Gamecube In Danger? 207
mmmmbeer writes "This article at Daily Radar and this one at MCV share an unsettling development. Apparently, Hiroshi Yamauchi, President of Nintendo, has said that if Gamecube doesn't get a "positive response at E3," then they may not go through with producing the Gamecube. Personally, I doubt that Gamecube will get anything but great reviews, but it's worrying that he would have said that."
lost in translation (Score:3)
Does he mean the press, or the developers? The press slamming it is not so bad a problem as all the developers going over to the Xbox. If they all defected, you can understand Nintendo sticking with what they've got, and not spending all their cash on marketing a dead product.
Enh (Score:2)
Screw Nintendo - they stopped making games for serious gamers a long time ago.
--Ryvar
tight competition? (Score:2)
They have to compete w- Sony, who already has 10 million + of their consoles in homes, and the XBox, which appears to be a media darling. Nintendo has to beat the "kiddie" console image Pokeman helped establish for them to be a serious contender in the console market
The game cube sucks (Score:1)
Re:lost in translation (Score:1)
This is Nintendo, after all. They've got some developers who will write games for them no matter what the specs for the box are.
Do you blame them (Score:1)
Nintendo is taking the right track with this one. Nintendo may be the senior company in this market, but Sony and Microsoft have billions, and are willing to spend it, to dominate this market. The Gamecube had better be one incredible machine to be able to survive. Is the market capable of three consoles? Maybe. But my money is on PS2 and XBox over Dolphin.
Don't Worry Nintendo Fans (Score:1)
look at past trends (Score:1)
bad news?? (Score:1)
This is a bad translation (hopefully) (Score:3)
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/13536/ [shacknews.com]
Now if they could make some real games for the system. Mario and Zelda shoudn't be the only reason to buy a console. (Oh yea, forgot Mario Paint)
Re:A simple and elegant solution (Score:2)
They'd do far better selling it to, say, Sega (not that that's likely).
Re:Enh (Score:1)
Just a question (Score:1)
The only other option Nintendo would have is to become a software/Pokemon vendor. Anyone know how much of their income doesn't depend on hardware sales?
I'm really hoping Nintendo doesn't pull a Sega, but it looks like they just might.
Advance? (Score:1)
Needing a good reception (Score:2)
This reminds me of when Ty announced they were going to stop making Beanie Babies, then shortly thereafter decided they were going to put it to a "vote" of whomever was willing to shell out fifty cents (which, to be fair, went to charity) to have their voice heard. Needless to say, we're still up to our ears in cloyingly-named animal-shaped hacky sacks.
I think the chance of the E3 reaction scuttling the launch of the Gamecube is about equal to the chance that anyone would have gotten a free taco out of Taco Bell's Mir stunt.
The money is in the games! (Score:1)
Nintendo should drop out of the hardware game, and hit up M$ or $ony for a huge $ deal to make Nintendo an exclusive label for that console.
Hardware has always been a loss-leader for game sales, at best a break-even proposition.
---
I smoked once (or, ahem, more than), and you're damn right I inhaled.
Re:Enh (Score:1)
The thing is that's very interesting is that 7-10 years ago, this was true.... They were blocking "adult" games right and left back in the SNES days.... (anyone remember the whole Mortal Kombat fiasco?). Then, when they realized this wasn't making friends either with the developers or with the gamers, they did an about-face and started embracing "mature" titles.
Now I'll admit that the choice in using cartridges for the N64 has really prevented quite a few great "mature" or "adult" titles from being made on the system (I also have many other reasons to hate carts
(Note that I am in no way a big Nintendo advocate [geekcomix.com].... but I do have to be fair...)
Re:Enh (Score:1)
Re:lost in translation (Score:1)
But, when I'm abroad I've found it's usually better to refer to it as The Times of London, so as not to confuse people between us and the New York Times or the Times of India. There is also The Sunday Times, which is a seperate paper, but owned by the same company. As is the Times Literary Supplement, and the Times Education Supplement. Same, but seperate.
Either way, we were here first - the first issue was in 1788.
METROID?!?!?! (Score:2)
Seriously, though, PSX and M$ are focusing on the adult/teenagers for their target audience. Nintendo has always appealed to the kiddies. Nintendo will always have a place in the console market until one of the consoles seriously attack the kid market. Even then, Nintendo's cornered the portable game market. I don't think we have anything to worry about.
Somehow this isn't much of a surprise.... (Score:1)
Re:tight competition? (Score:2)
Nintendo and the "Microsoft" Effect (Score:2)
It will succeed. With the amount of kids out there, and the price point they are shooting for, it can only do well. Look at the Dreamcast! Since the pricedrop to $99, they have been selling faster then ever. One thing I admire about Nintendo, they are out for the gaming dollar, not this all-in-one home entertainment console.
Bryan R.
Makes sense when you think about it (Score:1)
Re:Do you blame them (Score:1)
Here's my take on the GameCube. (Score:1)
Sure, they could fall back on the GameBoy, but they can't keep doing that forever. The GameCube is such a huge investment on Nintendo's part. Five years of research for a product that would never hit shelves? The investment is too big. Nintendo will have to produce the console either way.
What we're seeing is mega-companies entering the console arena. Sony and Microsoft, of course, are the two bigger ones. They both have more marketing power, more money, and they can afford to take a risk. The PSX isn't going to break Sony, and well, we know the X-Box, if it flops (which it won't, courtesy of the Microsoft hype), won't break the Borg-type company that is Microsoft. The bigger companies can fall back on the other things that they produce. Nintendo and Sega, as well as the smaller console-only (and in-house game development) companies don't have that much to fall back on. Their work is only games.
We're seeing the end of the companies that truly pioneered console gaming.
The Vapor Factor (Score:1)
There are countless things right about the system, but two really big negatives:
I think it'll debut in the US in Oct 2002 or NEVER.
----------------------
Re:Enh (Score:2)
Conker's BFD was produced by Rareware (the company that also did Goldeneye). Nintendo may not be blocking adult titles on their system, but neither are they themselves producing them.
Hope this means more gamers will buy a PS2. (Score:1)
Don't base your consel purchasing decisions on stats. The PS2's new system design gives it un-told power. The early demo of the MGS2 [ign.com] show off the PS2's real power. Amazing.
--
Re:Enh (Score:2)
If you want mature games on N64, look at Goldeneye, Resident Evil 2, Sin and Punishment etc.
Besides, the whole argument is pretty specious anyway: the best games appeal to *all* ages, and Nintendo make some of the best games out there.
This is just a media attention grabber (Score:3)
Does nobody understand? (Score:2)
...I can't believe most of the opinions in the comments I've just read.
When I first read about Nintendo's statement a couple of days ago my instant reaction was that they were really saying "at E3, we are going to blow all of your minds".
The hardware specs look good enough to compete with the XBox and PS2, and even more importantly they have the talent in games development (to this date nothing scheduled for the XBox looks to hot, and they lack Japanese support).
Nintendo aren't small or in trouble as some people here seem to think - the Pokemon franchise alone is worth _double_ what the entire US games industry is worth.
The GBA is an incredible machine (I've got one with F-Zero, and I can't put it down), and there are reportedly going to be some great uses of the GBA with the gamecube. The GBA is also the fastest selling console ever.
Nintendo don't just make kiddy games, they are fantastic whatever your age - "hardcore gamer" magazines such as Edge (in the UK) give 9/10 to most Nintendo games that I've seen.
Anyway, back to the point, Gamecube In Danger? IMHO absolutely not.
Re:METROID?!?!?! (Score:1)
"Cool" is highly overreated.
The long arm of MS (Score:1)
Could Nintendo go bye bye? (Score:2)
The problem is Sony is a marketing Giant. They know how to put together a campain, they have an in at every retailer on the planet, and they can play "unfair" (but not illegal) when the chips are down. I worked at Circuit City, it wasn't a random thing that they dropped all the other video game systems and only had play station for several years. (They sell most of the systems currently however.)
Nintendo is a pain in the ass company to work with. They have been nailed before for price fixing. Compared to Sony, it's a harder platform to write for. With Sony a lot of the low level stuff is already functionalized for you in the SDK. This is really key for fast game porting. This is not to say it will be an ultra optimized port. I wouldn't suggest it if you're trying to push the GFX to the extreme, but if you want to make "Who wants to be a gazillionare" for the PSX it's easier than start from scratch on Nintendo.
I can see where is comes from, the Former CEO of Nintendo in a recent interview talked about how thye liked to have unique titles. He doesn't like Rayman, or title of it's ilk that have been ported everywhere. But this puts you into a business model where you need a killer game in the channel each quarter if you want to keep profitable. In some cases Nintendo has done well at this. Let's look at Gameboy. By all rights that thing should have been put to pasture six years ago. But some games keep it going. But you don't have a killer hit Pokemon game each quarter.
Sony on the other has a lot of crap games ported to the platform. Hell the first year there were tons of crap 3DO games ported. But that's okay, Sony has a model that makes it easy for everyone to jump in the pool. And with a royalty for every game sold to a retailer they don't have to depend on a Pokemon.
Summary, I hope this does well, but Nintendo needs to realize that a couple unique games isn't going to cut it for sales. Some people really do want to play Rayman and Pokemon on the same system.
As the developers smirk... (Score:1)
As for people's rants about Nintendo not catering to the adult market, are you really informed on this issue, or just talking through Playstation- inspired ruby glasses? Rare might be--granted it's arguable, I agree that there're many fine Sony houses out there--the best game developer out there today. With games like Goldeneye, PD, Jet Force Gemini, and Conker, these are all adult games, and all can be described with superlatives. As an adult game player of Sony, PC, and Sega experience, IMHO Nintendo has the best 'feel' of any console out there. The previously mentioned 4 games alone made the price of the console worth it. If Gamecube's the same way, so be it. Nintendo just has to stop raping their 3rd parties, and they're good to go.
Re:Nintendo and the "Microsoft" Effect (Score:1)
--
Loss of developers... (Score:2)
Ten years ago the big N was at the top of the heap, times have changed but IMHO management has done very little to keep the hot developers on board.
-----
Not going to happen (Score:1)
He's an old man, using old business tactics (a la practically saying "fuck you Squaresoft"), and its a shame. But if anyone HONESTLY believes, that REGARDLESS of the reaction at E3, that Nintendo would cancal all Game Cube plans, you're simply stupid. Ninteno Inc., their stockholders, 2nd party developers, you can't even imagine how many people would be threatening with lawsuits.
Too tired to say much more, but don't believe this any more than you believe any url with "goatse" in it...
Re:Do you blame them (Score:1)
There's room if customers allow there to be.
As has been shown [geekcomix.com], single system markets lend themselves to abuse of the customers by the company with the largest market share.
Furthermore, with market's rich with competition (many consoles, no single winners) [geekcomix.com] you get a great deal of innovation (ick, not that word
> N64 and PSX forces the Saturn out of the market. Just the rumors of the PS2 forced the Dreamcast out.
Not exactly true. Sega's failed consoles (which ultimately did them in) failed primarily because of stupid mistakes that Sega made.
Stupid mistakes during the Saturn years (just a few): Okay, so why did the Dreamcast croak? Well... by this time the arcade market (which had been keeping Sega alive for years) was shrinking. Furthermore, Sega was too massive... They needed the big sales. The Dreamcast was selling fairly well (certainly well enough that Sega 10-years ago would have been able to survive on)... It even outsold (console-wise, not game sales) the N64 last year. But they had dug themselves into a pit, and nothing the Dreamcast could have done would have pulled them out.
In some respects, the PS2 may have forced their hand in admitting they just weren't pulling enough profit... but the PS2 was not what killed the Dreamcast or Sega... it was just the hammer that pounded in the last nail in the Sega-of-yesteryear's coffin.
Click here for more video game console history, rants, and other junk [geekcomix.com]
Re:Enh (Score:1)
Offtopic (Score:1)
Translation... (Score:1)
Seriously, this sounds like a classic passive-aggressive marketing threat. People who want to see competition in the industry will be hesitant to criticize the new platform, lest it be cancelled. So Nintendo gets free PR from all the desperate enthusiasts out there.
(Boy I'm cynical/paranoid, aren't I?)
Bah... (Score:1)
---------------
Re:tight competition? (Score:2)
Re:Enh (Score:2)
When I go to Nintendo's page of games for the N64 sorted by ESRB ranking [nintendo.com] I see a decent number of games that are rated "Mature".
How exactly did you determine that Nintendo stopped making games for people over age 10? Did you complete some comprehensive survey of their game development studio or did you just decide that you hate Pokemon and Mario?
Re:Enh (Score:1)
Rare is a second party developer. They only develop games for Nintendo and Nintendo either owns a chunk of the company or has extensive, long term contracts. Or more likely, both.
Josh Sisk
Software Agnostic (Score:1)
The world would be a much better place if they were a software agnostic developer like Sega. That way I wouldn't have to buy the system for one good game.
Re:Enh (Score:2)
Re:Do you blame them (Score:1)
Sega and Nintendo have to team up. (Score:2)
Without that, I'm afraid we'll be down to only 2 systems, neither of which I'm all that excited about.
but isn't this just a truism of any new product? (Score:1)
Re:Do you blame them (Score:1)
Nintendo's actually in a great position to rake in the dough because of their overwhelming strength in the kiddie market. I think Sony has the most to worry about at this point.
This whole thing seems to me like a childish threat by Nintendo (not that it would be the first childish act by their CEO): Kiss up to us or you won't get to see your next generation Nintendo. They're going to release it whether people say nice things about 'em at E3 or not, and they'll make money on it. It actually makes me want to see them get bad reviews, though, just to call the CEO's bluff.
Cheers,
Re:bad news?? (Score:1)
Are you on crack? If you said they were "a bit of a loser with the hardcore gaming community", I'd agree... But their games sell, their systems STILL sell (and they have a tradition of not selling consoles as loss leaders) and even if they don't, the handheld market has grow to a nice chunk of the market (I've heard it represents 20% of all sales)... And guess which company has a virtual monopoly on the handheld market? This is also ignoring the Pokemon factor.
Josh Sisk
IMHO... Nintendo... (Score:1)
Re:Enh (Score:1)
It's very similar to the whole Disney/Miramax [erlc.com] relationship. Disney certainly wont be bringing out any "risque" movies... but they wont prevent Miramax from doing it.
Re:Just a question (Score:1)
Nintendo doesn't agree with this business plan. They plan to sell the Gamecube for a small profit, and (to my knowledge) have done so with all of their consoles. Well... maybe not Virtual Boy.
Josh Sisk
Nintendo is best (Score:1)
I don't think the GameCube will change Nintendo's flow of dominance in the gaming market. The last report [half-empty.org] I read about it, proved that Nintendo GameCube will out perform any other.
Re:The money is in the games! (Score:1)
As I understand it, Nintendo generally prices their consoles so they make a (marginal) profit. I remeber this being one of the facts that Nintendo stalwarts held up when it became evident that the PSX was vastly outselling the N64.
Josh Sisk
Re:Enh (Score:1)
How about we day it deals with "mature themes" then
Sin and Punishment
The only problem is that this wont likely see the light of days in the states other than via an import
Re:Subtle Joke ... (Score:1)
Re:tight competition? (Score:2)
Re:Enh (Score:2)
I'm not saying that all the games for PSX and other systems are lame like that (there's most definately games like Metal Gear Solid), but the majority of the games I see being sold for them are sold on the basis of "Look at those breasts!" or some other lame bit of marketing.
"Screw Nintendo - they stopped making games for serious gamers a long time ago."
"Serious gamers?" What exactly is a serious game? Is that like those war games the Army plays out in the middle of the desert?
I know from experience that a roomfull of college-aged guys can have some "serious" fun with four-player Mario Party (Paddle Battle!) or Super Smash Bros. if that's what you mean. This doesn't mean that we don't deathmatch in Half-Life, and it doesn't mean we don't usually play StarCraft, but we don't feel insulted or "less mature" when we realize that we've just kicked Donkey Kong's ass with Kirby. Because, God damn it, that damned gorilla is able to pick up anybody and throw them off the edge, the damned ****er deserved it...
It seems like everybody keeps on ragging on Nintendo for being "less mature," but those people seem to measure maturity on whether a game is rated T or M, and not whether the game is fun, has lots of replay value, or generally worth the money you paid for it. Throwing all Nintendo games into the "immature" category is like saying all cartoons are immature, forsaking South Park, Futurama, Toonami...
If you want to rush out and buy a PS2 or an Xbox as soon as it comes out because they'll be making "mature" games, go for it. However, there are only two games coming out for next-generatio consoles that have me excited right now: Zelda and Metroid.
It's been said before, (Score:2)
Another reason that the GameCube will fail is the decline of the N64, which suffered from an outmoded media format (Why did Nintendo stick with the cartridge? The PSX, Jaguar, Saturn and others had already moved on to CD-ROM. Nintendo gambled and lost.) and lack of consistently good games. Nintendo shifted their focus to the Pokemon/GameBoy craze, and will never recover their console market. The decline of the N64 led to something even more important -- the decline of their household name. When I was growing up in the 80s, Nintendo was so popular and well-known that "Nintendo" was used to generically describe all gaming systems. (Like "Kleenex".) Today, Nintendo doesn't even enter the mind of serious gamers, who are mired in their PS2s, DCs, and tricked-out PCs. Nintendo is making a lot of money off that yellow rat, but no one is thinking "Nintendo" when buying Pokemon merchandise.
The PS2 is huge. Those not enthralled with the PS2 will likely buy Xboxen when (if) they are released this winter. If Nintendo can't be shipping the GameCube by Spring 2002, all hope will be lost, for they will have fallen into the dreaded "lull" between console generations, when gamers who have just bought a PS2 or Xbox are unable to justify a new system. Nintendo can't afford to wait until the end of the lull (probably mid-2003), because by then their name will be all but unknown to the current generation of young gamers, all developers will be firmly seated in the Sony or MS camps, et cetera. There are just so many reasons why Nintendo is doomed, and they can blame it all on the yellow rat. Nintendo has been talking about the GameCube in different forms for probably five years at least... it's just too late to matter.
This "lull" deserves more discussion. For years, Sega and Nintendo had competing systems of the same "generation", at least in the eyes of we young'ins. The NES and SMS; Super NES and Genesis; N64 and Saturn. The Saturn failed miserably but by then the PSX had started to take off, and Sony replaced Sega as Nintendo's nemesis. These were three easily definable "generations" of consoles, and the lull in between, while not barren of sales, lacked the initial hype associated with a product launch. The generations are less easily definable these days, but the PS2, Xbox, and now-defunct DC will for our intents and purposes be competing systems. For the GameCube to enter into this rough market where everyone else has a head start, they would have to have amazing next-generation tech to get attention. I seriously doubt that Nintendo has the engineering clout to produce a system superior to both the Xbox and the PS2 these days.
--
Shameless PR (Score:4)
If Yamauchi says "We won't ship this really cool game console that will make us a lot of money on the Pokemon and Miyamoto game sales alone unless you people kiss our asses at E3," what do you think is gonna happen? The press is gonna pay attention to Nintendo's booths a lot more than they had planned on doing and Nintendo fans are gonna send tons of letters to their favorite gaming press reminding them to do so.
Fear not - Nintendo has mucho mula in their bank accounts. Yamauchi is doing this to make sure the money they spend on E3 is worth every penny.
as all the developers going over to the Xbox..... (Score:2)
Seriously, how many developers really 'defect' anyway. It isn't in their best interest.
So long as there is an install base of the machine, developers will develop for it. (for a time anyway)
Vermifax
This is an ill-informed story. (Score:2)
There. The Gamecube will be produced, but depending on the feedback from E3, they might hold back the release of the console.
Re:Enh (Score:2)
I think the definition of a good game by a "serious gamer" would be the fun factor.
I've been playing games for over a decade now. Graphics don't impress me (sorry, but Q3 is the boring same-old). What impresses me is the "Fun" factor. My old college roommates (we were all 23-24 years old) played mariocart into the ground. Super Smash brothers was also popular. Not because mario was in it, but because it was fun. I found the first Zelda to be extremely fun. If there is one name that comes up with games that are fun, I'd have to say Miyamoto. He knows what he's doing (hell, he's been doing it for years).
Granted, the PSX has games that are also fun (RE series, MGS, Gran Turismo), but they use "teenage tactics" to lure in their audience. Lets face it, put a fun game out in front of a teenager raging with horomones, and put in a game with breasts or violence. What's he gonna pick??
For me, I'm keeping my DC, playin my PC (waiting for the next Sid Meier or Warren Spector game), and will wait to see what games come out for the 2 new contenders before I buy anything...
Bargaining chip (Score:2)
It does not. (Score:2)
Hiroshi Yamauchi never said that. He simply stated that they may stop marketing the game cube. Not producing it is simply an extrapolation by Daily Radar, a website known for having little- if any - journalistic integrity.
Re:Could Nintendo go bye bye? (Score:2)
GB sells so well for three reasons. One) Pokemon. Two) Pokemon Three) Pokemon.
Sony's PSX has been stomping everyone elses consoles since it came out. If you want to gage how well a company is doing just go out to your local retailer and look at the ammount of space that Sony PSXx gets compared to other vendors. In your average Circuit City, Best Buy, etc. the Sony Section is bigger than Nintendo and Sega put together. The money is always in the games.
Sega put way too much faith in people buying into their online service. Nintendo is more conservitive, however it wouldn't take a lot of bad quarters to put them in the same place as sega.
Poh-Kay-Mawn will keep it from happening (Score:2)
The press slamming it is not so bad a problem as all the developers going over to the Xbox. If they all defected, you can understand Nintendo sticking with what they've got
Nintendo already has a dead product (Nintendo 64) that it's been phasing out lately (notice only two announced N64 games in latest Nintendo Power [nintendopower.com] magazine's Game Watch). But Nintendo has a nearly guaranteed winner in the GAMECUBE because kids are going to want one no matter what, as Nintendo has trademarks on popular franchises such as Super Mario, the series formerly known as Zelda (when was the last time you saw Princess Z being rescued? A Link to the Past?), and especially POcKEt MONey [pokemon.com] (gotta spend 'em all). Plus, Nintendo has an exclusive contract with Rare [rareware.com], who can squeeze the last bit out of even the hardest hardware. (Had Rare been developing for Saturn, the PSX likely wouldn't have killed it as quickly.)
Was there actually a ZELDA game for N64? (Score:2)
I think gamers of all ages can enjoy games like Zelda
Background: All games marketed as "Zelda" have a character named Link as the hero. Three of them have rescuing Princess Zelda as one of the main objectives (Z1 and Z2 final objective; Z3 first objective). Calling Z4 (Link's Awakening) a "Zelda" game is just wrong; where does she appear? To use the terminology of NetBSD, Z4 is a "Zelda-like" game.
Z5 for N64, Z6 for N64Plus, and the Oracle [oracle.com] series for GBC: Haven't looked at them too closely; they came out after I became a PC gamer.
Zelda, huh? (Score:2)
Hmmm... Princess Zelda was the subject of rescue during Zelda: The Ocarina of Time
That was a N64 game.
Obviously your assertion that "kids are going to want [GameCube] no matter what," is based off of past Nintendo history. If you were up-to-date on the Nintendo games and franchises, you'd know there was a Zelda in Ocarina of Time. And you'd also know that kids love affair with Pokemon is fading.
Nintendo's first party franchise games will be on the GameCube, but they're going to be more than just a kiddie system. Check out some of those "kiddie" games slated for the GameCube on IGN.com [ign.com].
Christopher N Emmick
Another PS2 owners disagrees... (Score:2)
Almost any game I'd care to own on the XBox will be (eventually) produced for the PS2 (and possibly the GameCube) as well.
In fact, if you can only own two systems the only thing that makes any sense is to make sure one of them is a GameCube.
Think about it, the GameCube will have a lot of great and very unique Nintendo titles that you just aren't going to get anywhere else. Each console will have it's own exclusive games, but I can't think of any other set of console-exclusive games you would rather have than Nintendo games.
My two choices for the upcoming console wars are the PS2 and the GameCube, really the only choices that make sense at the moment given what we know. Perhaps that will change after E3, but I don't think so. I'm already really happy with the PS2 and I trust Nintendo enough to know the GameCube will be enjoyable as well.
You are right about them being hurt by late shipping though. If they can manage to ship this year they will be set, but I'll have to admit that's a pretty big IF given thier track record in the past! Still, all reports I've read seem to indicate things are right on schedule. Perhaps they will pull it off this time.
And despite what you said about Nintendo not even registering in the minds of "serious" gamers, I think I can guess what will happen if you put GameCubes and Xboxen in the same stores at the same time, with the GameCube $100-$150 less than the XBox... hint, it involves a lot of "X"-tra shipments to landfills.
Re:Was there actually a ZELDA game for N64? (Score:2)
Re:Was there actually a ZELDA game for N64? (Score:2)
A little background:
--from HTLOZ
And so began the adventures of Link, whose destiny would be tied to Zelda's throughout the entire course of Hyrule's history. So you see, the title makes a good bit of sense.
[/rant mode] Sorry...hardcore Zelda fan here ;)
-- Chris
Re:Enh (Score:2)
Well, in that case, don't count Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Driver, Tomb Raider, or Resident Evil into the PS2's maturity level.
If developers make more than kid's games for a system, then the system won't be perceived as such. Nintendo got into trouble with the N64 because the cart format drove most developers away and they were left with their own in-house and second party games.
-sk
Re:tight competition? (Score:2)
What the one constant in this list? Not one company retained their lead from one generation to the next. (Yes, the SNES overtook the Genesis late, but by that time the Saturn and PSX were already in the pipeline.)
-sk
Re:It's been said before, (Score:2)
What people don't understand about Nintendo is that unlike Sega, Nintendo is a profitable company, thanks to the extreme success of the Pokémon franchise. After all, Pokémon breathed new life into the Game Boy, and in fact I've always said that the success of Pokémon helped pay for Game Boy Advance and GameCube development.
Besides, Nintendo's in-house programming teams vie with Sega for the best in-house game programming team in the world. The Mario and Zelda franchises demonstrate how great Nintendo's programmers are, and I'm sure they'll create superb games for GameCube.
Besides, now that Sega is committed to writing games for GameCube, expect a lot of great games for GameCube by this time next year.
Re:Enh (Score:2)
Re:Enh (Score:2)
Rare isn't a third-party developer. They are definitely part of Nintendo -- a sort of "second-party" developer that still works outside of their direct scrutiny but ultimately answers to them.
Ah, they're better off. (Score:2)
(Heck, N64? screw that, they should go back to the SNES. Why isn't anyone producing games for the SNES any more?)
--
Re:tight competition? (Score:2)
Re:First-party games, eh? (Score:2)
What was Sony's launch title for the PS2? A fireworks game.
As for maturity, anyone that believes maturity is playing games that are just gorefests really should be asking themselves if they are mature.
There are more to games then violence. Oh, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with 'violent' or 'gory' games, they can also be fun. GoldenEye and Perfect Dark were great games on the Nintendo 64, and Half-Life and co on the PC are also great. However, if you think maturity is something along the lines of "Mortal Kombat is more appealing to a mature audience then Zelda because you can kill people", then you really don't understand maturity.
A mature person wants a game that has some depth to it, and/or is fun. Nintendo provides this in the majority of 1st party games. I am a mature gamer. My favorite games are the Marios and the Zeldas. Does that make me an immature gamer? I think not.
Re:Enh (Score:2)
Nintendo didn't release a Pokemon game on the Nintendo 64 until at least 2 years afters the console's initial release (at least not outside Japan, and ever there there was not one in the 1st year). Pokemon has been, until relatively lately, very much a Game Boy thing. The first N64 Pokemon game was "Pokemon Snap", a game based around taking photos. The first 'true' Pokemon game didn't hit the N64 until Pokemon Stadium, and that is less then 2 years old outside Japan.
The N64 was not built on a foundation of Pokemon.
Well, Nintendo, it can throw money at itself :-) (Score:2)
Everyone seems to think Nintendo is broke, but they do have money to throw around; the Game Boy hardware and software and N64 software have been making them alot of money in recent years. Your console doesn't need to be number one to be profitable, as N64 software has shown Nintendo (I'm talking 1st party stuff here, not 3rd parties). Nintendo will be content with not being number one if it's bringing them in profit.
Re:tight competition? (Score:2)
Sony 'won' the last generation, but this new set of consoles will be the first time the market will support 3 consoles. Why? Sony and Microsoft will be battling for each other's market with their rediculous money wars, and like always Nintendo will be doing their own thing. If Nintendo fare as well as they did with the N64 (and they will, at least) then they'll make a nice profit from the GameCube.
However, if one of the 3 consoles were to die, it won't be Nintendo's; they are the constant in the industry, have been since the NES days. Their consoles always profit enough for them (except the VB, but that doesn't count ;) and they are always different enough from their competitors to have their own market.
Nintendo might not win "the war", but they'll make a nice profit from it.
Re:Nintendo and the "Microsoft" Effect (Score:2)
Re:The Vapor Factor (Score:2)
Nintendo have already shipped hundreds of completed dev kits to 3rd parties, whereas Microsoft haven't even shipped finalised kits yet. Even with this fact, the masses still seem to think that the Xbox will be out this year, and Nintendo are the ones struggling to meet their deadline.
As for your Oct 2001 comment, well, you're wrong there too; the GameCube is being released in the US in Nov 2001.
And Pokemon, well, where have Nintendo made the impression they plan on launching the GameCube hoping for Pokemon to support it? The games Nintendo seem to have the most 'console selling' faith in are their traditional Mario launch title, and Metroid.
Anyway, I think this is why that AC had a shot at you. Calling you a dumbfuck was a little harsh, but people that read cube.ign.com [ign.com] fairly regularly do know the 'truth' behind the common GameCube misconceptions. And I do think just pointing people at that basic FAQ was a bad move...
The GameCube will launch this year, and it will not be depending on Pokemon.
Re:Hope this means more gamers will buy a PS2. (Score:2)
Nah, gamers looking for a GameCube will buy a GameCube. This story is total rubbish; the GameCube will launch, and the GameCube will rock.
But, I agree, I'd rather see PS2 sales then Xbox sales...
Re:AMEN! Zelda & Mario for PS2 - please! (Score:2)
Umm, it's not made by Nintendo, so porting their games to it are not going to sell their consoles.
And I could tell you why the GameCube is better then the console you already own, but that would just create a flamewar :)
Nintendo are a hardware and software company. They do both, and they do both well. The are alot like Apple in that reguard. I guess you want an x86 Mac OS X port too? ;)
Re:Nintendo is best (Score:2)
I'd love a Virtual Boy though, should look into getting one off Ebay...
Anyone out there got one they want to sell? ;)
Re:But this is Yamauchi... (Score:2)
Got any URL's to backup your claims?
I wouldn't mind a few links to info about the RPG insults and the refusing of high unit selling developers.
And, Nintendo hasn't stopped violent content since Mortal Kombat 2 on the SNES had blood.
I know Yamauchi is eccentric (and that he had a nice shot at Square :) but I hadn't heard those 2 claims you've made, and I generally like to think I'm in the know about Nintendo... so I can't wait to see you back your statements up :)
Re:Shameless PR (Score:2)
It might not be the biggest seller, but it did make them money...
Re:The humanity! (Score:2)
Shakeout at RETRO (Score:2)
They've cut half their projects and laid off 20 developers.
Just another data point. Lord knows what it means.
I DO know the game industry in general won't let MS gobble it all without a fight...
Re:First-party games, eh? (Score:2)
I agree with you to a point -- I've certainly seen enough violence and profanity that it doesn't have a "novel" appeal. (Hell, two of my favorite games have been "Ocarina of Time" on the N64 and "Ape Escape" on the Playstation, neither of which would be unsuitable for most children.) While I cringe at gratuitous violence and profanity as an attention-getting tactic, I believe that's it's also sometimes appropriate for a game.
For example, in Metal Gear Solid (one of the best games ever made for the Playstation), you can sneak up behind your enemies, grab their head, and snap their neck, complete with a resounding "crack". While some might find that a little graphic (especially for, say, the target Nintendo audience of Pokemon-clad pre-teens), it's not gratuitous, in my opinion. Within the context of an unarmed special forces operative sneaking into a military facility, snapping the neck of an unsuspecting guard or two makes sense and adds to the feel of the game.
Re:A simple and elegant solution (Score:2)
Re:First-party games, eh? (Score:2)
I used the examples of GoldenEye and Perfect Dark in my original post, but MGS is up there too as being a 'violent' game that happen to also be excellent mature game. :)