Why do people keep making excuses for nintentdo? This is two consoles in a row that have lacked any real support from 3rd parties and Nintendo itself. I own a gamecube and never use it, it has no support. The revolution is DOA because it does not have Hi-Def support, how is this console going to last 4-5 years when it is crippled out of the gate? Nintendo either needs to fully support their console or get out of the business and become a software publisher.
Games industry on Revolution
- Thread starter pipo
- Start date
Edit: Yeah, I had a sarcastic response here, don't know why I bothered.
Last edited by a moderator:
ninzel said:
Ok but that doesn't change the fact that you are essentially saying that Nintendo intentionally prioritized their handheld sector over their home console one and that's why the GCN came in last. What proof do you have for this? Do you know their marketing budget for the two? Developer support budget? Hardware development costs?
IMO, you are rationalizing coming in last as something they planned from the beginning and that seems illogical.
ninzel said:
You are performing a logical fallacy, using a negative to prove a positive. That is, just because there are no redesigns (note they added colors though) for the GCN does NOT mean it was a lower priority for them. Maybe it was a great design to begin with? I certainly never heard of any complaints about the GCN but you certainly heard a ton for the GBA (no backlight for one).
Ingenu,
I couldn't have said it any better.
So did I just imagine my GC library of 35 games? I mean, if there was no developer support, then what did I buy?
I've been on a bit of a used Gamecube game buying binge of late. Metroid Prime 2: Echoes for $15 and F-Zero GX for $10. Next on my list: Resident Evil 4, Ikaruga, Eternal Darkness, Tales of Symphonia, Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, and I could go on.
A lot of the best games are 1st or 2nd party Nintendo games. Looks like Nintendo is doing what a lot of American companies are doing, outsourcing their work to other companies.
A lot of the best games are 1st or 2nd party Nintendo games. Looks like Nintendo is doing what a lot of American companies are doing, outsourcing their work to other companies.
Ty said:
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying and I have no proof. We are just talking for fun, is that not allowed or do we have ot treat every subject as if we're talking about our mothers.
If there were no other platforms to compare Nintendo's tactics to, then I could see it proving a negative. But with the way they have treated thier handhleds we have a pattern of behaviour that has proven successful for them, so why not at least try this on the GC.
I liked the GC as well , but clearly the look hurt them and yet no response. Even Reggie admitted in an interview that the GC look hurt them, yet no response.
A simple redesign, add in a broaddband adaptor as standard, and launch a "Nintendo online" service simliar to Nintendo wifi, but without the wifi. They would have still had plenty of new stuff to launch Rev with, and would have been at least attempting to address some of the magor complaints about GC,yet nothing . I'm suprised that after the precedent that they have set with the tweaks and redesigns to their handhelds, and it's success that you don't at least wonder why nothing like that was attempted with the GC.
I think it's because even thouhg the GC was not seen as a sytem with a quantity of support it still has the reputation of being a quality peice of hardware with quality software.And that's was good enough for them.Not great and certainly it probably didn't perform as good as they had liked, but if the GC was their main priority I think you would have seen a much more aggresive response.
'Plus the fact that I don't think Nintendo really wants to make big games that much anymore, and people expect big epic games on home consoles.Give Nintendo the option of making a blockbuster handheld or home console game both projected to sell the same amount of units, my guess is they would choose the handheld route almost everytime.
Last edited by a moderator:
ninzel said:
Uhh...ok. You can say just about anything you want but if you're going to post something up here for all of us to read you'd better be prepared to have it scrutinized for common sense and quite frankly, your rationale for why the GCN did so poorly didn't make sense to me or others.
ninzel said:
Because consumer priorities for the handheld sector (size/portability, battery-life, etc.) are not at all the same for the home console (quality of games).
Ask yourself:
Do you think the Xbox looks better than the GCN? Do you think the PS2 looks orders of magnitude better than the GCN?
ninzel said:
It wasn't the look of the GCN that hurt them imo, it was the dearth of "cool" games. For whatever reason, Mario Party XVVI isn't cool but Halo 12/GTA 645 is.
ninzel said:
Nintendo admitted that it wasn't time for an online strategy so I don't see why giving away the broadband adaptor would make sense for them. Furthermore, I don't believe that a simple redesign would do much to increase the uptake of GCN hardware. The GCN had an image problem plain and simple and it wasn't related to the look of the console so much as to the games available to it.
ninzel said:
Because Nintendo knew the problems with the GCN wasn't it look so much as getting "cool" games into the pipeline - something a redesign doesn't affect whatsoever.
ninzel said:
The tipping point in this console generation happened years ago and Nintendo read the writing on the wall. Nothing was going to beat the PS2, nothing so why spend resources in a battle you're only going to end up losing anyhow? The only reason to continue meager support for the GCN is because it is profitable and to lay the groundwork for the next console (e.g. don't pull a Sega).
You made some good points about the image from the games, but I dont think you can just right off the look of the system so much. You or I may be fine with it but there have been lot's of complaints. Also offering some basic online system could have given then a head start for tuning next gen online yet they saved the good stuff for the DS, a handheld.
Still I can't help but think that Nintendo could hve done better with it had they put more software support behind it like they have with the DS .
Still I can't help but think that Nintendo could hve done better with it had they put more software support behind it like they have with the DS .
ninzel said:
If you were to list out the "good" games (were you looking only at first party titles) for both the GCN and the DS, I'm sure the list would be much larger for the GCN (which shouldn't much of a surprise since it's been out for much longer).
A better exercise then would be to list the release date of these titles so we could see just how fast they were rolling out.
Personally I think Nintendo supported the GCN quite well with their first party titles (they were all pretty AAA in quality IMO). It was just unfortunate those weren't "cool" enough for the rest of the world.
ninzel said:
Well, Nintendo tried lots of things to improve GCN sales. Don't you remember the GBA-GCN connectivity? The GBA player for GCN. They really tried to expand their strong handheld sales numbers to their home console, but to no avail.
You can hardly say that there was no effort on their part. They released lots of games for it. They tried to "maturerize" their line-up via second parties, etc.
The more I think about it and talk to people about Revolution the more I feel that it may just work.
For instance the other day I had on Sonic Gems, all of a sudden my house mate comes in wondering what that "strangely familiar sound" was. When she realised that it was sonic she started to go on about how her whole family used to be addicted to Sonic and Alex the kidd on the Master system, but since the machines started getting more costly and harder they sort of gave up.
This is the market that Nintendo want to revive. By making the games simpler and easier they have a real chance at it, and the controller shows this. Ultimately it will never be in the smae league as Xbox and Playstation in terms of stature or sales but I feel that Nintendo will carve out a very nice market for themselves.
For instance the other day I had on Sonic Gems, all of a sudden my house mate comes in wondering what that "strangely familiar sound" was. When she realised that it was sonic she started to go on about how her whole family used to be addicted to Sonic and Alex the kidd on the Master system, but since the machines started getting more costly and harder they sort of gave up.
This is the market that Nintendo want to revive. By making the games simpler and easier they have a real chance at it, and the controller shows this. Ultimately it will never be in the smae league as Xbox and Playstation in terms of stature or sales but I feel that Nintendo will carve out a very nice market for themselves.
Let's look at this another way.I think that we can all agree can we not that handheld games on average would be much cheaper to make. I don't have the figures,but I have read articles and it seems to be the case. So if Nintendo can produce some hit's like Nintendogs or Brain training, or SM64, etc. for a fraction of the price of a game like a Zelda:Twilight Princess from a business perspective why wouldn't you want to go that route instead of the risker more expensive route via home consoles.
ninzel said:
You are correct. Handhelds are usually much cheaper to develop for.
ninzel said:
You're making the assumption that Nintendo has to choose between Handheld or Home Console which I don't believe is true. Nintendo has had decades to understand the resources required to support both and therefore it's doubtful supporting the GCN taxed them such that they had to scale back.
No, Nintendo fully supported the GCN with first party games far better than MS and better IMO than even Sony (with it's spotty first party record).
But here's a question for you then, what do you mean by "support"? What form does it come in?
Ty said:
Not just 1st party support, but creating an environment where all developers want to develop on the system, 1st 2nd and 3rd parties.
Advertising, forging deals with 3rd parties, responding to all gamers criticisms. The list is long.
Basically my ideal Nintendo system would be something like the GC or Rev in terms of hardware, with the 1st and second party support, but the type and quantity of 3rd party support the PS2 had.
ninzel said:
I am sorry, but Nintendo did try to secure more 3rd party support: They've lowered license fees for key developers such as EA. They've offered lower license fees for key developers who simultaneously developed a game for GCN and GBA, again EA springs to my mind. They've handed out their own franchises to developers to ensure 3rd party support (Capcom, Sega, Namco, etc.). They've tried to help small 3rd parties getting started their business (Yamauchi's fund -> Genius Sorority). They've offered their design expertise to 3rd parties (Nspace).
Let's face it, there wasn't a lack of 3rd party support because Nintendo didn't try, but 3rd party games didn't sell. Except from a few exceptions (Sonic titles, SMB, Rogue Leader) 3rd party games sales were abysmal.
If the rumours we keep hearing are true, and both, the costs for a dev kit and the costs for developing on Rev, are considerably lower on Revolution than X360 or PS3, then this could change. If making a game on Rev is 10times (ball park figure!) cheaper, this would mean you'll probably need up to 10times (independent costs: marketing, etc.) less sales to draw profit.