in the past dabbled in such dealings, as well. This is the way of corporate business.
The key to all of this is realizing that Nintendo is in a DIFFERENT BUSINESS than Sony and Microsoft. Sony and Microsoft are competing for the living-room box of the future that will control your cable, internet, video games, movies, etc. They see a one-of-akind box in the future and both want to control it. Sony wants to control it because they are CONTENT PROVIDERS, meaning if they own the hardware they can use it to push their content, making them tons of money. Microsoft wants to control it because they are a SOFTWARE MAKER, meaning they can control the software that drives the thing and make tons of money on that side of the deal. BOTH are using the BOX as a means of gaining an AUDIENCE. This is essentialy the dot-com business model of find an audience at whatever cost and then try and sell them on a product.
it doesn't work.
Nintendo, on the otherhand, is a video game company. They make a video game console and video games to play on it. They license the rights for other cmpanies to make games for their console, too. It is OPTIMIZED for video game playing. If you understand computer hardware and software you understand that a DVD player is not the ideal way of playing video game software. Nintendo offers a superior VIDEO GAME platform to companies who seek to make VIDEO GAMES. Video game publishing is a cuthroat business and companies have to do what is best for their survival at any given time. For the past few years that has meant cozying up to Sony and Microsoft and making as much cash as possible off the PS2. In the coming years, as Sony and MS move away from video games, this will change. This is why you see INCREASING support for the gamecube from third parties. They are getting teams of programmers familiar with the Nintendo hardware for future production.
Anyway, realize that this is all very complicated business and it is not all that it appears to be. Companies like Microsft, Sony and Nintendo are planning for ten and fifteen years down the road right now. Bill Gates doesn't think about 2003 when he plans his next move, he thinks about 2015. NONE of these companies are STUPID, SHORT-SIGHTED or NEW IN THE GAME.
Try and think about ten years ago. Chances are very good that you had never even HEARD of the internet. Now imagine what will be happening ten years from now. After you've thought about that for a bit, go back to your Gamecube and Playstation and XBox and really look at what you have to PLAY for those systems. You should notice a very stark difference between the GC offerings and the PSX and XBOX ones. There is a a reason for this. These differences will continue to widen.
I asked a friend recently what the best part of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City was, eg I couldn't figure out why he liked playing it so much. He thought about it and concluded that what he liked best was the radio stations. Think about that for a little while...
Post by: Bloodworth on April 16, 2003, 07:25:06 AM
Post by: egman on April 16, 2003, 07:42:49 AM
The argument that companies were pushed away from the N64 partly because it was cart based seems reasonable, but the arguments against their current media doesn't seem to hold weight.
Post by: MickeyD on April 16, 2003, 10:14:48 AM
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 16, 2003, 11:11:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: egman
lastexit--That's an interesting point you brought up about the GC discs. I asked a question about that ealier today on another thread when talking about Splinter Cell's truncated levels or for the GC. Is there some reason for companies to be reluctant to make multi-disc games, considering how common a practice it was during the PS era? Or is the real issue the possiblity that disc space issue has become an easy excusefor companies who want to justify the poor showing of their games?
The argument that companies were pushed away from the N64 partly because it was cart based seems reasonable, but the arguments against their current media doesn't seem to hold weight.
Actually Egman than levels are truncated on PS2 and GC, its due to RAM not disc space. That said, I seriously think the GC version is a port of the PS2 game and not the X-box game. The GC is capable of better, I'm not saying it SC for GC should look better than the X-box version but it should look at least 90% as good as the X-box version if not nearly identical. Even if the levels had to be truncated, the GC has a third more RAM than the PS2, so the reductions should have been less noticeable on the GC version. As far as writing an editorial like Mickey D, I'd be more than willing to write one myself. I'm a bit rusty when it comes to writing editorials, I used to be a editor for gaming site called Vortex Gaming On-line. If anyone remembers the site....I doubt it, I was VGO Flare. Anyway and editorial would be great, or maybe there could be a coordinated effort between multiple GC sites. Or maybe there could a roundtable, you get a few third parties together, let them know of our concerns and see how they respond. Kind of like the Budweiser Hot Seat (tm) minus ESPN, the TV cameras, and the famous stars....okay maybe it not like th Budweiser Hot Seat (tm) but you guys get the idea. I pretty sure a lot of this stuff is a lot easier to say than to do, but I'm pretty sure some of the forums members wouldn't mind helping anyway we could. I'd be willing to help. MickeyD seems willing, I'm pretty sure that there are others willing to help too.
Darc Requiem
Post by: Ninja X on April 16, 2003, 12:35:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: VideoGamerX
""Then what is the big stinking deal about making ports for the Nintendo Gamecube? All we ever hear is how low sales hurt third parties. So, while Capcom reaped huge profits on Code Veronia's port to the PS2, which I stress did not sell impressively, EA has to rethink whether or not to send last minute ports of high demand sports games to the Gamecube. How costly can that be...?
I guess EA does not want to waste time on a port that does not really sell well if it can dedicate more manpower and time to an even bigger project, like one of its Medal of Honor games.
""It did cost a lot more money to completely reproduce Resident Evil, but you practically negate the cost of porting and pretend that profit is my argument. I never claimed that profit was the issue, but did go out of my way to make a statement that Capcom probably expected better sales. Afterall, they are the ones who voiced disappointment at not being able to sell PS1 ports on the Gamecube at full price.
Porting does not cost that much. That's why I think you don't know much about remaking a game into a graphical masterpiece (RE remake) and making a port that's nearly the same as the original. Yes, profit was not your issue, but profit's the main thing. A game like RE for the GCN must have cost a lot to make. Copies sold were particulary good considering the game is on the Cube. However, Capcom's main goal, just like every other company's main goal, is to make a profit on all of its games. For a game that had high development costs and decent-sized advertising costs, the profits reeled in from the RE remake was not as good as Capcom expected.
You want examples? Let's use movies. A movie with a budget of $30 million dollars that grosses $120 million dollars is a bigger success than a movie with a budget of $140 million dollars that grosses $180 million dollars. The first movie made a $90 million dollar profit compared to the second movie's $40 million dollar profit. In the same way, that's how the video game world works too.
Not to mention RE set a pretty bad example for third-parties wondering whether to put big exclusive games on the Cube.
Their way of thinking: "Well, let's see, we want to put [insert big game] on the GCN exclusively, but will it make us money? Let's look at a big exclusive game already on Gamecube...Resident Evil. The game sold well considering the size of the user base, but its profits still were not as good as expected. If we put a big title on this system, chances are it'll end up similar to RE, where we won't make a very good profit off it."
Chances are it'll end up on PS2 or X-box. A few exclusives that are not Nintendo-related games do exist for the Cube besides the Capcom Five (good old Mikami). FF: CC, possibly Tube Slider, Super Monkey Ball...but not many of them are high-cost games. FF:CC, probably a high-cost game, is probably going to get get some financial help from Nintendo themselves, seeing as how the company behind it was started by Fund Q. A few games, like SC2 or MK: Deadly Alliance, are exceptions, as they are high-cost games funded by their respectful companies themselves. However, these third-party games are few on the Cube. Another reason why we see a good amount of ports on the system, as ports are cheap.
""It does not matter the difference between the Resident Evil remake and the port of Code Veronica. You only wish I didn't know the difference (serves you right for trying to belittle other people's intelligence. Learn that yet?). I'm making a comparison in sales. Code Veronica sold fewer than 500,000 units in North America. It did the same in Japan. It didn't come close to selling a million. When it was ported to PS2, it was a superior port. The graphics were top notch for the PS2. It was, "for all intents and purposes," a new game for PS2 and 90% of its gamers. If no one ever mentioned that it was previously on another console, they'd all assume it was brand new. It, bottom line, didn't sell. A remake of an old story in a userbase about one tenth the size of the PS2's did better. I don't know whether we attribute that to the fact that it may not have gotten a lot of exposure or if Resident Evil simply isn't stacking up to competition in the survival horror genre.""
Once again, Code Veronica X made a nice profit, which is obviously what Capcom wanted. A superior port? If it was indeed a superior port that used the PS2's powers, the graphics would be more akin to the GCN RE remake rather than the original CV. The PS2 may be the weakest technically out of all the three major consoles, but it does not get blown out by the other two. A new game? Maybe Capcom thought it a new game, but a good amount of gamers knew about Code Veronica. It's just that a good amount of gamers do not have Dreamcast, which is why it had low sales, supposedly. I have a friend (an RE nut) who bought Code Veronica X even though he still had Code Veronica. Now, think about it. How many RE nuts own a PS2? The announcement that RE is exclusive for the GCN until RE4 came months after the US launch of the PS2. Before that announcement, RE fans bought PS2, not only to enjoy other games on the PS2, but also to play the new RE, especially the heavily hyped RE4. Plus, I doubt many of them spent money on a DC when they knew the main RE series would be on PS2 (before the GCN exclusive announcement) and that the PS2 was coming out within a short time of RE:CV's (the original) release. The reason Code Veronica X didn't do so well? No, it did well. What are you talking about? It's a Greatest Hits title. It's a port that didn't cost a whole lot of money to make. The only things that were relatively new in the PS2 version were a few more cutscenes with Wesker and a video of Wesker talking about some things relating to Umbrella, the only real addition that costed money, but not that much money. The bottom line is that Capcom reached its main goal off a port it did not even market that heavily while the RE remake fell a little short of expectations.
""To even get back to my original (read: "real") point is that mature titles can, have, and will sell on the Gamecube. The Resident Evil remake did sell pretty well. It beat an appropriate counterpart on the PS2, and that's a shocker.""
Few did, but you are technically correct. Resident Evil and Metroid sold copies. But that's about it. Maybe one or two more mature games, but I cannot think of anymore.
"Appropiate counterpart"? I do not think so. The Resident Evil remake was heavily anticipated and marketed decently by Capcom while Code Veronica X was marketed in a very general manner. Not to mention the technical aspects of the original were far superior to the PS2 graphics.
So it's not amount of copies sold that matters. It's what every company in the world is after: money. Most high-cost games fare well, but some just break a little above even, like the RE remake. Mature titles on the GCN can sell copies, but cannot reel in the money in in almost every cases. The only mature title that made a very good profit on the Gamecube is Metroid Prime.
Edit: Metroid Prime made a decent profit, not a very good one like I mentioned above. The copies it sold were a little below expectations.
Post by: egman on April 16, 2003, 12:49:13 PM
Also, SC is definately a port of the PS2. There is no doubt about it. The thing that sucks is Ubi Soft themselves hyped the game as being virtually identical to the X-box/PC version, which it certainly is not. Comparison pictures that were floating around showed the GC and PS2 shared the exact same levels and design differences.
Post by: VideoGamerX on April 16, 2003, 03:05:34 PM
You know what's sad? Right now, I'm really hoping a game like Tube Slider sells well. It looks like a really good game. I'd go buy it if I didn't already get a game a few weeks back (Wind Waker... however long ago that was... 3 and a half weeks ago when it released). Deep down, I just know that game will grab medicre sales. I don't see it advertised... one good reason it won't sell. Those who are in the video game world of news and politics know F-Zero is primed for a release later in the summer. Those are all very good excuses for this game to bomb. It's "releasing too soon after Wind Waker" and it's "releasing too close to a superior F-Zero franchise"... and they'll say that it wasn't promoted well, so it got what it deserved. *sigh* I maybe jumping the gun, but that game would probably sell at least 600,000 copies on the PS2 (it should, there's 100 times that many PS2 owners in the world). I think it's great NEC produced a game that looks so good. They need support.
My only problem is that when I do get games, being the poor college student that I am, I make them count. I own Madden NFL 2002 (got it for Christmas because I had to have a killer football app to play until the disc is no longer reflective), Super Smash Brothers: Melee (what Gamecube owner doesn't own this?), All-Star Baseball 2003 (needed the killer baseball app, this wasn't it, I actually traded this in, though...), Resident Evil (love it, never get tired of the hopeless feeling that surrounds RE), Eternal Darkness (got this at a great bargain by trading ASB in
), Ocarina of Time bonus disk (couldn't live without it), Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker (couldn't live without it). See the trend? Those are must-have's for me, now add to the list of games I wish I could get: Metroid Prime, Animal Crossing... and will want F-Zero, Mario Kart, the new Donkey Kong, the new Mario, and the new Zelda. The new Metal Gear game depending on what it is, will be a must have for me. Splinter Cell. The list is just too big for me to ever fill it. This goes without mentioning Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles. Third parties take a back seat in some instances because I don't have the money to buy it all.And I bet over half of the people who own consoles on all platforms are like me.... picking only the essentials to make ends meet.
Poor Tube Slider.
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 16, 2003, 03:16:37 PM
Darc Requiem
Post by: MickeyD on April 16, 2003, 04:02:05 PM
Post by: Ninja X on April 17, 2003, 06:21:37 AM
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 17, 2003, 07:07:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ninja X
Money can be an issue, VideoGamerX. If you have only a good amount of money to buy a certain amount of games, chances are it'll be the best-quality games. Nintendo's games are great, and often are the choice for gamers like me and you who are strapped on cash, along with a couple third-party games like RE. Many third parties do complain that their games have to complete with Nintendo games, and they are right, unfortunately.
Yes but thats a somewhat of crock Ninja X, yes they do have to compete against Nintendo games but the third party market is much better on Gamecube than PS2 and is probably a little better on X-box than Gamecube. Why do I say that, the number of titles. The PS2 has the same problem as the GBA there is so much crap coming out for it that a lot of good games don't sell well and third parties lose money. Even the big third parties. It was one of the main reasons Namco signed there deal with Nintendo, because they lost a ton of money being PS only. It was the first time they posted a loss in a decade. From a third party developers stand point, if they had a brains the GC and even X-box would be very attractive. Its kind of like the N64 there was less third party support for it. So if a third party put out a game and put some advertising muscle behind it they mad a ton of cash. The N64 is the reason Acclaim didn't go belly up. When Turok 1 was released it was the only high quality 3rd party game on N64. While things aren't as dire on GC as there were N64. The level of third party support isn't the same a PS2. If they paid attention, they would have noticed that if they give us a quality title we buy it and then when ever we see the companies name again we continue to support them. I site Acclaim again as an example after Turok 1 the quality of their titles started to decline but they had realitively high sales in comparison to other third parties. That Sega's problem, when they produced their own hardware they sold more titles, because like Nintendo, Sega usually puts out quality titles and everyone who owns the system buys them. When they went "multi-platform", they had to compete a sea of third party titles and because of that their game sales are down. They could no longer count on the sales from Sega fans because not all of them had the system they put their titles on. Take their most high profile PS2 game Virtua Fighter 4, they heavily marketed the game in Japan and even the US, but the sales for VF4 were about same if not less than VF3 despite the huge difference in userbase. You would have assumed that they would have sold a lot more units of the game but they didn't because VF4 was going against the huge number of PS2 fighting games. I honestly believe VF4 would have sold more copies on Gamecube. I know some of you are thinking how is that possible. All I have to say is look at the sale of Bloody Roar Primal Fury, it actually out sold the PS2 version of Bloody Roar. While it was only by about 10,000 copies, 100,000 to 90,000, when you take the userbase into account thats quite amazing. You know why it sold so well? Lack of competition, it definately wasn't the ad campaign for Bloody Roar. Its one of the best 3D fighters for Gamecube because there are only 2 traditional 3D fighters currently out for Gamecube. Now I may be wrong a VF4 could have sold worse on Cube than PS2. But I'll say this, if VF4 was out and I probably wouldn't have bought Bloody Roar. Hell VF4, is the only Sega game I own on my PS2. One final note, Sonic Adventure 2 Battle for GC was probably the worse Sonic title ever released, its not a bad game...but its bad for a Sonic game. Yet it has sold better than VF4 has.....now you can't tell that a lack of competition doesn't effect game sales. I wish some third parties would get a clue and release that. BTW Sorry for the size of the post. I really need to summarize these things LOL
Darc Requiem
Post by: lastexit on April 17, 2003, 09:59:23 AM
Anybody who says their game requires a full-dvd is an exceptionally lazy developer.
Post by: Ian Sane on April 17, 2003, 10:45:35 AM
I totally get what you're saying about Bloody Roar and Sonic Adventure 2. Those games sold quite well and it was obviously do to the fact that they had slim competition. But remember they also were released at the perfect time. Both games came out during a huge Gamecube game drought and as a result sold well because the Cube userbase was starving for a new title. Aside from being in the right place a third party game has to be released at the right time. RE sold better than RE0. RE was the game that broke the game drought and came out at a time when there was nothing else worth buying. RE0 came out around Christmas the same time that Metroid Prime and Star Fox Adventures came out. Note that the title that came out the same time as two major Nintendo titles didn't sell as well. Now there are other factors but timing does play a part. Super Monkey Ball came out at the Gamecube launch and was a surprise hit for Sega. Beach Spikers on the other hand came out in the Japan the same day as Super Mario Sunshine and not surprisingly was a flop (despite being a good game).
I think the key to having a successful third party title on the Gamecube is to release a game in a genre that Nintendo themselves is quite weak at (fighting, FPS, RPG, not platform or kart racing) and release it between major first party releases. A lot of games on the N64 were successful because they were released far apart so that once someone was finished one game a new one came out. If third parties (on all the consoles) used this mentality and spread their releases out so that they didn't clash with other major titles they would probably sell more games. I think a big reason why Splinter Cell sold better than Metroid Prime was because it was like the first Xbox killer app since Halo.
Post by: Ninja X on April 17, 2003, 10:55:14 AM
Yes, the third-party market is smaller on the Cube compared to the PS2, so you think if a third-party would release a quality game, it would sell good provided it had marketng behind it. That's probably true, but the PS2 has the largest userbase. If a third-party game were to achieve financial success on the PS2, PS2 gamers would most likely remember that game or the series that game is on; thus, any sequel or prequel produced for that game will sell just basedo because of the predecessor. Sounds confusing? Here's an example:
Devil May Cry. Devil May Cry 1 sold well and was renowned as a great action game. More than a year later, the sequel would come out. Now, the sequel, by some critics and DMC fans alike, sucks. But it still sells like crazy and looks to surpass DMC, last time I checked the TRST data.
If a game can hit success on the PS2, any more versions or sequels following that game are practically guaranteed for success. You want more examples? GTA, Metal Gear Solid, Red Faction, Smackdown, etc.
The third-party market on the GCN is weak on sales. The Nintendo games are what really sell on the system. No third party game has even matched the sales numbers of Mario or Metroid besides Resident Evil and maybe SA2. Really good advertising costs money. Therefore, it's a gamble. Ads might get whatever third-party game known on the GCN providing they are good enough, but will the game generate enough sales to cover the ad costs and make the third-party a profit?
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 17, 2003, 12:22:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ninja X
Darc Requiem
Yes, the third-party market is smaller on the Cube compared to the PS2, so you think if a third-party would release a quality game, it would sell good provided it had marketng behind it. That's probably true, but the PS2 has the largest userbase. If a third-party game were to achieve financial success on the PS2, PS2 gamers would most likely remember that game or the series that game is on; thus, any sequel or prequel produced for that game will sell just basedo because of the predecessor. Sounds confusing? Here's an example:
Devil May Cry. Devil May Cry 1 sold well and was renowned as a great action game. More than a year later, the sequel would come out. Now, the sequel, by some critics and DMC fans alike, sucks. But it still sells like crazy and looks to surpass DMC, last time I checked the TRST data.
If a game can hit success on the PS2, any more versions or sequels following that game are practically guaranteed for success. You want more examples? GTA, Metal Gear Solid, Red Faction, Smackdown, etc.
The third-party market on the GCN is weak on sales. The Nintendo games are what really sell on the system. No third party game has even matched the sales numbers of Mario or Metroid besides Resident Evil and maybe SA2. Really good advertising costs money. Therefore, it's a gamble. Ads might get whatever third-party game known on the GCN providing they are good enough, but will the game generate enough sales to cover the ad costs and make the third-party a profit?
I concur Ninja X, PS2 is where you can theoritically make the most money. My problem is with third parties logic. If you are going to spend the time and money to produce a game, you should put forth your best effort to make sure its a success. If you are not going to advertise a game at all, don't make the game. People can't buy what they've never heard about and if you are not willing to do whats necessary to make them aware of your product you are wasting your time and money.
This isn't the NES or SNES days were producing a video game was inexpensive. Development teams aren't five and ten guys anymore. So its fiscally irresponsible to release a video game these days without some sort of advertising campaign. Yes ads cost money but so did the salary of 40 man development team that you paid over the last 18 months to make the game. I mean back in the NES/SNES when you had 5 guys working on a game for six months you could afford to not advertise and rely on word of mouth. I mean there are exceptions, Ikagura only had a 3 man develoment team. Treasure's development cost on Ikagura were probably at tenth of the average video game. You can drop a game like that on the shelves and sell a few thousand copies and still laugh all the way to the bank.
If I'm gonna spend a million dollars on a video game development, I'm gonna have to sell at least 35 to 40,000 copies to break even. Now I can sit in my office and pray that a few hardcore gamers pick up my game and spread the word or I can take some initiative. I'm not saying have a 10 million dollar had campaign. You could do some web ads, they are inexpensive, and have a few 30 second TV spots. At least give your game the chance to do well.
Now if that games bombs and you lose money, don't develop on the platform again. At least you'll have given it a fair shot and can make an assessment for future projects. Don't sit there and spout of some stereotypical diatribe without actually knowing anything. Developers assumed that GC was kiddie before the first system hit the shelves. Developers determine how a console is viewed. Now matter how many first party titles are released for a console they will be dwarfed by the third party offerings. Its just the like the Dreamcast. Third parties didn't support it because they said they thought it wouldn't be crushed by the PS2. Well without third support any console will fail. So by sitting back and doing nothing they guaranteed the PS2's success. Then the same developers bitch about Sony being to dominant, well its a product of their own doing.
Third parties are always giving self fulfilling prophecy's. This console won't sell, these games don't sell on this console. Well if you don't put any mature games on a console people that like mature games aren't gonna buy it. My games don't sell on this platform, well if you game gets an average rating of 3.5 of 10 because of substandard framerates and an all around shoddy port its YOUR fault. Things don't just happen at random in retail, there are reasons for them.
Oh and one more thing, hey Ian....what exactly is a paragraph?
Darc Requiem
Post by: Ninja X on April 17, 2003, 04:05:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Darc Requiem<br
""I concur Ninja X, PS2 is where you can theoritically make the most money. My problem is with third parties logic. If you are going to spend the time and money to produce a game, you should put forth your best effort to make sure its a success. If you are not going to advertise a game at all, don't make the game. People can't buy what they've never heard about and if you are not willing to do whats necessary to make them aware of your product you are wasting your time and money.""
They do most of the time. When companies spend money on a game, they are not going to spend in order for it to flop. No, they want big profit. Most companies do not put much effort into their games on the GCN besides Capcom. And no, ports like SA2 do not count as ports are not very hard to make for the GCN.
""This isn't the NES or SNES days were producing a video game was inexpensive. Development teams aren't five and ten guys anymore. So its fiscally irresponsible to release a video game these days without some sort of advertising campaign. Yes ads cost money but so did the salary of 40 man development team that you paid over the last 18 months to make the game. I mean back in the NES/SNES when you had 5 guys working on a game for six months you could afford to not advertise and rely on word of mouth. I mean there are exceptions, Ikagura only had a 3 man develoment team. Treasure's development cost on Ikagura were probably at tenth of the average video game. You can drop a game like that on the shelves and sell a few thousand copies and still laugh all the way to the bank.""
I assume you're talking about the GCN. Not many big projects exist that require a large development team for the Gamecube. RE and RE0 is all I can think for now(Not counting future titles). Some of the big third-party games on the Cube are ports, which don't require a big development team. As for ads, money cannot be just thrown away. Each step you make with each console must be well-thought out if you want to make the most profit possible, especially with the economy today. Some developers do not bother to advertise(I'm talking about ports) for the GCN, thinking then they will not gain much profit if they have to pay off the marketing costs. The other big third-party games for the GCN are multiplatform games, which can be advertised (for whatever systems that big multiplatform game appears on) in one campaign. Not to mention multiplatform games are aided commercially by word-of-mouth and greater press coverage (multiplatform games appear on two or three consoles, thus, more previews, reviews, screenshots, etc.)
""If I'm gonna spend a million dollars on a video game development, I'm gonna have to sell at least 35 to 40,000 copies to break even. Now I can sit in my office and pray that a few hardcore gamers pick up my game and spread the word or I can take some initiative. I'm not saying have a 10 million dollar had campaign. You could do some web ads, they are inexpensive, and have a few 30 second TV spots. At least give your game the chance to do well.""
35 to 40,000 copies? I don't think that's much profit. I know you applied royalty fees and other taxes, but don't forget staff salaries(especially if the game takes more than several months to develop) production costs, and marketing costs. All of a sudden, the cost of developing that game rises. You need more copies to break even. But of course, you also want to make profit, and a good amount to keep your investors happy.
""Now if that games bombs and you lose money, don't develop on the platform again. At least you'll have given it a fair shot and can make an assessment for future projects. Don't sit there and spout of some stereotypical diatribe without actually knowing anything. Developers assumed that GC was kiddie before the first system hit the shelves. Developers determine how a console is viewed. Now matter how many first party titles are released for a console they will be dwarfed by the third party offerings. Its just the like the Dreamcast. Third parties didn't support it because they said they thought it wouldn't be crushed by the PS2. Well without third support any console will fail. So by sitting back and doing nothing they guaranteed the PS2's success. Then the same developers bitch about Sony being to dominant, well its a product of their own doing.""
You MUST make good choices in business. Unfortunately, not many companies have money to throw around. They are not going to test new console waters by developing a superb game and giving it a great advertising campaign at the risk of it flopping. No...they want the best chance possible for this superb game to succeed, and the best chance for it succeeding is to make it geared towards adults, who generally work and earn a good amount of money to spend, and develop it for a popular system that has a good amount of adults(i.e. PS2). The GCN has the youngest user base, I assume. And I doubt children carry around much money. Most of them just ask their parents most of the time. Therefore, more companies develop more kid-oriented games when developing for the GCN. Right now, I see kid-oriented games on most of the store shelves for GCN. They are the handiworks of third parties who do not want to risk much on the Cube. Either that or ports.
""Third parties are always giving self fulfilling prophecy's. This console won't sell, these games don't sell on this console. Well if you don't put any mature games on a console people that like mature games aren't gonna buy it. My games don't sell on this platform, well if you game gets an average rating of 3.5 of 10 because of substandard framerates and an all around shoddy port its YOUR fault. Things don't just happen at random in retail, there are reasons for them.""
Indeed.
And one more thing...your grammar has improved from your last argument with me. I sense two different people using one screen name?
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 17, 2003, 05:10:00 PM
"I assume you're talking about the GCN. Not many big projects exist that require a large development team for the Gamecube. RE and RE0 is all I can think for now(Not counting future titles). Some of the big third-party games on the Cube are ports, which don't require a big development team. As for ads, money cannot be just thrown away. Each step you make with each console must be well-thought out if you want to make the most profit possible, especially with the economy today. Some developers do not bother to advertise(I'm talking about ports) for the GCN, thinking then they will not gain much profit if they have to pay off the marketing costs. The other big third-party games for the GCN are multiplatform games, which can be advertised (for whatever systems that big multiplatform game appears on) in one campaign. Not to mention multiplatform games are aided commercially by word-of-mouth and greater press coverage (multiplatform games appear on two or three consoles, thus, more previews, reviews, screenshots, etc.)"
No I'm not talking about GCN in particular. I'm talking about the gaming industry in general. Yes not every project is big project, my point in general was that development cost are much higher than they used to be. I'm not suggesting anyone throw their money away. It takes money to make money. If you are going to invest the time and effort to produce a video game, you should also spend the time and money promoting to ensure that the game is successful. Yes multiplatform games can be advertised in one campaign but look at the recent Splinter Cell ad. Its a multiplatform ad in principle but in practice its a PS2 ad. The games availbility for PS2 is stressed and the GC isn't mention with the exception of the small GC logo at the end. Your argument about mult-platform games is quite valid but its more accurate when applied to multiplatform games with as similtaneous release. When there is a huge gap in between the release date on multiple platforms it doesn't apply. Why do you ask? Usually if a game hits say PS2 first, there is huge ad campaign but if its later ported to GC and/or X-box than game gets a much smaller ad campaign if it gets on at all. Plus if with a simultaneous release the game usually has better sales numbers on GC and X-box. Most gamers have a PS2 and if they prefer GC or X-box they will usually buy the PS2 version of the game because they don't feel like waiting on a version on their preferred platform. I'm in the minority if the game is gonna hit GC, I wait for the GC version. If the GC version is inferior....I just don't buy the game at all.
"35 to 40,000 copies? I don't think that's much profit. I know you applied royalty fees and other taxes, but don't forget staff salaries(especially if the game takes more than several months to develop) production costs, and marketing costs. All of a sudden, the cost of developing that game rises. You need more copies to break even. But of course, you also want to make profit, and a good amount to keep your investors happy."
I said you'll have to sell at least that amount. I wasn't implying that 35 to 40,000 copies was the goal 3rd parties are shooting for. Yes I did consider staff salaries, licensing fees, and the retailers cut. I purposely left out the cost of ads to illustrate a point. Most likely the company is not going to sell enough copies to break even without some sort of advertising campaign. The only way a developer could get away with no ad campaign, is if the game is just groundbreaking. Then word of mouth could possibly bail them out, but thats still not guaranteed. Sega made plenty of innovative games with groundbreaking groundplay that bombed and some of those games had a modest ad campaign. My point is how can a developer expect to even break even if they have to no ad campaign at all. And by ad campaign, I mean some sort of significant TV campaign. With the exception of Sega's Sports lineup, most 3rd parties that have complained of poor GC sales have no sort of TV ad campaign. They can't get away with this on X-box because MS is bending over backwards loosing billions to get the X-box exposure. Nintendo should do something similar as MickeyD suggested....although I don't think they can afford to match MS in scale because of monetary reasons.
"You MUST make good choices in business. Unfortunately, not many companies have money to throw around. They are not going to test new console waters by developing a superb game and giving it a great advertising campaign at the risk of it flopping. No...they want the best chance possible for this superb game to succeed, and the best chance for it succeeding is to make it geared towards adults, who generally work and earn a good amount of money to spend, and develop it for a popular system that has a good amount of adults(i.e. PS2). The GCN has the youngest user base, I assume. And I doubt children carry around much money. Most of them just ask their parents most of the time. Therefore, more companies develop more kid-oriented games when developing for the GCN. Right now, I see kid-oriented games on most of the store shelves for GCN. They are the handiworks of third parties who do not want to risk much on the Cube. Either that or ports."
Thats goes without saying Ninja X. You MUST make good business decisions. Producing a subpar game with minimal adverstising is not a good business decision. Giving GC owners an inferior version of a game six months after the original was released and not advertising its NOT a good business decision. If they aren't going to develop a superb game with a great advertising campaign, then they are going to lose money and they should lose money. You can't produce a half ass game with no ad campaign on console A, produce a superb game with a great ad campaign on console B, then state we can no longer support console A because of poor games sales. Thats flawed logic. You would setting yourself up to fail. Of course you would lose money if you are going to run your business this way. Thats like a parent giving one child $5000 to start a business and the one child $500 to do the same thing. Sure the child with the $500 could theoritically make the more successful business, but the likelyhood is that the child with $5000 will be more successful. If you are going to test the waters you are going to have to risk some money, because thats the only way to stand a chance of making any money. As far as the Gamecube user base, that's a myth pure an simple. Most kids have a Playstation, most Gamecube owners are adults that grew up on NES and SNES. Sony actually outsells Nintendo in the "kiddie" market 2 to 1.
I still can't believe that two different people on the same name comment.......I wasn't THAT rusty.
Darc Requiem
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 17, 2003, 05:44:10 PM
Quote
Yes multiplatform games can be advertised in one campaign but look at the recent Splinter Cell ad. Its a multiplatform ad in principle but in practice its a PS2 ad. The games availbility for PS2 is stressed and the GC isn't mention with the exception of the small GC logo at the end.
This is a matter of simple demographics and market statistics.
Why should they target ads to the cube, when the reality is that many cube owners wont even look at 3rd party titles.
The cube has the smallest installed user base and the worst demographic profile ( real young user base, percieved or real, the impact is exactly the same), 2 things that make it very unappealing to third parties and to retailers.
If you are a retailer with a limited amount of space and capital to stock games you will most likely start with the biggest system (PS2) and dwindle your stock in accordance to demand (usually based on past performance) for the the others.
The same goes with third parties and thier shipping policies, start with the biggest system and make sure their orders are filled because they are the bread abd butter, then worry about the smaller market, one that most likely wont buy your product anyways (again an assumption based on past performance).
It would be easy to blame this on bad avertising if so many other factors didnt just jump out at you right out of the gate.
How should ubi soft market splinter cell to the cube? With a costly 30 second spot on TV that will be seen by only a few cube owners?
With print ads in game magazines, but these would be generic and target all the systems.
In the case of splinter cell I dont think any of it would matter. The game wont sell well because it just doesnt fit the profile of what sells on the cube. I think ubi soft was simply throwing us a rushed port for the very few of us who actually want the game. Marketing or not, many here have never had any intention of buying this game in the first place.
So IMO dont blame retailers of developers, blame cube owners and nintendo for this dilema.
Post by: Stimutacs Addict on April 17, 2003, 06:01:39 PM
[EDIT] Atrocious grammar... thats an American education for ya
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 17, 2003, 08:17:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuckQuote
Yes multiplatform games can be advertised in one campaign but look at the recent Splinter Cell ad. Its a multiplatform ad in principle but in practice its a PS2 ad. The games availbility for PS2 is stressed and the GC isn't mention with the exception of the small GC logo at the end.
This is a matter of simple demographics and market statistics.
Why should they target ads to the cube, when the reality is that many cube owners wont even look at 3rd party titles.
The cube has the smallest installed user base and the worst demographic profile ( real young user base, percieved or real, the impact is exactly the same), 2 things that make it very unappealing to third parties and to retailers.
If you are a retailer with a limited amount of space and capital to stock games you will most likely start with the biggest system (PS2) and dwindle your stock in accordance to demand (usually based on past performance) for the the others.
The same goes with third parties and thier shipping policies, start with the biggest system and make sure their orders are filled because they are the bread abd butter, then worry about the smaller market, one that most likely wont buy your product anyways (again an assumption based on past performance).
It would be easy to blame this on bad avertising if so many other factors didnt just jump out at you right out of the gate.
How should ubi soft market splinter cell to the cube? With a costly 30 second spot on TV that will be seen by only a few cube owners?
With print ads in game magazines, but these would be generic and target all the systems.
In the case of splinter cell I dont think any of it would matter. The game wont sell well because it just doesnt fit the profile of what sells on the cube. I think ubi soft was simply throwing us a rushed port for the very few of us who actually want the game. Marketing or not, many here have never had any intention of buying this game in the first place.
So IMO dont blame retailers of developers, blame cube owners and nintendo for this dilema.
I will try to be brief, really I will. Your post makes no sense thecubedcanuck. I disagree with Ninja X, but he has some valid points. What you just posted is utter nonsense. Ubi Soft paid to port Splinter Cell, they paid for the TV ad, all they have to do is have the guy say "and Gamecube." They've already paid for the air time, that being the case they should use it efficiently. Most of the web ads, unless its a GC only site only Splinter Cell has been redefined for PS2. The web ads are worse because they don't even include the GC logo. Once again, they paid for the ad space. All they have to do is put "and Gamecube" and the logo. Their advertising cost remains the same, but by simply saying "and Gamecube" and adding the logo they would make more consumers aware of their product. Its not like they have to produce an all new spot for GC.....jeez.
As for you second point, which makes about as much sense as you first, its not our fault or Nintendo's that we don't wanna buy rushed or bad ports, its the fault of the developer. Not buying poor products lets the company know you are disatisfied. Example: Wrestlemania X8 was terrible, it sold poorly for wrestling title and THQ has made sweeping changes do the gameplay engine of Wrestlemania XIX. How is it our fault that developers are putting and bad titles for GC. Play Need For Speed for PS2 and then play it for GC or X-box abd tell anyone in here thats it our fault that EA made the game run worse on superior hardware. Do the same with Baldur's Gate or the multitude of other substandard ports. Now play Bloody Roar on PS2 and GC. You'll see why it sold better on GC than the first two ports I mentioned. Two paragraphs....told you I'd keep it brief. BTW I'd like to take the time to thank Ian for the paragraph suggestion again. Good looking out Ian.
Darc Requiem
Post by: Ninja X on April 18, 2003, 02:10:15 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Darc Requiem
""Ouch Ninja X, two different people? I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or an insult. Nope just shaking off the rust. I used to love debating in forums but until recently I didn't have the passion to do so. Ian suggested that I use paragraphs and I took his advice. I usually just l go on a rant and type whatever comes to mind off the top of my head but with my last post I went back and organized the rant. Anyway back on topic.""
No, I actually assumed that screen name was used by two different people. Your style of writing changed radically. But I guess now you're in debate mode.
""No I'm not talking about GCN in particular. I'm talking about the gaming industry in general. Yes not every project is big project, my point in general was that development cost are much higher than they used to be. I'm not suggesting anyone throw their money away. It takes money to make money. If you are going to invest the time and effort to produce a video game, you should also spend the time and money promoting to ensure that the game is successful.
I repeat this, companies do, in general, spend time and money for games that required a good amount of time and money. Some games are developed for the hopes of quick profit, and thus, do not require much time nor money to develop. Capcom has 80 games scheduled so far for the future. You think all 80 games are big games that they are going to push with advertising? No, of course not. Some are just for satisfying investors or making quick profit.
""Yes multiplatform games can be advertised in one campaign but look at the recent Splinter Cell ad. Its a multiplatform ad in principle but in practice its a PS2 ad. The games availbility for PS2 is stressed and the GC isn't mention with the exception of the small GC logo at the end. Your argument about mult-platform games is quite valid but its more accurate when applied to multiplatform games with as similtaneous release. When there is a huge gap in between the release date on multiple platforms it doesn't apply. Why do you ask? Usually if a game hits say PS2 first, there is huge ad campaign but if its later ported to GC and/or X-box than game gets a much smaller ad campaign if it gets on at all. Plus if with a simultaneous release the game usually has better sales numbers on GC and X-box. Most gamers have a PS2 and if they prefer GC or X-box they will usually buy the PS2 version of the game because they don't feel like waiting on a version on their preferred platform. I'm in the minority if the game is gonna hit GC, I wait for the GC version. If the GC version is inferior....I just don't buy the game at all.""
I guess the word "ports" didn't enter your mindset, huh? The definition of a multi-platform game, at least to my knowledge, is a game that comes out for two or more systems at the same time. Maybe another word suits that better, but that is the context it is being used in. Games that appear on multiple systems, but with a huge gap in release dates, are ports. Ports are cheap, and thus, don't require much marketing, or even any marketing at all. They're made for quick profits, as I like to call it. Ports do not often sell as much as the original version in most occasions, and you just explained why with third-to-last statement of that paragraph above.
""I said you'll have to sell at least that amount. I wasn't implying that 35 to 40,000 copies was the goal 3rd parties are shooting for. Yes I did consider staff salaries, licensing fees, and the retailers cut. I purposely left out the cost of ads to illustrate a point. Most likely the company is not going to sell enough copies to break even without some sort of advertising campaign. The only way a developer could get away with no ad campaign, is if the game is just groundbreaking. Then word of mouth could possibly bail them out, but thats still not guaranteed. Sega made plenty of innovative games with groundbreaking groundplay that bombed and some of those games had a modest ad campaign. My point is how can a developer expect to even break even if they have to no ad campaign at all. And by ad campaign, I mean some sort of significant TV campaign. With the exception of Sega's Sports lineup, most 3rd parties that have complained of poor GC sales have no sort of TV ad campaign. They can't get away with this on X-box because MS is bending over backwards loosing billions to get the X-box exposure. Nintendo should do something similar as MickeyD suggested....although I don't think they can afford to match MS in scale because of monetary reasons.""
I must repeat this, but you cannot waste money. No matter how small the amount, in business, you cannot waste money unless it will guarantee you a positive result or at least something very good can come of it.
Let's say a third party company wants to release a port of a mature game they first produced on the PS2 to the GCN. Looking at the charts and demographics, they know the GCN is not a mature (games-wise) system. The games that really sell are mostly E rated games (Sunshine, Pikmin, Luigi's Mansion, sports games,etc) From then on, you have to make predictions. Is the game going to sell on GCN? No, a probable chance exists it is not going to sell (unless the game is phenomonal, but pretend it is your average mature game).
So they start an ad campaign to promote awareness of this title on the GCN. However, they cannot spend much money on the ad campaign as it is a port, and companies do not want to spend much on a port unless it is drastically changed. Usually, a video game company's budget agenda is more reserved for that company's bigger titles. Back to the argument, the budget the company spends on that port leaves out TV spots. TV spots cost too much, especially on prime time. A few 30-second spots? Practically a waste of money. You are really relying on luck then and hoping many people are watching when the commercial airs. But sadly, it will get ignored if not enough commericials enforce awareness for your game. Want an example? Look at Eternal Darkness. A few spots and it sold a little below decent. Maybe bad if you factor in its production costs and the time it took to develop it, as Nintendo had to keep funding it all throughout those years.
On to the point, they start a small ad campaign. They put out banner advertisements on the internet and even spots in a gaming magazine. But it is more than likely those ads will get swamped by bigger ads or ads of bigger games. Games are advertised in an overzealous manner on the internet and in gaming magazines. Look at an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly. That magazine is, figuratively, half-composed of advertisements. The ad they put gaming magazine is soon forgotten by most readers if it is not used in an overzealous manner, which I highly doubt it is if you take in the budget for the port. The port's ads will get swamped by other ads. People will acknowledge the ad, but more than likely forget about it when another ad pops up on their screen telling about some other game. You have to hammer it into their heads using both ad appeal and money to show that ad over and over again. Take the site of Gamespot for example. Out of all the ads on that site, I only remember the Tenchi one as of recently. That ad was used in an overzealous manner and it was quite appealing. If I ever saw an ad for the port of the mature game I am talking about on a site somewhere, chances are I'd forget it, even if it was appealing, because other banners, such as the Tenchi one, are competing with it for the consumer's attention and the consumer's wallet. Some win due to its flashy appeal and the many times it has shown up on the said consumer's monitor.
Let's focus more on appeal, shall we? Let's just say I make one of my habitual visits over to Planet Gamecube. I click on forums, and I eventually lay witness to a small pop-up ad and an ad imbedded on the page. The small pop-up ad is of the port we are talking about. I look at it, pass a couple thoughts about it through my head, and click X on the pop-up, thus eradicating it from my monitor. I see the imbedded ad, one for The Real Cancun. It shows two girls in a bikini dancing in front of what looks to be boisterous men. Obviously, it has sex appeal to it. Can you guess which ad I forgot about and which ad sticks in my mind? I bet you can.
So that is why at times, companies do not bother to advertise, especially for ports. It is a waste of money usually. They hope to break even and obtain a decent amount of profit by recognization or word-of-mouth. Ports do have the advantage of word-of-mouth through desire for people who wanted the original version after seeing their friends who have the original version or any other possible scenarios such as that.
""Thats goes without saying Ninja X. You MUST make good business decisions. Producing a subpar game with minimal adverstising is not a good business decision. Giving GC owners an inferior version of a game six months after the original was released and not advertising its NOT a good business decision. If they aren't going to develop a superb game with a great advertising campaign, then they are going to lose money and they should lose money. You can't produce a half ass game with no ad campaign on console A, produce a superb game with a great ad campaign on console B, then state we can no longer support console A because of poor games sales. Thats flawed logic. You would setting yourself up to fail. Of course you would lose money if you are going to run your business this way. Thats like a parent giving one child $5000 to start a business and the one child $500 to do the same thing. Sure the child with the $500 could theoritically make the more successful business, but the likelyhood is that the child with $5000 will be more successful. If you are going to test the waters you are going to have to risk some money, because thats the only way to stand a chance of making any money. As far as the Gamecube user base, that's a myth pure an simple. Most kids have a Playstation, most Gamecube owners are adults that grew up on NES and SNES. Sony actually outsells Nintendo in the "kiddie" market 2 to 1.""
Companies are testing waters, even with those half-assed games, to see if they can break even on the Cube. Than they start with the big games. That is good business logic. Half-assed games sold well on PS2, so why cannot it sell at least decent on the GCN considering the GCN's user base? Not everybody who owns a GCN is alert on which games are developed in a shoddy manner and which is not. However, some games barely sell on the GCN. Rather, what does sell? Mario, Metroid, Pikmin, Super Smash Bros., Wave Race, Resident Evil, Sonic Adventure, Zelda, possibly Super Monkey Ball. Which company develops most of the games I just listed? That is why most third-parties say they have to compete with Nintendo to sell their games. When the port of the mature game we used earlier comes out the same day as The Wind Waker, and a customer walks in a game store with $50 dollars and sees the two latest games on GCN are these two games, which one is he more likely to buy? The Wind Waker has the dignified Zelda name and a good advertising campaign behind it. The port has a small ad campaign that our said customer does not recall of and the port does not have the same level of recognization as the Zelda series to him. That is why most third-party companies do not test waters with a high-profile game. That fear always exist that it might not sell well due to competing with Nintendo's stellar first-party titles or it might flop with the limited userbase of the GCN compared to the PS2.
Please show me an actual chart or demographic that states most GCN owners are adults. I say most GCN owners are teenagers due to some study Nintendo did years back and the people in my school. None of the people I know own a GCN only. They all own a Xbox or PS2. Only a few carry GCN with them along with their other console(s) for Mario, Zelda, and Resident Evil.
One quote strikes me:
""If you are going to test the waters you are going to have to risk some money, because thats the only way to stand a chance of making any money.""
Tell that to the Japanese game companies who are not doing well due to the Japanese economy. Tell that to the game companies who are merging to relieve financial woes. Not during these trying times can the companies risk money. No, not now.
Post by: Dirk Temporo on April 19, 2003, 12:29:23 PM
Post by: Darc Requiem on April 19, 2003, 02:28:46 PM
Darc Requiem
Post by: Hostile Creation on April 19, 2003, 03:16:48 PM
Post by: Ninja X on April 21, 2003, 07:40:05 AM
Indeed, I say let's agree to disagree. We both have different views of business. I still say money cannot be squandered or risked, especially in these times. Businesses need to satisfy investors and keep a good amount of money in their treasury to survive. No video game company, besides EA, has as much money as Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. The smartest decisions possible must be made in order to make money, and statistics show GCN does not bestow third-parties generally with much money for most games they release. Worse yet, some companies actually lose money releasing one of their games on the GCN. The PS2 market has the same thing happening, but the chance for success for a third-party game is much higher compared to the Cube. Companies test GCN waters with an average game to see how well they fare and what games do sell on the GCN. Sega released Skies of Arcadia with very little graphical updates, showing Sega did not spend much money on the port at all. Why did they do it? According to Overworks, one of the reasons was to see whether GCN was suitable for the Skies of Arcadia sequel. Also, that release date thing...I know a reason exists why some games come out in busy seasons (i.e. RE0) but I know for sure a company cannot delay a game just so that game can come out in the right season where it does not have to face much competition. So many games came out for the PS2 that were literally unheard of around GTA: Vice City. It was obviously not a right time for those games to come out. So I cannot name the reason why, but I know for sure companies cannot delay a game due to a busy season. Probably business reasons.
Post by: Bink on April 21, 2003, 02:10:49 PM
Post by: MickeyD on April 21, 2003, 06:46:02 PM
Post by: Beave on April 21, 2003, 08:04:42 PM
I still haven't purchased a GC, but rather waiting to see how it performs - a bit of a catch 22 i suppose. With the bundle promotion (free game) and even seeing it for Aus $200 (half the prive of XBOX and PS2), i was thinking about getting one really soon. However, today when i looked in K- mart, they didnt even stock any. They had some games but the shelves where half filled and it looked as if it had been abanded.
I went to Big W and although they had it they didnt have the bundle.
I saw on megagames that the gamecube only has a 5% marketshare. I am left wondering how bad the state of gamecube is and if Nintendo know that they have a lot of catching up to do.
I wish that the days of the SNES will return.
Post by: thecubedcanuck on April 22, 2003, 02:19:41 AM
Quote
Sony and Mircosoft are paying them off. It's ridiculous how much they are paying people off
LMAO, lets try to get a grip here and touch back down on the landing strip called reality.
Quote
i called Electronics Boutique the other day and the rep said this is Electronics Boutique your mircosoft xbox gaming center, this is brian how may I help you.
its called a PROMOTION, they do the same thing with Sony and Nintendo as well.
Quote
It's not fair and it's ridiculous how xbox is buying it's way into this market.
Its perfectly fair and perfectly legal in the form it occurs, its called common business practice in North America. You however seem a little to paranoid and are a little misinformed when it comes to just how money plays a role here. Ever here the phrase the rich keep getting richer? Where do you think this comes from.
Quote
Some times I wish I was Nintendo's director of marketing cause I guarantee we would probably be in a much closer race with microsoft or at least beating them.
After reading your entire rant, I highly doubt it.
Post by: Ninja X on April 22, 2003, 08:06:59 AM
Nintendo's marketing is...how can I put it gently...suckful. Compared to Sony and Microsoft, their marketing division gets blown away. I still stand by my statement that Nintendo should just fire their whole marketing board and hire a new one, but I doubt we'll see that anytime soon.
Post by: MickeyD on April 22, 2003, 08:09:27 AM
Post by: MickeyD on April 22, 2003, 08:19:36 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thecubedcanuckQuote
Sony and Mircosoft are paying them off. It's ridiculous how much they are paying people off
LMAO, lets try to get a grip here and touch back down on the landing strip called reality.Quote
i called Electronics Boutique the other day and the rep said this is Electronics Boutique your mircosoft xbox gaming center, this is brian how may I help you.
its called a PROMOTION, they do the same thing with Sony and Nintendo as well.Quote
It's not fair and it's ridiculous how xbox is buying it's way into this market.
Its perfectly fair and perfectly legal in the form it occurs, its called common business practice in North America. You however seem a little to paranoid and are a little misinformed when it comes to just how money plays a role here. Ever here the phrase the rich keep getting richer? Where do you think this comes from.Quote
Some times I wish I was Nintendo's director of marketing cause I guarantee we would probably be in a much closer race with microsoft or at least beating them.
After reading your entire rant, I highly doubt it.
Post by: MickeyD on April 22, 2003, 08:38:11 AM
