[goMac]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
This is my last post to you are you are hopeless.

1) HALO CAME OUT 2 YEARS LATER FOR PC. TWO YEARS.
2) HALO 2 is a huge improvement over halo 1 which I didn't like. NOT out for PC.
3) Don't you dare call Halo 2 more of the same as Starfox is the exact same as from N64 and Metriod 2 has NOTHING new from the first version (I got sick of it 10 hours into it).
4) Don't judge Oddworld or crimson if you haven't even played it.

The ironic thing is the Nintendo fanboys say "it is more of a system for casual gamers and not ones who spend all their free time gaming". Ya but they do spend more time on boards defending the system and saying how they don't want an Xbox cuz it only has halo rather than playing the system. I mean look at the Nintendo flock in every thread about PSP or Xbox. back and forth back and forth.

I am the only one here who has the best of all worlds as I have ALL 3 systems. I am not a one is best because it has the most exclusive titles crap.

Since all systems are so damn cheap you are just turning it into some sort of Nintendo only faithful religion.

You lose in the end.

I'll reply even though apparently you're done:

1) Halo was always designed as a PC game. I don't consider the XBox version as the full version or a finished version. The PC version was closer to what Halo is supposed to be. Halo 2 was built with XBox more in mind, but its really the same again. You can carry two weapons now, big deal. The graphics look a bit better. Thats also ok I guess. Nothing earth shattering over the first one. I don't really care about XBox live support as Halo 1 can play online on PC.
2) Covered in point 1. I don't see how you could not like Halo 1 but like Halo 2. They're very much similar.
3) I don't like Halo 2. I don't like the new Starfox. I don't like Metroid Prime 2 (although I love 1). Your point? I don't like any of the games you listed.
4) I've looked at it, and it honestly didn't look much like a killer game.

As for being a Nintendo fanboy, I've traditionally been a Sega one. I owned Genesis and Game Gear. I left Sega about the time of the Saturn and went to N64. The Gamecube, imo, is closest to the type of system Sega would produce, but as far as consoles go, I'm pretty much a free agent right now with Sega gone. I really honestly did consider buying an XBox late last year until I actually started buying Gamecube games because they looked much better, which meant at that point I had to buy a Gamecube.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

PSP

Since you are a big psp fan u might have knew that it costs $250. Do you really think that it can compete with the DS with such a high price (almost $100 difference). I know it is presenting itself as a multifunctional handheld but are people actually going to pay that much for a handheld? I mean I am pretty sure that the ps2, xbox2 or revolution will cost around the same price so why would I pay that to play for 20 minute on the bus on a mini-screen?

Matt responds: People pay up to $500 to listen to their iPods on the bus. Why wouldn't there be an audience for a $250 handheld that very competently plays videogames, music, and UMD-based movies? I believe that Sony's decision to market PSP at $250 and not, say, $200, says something, which is: "Hey Nintendo. You can have the kids market. We want the iPod generation." This could prove to be the best thing that ever happened to Nintendo.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/585/585109p1.html

[goMac]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
PSP

Since you are a big psp fan u might have knew that it costs $250. Do you really think that it can compete with the DS with such a high price (almost $100 difference). I know it is presenting itself as a multifunctional handheld but are people actually going to pay that much for a handheld? I mean I am pretty sure that the ps2, xbox2 or revolution will cost around the same price so why would I pay that to play for 20 minute on the bus on a mini-screen?

Matt responds: People pay up to $500 to listen to their iPods on the bus. Why wouldn't there be an audience for a $250 handheld that very competently plays videogames, music, and UMD-based movies? I believe that Sony's decision to market PSP at $250 and not, say, $200, says something, which is: "Hey Nintendo. You can have the kids market. We want the iPod generation." This could prove to be the best thing that ever happened to Nintendo.

http://cube.ign.com/articles/585/585109p1.html

This should really be in the PSP thread in since it has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

There reason people pay for higher priced iPods is capacity. The iPod is very specialized. It's the best music player you can buy. The PSP meantime is the jack of all trades but master of none. It's not comparable to an iPod. It can play music, but its not very good at it. You can play movies on it, but they're not going to be easy to watch on the tiny screen. The battery only runs for a few hours. Despite what Sony tacks on, its still only good at games. In relation to the iPod, Apple would never release a device like this because Apple standards demand that everything be perfect, and the PSP has a lot of glaring imperfections (we won't even get into flying UMD discs and sticky buttons). People will pay a lot of money for a device which is good at one thing. People are less likely to pay for a device that is mediocre on everything.

Sony would be much more successful if they marketed it as a game device only. It is, quite honestly, good at games. Sony's only going to cause disappointment when they try to market against things such as the iPod and everyone realizes it sucks compared to the iPod.

Nintendo has this aspect down. Build a strong game machine, sell based on games. If anything, the DS is more comparable to the iPod. It's gimickless, and good at what it does. Sony kinda reminds me of Creative running onto the scene. "Look! We're much better than the iPod because we can record FM radio!"

Anyway, thats my reply, but probably any more discussion needs to be in the PSP thread.

[Mafia]

i'll get it back track, here is one game i'm looking foward to for the cube. http://cube.ign.com/objects/572/5727...?ui=gamefinder

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Review by fanboy central which has been rather realistic lately:

"Starfox Assault is enjoyable enough as a rental; it just doesn�t come close to the SNES or N64 games before it. Definitely try before you buy."

http://planetgamecube.com/impression...profile&id=729

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Ya 1-2 games a year is a great business model

Haha..so true... so if loosing billions by underpricing your hardware....oh wait.
As far as business models...i think the model used by Nintendo has made millions if now billions since launch. And all microsoft has to show for the XBox is negative billions since launch. nuff said about business models lol.

1-2 games a year ? there are many more games coming out for the cube than that. Maybe 1-2 from Nintendo, now include every other game developer making games for the cube. There's choice....the only bad part is you get to choose from the cream of the crop as the crap that makes it's way to the PS2 and XBox dosent make it's way to the cube. Kinda like the way software finds it's way onto the Macintosh actually.

goMac...off topic ? seems like the topic for Star Wars fans if Nintendo bashing period lol.

Also, anytime ppl start talking high quality exclusives..... XBox fanboys start yelling Halo, halo 2 lol. At least us Nintendo fanboys have a couple of Zeldas, a couple of Mario games, a couple of Metroid games, a couple of Star Fox games, Resident Evil 4(at least for now), Eternal Darkness, Rogue leader & Rebel Strike. And these are games(with the exception of RE4), you wont find on an XBox, PS2 or a PC. And the Nintendo exlusives you will probably never find on another console.

Crappy exclusive titles, make no difference to anyone. People might buy an XBox to play Halo 2, thats if they havent figured out that they could play Doom3, Half Life 2 or any other FPS on their Macs/PCs already. In my opinion, even more people are buying Gamecubes cause of the exclusive titles on the cube....cause they know they wont find the Cube's exclusives anywhere else.

[goMac]

Originally posted by Hawkeye_a:
Crappy exclusive titles, make no difference to anyone. People might buy an XBox to play Halo 2, thats if they havent figured out that they could play Doom3, Half Life 2 or any other FPS on their Macs/PCs already.

It's funny, most people don't even know that Halo is out for PC. Everytime I run Halo on my Powerbook I get comments from people about how they didn't know there were XBox emulators for Mac. Most people would rather play a game on their computer vs. their XBox, but no one really knows about Halo for PC/Mac. Heck, they think Microsoft developed the whole thing from scratch exclusively for XBox. You tell them it was demoed in 1999 at an Apple conference and they get this strange look on their face.

[sugar_coated]

goMac: Good point!

[ort888]

Saw this posted on another board. Shows a scary trend for Nintendo. There is about a 33% decline per generation and it seems to be growing. I have a bad feeling that the Revolution will be lucky to get 50% of the Cubes sales.

Oh, and for reference, the PS1 has sold 100 milllion and the PS2 has sold 80 million.

TOTAL WORLDWIDE CONSOLE AND PORTABLE SALES

Handhelds Totals(Not including Game&Watch)=187,000,000
------------------------------------------------------
Regular GB/GB Pocket/GBA Color=118,420,000
GBA/GBA SP=65,740,000
DS=2,840,000


Consoles Totals=161,917,000
------------------------------------------------------
NES=61,780,000
SNES=49,020,000
Virtual Boy=770,000
N64=32,930,000
GC=18,030,000

Estaimed Total=348,917,000

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by ort888:
Saw this posted on another board. Shows a scary trend for Nintendo. There is about a 33% decline per generation and it seems to be growing.

Not only that but the PSP is outselling the DS and gameboy:

Media Create has released the latest Japanese hardware sales charts, covering the week ending January 30, 2005. The PSP has taken the lead again selling 74,405 units, followed by the PS2 at 58,673 units.

PSP: 74,405 (Annual: 267,602)
PlayStation 2: 58,673 (Annual: 305,285)
Nintendo DS: 43,226 (Annual: 249,922)
Game Boy Advance SP: 11,589 (Annual: 114,046)
GameCube: 8,214 (Annual: 40,751)

http://www.gamepro.com/sony/psp/games/news/41766.shtml

[ort888]

Well, it's outselling the Gameboy because everyone already has one. That's not really a fair comparision.

However, Nintendo better be quaking in there boots... because there is no way they are ever going to see handheld sales as high as they have been in the past. Not with Sony in the market... and not with cell phone games imporving year after year.

Without the GameBoy, Nintendo would be dead. They better have something amazing up their sleeve.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by ort888:
Well, it's outselling the Gameboy because everyone already has one. That's not really a fair comparision.

No matter how many times someone tells him that, he refuses to get it.

However, Nintendo better be quaking in their boots

Fixed�

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by ort888:
Well, it's outselling the Gameboy because everyone already has one. That's not really a fair comparision.

What is fair is that the DS is selling 1/3 the amount of games Nintendo projected.

[goMac]

Originally posted by ort888:
Saw this posted on another board. Shows a scary trend for Nintendo. There is about a 33% decline per generation and it seems to be growing. I have a bad feeling that the Revolution will be lucky to get 50% of the Cubes sales.

Oh, and for reference, the PS1 has sold 100 milllion and the PS2 has sold 80 million.

TOTAL WORLDWIDE CONSOLE AND PORTABLE SALES

Handhelds Totals(Not including Game&Watch)=187,000,000
------------------------------------------------------
Regular GB/GB Pocket/GBA Color=118,420,000
GBA/GBA SP=65,740,000
DS=2,840,000


Consoles Totals=161,917,000
------------------------------------------------------
NES=61,780,000
SNES=49,020,000
Virtual Boy=770,000
N64=32,930,000
GC=18,030,000

Estaimed Total=348,917,000

This doesn't show a trend. It fails to account for time. The GB/GB Pocket/GB Color were around for probably 14 years. The GBA is only about 2-3 years old. If anything, it shows the GBA is extremely successful. It's already sold half the amount of the original Game Boys.

Virtual Boy is also not a console. N64 was also around for only about half the time of the NES.

[ort888]

I'm not even looking at the GBA sales. The GBA sales have been awesome.

But look at the consoles. That is a trend. Every one has sold less then the one before it by a significant margin. The PS1 and PS2 have sold more combined then every Nintendo console and Nintendo has been in the game twice as long and has twice the number of consoles.

Nintendo failed to evolve and if they don't do something soon they will soon be gone. If the Revolution sells less than the Cube and the PSP eats a good chunk of the Gameboy cash cow they are screwed.

[goMac]

Originally posted by ort888:
I'm not even looking at the GBA sales. The GBA sales have been awesome.

But look at the consoles. That is a trend. Every one has sold less then the one before it by a significant margin. The PS1 and PS2 have sold more combined then every Nintendo console and Nintendo has been in the game twice as long and has twice the number of consoles.

Nintendo failed to evolve and if they don't do something soon they will soon be gone. If the Revolution sells less than the Cube and the PSP eats a good chunk of the Gameboy cash cow they are screwed.

They aren't screwed. As long as the consoles make money they will continue to make them. It doesn't matter how many they sell. It matters how much they make from them.

[ort888]

So how low will the installed user base have to be before they cease being profitable?

18 million is already pushing it. How can you justify the R+D costs of developing a new console when it sells 20 million copies?

How many copies of Zelda will sell if you have an installed user base of 20 million? How many would you sell if you made it for a system with 4 times the users?

Is it still worth developing a console? Even when no 3rd parties want to make games for you because no one buys them? Consoles make money off of games and licensing fees. The hardware gets sold at cost or at a loss.

They can't keep this up and continue to make money. This has to be the low point for Nintendo, because if they go lower, they will die.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

One word. Sega. Is the only reason they went out of the hardware business is because they sold their systems for a loss (did they even have a loss on each sale)?

No, because there user base was to small.

[goMac]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
One word. Sega. Is the only reason they went out of the hardware business is because they sold their systems for a loss (did they even have a loss on each sale)?

No, because there user base was to small.

Yeah... I can see that... Nintendo wants to reduce profits. That's why they'd ditch the Gamecube.

Sega sold hardware for a loss. If you aren't gaining ground and you're losing money trying thats when you shut down. Nintendo is still making tons of money from the Gamecube.

Apple makes a very nice profit from the Mac, yet they have a very small marketshare. Does this mean they should leave the computer business?

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Ok I get it, Ninendo can stay in business with R&D, game development and day to day operations as long as the gamecube sells for $20 profit.


Riiiiight.

[goMac]

Originally posted by ort888:
So how low will the installed user base have to be before they cease being profitable?

18 million is already pushing it. How can you justify the R+D costs of developing a new console when it sells 20 million copies?

How many copies of Zelda will sell if you have an installed user base of 20 million? How many would you sell if you made it for a system with 4 times the users?

Is it still worth developing a console? Even when no 3rd parties want to make games for you because no one buys them? Consoles make money off of games and licensing fees. The hardware gets sold at cost or at a loss.

They can't keep this up and continue to make money. This has to be the low point for Nintendo, because if they go lower, they will die.

The problem is you're already talking about a market where other companies can get away with selling the console at a loss. Software is very profitable, and Nintendo is a software publisher.

Nintendo won't move to another console because they already make money off their own console, and they like having creative control over hardware. By your argument, Apple should abandon the Mac and just port to Intel. Nintendo wants people to buy the Gamecube for Zelda. Zelda is the bait. Thats why it doesn't make sense to port it. Nintendo uses its software titles to attract people to its own systems. With Nintendo its all about the games. I don't expect to see Nintendo drop its hardware. I think Nintendo will change its games to attract a different crowd to its hardware.

[goMac]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Ok I get it, Ninendo can stay in business with R&D, game development and day to day operations as long as the gamecube sells for $20 profit.


Riiiiight.

As opposed to Microsoft, who sells every XBox at a loss?

Oh wait... thats right... they have huge software divisions too...

[Hawkeye_a]

1. Nintendo
Those stats are definitely interesting. Now plot them against time, with time(x-axis)=0 the release of any of those consoles, and the y-axis being the cumulative numbers of that console sold. (I haven�t done it...couldn�t care less). That would be a more definitive indicator of market share, etc.
18+million isn�t too bad considering the GameCubes been out now for less than 5 years. The Mac is at what, 25-30 million after 20 years.... hmm. Obviously there's no connection, but it's quite a startling similarity. This drives me to the next question..... What effect does that have on quality? Mac's are stuck at 2-3% market share...less software, fewer developers... yet we get our stuff done more efficiently and with higher quality than most PC users. Just as Gamecube users are 'probably' having a better time gaming on a console that commands around 15-25% of the home console market.

Bottom line.... market share means nothing. Quantity means almost nothing. Quality means a lot more. And if a company is making money supplying quality (as opposed to crap like Windows, IE and XBoxes) kudos to them.

Next... profits. Nintendo makes profit on the Gamecube. Their hardware to my knowledge makes profit for every unit sold and therefore cumulatively profit is being made on just selling the hardware without the games. (This could have changed with fluctuating currencies, since profit margins are rather low). Never the less...the sum of the components used to make the cube are worth more than the components themselves. That means a lot.

Not couple that with the media they use to sell the games. Try and find a pirated gamecube game. So they�re definitely 'selling' a heck of a lot of games, and at a profit again. What with licensing and mark-ups.

2. Microsoft
I'll refrain from bringing up Windows and IE. I mean enough has been said about that companies business policies in court, and even more on the quality of those products by their poor consumers. So about the XBox.....
They sold the PC in a console at a loss from day 1. heck if i built crap that costed as much as that, I�d probably do the same, seeing as how they wasted so much on R&D to basically get a PeeCee at the end of the production line. Oh and there's the question... Who would actually PAY the cost price of an XBox.... so it's actually 'worth'less than what the components used to make it lol. Anywho....if you get past that...you probably heard them saying that software sales would make up for what they lost in hardware. Seemed reasonable enough when they initially sold that idea to us. Heck i thought it was a novel way to generate some money..... But seeing as the technical team and marketing were such geniuses in developing this "revolutionary" gaming device...they forgot that they were using DVD as the media, which means that the games could easily be pirated, and not just that....they included a hard drive lol. so not only could a person, actually increase it's capacity, but they could actually use the hard drives to pirate games (and i know a couple of XBox uses who do just that). Brilliant marketing, paired with technical wizardry. So there's your business model. Loosing money selling hardware...the more you sell, the more they loose. And providing gamers with a platform to pirate games, which will make the developers oh so very happy to see their work being pirated....on a platform that makes it painfully easy . it's quite funny actually lol...

We look down on Microsoft for its business practices in the past.... 10 years from now, the XBox business model will be taught in business classes for the amusement of the students attending. lol


So now begs the question. Of the 2... Nintendo and Microsoft, which one would be more likely to be considering to pull out of the home console gaming market ? the one making money, or the one loosing money ? This is strictly speaking business of course.... not even consideing each companies 'first principles', philosophies or quality.

In all fairness, both consoles were released at around the same time.
Gamecube:
-profit from day 1(on both hardware and software), 18 million+ users.
-no piracy
-more exclusive quality titles (Halo is not exclusive) than the XBox

XBox:
-started loosing money for Microsoft from the instance it was released
-a pirate's dream come true
-fewer exclusive titles
-on a positive note...they have managed to stuff those boxes down quite a few people's throats. And from the looks of it..if they keep it up, they might just start selling more XBoxs than Sony's PS1s in Japan. lol.

[Hawkeye_a]

OH here are total worldwide sales of the 3 home consoles ending in 2004:

Worldwide
PlayStation 2 - 81.39 million
Xbox - 19.9 million
GameCube - 18.03 million

source: http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthr...id=8498&page=2

that puts the XBox at an impressive 16.7% and the Gamecube at 15%. Impressive... more XBox players than GameCube players. u'd think more people would take an Xbox from Microosft since they're practically giving them away lol. At least , we know for a fact that the Gamecube got it's 15% while making a profit and that profit was generated by selling quality as opposed to underpricing crap to gain marketshare.

Here's the major consoles including previosu generations:

Worldwide Hardware Sales (End of 2004)
PlayStation 2 - 81.39 million
Xbox - 19.9 million
GameCube - 18.03 million
Game Boy Advance - 65.74 million
Nintendo DS - 2.84 million
Sony PSP - 0.51 million
N-Gage - 1.3 million
PSone - 101.73 million

[ort888]

That's just the thing. I don't think Nintendo will continue to be profitable if thhey can only get 20 million consoles out there. They will get no third party support.

Microsoft is another story. They are in this for the long run. The Xbox is not designed to be a game box. It's designed to get consumers used to the idea of having a Microsoft box hooked up to their TV and providing entertainment. Microsoft wants to control your living room as well as your office. It's a gateway machine.

I don't care if Microsoft gets out of the gaming industry. The reason I bought an Xbox was because it had the most games I wanted to play now. I needed a second console because my Cube was not cutting it on it's own.

The funny thing is, I now own more Xbox games than Cube games, even though I've only had it for a year.

At any rate, if Microsoft decides to bail on the industry after the Xbox 2, I won't care... but if Nintendo ends up faling from grace I will be upset.

Nintendo is like my deadbeat brother. He's 27, back living with mom and dad, delivering pizza and smoking pot all day long. He's also dating an evil succubus. Do I love him? Yes. Does he frustrate me? Yes. Will I loan him money or let him live in my house? No.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by ort888:
That's just the thing. I don't think Nintendo will continue to be profitable if thhey can only get 20 million consoles out there. They will get no third party support.

Of course, this whole argument falls apart when you consider Microsoft has sold roughly the same number of consoles... especially since they don't have a highly successful handheld business.

[ort888]

It doesn't fall apart. Microsoft isn't profitable at all. If anything it re-enforces my arguement.

Game companies like to make games for the Xbox because they have the highest games sold to console ratio. Multi-console games frequently sell better on the Xbox than on the PS2 because the Xbox versions are the best and multi-console owners know this.

Developers don't bother making them for the Cube, because it's software sales are in the dumps.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by ort888:
It doesn't fall apart. Microsoft isn't profitable at all. If anything it re-enforces my arguement.

Yes, it does fall apart. Here's what you said:

That's just the thing. I don't think Nintendo will continue to be profitable if thhey can only get 20 million consoles out there. They will get no third party support.

The Xbox has only sold about 20 million consoles, but it gets third-party support. IOW, such a "low" amount of consoles sold doesn't scare off third-party developers. Furthermore, Nintendo has shown that they can make a profit on the GC (and I think they were making one way before the current sales level). If you include their software and Gameboy/DS business, it's a bit silly to assume they won't be profitable if they can only sell 20 million consoles.

Multi-console games frequently sell better on the Xbox than on the PS2 because the Xbox versions are the best and multi-console owners know this.

There's nothing to "know" here because what you stated is not a fact. As an owner of all three consoles, I buy multi-platforms games for my PS2 because it has the best controller. That's more important to me than slightly better graphics and online play.

[ort888]

Microsoft has the support... but loses buckets of money.

Neither company has what it takes now to be a long-term player.

The reason no one is buying games on the Cube is because a lot of people who bought it feel burned by Nintendo and have put it out of their minds. If the revolution isn't significantly better than the PS3 or Xbox 2, then they will be lucky to sell 10 million units.

No one buys games on the Cube because developers don't make enough and developers don't make enough because no one buys them. It's a vicious circle.

The bottom line is this. For Nintendo or Microsoft to survive long term... they need to find a way to take some of Sony's marketshare. I don't think the gaming world is capable of supporting 3 consoles for a long time.

[goMac]

Originally posted by ort888:
Microsoft has the support... but loses buckets of money.

Neither company has what it takes now to be a long-term player.

The reason no one is buying games on the Cube is because a lot of people who bought it feel burned by Nintendo and have put it out of their minds. If the revolution isn't significantly better than the PS3 or Xbox 2, then they will be lucky to sell 10 million units.

No one buys games on the Cube because developers don't make enough and developers don't make enough because no one buys them. It's a vicious circle.

The bottom line is this. For Nintendo or Microsoft to survive long term... they need to find a way to take some of Sony's marketshare. I don't think the gaming world is capable of supporting 3 consoles for a long time.

As stated earlier, you don't need a huge marketshare to survive. Remember, Nintendo and Microsoft are their own software developers. At the very least they will be making games for their own systems.

[ort888]

You do need a big marketshare to survive. Nintendo has survived because the N64 was moderatly succesful and GameBoy sales have always been very strong.

If the Cube was the first system they ever released and they had no cash in the bank... they would be done. There would be no revolution.

Microsoft is losing money too. They knew they would lose money going into this. It's a calculated loss and they are hoping it pays off in the long run. They are not really surviving so much as they are weathering the storm.

[ryaxnb]

All hail GameCube! I really like the GameCube.

Mario Double Dash
Animal Crossing
Zelda
Pac-Man World
Spider-Man 2
Namco Museum
GBA SP games
The Urbz
The Sims Breaking Out
Resident Evil
Pokemon
The incredibles
Dokey Konga
Paper Mario
etc.
there are lots of good games.
Plus GameCube is cheap at $99, it's small, hard to pirate games, made by Nintendo, and has an excellent controller.
I'm an 11 year old kid, I like kid games. There are lots of kids who want a good, not too mature console.

[ort888]

I like the GameCube too. I just wish it had more games and Nintendo tried harder to win my money (rather than pump out endless mediocre Mario spinoffs and rehashes).

The Cube is still my favorite system this generation. I wish games were this cool when I was 11. I was amazed by the graphics of Super Mario Bros on the NES when I was your age.

I still remember seeing it for the first time at my cousins house. I knew right then that I would have to start saving to get one. My parents were anti-video game so I had to earn every penny. Took me about a year of saving and working odd jobs to finally buy my own and when I did I was in heaven.

When I was 16 I got a job cleaning up kid barf at a toy store to buy an SNES.

Good times.

[goMac]

Originally posted by ort888:
You do need a big marketshare to survive.

Cause we all know that BMW, Apple, and all other companies with small marketshare are doomed...

[ort888]

BMW and Apple get away with it because they charge premium prices for premium products.

Is Nintendo going to double their prices? That would work out great for them, I'm sure.

[goMac]

Originally posted by ort888:
BMW and Apple get away with it because they charge premium prices for premium products.

Is Nintendo going to double their prices? That would work out great for them, I'm sure.

You don't need to charge huge prices, you just need to charge enough to make a profit. Nintendo's software publishing covers any research and development, which honestly isn't much in since the Gamecube basically uses an IBM G3 processor, mini DVD drive, and an ATI graphics card.

[ort888]

We'll see. Nintendo needs to get developers back. People aren't going to want to pay $250 for a console to play 2 or 3 great games a year.

...and no developer is going to want to make games on a system that has terrible marketshare. I honesty don't think they can survive in third place. Either Microsoft or Nintendo is going to get squeezed out. Time will tell who it is.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by goMac:
Cause we all know that BMW, Apple, and all other companies with small marketshare are doomed...

They charge a premium and have more than one product to sustain them. Also BMW does not need to sell a car by telling them they will only be able to use it 2-3 times a year.

[Jim Paradise]

Originally posted by ort888:
We'll see. Nintendo needs to get developers back. People aren't going to want to pay $250 for a console to play 2 or 3 great games a year.

...and no developer is going to want to make games on a system that has terrible marketshare. I honesty don't think they can survive in third place. Either Microsoft or Nintendo is going to get squeezed out. Time will tell who it is.

I paid more than that (Canadian prices) for my GameCube. I've been quite happy with it, and the great selection of games. I'm looking forward to Nintendo's next console since the GameCube was the first one that I really thought would be good to own since my old Sega 32x days. Well, the N64 was fun, but I never bought one. I didn't care much for the Playstation we had kicking around, and thought the PS2 was one hell of an ugly console when it first came out.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
They charge a premium and have more than one product to sustain them. Also BMW does not need to sell a car by telling them they will only be able to use it 2-3 times a year.

You keep saying the Gamecube has only 2-3 games coming out a year. where do get that news ? www.xboxfanboy.com ? Nintendo as a software publisher might only release 2-3 games a year, thankfully they arent like Microsoft when it comes to software. Luckily quality takes a priority to quantity at Nintendo as opposed to Microsoft.

And by the by, there are third parties producing quality and truely awesome games for the Cube.... games such as RE4, Eternal Darkness, Rebel Strike, Metroid prime, etc,etc. And thats not even including the multi-platform games such as Prince of Persia Warrior Within (which just so happens to have the best version on the Gamecube). And Nintendo has the support of all the best game developers out there, Ubisoft, Capcom, Factor 5, Silicon Knights, EA, Namco,etc.... so trust me, there are a heck of a lot more games coming out for the cube.

How many AAA titles has Microsoft released in the past 12 months ? Halo 2 ? anything else worth mentioning ? As a matter of fact, thats the ONLY game ive heard of 'Microsoft' developing for the XBox, at least you got Zelda, Mario, Pikmin, Donkey Kong, Star Fox, etc going on at Nintendo alone.

[Hawkeye_a]

hahahaha.... just read this article on CNet... http://news.com.com/Game+maker+sues+...34.html?tag=nl

i'm laughing so much, my side hurts.
True XBox fanboys... dweebs who got nothing better to do than dress down 3D game models. hahaha <sigh> lol

[goMac]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
They charge a premium and have more than one product to sustain them. Also BMW does not need to sell a car by telling them they will only be able to use it 2-3 times a year.

This argument falls apart when you look at XBox with the same marketshare selling at a loss.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Nintendo Admits Weak DS Game Sales

On Wednesday, a Nintendo official disclosed to FileFront a range of reasons explaining the DS portable�s lower-than-expected game sales for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.

�Once [the DS] was unwrapped, people had options to play PictoChat, play the Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt demo, or play their existing Game Boy Advance SP games. For these reasons, Nintendo DS software sales were lower than expected at launch and projections for the year were reduced.�

The admission comes on the heels of Nintendo�s late-January announcement that Q3 profits had slumped 43% from the previous year, and that the company was cutting DS software�s worldwide projections, from 15 million to 10 million for the current fiscal year.

DS�s under performing software is readily apparent in the 2004 holiday sales figures. According to totals compiled by PlayMoreConsoles.com, just two DS games charted in the U.S. Top 100 in December � Super Mario 64 DS and Spider-Man 2 DS. The former moved 437,331 copies, while the latter sold about 200,000.

http://articles.filefront.com/Ninten...;/article.html

[goMac]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Nintendo Admits Weak DS Game Sales

On Wednesday, a Nintendo official disclosed to FileFront a range of reasons explaining the DS portable�s lower-than-expected game sales for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005.

�Once [the DS] was unwrapped, people had options to play PictoChat, play the Metroid Prime Hunters: First Hunt demo, or play their existing Game Boy Advance SP games. For these reasons, Nintendo DS software sales were lower than expected at launch and projections for the year were reduced.�

The admission comes on the heels of Nintendo�s late-January announcement that Q3 profits had slumped 43% from the previous year, and that the company was cutting DS software�s worldwide projections, from 15 million to 10 million for the current fiscal year.

DS�s under performing software is readily apparent in the 2004 holiday sales figures. According to totals compiled by PlayMoreConsoles.com, just two DS games charted in the U.S. Top 100 in December � Super Mario 64 DS and Spider-Man 2 DS. The former moved 437,331 copies, while the latter sold about 200,000.

http://articles.filefront.com/Ninten...;/article.html

Is this news supposed to be new? I thought this was discussed last week...

The DS is selling fine. The games aren't because people are playing their old ones. This isn't a DS adoption problem. Read the article.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by goMac:
Is this news supposed to be new? I thought this was discussed last week...

Published: 02/10/2005

"On Wednesday, a Nintendo official disclosed to FileFront a range of reasons explaining the DS portable�s lower-than-expected game sales for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005."

[goMac]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Published: 02/10/2005

"On Wednesday, a Nintendo official disclosed to FileFront a range of reasons explaining the DS portable�s lower-than-expected game sales for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005."

a) I saw this on Slashdot last week.
b) Game sales. Not DS unit sales. The DS is selling fine. Read the article.

[ort888]

Game sales are low because all of the release games suck.

People are sick of Nintendo milking 10 year old games. Give us some new damn games already.

[goMac]

Originally posted by ort888:
Game sales are low because all of the release games suck.

People are sick of Nintendo milking 10 year old games. Give us some new damn games already.

Agreed. I think Nintendo was in a hurry and just did a few quick ports. We'll probably see original games this year.

I'll probably buy one when Four Swords DS comes out.

[ort888]

I'm waiting on Advance Wars DS. If it gets even halfway decent reviews I'll buy one.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

A good story about how Nintendo really has to fix the problems it is having by making the next system what people want:
http://cube.ign.com/articles/587/587028p1.html

Scary thing is they are already mentioning how Nintendo is making mistakes by being so secretive that 3rd parties aren't budging.