Author Topic: Big Surprise 3rd Parties Failed the Cube at E3 (Read 15951 times)

jasonditz · « **Reply #50 on:** May 18, 2004, 10:11:56 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
Quote

Actually WW the cube is second not the Xbox

Actually the cube is third and the Xbox is 4th... the PS2 is second.

Assuming we're going by units sold of course.

Avinash_Tyagi · « **Reply #51 on:** May 18, 2004, 10:17:16 AM »

I mean consoles not incl. Handhelds

jasonditz · « **Reply #52 on:** May 18, 2004, 10:19:31 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
Proof?

All the sales figures show the Japanese lead of the GC surpassing the lead the Xbox holds in other regions.

That fact is not disputed. What is disputed is that either could lay claim to the #2 spot in sales when it so clearly belongs to Sony and their venerable PS2.

jasonditz · « **Reply #53 on:** May 18, 2004, 10:26:18 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Avinash_Tyagi
I mean consoles not incl. Handhelds

Why shouldn't handhelds be included?

That's like asking who the largest American video game software maker is and then saying "Sports Games don't count" so EA isn't on top.

Avinash_Tyagi · « **Reply #54 on:** May 18, 2004, 10:34:25 AM »

Just because the GBA controls that particular segment so greatly that it kind of skews the results

Perfect Cell · « **Reply #55 on:** May 18, 2004, 10:52:05 AM »

Handhelds and Consoles are seperate, both part of Nintendo but not the same thing

Shift Key · « **Reply #56 on:** May 18, 2004, 06:03:59 PM »

Handheld and console systems are different markets. That's why PS2 is considered #1 and not the GBA.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #57 on:** May 18, 2004, 06:18:11 PM »

How are they different? Simply because one is portable? If it's the gameplay differences that seperate them, should the DS be included with the GBA despite its radically different gameplay? Should the PSP be included with the GBA despite it's basically a portable PS2, complete with some of the same games?

Ian Sane · « **Reply #58 on:** May 18, 2004, 06:49:45 PM »

Portable and console systems are different because they don't really compete with each other. The GBA is unaffected by the success of the PS2 and vice versa. When someone buys a PS2 there's a very good chance that they won't buy an Xbox or Cube. However they may still buy a GBA because it provides a completely different experience and they want to be able to play games on the go.

Plus it's inconsistent to count the GBA and declare Nintendo the winner because Sony treats the PS1 as an active system so thus you have to count ALL of the PSX/PS1 unit sales as part of Sony's total. You're probably thinking that we should still count N64s, etc. for Nintendo's side but those are no longer supported formats. You probably could argue the GBC as a current format but once you start counting ANY of these older systems it just gets f*cking ridiculous.

The bottom line is this: when deciding what console to support no third party considers the GBA or PS2 as competing consoles. Microsoft even has games released on the GBA (with THQ publishing) and they wouldn't if the GBA competed with the Xbox.

Darc Requiem · « **Reply #59 on:** May 18, 2004, 06:56:06 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
Public image doesn't account for jack if you're not making any money. You may rail on Nintendo's poor image with the public all the time, Ian, but the fact remains that Nintendo is making an assload of money, not just on the GBA but the Gamecube, too. Do you know what that means, Ian? Nintendo is guaranteed to be in this industry for a very long time. You could have the best selling product in the world, but a loss is still a loss. The only role public image plays is getting you to that point of profitability, but it seems Nintendo has found an alternate route to that particular destination.

Yes Mouse but you are ignoring something obvious. Nintendo's usebarse continues to erode with each generation and the number one reason for that is their image. Nintendo reminds me of the Chevy Camaro. The Camaro continued to appeal to its core base and basically ignored anyone else. That sounds fine but it caused the sales of the Camaro to continually erode and eventually it got canned. As much as I don't like the Mustang, it basically stayed true enough to its fans to keep them buying, and it changed enough to draw in new fans and continue to supplement its fan base. Nintendo can still stay Nintendo and draw in more casual fans. Nintendo can continue to make their style of games, all they have to do is insure that 2nd and 3rd parties make the types of games that appeal to casual gamers. Nintendo can only maintain a healthy fanbase by insuring that their games are exposed to as many gamers as possible. I think thats what Ian may have been getting at.

Darc Requiem

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #60 on:** May 18, 2004, 07:35:23 PM »

Quote
Plus it's inconsistent to count the GBA and declare Nintendo the winner because Sony treats the PS1 as an active system so thus you have to count ALL of the PSX/PS1 unit sales as part of Sony's total.

Even if you count the Playstation and the PS2, Nintendo is STILL ahead, with the Gameboy alone, I'd bet.

Dar: You raise a very good point- I hadn't given that much thought. If that's what you were you trying to say, Ian, sorry for lashing out at you.

Chongman · « **Reply #61 on:** May 18, 2004, 07:35:52 PM »

The only thing that really angers me about your argument, Bryan, is your stereotyping of nintendo gamers to a certain demographic. Nintendo has mature games...NO DOUBT about it. Many of them have sold well, there's no denying that either. Yes, they're more family friendly, but they're not constricted to that in the LEAST. I find you argument to be unbased and immature. That part at least.

jasonditz · « **Reply #62 on:** May 18, 2004, 08:10:26 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Portable and console systems are different because they don't really compete with each other. The GBA is unaffected by the success of the PS2 and vice versa. When someone buys a PS2 there's a very good chance that they won't buy an Xbox or Cube. However they may still buy a GBA because it provides a completely different experience and they want to be able to play games on the go.

I couldn't disagree more. The money is still coming out of the same limited gaming budget for the vast majority of people, and there are a large number of people who own a GBA who don't own a PS2, Xbox, or Cube... the largest selling system is almost always the #2 system of choice for people with multiple systems who don't own it yet... that doesn't mean its an entirely seperate market.

Quote
Plus it's inconsistent to count the GBA and declare Nintendo the winner because Sony treats the PS1 as an active system so thus you have to count ALL of the PSX/PS1 unit sales as part of Sony's total. You're probably thinking that we should still count N64s, etc. for Nintendo's side but those are no longer supported formats. You probably could argue the GBC as a current format but once you start counting ANY of these older systems it just gets f*cking ridiculous.

But the GBA is not "an older system" that's just marginally supported... it gets hundreds of titles every year. It gets more titles in a given year than the Cube, so if we're only going to count one or the other as the main system that is being supported, it should be the GBA.

Quote
The bottom line is this: when deciding what console to support no third party considers the GBA or PS2 as competing consoles. Microsoft even has games released on the GBA (with THQ publishing) and they wouldn't if the GBA competed with the Xbox.

That doesn't mean they don't compete. When a third party plans on making a game that requires more horsepower than a PS2 can provide they only consider the Cube and the Xbox, that doesn't mean the PS2 doesn't compete with them.

Urkel · « **Reply #63 on:** May 19, 2004, 08:46:45 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: AiAi
Quote
Originally posted by: Urkel
Konami can just go to hell. Twin Snakes doesn't make up for anything. Did you know that they almost let all the voice actors go, because the voice actors wanted to be paid the same amount they got for MGS2, but Konami was only willing to pay the same amount they got for doing the original MGS (which was supposedly very little). Cheap bastards. Fortunately, David Hayter was willing to give up part of his paycheck to the others. God, just imagine Twin Snakes with C-list voice actors. Again, Konami makes sure that the PS2 Metal Gear game gets the royal treatment, while they're barely willing to even pay the damn voice actors for a game they hardly even made. Don't forget the fact that they didn't even advertise the damn game. Yeah, most people blame Nintendo for not doing that. Konami's the publisher, it's their responsibility! What's next, should Nintendo start wiping Konami's ass for them?

Source please? I'm not calling you a liar, but I did not know about this (did anyone else?).

But yeah, Konami are pissing me off.

I read it off mgcentral.com

It's a MGS fansite, but I would be inclined to believe it because they have actually interviewed the voice actors. They have (or had) audio transcripts available for download, so I know they actually talked to these people.

Unfortunately... the site appears to be down. So, uh, I have no proof.

Sorry.

News: