Eidos: Bye bye GC, you won't be missed

[Qroach]

Grall,

You argue in circles saying there's first no bias to begin with (because game makers are in it for the cash), and if there is, it's Nintendo's fault because GC's a kiddie console and it's THEIR bias to begin with (towards a younger crowd, by reading between the lines)

For one thing you're reading behind the lines completely backwards. I was referring to cybermerc having a bias, not nintendo.

My argument isn't anything close to a circle. you just refuse to understand what is happening and has happened in the past. I told all of you before gamecube came out that Nintendo would have trouble attracting older gamers and this in turn would prevent certain companies from releasing titles on that platform.

If the demographics aren't correct for your game to begin with, what makes you think that your game will attract those users when it's easier to just release the game on a platform that has the user base you want.

Once again you don't know what you are talking about.

Like Nintendo would ever deny Take2 the right to release GTA3 on the GC because Ninty wants to keep their kiddy image intact, who're you kidding here really?

You've got it all backwards, I didn't say nintendo had a bias! get your facts straight...

 

[Qroach]

Of course there is. There is no such thing as an objective decision. When deciding on a corporate strategy that doesn't mean every game seeing a release on every platform you're exercising bias. It can be wellfounded bias but nevertheless it's still bias.

What a load of BS man, you guys are trying to come up with anything to justify your point of view, no matter how silly it is.

Look at it this way, nintendo targets thier console twards younger gamers MORE than the other console maker currently (no poiint in arguing this, it's a fact), so please tell me how a company that releases titles for older gamers wouldn't take this into account when deciding what platform to release thier game on.

How is that bias? it's reality.


> Sales mean money and that's what drives the decision.

but you never know how much a game is going to sell until it is released.

You're right, you can't give a number that is 100% correct on game sales for a platform until you release it, but you can look at the demographics that make up the larger portion of console owners and target your game towards that (depening on what your game is).

In other words, gamecube has the lowest amount of older gamers interested in the type of titles that rockstar releases.

As such decisions on where to put a game are based on preference and someone's opinion on where it's gonna sell the best - in other words, bias.

Wrong, it's based on demographics, why can't you understand that.

Of course it is.

Nope, rockstar decides what platforms to support. Not take 2... Take 2 motly handles pc titles and the budget line of games.

Rockstar is a wholly owned subsidiary of Take 2. It just follows the company line.

Yes a subsidary, that has it's own head office, it's own marketing and sales people. When was the last time you saw take 2's name on anything for a console? Doesn't happen often, dose it?

Not at all. Take 2's bias against Nintendo goes back much longer.

You mean back to the N64? so I guess everyone that didn't make games for the expensive n64 that had demographics mostly made up of younger gamers, must be biased? Unm, right...

 

[cybamerc]

Qroach:

> Actually the deal didn't include a baseball title.

I didn't say the deal included a baseball title as I was never privy to the specifics of the deal (and to be frank I doubt you were either). I said the deal resulted in Xbox receiving an exclusive baseball title.

> It just didn't make sense to release it at all on the gamecube at the
> time since sports titles don't sell well on that system.

At that time Cube had been on the American market for about half a year. Hardly enough time to gather a proper impression of the userbase. Especially when considering that development started well before that.

> One football game release isn't what caused the rest of the sports titles
> to sell poorly on gamecube.

Certainly not. It's just one of many factors that turned potential buyers towards other systems.

> Well then how do you explain the next year when they supported the
> system with all thier sports games and theySTILL did extremly poor?

I already have.

> the kind of audience you attract determines your support.

But the kind of support you have will influence the kind of audience you attract. A lot of 3. parties were unwilling to commit to GameCube initially, some still are. It has hurt the platform's chances of targetting a wider audience.

> Out of the gate EA supported both platforms the same roughly.

Sports titles were clearly not given the same priority for Cube. In the end the games ended up being fairly equal but there was a lot of talk about features that might not make it in the Cube version. That kind of talk will get through to the audience.

> What a load of BS man

Your knowledge of the English language and the human psyche is disturbingly poor.

> nintendo targets thier console twards younger gamers MORE than the
> other console maker currently

I would disagree with that. Nintendo targets all age groups. The focus, as always, is on the family. Sony has clearly taken over the childrens market. The fact that a lot of the software that is sold for PS2 has M ratings doesn't change that. GTA3 is probably the most popular kids title next to Pokémon.

> so please tell me how a company that releases titles for older gamers
> wouldn't take this into account when deciding what platform to release
> thier game on

But a lot of companies took this stance even before the GameCube had released and they knew what kind of audience it would get.

> How is that bias? it's reality.

What is real is in the eye of the beholder.

> you can look at the demographics that make up the larger portion of
> console owners

Not when the system isn't out.

> In other words, gamecube has the lowest amount of older gamers
> interested in the type of titles that rockstar releases.

There is no basis for such an assumption. You can't gauge interest in specific titles based on your predetermined beliefs that such a market doesn't exist on GameCube.

As for your comment on the age of the GameCube audience I'm sure you can back it up with reliable material?

> Wrong, it's based on demographics, why can't you understand that.

Statistics mean little on their own. Someone has to interpret them and the conclusion will undeniably be colored by the person's beliefs and preferences. The fact that a conscious decision is made alone shows bias.

> When was the last time you saw take 2's name on anything for a
> console? Doesn't happen often, dose it?

No it doesn't. Because Take 2 relies on brands such as Rockstar, Gathering and Gotham Games.

 

[Rodéric]

"nintendo targets thier console twards younger gamers MORE than the other console maker currently (no poiint in arguing this, it's a fact)"

It's obvious things ARE, simply because you said it...


Have anyone any proofs/stats from at least one reliable source of information regarding the GameCube (and other consoles) demographics ?

 

[Magnum PI]

why do they publish games like eternal darkness or metroid prime ? why the resident evil license on the GC ?

i think nintendo wouldn't mind to have a broader audience for the GC.

and nintendo games by themselve aren't kid only they are enjoyable by all ages. for example, i don't know a single videogamer who couldn't enjoy SMBM.

 

[Qroach]

didn't say the deal included a baseball title as I was never privy to the specifics of the deal (and to be frank I doubt you were either). I said the deal resulted in Xbox receiving an exclusive baseball title.

You just contradicted yourself! how could the deal "result" in Xbox recieivng a baseball title if it wasn't part of the deal itself? The deal didn't result xbox in getting a baseball title. In other words, the baseball game didn't have anything to do with that deal as I said.

Careful decisions regarding it's time of release, the competition, and the general market appeal (after all the other baseball titles on other systems) played a much bigger role IMO then bias or them not giving it a chance.

At that time Cube had been on the American market for about half a year. Hardly enough time to gather a proper impression of the userbase. Especially when considering that development started well before that.

Half a year is plenty of time. BTW, you DON'T know when development started. It doesn't take more than a few months in most cases to port a title. That depends on the code of course...

Certainly not. It's just one of many factors that turned potential buyers towards other systems.

One of those factors could also be that nintendo themselves doesn't make much in the sports area which could have also directed people towards other consoles to begin with. It's the chicken and the egg. Even still what you said doesn't explain the poor sports game sales on titles other than football.

I already have.

Actually no you haven't. You agreed that one football game couldn't have an impact on ALL sports games sales, so where did you explain what happened to the rest of the poor selling titles?

But the kind of support you have will influence the kind of audience you attract. A lot of 3. parties were unwilling to commit to GameCube initially, some still are. It has hurt the platform's chances of targetting a wider audience.

Let me put it this way, the company that attracts the intial audience is the console maker. It's up to them to either show that they are serious in the market and want to attract that specific audience by providing games that appeal to the audience within the first year. MS showed they were serious about appealing to older gamers by making sure they had thier own racing and sports brands. Nintendo on the other hand isn't really worried about sports titles and leaves that completely up to the third parties.

Think about this for a moment... if you were a third party which system would YOU think would have the better chance of attracting the user base (in this case sports) you're targetting your game towards, GC or Xbox?

PS2 and xbox right out of the gate were not targetted at all towards younger gamers. GC on the other hand WAS targetted towards younger gamers. Nintendo is family friendly (always has been) and makes a number of products like pokemon and all sorts of stuff that younger kids like. Right offf the bat, nintendo was attracting younger gamers by advertising during prime cartoon hours, and on kids shows. if you were rockstar, what gaurentee would you have tha tnintendo was trying to attract MORE of the gamers that you're products sells to?

Sports titles were clearly not given the same priority for Cube. In the end the games ended up being fairly equal but there was a lot of talk about features that might not make it in the Cube version. That kind of talk will get through to the audience.

yes I recall some of the things that came up about saving rosters and season information. I recall there was talk about the small size of the initial gamecube mem cards that prevented info from being stored and this meant certain features had to be cut. Now who's fault is that? EA's? Not IMO.

Your knowledge of the English language and the human psyche is disturbingly poor.

You're knowledge of the game industry and it's practices are disturbingly poor. Now, back to the discussion...

I would disagree with that. Nintendo targets all age groups. The focus, as always, is on the family. Sony has clearly taken over the childrens market. The fact that a lot of the software that is sold for PS2 has M ratings doesn't change that.

No, you don't understand. All the consoles generally expand their selection over time to try and attract more users. Typically this doesn't occur in the first or second year, but the third year and after.

Yes right now PS2 has more family oriented titles due to them expanding thier user base. It also helps tha tthey were out much earlier and had a large head start in this area...

However you simply can't disagree, that out of the three consoles released, that Nintendo didn't attempt to appeal to younger gamers. Geez, just look at the design of the gamecube visually it's written all over it. They were the ONLY console maker out of the gate that wanted to reach out towards younger gamers from the first release of gamecube.

GTA3 is probably the most popular kids title next to Pokémon.

Wrong.

But a lot of companies took this stance even before the GameCube had released and they knew what kind of audience it would get.

Of course they did. Nintendo didn't show they were serious about expanding thier user base after the N64. If nintendo really was serious, they should have covered other genre's to attract those users to the console, such as sports and racing games. Some publishers started by not releasign titles, while others tested the waters to see what was going to happen.

What is real is in the eye of the beholder.

Then open your eyes

Not when the system isn't out.

Before the system is out you have to rely on the console manufacturer to attract the audience you're after. MS had to make a commitment to publishers that they would cover basic genres off the bat, as they were new to the marketplace. MS knew they needed sports games (even if they weren't the best out there) to have a presence in that area of the market and attract sports players not only for themselves, but for the sports making thrid parties.

However, you are correct, which is why MOST companies tried the waters by releasing titles to begin with.

There is no basis for such an assumption. You can't gauge interest in specific titles based on your predetermined beliefs that such a market doesn't exist on GameCube.

Sure there's a basis. What I said applies to sports games too. You think I and others in the game industry are pulling this out of thin air? Out of the much talked about "mature titles" as you call them, which of those have proved to be as or more successful than the family oriented titles released by nintendo? Remember eternal darkness? it didn't sell as well as mario sunshine despite having TV commercials backing it up during primetime hours...

As for your comment on the age of the GameCube audience I'm sure you can back it up with reliable material?

I didn't make a age specific comment about the gamecube audience. I merly stated that nintendo target's younger gamers more then others out of the gate, and that the so called mature games haven't typically done as well as the same releases on other platforms. Take that for what you will, but I didn't say anything specific about age.

Someone has to interpret them and the conclusion will undeniably be colored by the person's beliefs and preferences. The fact that a conscious decision is made alone shows bias.

What a load. look, I'm not going to continue arguing on something you refuse to understand all day.

No it doesn't. Because Take 2 relies on brands such as Rockstar, Gathering and Gotham Games.

Rockstar is a brand yes, but that doen't mean that brand and it's head office can't make it's own decisions on the titles it releases.

 

[Qroach]

Ingenu,

It's obvious things ARE, simply because you said it...

No it's obvious to anyone willing to open thier eyes and see what ALREADY happened.


Magnum,

why do they publish games like eternal darkness or metroid prime ? why the resident evil license on the GC ?

Becuase they WANT to attract an older audience, but honestly they didn't do this out of the gate and that lead to problems doing it later.

i think nintendo wouldn't mind to have a broader audience for the GC.

exactly.

and nintendo games by themselve aren't kid only they are enjoyable by all ages. for example, i don't know a single videogamer who couldn't enjoy SMBM.

No, they aren't kid only, you're correct. By just making a title fun for all ages you're automatically giving the impression of being designed for younger gamers. Just last fall, I knew people that hadn't actually heard of gamecube, yet they all knew PS2 and XBOX.

 

[Blade]

Rockstar is DMA Design, and they actually delivered a few good/great niche games on N64; Space Station Silicon Valley comes to mind. Since those days, however.. and like several other publishers/developers.. Rockstar has had little faith that 3rd-party games can sell well on GCN. Heck, maybe they're right.. to a point.

3rd-party games haven't sold nearly as well as Nintendo's own offerings, it's true.

Of course, barring sports titles.. the GCN hasn't received many high-profile 100% exclusive games. A big reason for this is the lack of Konami, Rockstar, Square, and several others that've kept their resources tied up on PS2 and Xbox.

Quincy.. you're right. Japan doesn't matter, but it stills counts as user-base. A Japanese game studio, perhaps one that hasn't embraced GameCube as they have other consoles.. let's use Konami here.. they might see that user-base in Japan to be a valuable market to cater to. Obviously not as big as the PS2's, but still big enough to rake in more cash with.

And remember that Japan is home to around half of the world's most profilic game developers. Japan counts in this way.

 

[Magnum PI]

i must recognize lots of these gamers who enjoy SSMB would never had the idea of buying a GC and this game. they were surprised at how much enjoyable the lil'cube was.. (i have a good library of multiplayer games)

that's sad nintendo dosn't get as much mainstream recognition as in the past..

sony definitively has the mindshare, while microsoft is doing their best in order to gain mindshare. nintendo doesn't seem to appeal outside of their traditionnal followers.

is nintendo becoming a "has been" of consoles ?
how sad.

 

[Qroach]

Blade,

Rockstar is DMA Design, and they actually delivered a few good/great niche games on N64; Space Station Silicon Valley comes to mind. Since those days, however.. and like several other publishers/developers.. Rockstar has had little faith that 3rd-party games can sell well on GCN. Heck, maybe they're right.. to a point.

You're right, they once were VERy close to nintendo. I work with a guy that worked with nintendo close on many projects years back at DMA.

Of course, barring sports titles.. the GCN hasn't received many high-profile 100% exclusive games.

I know, But how many has Nitnendo been willing to pay for? MS pays for all the big third party exclusives (or atleast 95% of them... Sony doesn't have to pay for much these days as they already won this generation. So why hasn't nintendo paid for more third party exclusives?

Quincy.. you're right. Japan doesn't matter,

Well I didn't say it didn't matter, I just said it wdoesn't mean much to north american publishers. I haven't been talking about japanese publishers sicne I don't deal with that region.

Japanese publishers have the benefit of ALL markets open to thier games. They could have totally different reasons for all I know. then again, Gamecube does get much mroe support form japanese developers compared to Xbox.

And remember that Japan is home to around half of the world's most profilic game developers.

Hmm, I think this is a seperate discussion, but I certianly wouldn't say half. I think they have some of the most powerful developers, but also think the market there is smaller than you may believe...

 

[Blade]

I'm sorry, I meant the console world when I said half. The PC market is obviously not dominated by Japanese devs.. heh.

I gotta say that around 40-50% of the quality console developers are Japanese, from what I've seen.

 

[cybamerc]

Qroach:

> You just contradicted yourself!

Not at all.

> how could the deal "result" in Xbox recieivng a baseball title if it wasn't
> part of the deal itself?

Up until the point where the deal was made Sega was unwilling to commit to Xbox. The deal that was made not only brought a few specific titles to the platform but also opened up for wider support. Tetsu Kayama went very far in honoring the deal and reportedly pressured development teams into supporting the Xbox. His strategy never paid off and now he's gone. Now Sega's Xbox support is being scaled back heavily.

> Half a year is plenty of time.

Nonsense. Most publishers don't even have a product out by that time. The defining moment is around the first year mark with the destiny of the system so to speak being locked down by the second.

> BTW, you DON'T know when development started.

Nor have I claimed to.

> It doesn't take more than a few months in most cases to port a title.

Is it a straight port though? Even so the decision to make the game exclusively for Xbox was clearly not based on demographics.

> One of those factors could also be that nintendo themselves doesn't
> make much in the sports area which could have also directed people
> towards other consoles to begin with.

Why would that turn people towards an unproven platform though? M$ had NFL Fever at launch but I doubt that is what made the difference.

> Even still what you said doesn't explain the poor sports game sales on
> titles other than football.

Once people get the impression that a particular platform is the lesser one for a specific genre people will go elsewhere. People don't usually buy a football title for one platform, baseball for another, ice hockey for a third and so forth. They stick to one platform especially when talking games from the same publisher.

> Actually no you haven't.

I can only conclude that your reading skills haven't improved.

> You agreed that one football game couldn't have an impact on ALL
> sports games sales

I agreed that it wasn't the sole reason.

> Let me put it this way, the company that attracts the intial audience is
> the console maker.

Not true in regards to PS1/2. M$ lucked out with Halo of course but it's difficult to quantify how much of an effect Halo had on sports sales.

> if you were a third party which system would YOU think would have the
> better chance of attracting the user base (in this case sports) you're
> targetting your game towards, GC or Xbox?

Prior to launch I would have rated them equally.

> PS2 and xbox right out of the gate were not targetted at all towards
> younger gamers.

True in the case of PS2. Xbox arguably had more games for kids (shitty games but still)

Xbox:
Halo
Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee
NFL Fever 2002
Project Gotham Racing
Fuzion Frenzy
Madden NFL 2002
NASCAR Thunder 2002
Cel Damage
NASCAR Heat 2002
TransWorld Surf
Test Drive Off-Road Wide Open
NHL Hitz 2002
Mad Dash Racing
Shrek
4x4 EVO 2
Dark Summit
Air Force Delta Storm
Dead or Alive 3
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x

GameCube:
Tarzan Untamed
Luigi's Mansion
Wave Race: Blue Storm
Star Wars Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron 2
Super Monkey Ball
Madden NFL 2002
Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX 2
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
All-Star Baseball 2002
Crazy Taxi
NHL Hitz 2002
Universal Studios

GameCube marketing was clearly not targetted towards kids.

> if you were rockstar, what gaurentee would you have tha tnintendo was
> trying to attract MORE of the gamers that you're products sells to?

Well, looking past the fact that Rockstar's audience includes children and as such should fit the Nintendo stereotype quite well you have the Resident Evil deal among other things that showed that Nintendo was actively pursuing adult themed software.

> Yes right now PS2 has more family oriented titles due to them
> expanding thier user base.

I didn't talk about family oriented games. I was referring to how the PS2 is the favored console amongst children. This isn't a recent development either. PS1 enjoyed the same success with children.

The youth today is different from when I was a kid. Children today much more so than earlier look to adults for inspiration. They dress like adults, play the same games as adults, watch the same movies as adults, listen to the same music as adults. Hell, their language is several times dirtier than what you hear from adults.

This is something Sony has obviously benifited from. Perhaps even had some influence on. PlayStation is part of modern pop culture.

> Geez, just look at the design of the gamecube visually it's written all
> over it.

Actually, the design of the GameCube along with the early marketing was more artsy than anything. They were trying to be different, to be chic... they obviously failed but they certainly weren't targetting kids specifically.

> They were the ONLY console maker out of the gate that wanted to
> reach out towards younger gamers from the first release of gamecube.

Nintendo was the only console maker that wasn't afraid to admit that kids are part of its strategy. For some companies children have turned into a tabu. Probably to avoid being stigmatized like Nintendo.

> Wrong.

You can prove this of course?

> If nintendo really was serious, they should have covered other genre's
> to attract those users to the console, such as sports and racing games.

I don't think you can reasonably expect a company to cover every genre. I would agree however that compared to Sony, Nintendo had more to prove. It would definitely have been in its own interest to provide a traditional racer, rpg and fighter.

> You think I and others in the game industry are pulling this out of thin
> air?

I think for some companies there is an interest in keeping Nintendo's kiddy image intact. At the same time there's an interest in making damn sure you are never in any way associated with children.

> it didn't sell as well as mario sunshine despite having TV commercials
> backing it up during primetime hours...

No survival horror title (which perhaps isn't the most fitting genre for ED but nevertheless the image it got) has sold more than SMS this gen. In fact, ED sold in line with other titles within the genre.

> I didn't make a age specific comment about the gamecube audience.

Specific no. But you clearly stated that GameCube has the lowest amount of older gamers which is a pretty arbitrary statement. While GameCube has an image of mainly attracting young gamers I have seen no evidence to support that claim.

> What a load.

It is fact.

> look, I'm not going to continue arguing on something you refuse to
> understand all day.

In other words you admit that you can't argue your case. Glad we cleared that up.




Blade:

> Rockstar is DMA Design

Rockstar North is what was once know as DMA Design. Rockstar Games is a publishing brand under Take 2.

 

[oli2]

Personal question to Qroach : how old are you ?

Do you really really believe in this "kiddy image thing" about GCN ?

I read here you said "i was dealing with that before GCN was launched"

As i said before too, if a LIE is too big, you simply have to say it again and again to make people accept it ... (remember this thing with "destructive weopons in Irak" and look at the situation of T. Blair in UK ... ).

Just questions to YOU Qroach : if you're right ... Why does GBa doesn't have this kiddy image ? Why are Capcom, Square, Konami and others developping "adult" games on GCN exclusively ?

Two points to sum up :
1) you tell me Rockstar, i answer Capcom, you tell me eidos, i answer Square, and so on ...
2) You should know that from a scientific point of view one can proove that a thing is true, but in most cases, you cannot proove that a thing is false ...

IMO, with this "kiddy argument" you're simply trolling and don't deserve anybody to argue with you !

 

[DeathKnight]

Nintendo's demographic is with younger people, period. It doesn't matter if older people like to play games catered toward a younger demographic, it doesn't change the demographic. Hell, I liked Animal Crossing, but I'm not going to sit here and lie to myself like you Nintendo diehards do. Are you insecure about the games you play and the system you support? I was once a diehard Nintendo fan (owned only Nintendo systems up to the N64 and I defended the N64 until the cows came home) so I know exactly how you think.

 

[cybamerc]

DeathKnight:

I don't think you understand the meaning of demographics.

 

[oli2]

... Are you insecure about the games you play and the system you support?

This is the point, Death ...
As soon as a game gives me pleasure, i'm not asking myself "Oh, after all, is it an adult game ?" If yes i like it, if not i hate it ...

In fact, the whole concept of playing on PC or console is not the fact of an adult thought ...

But keep thinking like Sony and M$ want you to think : you are "adult" not kids and keep buying our consoles, not GCN.

 

[DeathKnight]

Of course I do.

Even Nintendo has admitted their demographic is catered toward the younger crowd and they were making "efforts" to try and attract older gamers (ie. get a piece of the PS2 and Xbox pie).

 

[DeathKnight]

You missed the point as well. I'm not insecure about my gaming. I didn't purchase the Xbox because it was somehow more "adult". I purchased it because it had the games I wanted to play. I haven't purchased a Cube because it doesn't have the games I really want to play. If I really need to play a game on it my sister has a Cube (which is how I got into Animal Crossing). I was completely obsessed with the N64 though, but I eventually grew tired of it and the last game I ever got for it was Donkey Kong Country 64.

However, you seem insecure about your platform of choice because you're trying to turn the demographic of the console into something it isn't. Who cares if the games you like on the system are catered more to younger gamers or older gamers? Be content with your gaming and stop trying to do Nintendo's job for them.

 

[Qroach]

Up until the point where the deal was made Sega was unwilling to commit to Xbox. The deal that was made not only brought a few specific titles to the platform but also opened up for wider support. Tetsu Kayama went very far in honoring the deal and reportedly pressured development teams into supporting the Xbox. His strategy never paid off and now he's gone. Now Sega's Xbox support is being scaled back heavily.

Where are you getting this crap from? Are you making this up or somehting? You're stating stuff like it's fact when you really don't know the story.

Nonsense.

Oh so now you've worked for developers and publishers,? You don't know what you're talking about, sorry.

Why would that turn people towards an unproven platform though? M$ had NFL Fever at launch but I doubt that is what made the difference.

It doesn't matter if the platform is unproven. If you see games that interest you, you'll buy that platform. In this case it's a football game and that attracts sports players (as most sports players probably like more than one sport) you start to build up a market for titles ike that.

Once people get the impression that a particular platform is the lesser one for a specific genre people will go elsewhere. People don't usually buy a football title for one platform, baseball for another, ice hockey for a third and so forth. They stick to one platform especially when talking games from the same publisher.

Exactly, and when nintendo didn't provide sports, racing or RPGs for the gamecube where did those fans go? They went to Xbox and PS2. When that happens, the publishers that are making those types of games will provide more support for those platforms sicne there's already a market for it. Now I think you understand, yes?

I can only conclude that your reading skills haven't improved.

Say what you want, but you still don't knwo what you are talking about.

Not true in regards to PS1/2. M$ lucked out with Halo of course but it's difficult to quantify how much of an effect Halo had on sports sales.

No, you don't understand. MS RELEASED Xbox with sports games, racing games, party games, and action games that covered most genres. Sony did the same thing with PS1. Nitnendo didn't do this ao how were they to attract the gamers that wanted those games?

Prior to launch I would have rated them equally.

Based on the way the consles were marketted, the launch lineups and the fact MS told publishers what market they were focusing on at launch, I wouldn't have rated them equally.

True in the case of PS2. Xbox arguably had more games for kids (shitty games but still)

Xbox:
Halo
Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee
NFL Fever 2002
Project Gotham Racing
Fuzion Frenzy
Madden NFL 2002
NASCAR Thunder 2002
Cel Damage
NASCAR Heat 2002
TransWorld Surf
Test Drive Off-Road Wide Open
NHL Hitz 2002
Mad Dash Racing
Shrek
4x4 EVO 2
Dark Summit
Air Force Delta Storm
Dead or Alive 3
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2x

GameCube:
Tarzan Untamed
Luigi's Mansion
Wave Race: Blue Storm
Star Wars Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron 2
Super Monkey Ball
Madden NFL 2002
Dave Mirra Freestyle BMX 2
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3
All-Star Baseball 2002
Crazy Taxi
NHL Hitz 2002
Universal Studios

Well I disagree... we can argue back and forth abotu this forever, but he fact of the matte ris Nitnendo targetted younge rgamers to with the product MORE than MS did at launch.

GameCube marketing was clearly not targetted towards kids.

I'm NOT saying all thier marketting was, I'm saying they clearly did spend some of thier markeitng directed to children.

If that wasn't true, then why were gamecube commercials all over saturday mornings (the time kids watch TV cartoons)? I can remrmber seeing Gamecube adds every morning before going into work and the only place I'd see xbox or PS2 add was during sports centere at all times of night.

Well, looking past the fact that Rockstar's audience includes children and as such should fit the Nintendo stereotype quite well you have the Resident Evil deal among other things that showed that Nintendo was actively pursuing adult themed software.

Well for one thing that is NOT rockstars audience. the game might end up in some kids hands, but that's not their fault. It's the fault of parents and retailers who don't pay any attention to age ratings.

Also, nintendo didn't have resident evil when the console released. it just wasn't enough. Didn't sell nearly as well as some peopel in these forums predicted.

I didn't talk about family oriented games. I was referring to how the PS2 is the favored console amongst children. This isn't a recent development either. PS1 enjoyed the same success with children.

Yes, PS1 had the same success, although it didn't happen at first. The system wa spriced too high and there wasn't much of a selction of games when the PS2 was released. once the library built up fast, more titles that would interest younger gamers appeared.

Actually, the design of the GameCube along with the early marketing was more artsy than anything. They were trying to be different, to be chic... they obviously failed but they certainly weren't targetting kids specifically.

I don't know if I could call it chic, but I do recally representititves form nintendo sayign things like nintendo makes console systems for nintendo's games first, and comments like the gamecube is a "Toy". That certianly didn't seem chic to me...

Also the multiple colors (only to find out the black version sold best) the little handle on it certianly don't promote a feeling of artsy.

Nintendo was the only console maker that wasn't afraid to admit that kids are part of its strategy. For some companies children have turned into a tabu. Probably to avoid being stigmatized like Nintendo.

Wasn't afraid? I wouldn't say that. MS came right out and said on one occasion that in year three they planned to have more games for younger gamers in a hope to expand theri user base. Sony has already done this, so who's afraid to admit anything? It's just a matter of covering the correct section of the market when your system launches.

You can prove this of course?

OK, then please explain how you are going to prove that GTA3 is the most popular kids title next to Pokémon. Obviously a title that is targetted towards younger gamers.

I don't think you can reasonably expect a company to cover every genre. I would agree however that compared to Sony, Nintendo had more to prove. It would definitely have been in its own interest to provide a traditional racer, rpg and fighter.

There's very few 3rd parties that cover all those genre's by themselves. It's really up the the manufacturer if they want to cover them. Which then promotes people looking for more games in that genre. If nintendo covered more areas it was lacking, they'd be able to attract more gamers in those areas...

I think for some companies there is an interest in keeping Nintendo's kiddy image intact. At the same time there's an interest in making damn sure you are never in any way associated with children.

Sure I'd agree with that statement. Although I don't like the use of the word "kiddy"...

No survival horror title (which perhaps isn't the most fitting genre for ED but nevertheless the image it got) has sold more than SMS this gen.

What? you're honestly trying to say that Eternal darkness sold more than Supe Mario sunshine??? You really aren't thinking about this clearly are you?

In fact, ED sold in line with other titles within the genre.

Sold in line with other titles with in the genre on gamecube

Specific no. But you clearly stated that GameCube has the lowest amount of older gamers which is a pretty arbitrary statement. While GameCube has an image of mainly attracting young gamers I have seen no evidence to support that claim.

I actually said:

gamecube has the lowest amount of older gamers interested in the type of titles that rockstar releases

Notice hte words "the type of titles that Rockstart releases". Thos being M rated titles. The evidence of Nitnendo attracting younger games is right in front of your nose. They certianly have a larger percentage than Xbox.

It is fact.

Like i said before, you don't know what you are talking about.

In other words you admit that you can't argue your case. Glad we cleared that up.

You ignore points, ignore questions, throw out 5 word sentances saying basically nothing (in this thread and others) and think you've argued your case? That's laughable man...

 

[Qroach]

Do you really really believe in this "kiddy image thing" about GCN ?

For one thing I don't say "kiddy" I think that term is silly. However what isn't to beleive?

You know earlier this year I had a few phone conversations with the guys tha tmade toe jam and earl for xbox. You should see the concept for theri next game, it is really cool, however one of the things they came right out and told me was that ToeJam and Earl 3 wasn't really suited for the xbox audience and would have done better on gamecube.

So it's not just me that think of gqmecube and how nintendo has focuses on the younger market too much while ignoreing the needs of older gamers. Sure they have some mature title or whateve ryou want to call them, but the damage is done, they chose a path and have to stick to it.