Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Nintendo GameCube Clone Out In Japan 225

Posted by timothy from the please-something-for-the-american-cousins dept.
Jon F writes: "I saw this picture on Yahoo! today, it looks like Nintendo decided to license out the GameCube to Panasonic to make a clone. It's a hybrid DVD player/GameCube that came out in Toyko today. The only other article I came across about this was on IGN a few months ago. It has a mirrored surface and trippy purple lights on the controller port." Gaming guts (and purple bits) aside, this is one of the nicest-looking DVD players I've seen. Update: 11/01 23:50 GMT by T : As several readers have pointed out, this looks like just a tease for now, but will be out (in Japan) next month.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo GameCube Clone Out In Japan More

Nintendo GameCube Clone Out In Japan

Comments Filter:

  • Unique (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekfiend ( 448150 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @06:18PM (#2509917)
    This is definatly something unique in the Console gaming market. It makes a lot of sense to do it as well. Console manufacturers have been losing money on the consoles themselves in order to gain marketshare, hoping to make bank on the games they play. Setting the cost on a 3rd party makes for good economics. Nintendo still makes money off of licenses and games, but is not responsible for losing money on the consoles!

    • Unique? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jiheison ( 468171 )
      This is definatly something unique in the Console gaming market.

      The only reason that this is "unique" in the (current) market is that 3DO tried it years ago and failed miserably.
      • somewhat true. It is also very similar to the Nuon project, which hasn't quite failed (yet) but certainly hasn't been a rousing success.

        There is somewhat of a unique twist in this effort though, as those who don't want to shell out the big-dollars can buy the stand-alone GameCube while those who don't have DVDs already and are buying GCs may want to spring for the integrated unit at a price slightly less than the two components would cost seperately.

        While I wouldn't bet on these Panasonic units flying off the shelf, their compatibility with a low-cost standard console means they don't suffer from the developer/consumer catch-22 that plagued 3DO and Nuon.

        • Good point, I forgot about the Nuon (heh, wonder why). However, from what I have seen the Nuon feature adds next to nothing to the price of a DVD player.

    • Re:Unique (Score:4, Interesting)

      by L-Train8 ( 70991 ) <Matthew_Hawk@ho t m a i l .com> on Thursday November 01, 2001 @09:09PM (#2510519) Homepage Journal
      While it's true that the some game manufacturers lose money on the hardware and try to make it up on games, that is not the case with Nintendo. Nintendo has never lost money on a console it has sold. With the purchase price of the GameCube at $200, this is the first time they have come close, and there's speculation that they are only breaking even.

      However, the money-losing formula changes down the line, as production costs go down and the fabrication plants get paid for. I believe Sony is now close to breaking even or making a profit on the PS2, and in a year, Nintendo will be making money on each console sold.

    • Console manufacturers have been losing money on the consoles themselves in order to gain marketshare

      Im sorry - why does everyone accept this as truth? Ive heard it *many* times here @ /., but what REALLY makes this so certain?

      I believe that marketing pushes the idea that the conoles are some 'super advanced' technology to encourage people to feel that the console is 'a good deal' and that they dont incure alot of up-front cost, that they can 'invest' in entertainment incrementally... ie: purchase games.

      Why can they make money on a $125 DVD player and not on a $329 DVD + Game machine?

      Im just a little less certain than most that this common dogma is truth and not an "encouraged popular mis-understanding".

      • There's no reason to bundle DVD playback with a GAME SYSTEM. It's designed to play games, nothing more. If you want DVD playback, buy a DVD player. When you bundle all those technologies together, you sacrifice gameplay value for extra features.
        • No, actually you sacrifice PRICE for extra features. Tthe 3DO and the Saturn have shown before the problem with a high ticket price on a game console and MS' Xbox will demonstrate it again.
  • This seems to be a first to me? I have NEVER heard of Nintendo doing any sort of outside licenseing of hardware, at least not of the console hardware. Still hope this extends to the US, that would rock, get a Tivo/TV/GameCube/PS2
    • Me neither. But I think it's a fantastic idea. One of the main reasons I bought a PS2 was because I could also use it as DVD player. I'd just love that TiVo PS2 idea...

      I know they make no money off the hardware as it is, so I would think licensing would be a good way to farm off the production and distribution costs while still retaining control of the hardware design (unlike Sega becoming a game-only house) and keeping the Nintendo brand strong...
    • Saw the box @ E3 this year, so I can only assume Panasonic will bring it out. It's roughly the same size as the original, and it was a neat brushed aluminum on the outside (the pic in the story looks to be chrome). Personally, though, I'll stick with a regular DVD player for DVDs and just drop the $199 on Nintendo's purple purse lookin system. :)

    • Re:When did they license? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "This seems to be a first to me? I have NEVER heard of Nintendo doing any sort of outside licenseing of hardware, at least not of the console hardware."

      You are right. Never in north america has this happened. But in Japan it has. Anyways big N needed a cheap player deal for their console and Panasonic cut a deal. You get a great price point for the guts we provide you let us have a great price on the guts of the machine you provide.

      "Still hope this extends to the US, that would rock, get a Tivo/TV/GameCube/PS2"

      Well it's just a game system and a dvd player but ya it's comming to Canada and America, I have no idea on the UK or pricing anywhere.

      You could enter the sweapstakes contest I guess....

      http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/cu be /cube.asp

      pingmeep

  • Spread the success... or failure! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ramakant ( 256472 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @06:20PM (#2509929)
    This seems like a fantastic idea for Nintendo. Rather than placing all their bets on their ability to produce enough hardware, market to a large enough population, get it in front of enough eyeballs, etc., they're spreading the liability of this kind of venture out.
    Imagine if Sony had done the same thing with the PS2 last year. They might have been able to meat christmas production demands, rather than creating an artificial shortage.
    Nintendo is banking on licensees sharing in the impact of the GameCube's success or failure.

    • Re:Spread the success... or failure! (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      They might have been able to meat christmas production demands

      Ahoy there, Spam-I-Am, what's your beef?
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but sony couldn't meet demands cos of chip shortage (production problems?).. How could licensing the PS2 to other companies have prevented that? This puppy probably runs on the same cpu/gpu/whatever as the original GC.
    • The funny thing is, this is Panasonic's *second* foray into licensing game player technology. The first time around was with their 3DO player (marketed as the "R.E.A.L 3DO Multiplayer" I think). And we all know what happened there. The content was okay (I seem to remember), but the hardware was way too expensive because the hardware manufacturers needed to turn a profit on the console.. something that Nintendo and Sony didn't need to worry about. When they came out, I think the cost was something like $600.

      It seems like they might have a better shot this time around. They can ride off of Nintendo's marketing, and the system is more reasonably priced. Plus, seeing as how Matsushita (Panasonic's parent company) created the special format dvd-drive, I'm speculating that the Nintendo got a sweet licensing deal in exchange for providing an equally-sweet licensing deal to Matsushita.

    • I actually believe Sony did do this very same thing [eetimes.com] last year (before Nintendo did, I might add), but it seems as if (a) there weren't any takers, or (b) the project(s) are still in the works.

    • This is actually more Nintendo not wanting to be left out of the DVD player market. Every other console (XBox, PS2) can play DVDs, so this is more just a special version of the GC that will play DVDs.
    • Hmmmm I am getting a sense of deja vu.

      Trip Hawkins' 3DO, which I still believe was *way* ahead of its time, operated on a similar idea. In the early 90s Trip (Electronic Arts) got together a load of money from companies such as Matsushita, MCA, and Time Warner (pre AOL days). They designed what was not really a console or a device but a chipset that would be licenced to third parties. There was many high hopes for this machine, gaming, movies and *gasp* the ability to connect to cable!!

      Anyway, end of the day the machine stank and the only people who ever made a consumer class device was Matsushita and a handful of Korean companies.

      My opinion, its not down to an ability to produce hardware or to reduce liability, but an attempt to increase market share through other sales channels. Traditionally Nintendo has sold its hardware at a loss in order to get market share. Its the software where it makes its money. If it can sell its modern day "3DO', then good for them. Let others lose cash and let Nintendo pocket all the monies *kerching*

      Nintendo are a smart company, they know the value of "starving" supply. Look at them every year. Their marketing savvy creates frenzy at Christmas time (Pokemon? Color Gameboy?), and they always claim to not produce enough to meet demand. Result?? Prices soar, parents get angry, kids cry, shops place orders like crazy......

      Po
  • Game companies complain about people being pirates, and they give rights to produce their hardware/software out to other companies. If this won't hurt Nintendo's sales, I don't know what will.
    • They make money from the other company making the product via licensing and game console makers usually break even or lose money on each console unit sold when they make it themseleves.
    • That's the same argument that relegated the Macintosh to a small fraction of the market share it might have garnered. IMHO, this is a brilliant move on Nintendo's part, if they can leverage it properly. With enough industry support, they could potentially achieve what Intel/Microsoft did in the PC market in the 80s. What with the impending XBox marketing onslaught though, they may be too late. Time will tell.
      • With enough industry support, they could potentially achieve what Intel/Microsoft did in the PC market in the 80s

        This is nitpicking and off topic, but it was really IBM/Intel/Microsoft. IBM created the architecture and first PCs, using Intel chips, and Microsoft supported the computers. In fact, recall that MS-DOS wasn't even a complete monopoly like Windows is as there were competing and compatable OS's that did just as well with the remedial software of the day.

        But, those details aside, I agree - great move on Nintendo's part. Theoretically, they could even license out the entire console manufacturing business and stick to their cash cow of making the games and licensing the games out to other software writers.

        Theoretically... but time will tell.
        • Good point; I stand corrected. It's too easy to forget IBM's contribution to the PC market given the current balance of power. But perhaps that's a more important consideration than what I originally postulated - even if Nintendo pulls this off, it doesn't necessarily mean their influence will survive the ravages of competition, even within the space of a single standardized platform. We may very well see something called Windows XB[ox] with integrated GameCube emulation fighting its way through the courts in years to come.

    • Re:Arrrrr Matey (Score:3, Informative)

      by geomcbay ( 263540 )
      This won't hurt Nintendo's sales at all. They licensed rights to produce GameCube compatible HARDWARE, not software. All official GameCube games still must be distributed through Nintendo..

      And when it comes to hardware, Nintendo LOSES money on every sale of the GameCube, which is completely standard for the console business. They make up the losses (and then some) on the cut of software sales they take from every game (even the 3rd party games).

      • Do console makers REALLY lose money? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @08:50PM (#2510460)
        Everytime a thread on Slashdot takes place about gaming consoles, 5-6 people get scores of 3-5 (insightful) for pointing out that game makes lose money on the hardware to sell the software.

        This gets mentioned frequently, and 3DO is mentioned as an example of what happens when they don't do that.

        I've always been wondering, do we really know that this is true? Has anyone any financial data to prove this?

        If there is some proof, can the Slashdot editors include this information in each posting, so those of us browsing at higher thresholds don't see half the posts with this insightful fact?

        I also don't really buy this theory. I mean, how much can the licensing fee be for each $50 game? Also, in an age of video game rentals, how many games does the average console owner own?

        I mean, if you figure that the average game now sells for $50, the store pays AT MOST $35 for the game. The distributer probably picks it up for $25 (so the BIG stores get the bigger margins, no separate distributers). This leaves $25 to be split among the maker and the console. I can't imagine that the license is more than $5. Maybe it is $10? That would explain WHY Nintendo and (until recently) Sega made systems, $5-$10/game is a nice margin, plus they get the revenue for the author when they sell their own games.

        Let's figure that the average console owner owns 10 games/console (that seems REALLY high BTW, I owned 30-50 NES games, but they were mostly the original $30 games, and their weren't rentals in the early NES days), plus rents enough games to result in the local store stocking an extra 10 games. This is 20 games/console, at $10/game, yielding $200 in licensing.

        Now, how much of that licensing is Nintendo or Sony willing to spend subsidizing the hardware?

        I had always heard that the stores make little margin on the systems (not a loss, but a trivial profit) and make their money on the games/peripherals. This makes more sense, as they trade a little bit of store space to get the margins on the games. The games are good for toy stores, as the space/product is minimal compared to real toys and the prices are high.

        However, the console maker subsidzing the hardware (more than a trivial fee) seems absurd. I mean, MAYBE the launch versions get subsidized, but given the demand (preorders, unavailability for 2-3 months), why would they subsidize sales when they could clearly move the units at cost or above cost. Now, I could see subsidizing post-launch consoles to move sales, but manufacturing costs should go down over time, allowing the prices to drop (which they do) or the profits on consoles to increase.

        Now, I COULD buy that the console makers sell the machines at cost. This would result in a subsidy of the "fixed" costs (R&D, setting up manufacturing process), but still, this wouldn't be real. As the costs go down (consoles stay on the market for 5 years, electronics go down tremendously in 5 years, but consoles rarely drop THAT significantly in price... i.e. a $300 console may drop to $200, but the manufacturing costs 2 years out should be half the initial costs), maybe they recover the initial subsidies?

        I mean, the common Slashdot belief that the 3DO was $700 because of no subsidies and needing a profit, while the $200-$300 consoles are sold at a loss is ABSURD. That implies a $400-$500/console subsidy (or $200-$300 with an extra $200 in profit for 3DO makes), which would result in assinine losses.

        In computers, processors are sold at a premium when new, but moved at lower prices after R&D is recovered and Intel was traditionally trying to move more units. This is simple price discrimination, not a value judgement on valid profits.

        I mean, maybe you sell consoles at a loss to create a software market. Then the software market creates a demand for the console which allows profits on the later consoles, but this subsidized hardware "theory" makes no economic sense.

        Realize that 3rd generation games are planned AFTER the launch (first generation hit with the product launch or soon after, the second generation normally starts in after the first round are finished before launch, and the third generation don't start planning until 6-12 months of sales are known), so creating a demand by moving consoles allows third generations products to be made.

        However, I'd like someone to either provide EVIDENCE of this subsidy, or at a MINIMUM some economic analysis to show WHY companies would do so. This simple assertion ("remember, consoles are sold at a loss") is neither insightful or useful.

        Alex

        P.S. Apologies for singling out one of the posts, this could apply to any of dozens of Slashdot posts on the subject.
        • I don't know about many of the financial stuff you spoke of, but I was told video game rental services pay royalties to games manufacturers. That would certainly be a rather nice revenue stream.

          Anyone know if there is truth to that?

        • Here's a link [zdnet.com] that discusses the losses on the X-Box. It is not the norm in the industry to lose money on the hardware. Nintendo has never lost money on hardware. With GameCube, they are probably breaking even. Some companies have gone that route, to gain market share and sell more games, which provide a higher profit.

          Sega Dreamcast, PS2, and particularly the X-Box have gone this way. I don't know when this started to be considered the "norm." Atari didn't lose money on the 2600. Nintendo didn't lose money on the N64. I think this may be a more prevelant practice with companies that don't have huge market share, and are trying to break into the game.

          • Nintendo, slap a suit on Microsoft! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @11:19PM (#2510817)
            If the XBox truly costs $375 in marginal costs, and they are selling it for $300, they are engaging in dumping. It is illegal to sell products under marginal cost in an attempt to monopolize the marget.

            A combination of Microsoft leveraging Windows (the DirectX API), a monopoly, into establishing a new monopoly through market dumping, should make this a no brainer.

            MS got away with IE on a technicality. Because software, as we all know, costs 0 to copy, MS was able to give IE away without engaging in dumping because the marginal cost was 0.

            They did spend bandwith. However, as bandwith is a fixed cost (you pay $X for Y Mb/s), the marginal cost for the copies remains zero.

            I don't know if the idea of selling below marginal cost to make up backend revenues matters, but the entire Microsoft practice smells of dumping.

            They are using their cash reserves and selling below cost in an attempt to put Nintendo out of business (Nintendo is a games company!) and cause Sony to bleed red ink.

            This seems like a plain approach of market dumping.

            The interesting thing is, most publically traded corporations are stereotyped at looking at the quarterly returns. Microsoft Corporation is unique in that it DOES look out for the big picture. The successfully leverage their monopolies and cash reserves to "cut off the air supply" of their competitors.

            If Microsoft is selling under marginal costs to establish marketshare and monopolize the market (where they can then jack up the licensing fees, etc.) this should be clear cut.

            Are any of the lawyers on Slashdot around? Am I on the right track?

            Alex
            • A combination of Microsoft leveraging Windows (the DirectX API), a monopoly, into establishing a new monopoly through market dumping, should make this a no brainer.

              They aren't including an X-Box with each copy of Windows. I think your argument about leveraging the DirectX API is weak. Microsoft claims that you won't be able to play X-Box games on a Windows PC. What they are leveraging is huge cash reserves, not the Windows monopoly.

              • Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OSes on the x86 platform. This results in games having to adapt to Microsoft APIs to compete.

                Therefore, all PC games had to support the APIs. Microsoft is clearly leveraging its monopoly on the desktop to establish a monopoly in the console market.

                Sure, the X-Box games won't pop into a PC, but you can probably share between 95% and 100% of the code between the versions.

                I think that the dumping arguement is stronger, but the shared APIs help the case.

                Alex
        • Well, Robert X. Cringley [pbs.org] has an article on the subject. Although, as usual, the topic of the article is more twisted than to say it has 'one subject'.

          He mentions that Sony is taking/took a $1 billion hit on it, about $100 per machine.

          The other thing you have to keep in mind, is that successful games make a lot of revenue. Part of the cost of developing the game is the development platform, which they'd have to pay Nintendo/Sony for (last I heard, MS was giving away kits for free, and just plain funding people to make games for the X-Box). And on top of that, they make licensing fees.

          Nintendo (Yamauchi, check the depths of cube.ign.com for quotes) has said that Nintendo is in the business of making games- not gaming hardware. The hardware is just an enabler for people to buy their games. So they take a loss, and make it up on the games. It may work better for Nintendo than others, since they have their own very strong in-house game development houses. That is their business, games. That's what they try to make money from. It's not the computer industry :P

        • You asked for clarification... (Score:5, Flamebait)

          by UserChrisCanter4 ( 464072 ) on Friday November 02, 2001 @12:36AM (#2510975)
          Okay, here goes. First, my (sort of) credentials: I was assistant manager for nearly 2 years at a mom & pop videogame store. I handled inventory, pricing, and ordering issues. The owner/manager pretty much just paid the taxes (and my paycheck).

          First, the issue of profit on the unit:

          When the PS1 came out, it cost $299. Sony WAS selling that unit at a loss. No question. My cost (to purchase one to re-sell at my store) was about $297. Unless I was willing to purchase LARGE quantities of units, my store actually lost money on selling the units (after we paid shipping).

          Flash forward a few years, and the PS1 prices at, say, $129. Now, it still costs my store about $127. However, by this time, the fact that Sony is using (pretty much) the same equipment means that thier cost has dropped. They are actually turning a mild profit on each unit (maybe $10). Also keep in mind that this is the point in a console's lifetime when the majority of the supporters jump on board. This means that the greater numbers of people purchasing these units is outweighing the people who purchased them when it was a loss-leader.

          Now for the game pricing issue.

          Take your typical PS2 game, pricing at $50. Some are DVDs, some are CDs (it's up to the developer if they need the additional space). My store would have to pay approximately $42 for one of those games. We would order them from a distributor, who typically made $2/unit. So the total money going back to the publisher is $40/unit. That would allow Sony to charge anywhere from $10 to $15 a unit, and still leave a publisher with a very profitable unit.

          Your estimation of ~10/person is a ways off. A not-so-hardcore gamer will purchase 10 games in the lifetime of the system. Assuming $10/game, that means $100 total to console manufacturer for licensing alone. Most gamers will purchase 15-20 games in the life of their console, and many will purchase 30-50. I can't tell you how many people I whom I saw on a nearly weekly basis in my store. There are quite a few folks who purchase the new sports games each year. So we can figure that maybe 20% of Sony's installed base is far-and-away exceeding the ~10 game estimate.

          Now consider the issue of add-ons. A Dual Shock 2 PS2 controller retails for $35. That's pretty much the price you'll find everywhere. The markup in those units is about $6 by the retailer. Now consider that Sony only packs the system with 1 controller; 90% of PS2 owners will purchase at least one additional controller. Chalk up another $10 in Sony's pocket.

          Oh, wait... you want to save your games?!? Well, you'll need this memory card. It's 8MB of flash RAM, but it retails for $35. Again, 90% of owners will buy at least one of these. Chalk up another $10.

          Wait, wait... you're hooking that up to the ancient television in Junior's bedroom?!? Well, unless his TV has composite input, you'll need to purchase this Sony-brand RF convertor: $20.

          The bottom line: videogames are designed to make a profit for the manufacturer only. No store that I know of can survive on new game sales alone. EB, Funco, GameStop, and all the Mom & Pop shops depend on the ~$15 margin they make on their used games, and the ~$50 margin they make on extended warranties. Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's, et. al. use videogames to lure customers into the store for bigger purchases ("say... I could use a new car stereo while I'm here"). So, basically, the lack of margin in the games and such allow maunfacturers to keep a lot of the money.
        • I think you're reading too much into things...

          The 3D0 system Panasonic produced was overpriced, plain and simple. It had a lot of things nothing else on the market ever had before (CD based, sliding tray, 32-bit, VCD, etc), and wasn't marketed as just a game system, it was a do everything system, so they thought they could charge a premium and make a truck load of money. When this didn't light a fire, the 3D0 basically sank (and the price came down quickly, it was just too late to save it).

          This however does not mean that it costs Nintendo $700 to manufacture a Cube. All reports that I've seen (and I've been covering game news for a long time) is that most manufacturers sell for about $50 below cost initially. Anything over that and it's a risky proposition.

          The problem is that nobody really knows how much it costs the manufacturers to make a system. To my knowledge there have never been statistics to say "Playstation costs exactly $xxx to build per system", and I've looked quite a bit for this info through the years. They just don't publish this info.

          So it's mostly a guessing game from people who understand the technology in the systems and can determine how much it would cost someone to build such a thing. Historically that figure has proven to be about $30-$50 more than what it is sold for at market.

          Problems come when it's more than that. Sega Saturn had a problem because Sega knew they had to come in at $300 to sell mass amount of units, but they're cost per system was over $400. They decided to sell at $400 and launch early to try and gain hardcore games, who would pay the extra cash, and then hopefully drop the price when the real competition came in. That plan didn't work obviously.

          There has been speculation that the XBox costs a lot more than the $300 price tag to build (some say it's almost $100 more). Obviously MS can eat the loses just to get its name out there (they've done it before), but when you start losing that much money per console it becomes that much harder to be profitable in the long run with a system just making money on games.

          So to answer your questions, it's been comonly accepted since the 2600 came out that consoles were sold at a loss. Both the public *and* at the companies themselves have accepted this fact. However, what they actually do cost the companies to build is really anyone's guess. And that's pretty much the best we can do.
  • Maybe it's not as cool as opening up the hardware and the software for everybody to use royalty free, but Nintendo is definitely not going to hurt itself by livensing the hardware and the software for other manufacturers to use.
  • This is the third time that /. has news on it that isn't that new.
    Panasonic was making this way back when they showed a picture of it at Spaceworld. I believe it was last year's Spaceworld at that.
    Still it is good to hear, I suppose. I for one would buy GameCube for the games and not the DVDs...I have my PC for that.
  • Isn't this what Sega was doing with Dreamcast just as it was getting out of the console hardware business? So is this a sign of things to come?
    • Isn't this what Sega was doing with Dreamcast just as it was getting out of the console hardware business? So is this a sign of things to come?

      Nope - if I recall, Sega made the offer (to no takers) as a last ditch effort to keep the Dreamcast alive as they were hurting as a company, not to mention losing money on each console they sold which is exactly what Nintendo would rather not do.

      Here, on the other hand, Nintendo is doing it before hand, with a console that is generating alot of buzz and has lotsa potential. By doing it now in the relatively strong position they're in, the licensing of the hardware can only serve to generate MORE buzz, instead of trying to rekindle lost buzz in the wake of the Dreamcast fiasco.
    • Sega actually planned on releasing a DC on a PCI card! Not sure if one every came out, but there was talk that they would licence the chipset to third parties too :)

      Po

  • I was more than a little annoyed that I couldn't play normal DVDs in the GameCube...almost annoyed enough not to get one, but if this clone is a good copy (i.e. it plays the games just as well) then I sure hope it comes out in the States, because that's where my money will be going!

  • Great idea (Score:2, Informative)

    by stressky ( 218896 )
    I think it's the future for games consoles. I know I'd sure buy one of these, but I'd see it first and foremost as a DVD player rather than a games console.
    • If I get a game console / DVD player hybrid, it will be the Shinco 868 [lik-sang.com] with a Mega Drive (Genesis) built in. Meanwhile, I like my games consoles mininalist and fan-free. The 'Cube is growing on me...

  • Price Difference? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by ajuda ( 124386 )
    I didn't see anything that talked about the difference in price between the two units. DVD playback is a nice feature, but as the costs of dedicated DVD players are dropping, I wouldn't pay much for it.

  • Looks like a mini hi-fi without the speakers :-)

    Still pretty cool tho... But they should add speakers and front-panel controls for the DVD to play CDs etc and this would be real neat :-)
  • Will this version of the GC be available when the regular one is? If it IS available it would probably cause me to buy the GC instead of the XBox (depending on how the consumer version turns out) or PS2. I initially wanted the GC (Nintendo makes quality systems, not to mention quality GAMES) but the lack of a DVD player threw me a little. With the DVD on...

  • 3do (Score:1)

    by (startx) ( 37027 )
    weren't there like 3 manufactures of the 3DO? We all know what happened to that lame piece of hardware.
    • weren't there like 20 manufacturers of IBM PC compatibles? We all know what happened to that lame piece of hardware.
      • 3DO, being a now defunct console that was relying on a similar licensing scheme, is far more apropo.

        At any rate, we certainly know what is happening to the PC manufacturers.

    • Re:3do (Score:5, Interesting)

      by man_ls ( 248470 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @07:02PM (#2510114)
      3D0 was a very brilliantly engineered piece of hardware. IIRC, it had ability to play VCDs (not DVDs, but those weren't out yet), along with 32-bit and the new released 64-bit M2 games, at a very high framerate. They just got beat down by the PlayStation, and you never heard much of them when M2 never really took off. It was slightly too "niche" to be mainstream, and relatively expensive, but very high quality.

      JKoebel
      • You've also got to remember that 3D0 was NO Nintendo! I don't think they would license out their baby if they weren't absolutely sure it would help.

        Also, you've gotta remember that the original 3D0 was $700 back in 1995!
      • sorry, the "lame peice of hardware" bit was sarcasm, I know the 3do kicked ass, hell, I've still got one. Just goes to show what *might* happen again with multiple manufactures by showing what has happened in the past.
      • 3DO's 62-bit M2 technology was never put into a game console, and instead was sold to some Japanese company that integrated it into industrial systems.

        As for the 3DO, it sucked: too expensive, not enough developer support. Trip Hawkins' had a good idea, but it wasn't executed very well.

        Also, anyone who remember the days of 3DO will see striking similarities between it and the XBox...

  • This isn't the first time (Score:5, Informative)

    by sprayNwipe ( 95435 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @06:39PM (#2510033) Homepage
    This isn't the first time Nintendo have licensed their hardware to another company.

    Back in the SNES days, there was a TV that had SNES hardware built into it - it looked just like a normal TV, except it had two controller ports at the bottom, and a compartment at the top to put carts in.

    There are other non-commercial SNES clones as well, such as the in-flight games on Singapore Airlines and the in-room entertainment at some hotels.

    If anything, Nintendo is weary of not being open to partners - after all, the PlayStation only came about after Nintendo shunned Sony from making a CD-Rom addon for the SNES!

    • Some hotels I've seen in the United States have televisions/cable boxes with a built in SNES of sorts. The controllers attached to the unit are derived from SNES units, and the units play SNES games.

      Unfortunately for the consumer, these units do not simply take SNES cartridges; instead, they download games over the cable network. To use these, you typically pay per hour of usage. I wanted to play with one of these once; but its hourly rate was prohibitive (even for most parents).

      • The pay-per-hour playstation/nintendo/sega is pretty common these days. My question though, since when is $7/hr (the most common price I've seen) prohibitive? If you're in a hotel that has these, you've already demonstrated a willingness to pay $150-$400/night for a bed and a room, what's another $7 to entertain the kids for a bit?
    • I believe the reason Nintendo decided to scrap the add-on CD drive from Sony was because they saw what happened with the Sega CD add-on to their Genesis. Sega CD was a huge flop, of course.
    • Just today I heard from a friend of mine about a piece of hardware that allowed an SNES to plug into a computer, allowing you to use your computer moniter, the SNES's or your computers gamepads, and your SNES game cartridges to play. He said the part was only available in Hong Kong, so take this with a grain of salt.

      • Re:This isn't the first time (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        To plug a SNES into a computer, you just need a TV capture card. You can't use your computer's controller, but SNES controllers are better anyway (I have a SNES controller hooked up to my parallel port, and use it to play games on a SNES emulator). You can probably buy a used SNES for really cheap now, and a TV tuner is around $70.

  • Only 5.5 months late... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Namarrgon ( 105036 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @06:47PM (#2510045) Homepage
    Nice one, Slashdot. Is this a new record [ign.com]?

    For those interested, the Japanese release date [consolewire.com] is Dec 14th.

    • very true - but this sexy Yahoo article only 1.5 months before the release date -> featuring a crisp, shiny image with working readout panel makes it feel a lot less like vaporware than the May IGN article.

  • details (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sodakar ( 205398 ) on Thursday November 01, 2001 @06:47PM (#2510047)
    From: http://www.dvdgame.jp [dvdgame.jp]:

    On-sale 12/14, Retail price 39,800 yen (at 110 yen per dollar, roughly $350)

    According to http://www.dvdgame.jp/product/index.html [dvdgame.jp], the main feature is really the DVD player and the new looks... they are listed as:
    1) Compatable with the Nintendo Game Cube
    2) The timer function helps you keep track of play-time. (laf, more like helps parents keep track of kids)
    3) CD, DVD playback
    4) A handy remote control for CD, DVD playback
    5) "ABCD" (Advanced surround, Bass plus, Cinema mode, Dialogue enhancer) features for DVD playback.
    6) Dolby Digital/DTS Fiber Out

    Advanced surround = 2-speaker emulation of 5.1 dolby digital
    Bass plus = the ability to add a subwoofer from a dedicated subwoofer output
    Cinema mode = filters put in place to not make the TV screen appear too jaggedy during DVD playback. (shrug, I never knew this was a problem)
    Dialogue Enhancer - enhances the center channel on DVD audio tracks where there is no center channel present. This allows you to hear dialogue clearly, even at night, without upsetting your neighbors. (ha, quite useful in Japan..)

    They have a pretty darn big picture here [dvdgame.jp] -- enjoy.

  • one more thing... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sodakar ( 205398 )
    To the person who asked about the price... In Japan, the Nintendo Game Cube is 25,000 yen (at 110 yen per dollar, roughly $225)...

    The "Q", coming in at $350, is a big jump... While I understand the desire to get the added feature of a DVD player, this only makes sense if you only have one TV. The moment you have/get a 2nd TV, you're far better off with a GameCube and a DVD -- seperately...

    (much like the DVD player + computer argument... you can't effectively use both at the same time)

    I found it amusing that Nintendo's site has an ad for the "Q"... Yeah, it's in Japanese, but check out the middle of this page...

    http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ngc/index.html [nintendo.co.jp]
    • Consider that the Gamecube from Nintendo only runs their 3" DVD media, it's more of an argument of the PS2 VS DVD player debate... If you look at it as *purely* a game system, or *purely* a DVD player, sure it looks overpriced... But if you consider the value of each component, the average name brand DVD costing $150-$200 USD, and the average price of a next gen video game system at $100-$150 USD, doing the math, it's an appropriate price between $250 and $350...

      In the case of a DVD drive in a PC, unless you have a monitor the size of a 25"+ display, the effect is largely lost... Especially if you were one of those unfortunate enough to buy that Powerpuff Girls DVD with added virus "bonus"... It comes in handy for a *few* things, ripping videos, watching movies on your PC when you don't care about the screen size, but frankly with so little in the way of games in DVD format, the drive's value is largely wasted... Only in matters of building a home theater/game system is a PC DVD ROM drive of any value...
      • In the case of a DVD drive in a PC, unless you have a monitor the size of a 25"+ display, the effect is largely lost

        Unless you fall in to the po' college student with one 13" TV and a 17" monitor like me ;)
    • Those of you drooling to order one should keep in mind that this "Q" (ooh, shiny) will likely only play region 2 DVDs. And for you European folks, there's not even a guarantee that it'll play R2 PAL either.
  • If you don't mind waiting for it to come to US (If ever) and like the look (which looks slick) and don't mind paying the price tag. For the rest of us, probably be better off getting a console + DVD player.

  • Qool! (Score:2, Funny)

    by blair1q ( 305137 )
    Can I get the nifty "Desk and Elbow" skin they're using on the demo model?

    That looks like it rocks.

    --Blair
  • Did anybody else notice the amazing similarity between the Gamecube graphic [ign.com] and the Inktomi logo [inktomi.com]?
    • Both are similar to the old SGI cube logo. Just as Debian's logo is very similar to the Dreamcast's....

      Logos tend to come and go in cyclical fads... One year its cubes, the next swirls, the next triangles....

      No big deal.
  • "Attack of the Cubes"
  • From what I read, gamecube's main selling point is the ease of making game's for the system. Quite simply, they were under the opinion that impressive system specs only went so far. The next system after them will have better specs, because its a newer system. Their goal was to create good games, and the easiest way to do this would be make a system that is easy to develop and specalise on that. They said they learned their lesson from the N64, and are going to not make it again. That's why the Gamecube was a gaming system and nothing more.

    Now a third party added a DVD player to the system. I see this a big plus to nintendo; they specalised in the gaming system, and let someone else deal with the gimmicks.

    Now there isn't much of an excuase for me not to buy a Gamecube.
  • The way I see it it still comes down to the games. If the games are great and a gamecube becomes a standard instalation into everybody's household (see PSX, Super Nintendo, and Nintendo Entertainment System) the fact that you can get one preinstaled into your DVD player (or who knows what in the future) will be great. But if Nintendo produces games that are overly kiddy (N64) or perhaps pulls a Sega then it won't matter at all how many other companies feel like marketing it in their product. Nobody is going to buy a Gamecube/Microwaive if the fun games are on the PS2.


    Though I do think it's a great idea and I'd love to see it take off. The gamecube/washing machine should really help take the dull off of doing my laundry.

  • ...for the umpteenth time, and felt it was pertininent to report that some moderators are "brushing away" stories posted that *might* have a bearing on our well-being. Case in point: "Anthrax at NASA?" Two "offtopic" mods (which I voted unfair after seeing that it has been reported in Kansas - See This... [thekansascitychannel.com]

    The story *could* be a hoax (as are more than we like, even in the *accepted* stories lately, but WhoTF can tell, moreover, isn't almost every /. reader conditioned to this and ready to investigate and report it as such?

    The post in question was regarding postal facilities in Texas. Is that so far from KC, MO? *NO*.

    CNN is *not* reporting it, but if you can follow the link I provided, KC news *IS*.So is MSNBC... [msn.com]

    So, those of you *blessed* with mod privs, start thinking out of the same "rare" brain-vein that Taco did on 9/11 - "Stuff that matters" never rang truer! As a community, if we can raise awareness, then WHY NOT DO IT?

  • I saw this at... (Score:2, Informative)

    by HappyDrgn ( 142428 )
    E3. They had it up front at the NOA booth. The US version does not have lights on it, but hey according to the Nintendo spokesperson it is supposed to have DTS and Dolby 5.1. Here is a picture I took of it:

    http://www.dn3dgamer.com/e3/MISC/MVC-002F_3.JPG
  • sorry, I know the writer thinks it looks sweet, but i can't get past the fact that it looks like a toaster with controller ports.....
  • I am fully convinced that Gamecube will become the dominant game system when it comes out. However, both this and the original Nintendo model have a big problem: They are shaped like toasters!

    The taller they get, the more difficult they are to integrate into a stereo/home theater system. These devices will not fit ANYWHERE.

    It boggles the mind. Sorry for the somewhat off-topic rant, but, AARGH.

    Justin
    • A front-loading design has more impact on physical integration than height. I've got a PSX, Saturn, Sega CD II and SNES and they all load from the top, even though they're all quite short.

      Anyway, I don't know how you can complain about the size of anything other than the Xbox.

  • This item has been in the works for some time. It was shown way back in May at E3 in Los Angeles and it hasn't changed at all. My guess it that it was part of Nintendo's original game plan for the GameCube. I just hope it still as the broadband connection for the future.
  • What I don't understand is if everyone (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) sells these consoles as "loss leaders" then how can anyone make money selling clones? After all, isn't Nintendo going to be the only one making money on developer licenses for the GameCube?
  • Of course, it's a cool idea to integrate the gaming console and the DVD player - everybody's doing it, as tons of posts have pointed out.
    The problem with the cube design is that unlike a PS2, it simply doesn't fit into a component stack because of its shape (except on top, where connecting controllers is awkward). It doesn't fit into the VCR space in standard TV cabinets. The only circumstance in which it's sensibly usable is when nothing else is really attached to the TV unit.

    Note that the "plain" Nintendo Cube doesn't have this problem. It's a console, and as such is fine hidden on the floor behind the TV. But if you have as much as a VCR plugged in, wouldn't it make sense to have the DVD player nearby, rather than somewhere on the floor? Not to mention if DVD is to be an integrated part of a more complex entertainment system.

    • Put a shelf above the game cube in your rack... Since it's front loading, it won't cause a problem (unlike the Nintendo model, which is a top loader), and allows some room for you to stick your games nearby... Unless you have no rack to speak of (even rudimentary), then it should be easy to work around...
  • Yeah yeah, different platforms altogether, but so are iMacs and PC's with iMac *like* cases (some of which were sued for only having an all in one form factor, not any translucent plastic, just looking like a monitor with a build in computer)...

    I mean to an opportunistic lawyer, it could appear to look like a G4 Cube, and Apple could use the potential billions won in a lawsuit with Nintendo... Sure it sounds crazy, but it's happened before...
  • Nintendo and Matsushita have been partners on the Cube since its inception. There's probably not much of a need to license here, kind of how there were the Eagle Talon, Chrysler Laser, and Mitsubishi Eclipse cars there can be multiple flavors of the Cube from its separate developers.

Slashdot Top Deals

<<<<< EVACUATION ROUTE <<<<<

Close