Eidos: Bye bye GC, you won't be missed
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
- Status
You're being foolish IMO. What is it with some of you that just can't see what's happening? MS hasn't paid anyone to do this. the fact of the matter is:
1. 3rd party games don't sell well on the gamecube
2. retail buyers pick up half as many gamecube units as they do XBox (which is way less than PS2).
3. When retailers pick up less units, publishers sell less games, and this makes it difficult for developers to justify supporting the platform.
It's not about some secret plan, or the fact the publishers doesn't make good titles or whatever you want to say... I said it before gamecube came out and I'll say it again.
a) It was targeted towars a younger demographic.
b) Nintendo fans by nintendo platforms for nintendo's games
Despite all the people that didn't beleive that and still don't, it's the truth.
Eidos games not selling well on GC has nothing to do with GC owners buying preferences, or age, or any other excuses anyone wants to come out with, its about quality.. or lack there of. That's as clear as day.
I challange anyone here to show me why any Eidos game released on GC, appart from Timesplitters 2, should have sold well...
I challange anyone here to show me why any Eidos game released on GC, appart from Timesplitters 2, should have sold well...
DeathKnight
Regular
I think he has a better grasp than you on how the industry works and what is currently going on.
You don't need to be in the industry to see why 4 of the 5 games Eidos has released on GC didn't sell well.
The Italian Job = poo
Blood Omen 2 = poo
Swingerz Golf = poo
Hitman 2 = DISCUSTINGLY late
None of them deserved to sell well, no matter what system they were on. Does anyone seriously disagree with that?
The Italian Job = poo
Blood Omen 2 = poo
Swingerz Golf = poo
Hitman 2 = DISCUSTINGLY late
None of them deserved to sell well, no matter what system they were on. Does anyone seriously disagree with that?
Blood Omen 2, Hitman 2: Silent Assassin, Swingerz Golf, and The Italian Job? Not too hard, no. Would be interesting to see how the sales on the non-SGolf ones differed between Xbox and GC in general. (Not that The Italian Job is too settled sales-wise anyway, being only a few weeks on the market.)
Teasy just doesn't understand and won't listen to reason. He thinks it's simply because the game didn't sell well or wasn't good enough, but it's more than that. This isn't just eidos as well. it's sega too, I guess because sega's sports games didn't sell well on gamecube and they pulled support, must mean that segas sports games sucks. How many more publishers have to do the same thing due to it not being worth their while? Or do you have a bette rexplanation why so many titles these days are only annouced for PS2 and then Xbox? do those games suck as well?
I'd really like to see Teasy explain why retailers would purchase half as much of a title (doesn't matter what game) that appears on Xbox as well.
Teasy, bottom line, it doesn't matter how good or bad a title is, if it sells half as many units as Xbox ( a platform you seem to think isn't doing any better) then someting is seriously wrong.
I'd really like to see Teasy explain why retailers would purchase half as much of a title (doesn't matter what game) that appears on Xbox as well.
Teasy, bottom line, it doesn't matter how good or bad a title is, if it sells half as many units as Xbox ( a platform you seem to think isn't doing any better) then someting is seriously wrong.
I'm still curious to compare the relative GC/Xbox sales for the titles they share. It could just be that Eidos makes bad decisions, or can't afford to keep developing for all three, considering they aren't really riding high of late. I doubt they're really wanting to publicly say "well, we can't afford to keep developing for all platforms any more" after all...
Oh please deathnight, Qroach is in the industry so he automatically knows everything..he's the "expert" 
. Eidos' Mike McGarvey is "in the industry" as well...now look how smart he's running his company . It's a common practice by company heads to play the blame game when their own company has been struggling. What's McGarvey supposed to do? Tell the truth? Fact: Yes Eidos games (not including TS2) sold poorly on GCN. Also Fact: Eidos games (not including TS2) sold poorly on ALL SYSTEMS. Sure the GCN having the smaller user base will show lower numbers but that's not to impair smart publishers like Sega, Capcom, Lucas Arts, Namco, EA, Atari and Activision from putting out very successful Gamecube games. You'll hear no tears hit the ground from GCN owners when Eidos crys about it's self-inflicted troubles.
Interesting tidbit about one of Eidos pretty successful franchises (FRD has now smartly pulled from Eidos btw)..i'm talking about Timesplitters 2.
Oct -02 PS2 - 218,131
Oct-02 Xb - 179,422
Oct-02 GCN - 132,540
Whooaa! What's that I see there Mr. McGarvey and Mr. Roach? Come on industry experts! Yeah GCN had the fewsest sold (close though). But man the GCN version has a better *industry buzzword coming up>* Tie Ratio compared to the other two systems. Well that can't be. TS2 for GCN came out about a week and a half after the PS2,XB versions and just 4 days after Super Mario Sunshine, and Starfox Adventures...and it's still ended up selling better per installed base capita numbers than the other systems. THIS on a *disgruntled industry expert buzzphrase ahead>* " much younger demographic system "?!?
Let's look at why TS2 is the anomaly in Mr. McGarvey's reasoning:
1) It's a damn good fun game. Say whaaat! It's a damn good fun and quality game?!?!? Well....yes it is.
2) It's a damn good and fun 3rd party game. On GCN? Yep.
3) It was released at the same time across all three systems (spotting the PS2 and XB just over a week.) But close enuf timeframe. Wait a minute! You mean TS2 did'nt come 4,5 or even 6 months after the other two? Right..just a few days.
And here we have Eidos best effort on GCN (and all three systems) to date and it does better on a "kiddie" system next to some big anticipated games on said system. A mature FPS game did better on a "kiddie" system than it did on the Halobox..er I mean FPSBox..er I mean a system that is known for such "shootin and runnin around games". TS2 did better on a kids' console although it was a port from a weaker console graphics wise. And that said console was home to the very successful prequel from the year before! And that console had a user base many many many times GCN's size yet it sold ONLY 85,000 more units than GCN TS2 did. But Mr. McGarvey said there was a decrease in profitability and blah blah blah blah..and typically the Nintendo GCN blah blah blah blah.
Why dont we see Atari pulling it's XB support? Godzilla DAMM for XB was released April 03 (six months after GCN) with many enhancements and features and it sold 18,930 units compared to 250,038 on GCN. Say what? A quality fun 3rd party game did well on GCN ?!? But Mr. Mcgarvey said.. ... .. and.. an.. and.. ... and Mr. Roach said ... and..aand .....
.. That's the sound of jealous confused industry workers that lack the fortitude to say that they just can't stand Nintendo.
. Eidos' Mike McGarvey is "in the industry" as well...now look how smart he's running his company . It's a common practice by company heads to play the blame game when their own company has been struggling. What's McGarvey supposed to do? Tell the truth? Fact: Yes Eidos games (not including TS2) sold poorly on GCN. Also Fact: Eidos games (not including TS2) sold poorly on ALL SYSTEMS. Sure the GCN having the smaller user base will show lower numbers but that's not to impair smart publishers like Sega, Capcom, Lucas Arts, Namco, EA, Atari and Activision from putting out very successful Gamecube games. You'll hear no tears hit the ground from GCN owners when Eidos crys about it's self-inflicted troubles. Interesting tidbit about one of Eidos pretty successful franchises (FRD has now smartly pulled from Eidos btw)..i'm talking about Timesplitters 2.
Oct -02 PS2 - 218,131
Oct-02 Xb - 179,422
Oct-02 GCN - 132,540
Whooaa! What's that I see there Mr. McGarvey and Mr. Roach? Come on industry experts! Yeah GCN had the fewsest sold (close though). But man the GCN version has a better *industry buzzword coming up>* Tie Ratio compared to the other two systems. Well that can't be
. TS2 for GCN came out about a week and a half after the PS2,XB versions and just 4 days after Super Mario Sunshine, and Starfox Adventures...and it's still ended up selling better per installed base capita numbers than the other systems. THIS on a *disgruntled industry expert buzzphrase ahead>* " much younger demographic system "?!? Let's look at why TS2 is the anomaly in Mr. McGarvey's reasoning:
1) It's a damn good fun game. Say whaaat! It's a damn good fun and quality game?!?!? Well....yes it is.
2) It's a damn good and fun 3rd party game.
On GCN? Yep.3) It was released at the same time across all three systems (spotting the PS2 and XB just over a week.) But close enuf timeframe. Wait a minute! You mean TS2 did'nt come 4,5 or even 6 months after the other two? Right..just a few days.
And here we have Eidos best effort on GCN (and all three systems) to date and it does better on a "kiddie" system next to some big anticipated games on said system. A mature FPS game did better on a "kiddie" system than it did on the Halobox..er I mean FPSBox..er I mean a system that is known for such "shootin and runnin around games". TS2 did better on a kids' console although it was a port from a weaker console graphics wise. And that said console was home to the very successful prequel from the year before! And that console had a user base many many many times GCN's size yet it sold ONLY 85,000 more units than GCN TS2 did. But Mr. McGarvey said there was a decrease in profitability and blah blah blah blah..and typically the Nintendo GCN blah blah blah blah.
Why dont we see Atari pulling it's XB support? Godzilla DAMM for XB was released April 03 (six months after GCN) with many enhancements and features and it sold 18,930 units compared to 250,038 on GCN. Say what? A quality fun 3rd party game did well on GCN ?!? But Mr. Mcgarvey said.. ... .. and.. an.. and.. ... and Mr. Roach said ... and..aand .....
.. That's the sound of jealous confused industry workers that lack the fortitude to say that they just can't stand Nintendo.
DeathKnight
Regular
The lot of you who will defend Nintendo through thick and thin always have new excuses when this kind of stuff happens. The Cube has lost another developer due to poor sales, period. That isn't good no matter how you look at it. You can spin your stories and damage control all you like, but it's not going to change the reality of the situation.
DeathKnight
Regular
Point it out.
Lol... the stuff some of you make up is pretty funny. You just don't have a clue what your talking about. I don't claim to be an 'inidustry expert" but I certainly have a much more realistic picture of the industry then you do.
It's always the same people that do the same thing over and over again. despite your arguing, was I not corect about nintendo having trouble attracting older gamers? was I not right about nintendo not having a online plan? was I not right about 3rd aparty games not selling all that well on gamecube? You can try to reason it all you want until you come up with something that suits your needs, but it won't have any impact on reality.
Personnal message to Qroach :
If you have experience in your work, you should know that noone has a more limitated point of view on a subject than a "specialist" ...
So i can perfectly argue with you but i would like you not to claim "i'm a professionnal" because, TO ME, it is far from giving you more weight ...
Sincerely, it is not a flame ... it is just a thing i wanted to say to you.
Back to the debate.
Since day one, i often heard "Xbox has more Third party support !!"
But listen, on the software side, let's give Xbox an advantage over its competitor because does anyone would reasonably argue that "Xbox have more first and second party support !"?
The real question about third party support is : "Does any of the 3 consoles have enough third party support ?"
About GCN, i would say definitly say yes, IMO.
About software developpers, i have see no topics saying "Xbox is dead" nowhere when Capcom and Square annonced games on GCN ... not on Xbox, so why are there people claiming such fooling things about GCN ??
it is quite simple : if a lie is too big, you only have to repeat it over and over until everybody agree with you !
But to be honest and write it letter by letter : all these are F.LA.M.E !
If you have experience in your work, you should know that noone has a more limitated point of view on a subject than a "specialist" ...
So i can perfectly argue with you but i would like you not to claim "i'm a professionnal" because, TO ME, it is far from giving you more weight ...
Sincerely, it is not a flame ... it is just a thing i wanted to say to you.
Back to the debate.
Since day one, i often heard "Xbox has more Third party support !!"
But listen, on the software side, let's give Xbox an advantage over its competitor because does anyone would reasonably argue that "Xbox have more first and second party support !"?
The real question about third party support is : "Does any of the 3 consoles have enough third party support ?"
About GCN, i would say definitly say yes, IMO.
About software developpers, i have see no topics saying "Xbox is dead" nowhere when Capcom and Square annonced games on GCN ... not on Xbox, so why are there people claiming such fooling things about GCN ??
it is quite simple : if a lie is too big, you only have to repeat it over and over until everybody agree with you !
But to be honest and write it letter by letter : all these are F.LA.M.E !
Well from the start, MS wanted to mimic Sony's 30/70 1st party/3rd party software ratio, but it would seem they're more around 40/60. Nintendo OTOH is at the opposite extreme at 70/30.*
I don't know why people can't really see it. Sony's business model is to generate revenue (and profit) via 3rd party royalties, 1st party software is just gravy. Nintendo, however, sells Nintendo consoles (at profit) for Nintendo software (all profit), while the third party royalties become the gravy. MS.. well, maybe we'll figure out what their strategy is next gen
*I left out somewhat ambiguous 2nd party figures for the sake of making a point.
edit: the point is that 3rd parties aren't central to Nintendo's business plan, and thus there shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction when they fall out of grace with certain publishers.
I don't know why people can't really see it. Sony's business model is to generate revenue (and profit) via 3rd party royalties, 1st party software is just gravy. Nintendo, however, sells Nintendo consoles (at profit) for Nintendo software (all profit), while the third party royalties become the gravy. MS.. well, maybe we'll figure out what their strategy is next gen
*I left out somewhat ambiguous 2nd party figures for the sake of making a point.
edit: the point is that 3rd parties aren't central to Nintendo's business plan, and thus there shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction when they fall out of grace with certain publishers.
- Status
Similar threads
