Could Nintendo Suceed in Going the "Gameboy Route" With Their Console?

[JohnCrichton]

I'm not sure if this is what they're doing, but it seems like it. Back when there was major competition for the handheld market, Nintendo held its course, while other handhelds were getting bigger, more expenseive with tricked out graphics and the such and Gameboy still left them all in the dust.

Is that what they're trying to do with consoles? Keep them affordable, game oriented and steady while the other companies go all out by adding hyper-drive engines, powered by dilythium crystals and are able to chat with God... they're getting to be too expensive to own.

I'll be frelled if I'm going to buy a PSP any time soon and the only reason I'd break the bank to get a Xbox 3billion dollars is to play Shenmue 3.

Could Nintendo succeed in being cheaper and more simple? That it wouldn't cost as much to develope killer games for as the other consoles, would this bring in the developers that Nintendo really needs?

[shoujoaifan]

I'm NO gaming market expert, but I know alot of people who had the money to get more than one system (not all once) and didn't have a DVD player would either go for the PS2 or X-Box, so it might've helped Gamecube in the sales SOME if Nintento had splurged a little and knocked up the 'cube price a little to compensate. The Nintendo fans would've still bought it.

(ALTHOUGH, to be fair, the Gamecube would've most likely still have been about the same place in sales in comparison to the others, due to the PS2 having the fans of the PS1, being percieved as "edgy", AND the backwards compatibility, and the X-Box, while new, was made by Microsoft, so obviously that would do well.)

ANYWAY, most people today probably have a DVD player by now, they're getting pretty cheap and only somewhat more expensive than a VCR (and VHS's are getting slowly phased out). So honestly, the DVD option being an optional part for the Revolution if you pay more might not hurt it as bad as in the last race, and might soley be a competition based soley on gaming (WHICH, admittedly, the last race was mostly about, but a few more extras certainly would've helped Nintendo some.)





Okay, I've rambled enough about DVD options. Like I said, I'm no expert, so not only did I probably got some of that above wrong :sweat:, I can only GUESS (:sweat: x 2.0 ) that the Revolution will probably be the same place in the next race, # 3 while the other two compete in the U.S., while in Japan the PS3 will probably be #1, Revolution #2 due to loyal Nintendo fans, and the X-Box 360 have really low sales in Japan like the orinigal.

(Kinda funny. One of the top in one country, while dead last in another. For better or for worse, Japan has a lock on the top-selling position, although to be fair the X-Box has been the only well-selling non-Japanese system.)

[Artimus Gigan]

I think what hurts nintendo the most is that out of the three major competators, they're the most gimmicky. I mean take the previous outings for instance, attaching the GBA to the Gamecube to unlock features, this was only used in a few games and more or less made it more complicated because it really could have just been done if they just used the GC comtrolers instead(i.e FF Crystal Chronicals). Things like these really weren't all that practical, the N64 attachments like Rumblepack, GBA transfer pack, and the N64 upgrade Pack were all pretty much straightforward and practical and had many many games that could use them(though to debate the GBA transfer pack was pretty much just for pokemon stadium). There's also the Gamecube microphone which was only used in one or two games, it wasn't like it could be used for a series of games. Also the Gamecube modem was pretty much just used for PSO. They just didn't stick with any of these devices and released a new perpetual one after the other without intergrating the previous one sufficantly. I mean even that Gamecube GBA hookup isn't even worth it considering that the GBA is pretty much the exact same price in some areas. Also take a look at the DS, the Stylus could have easily been replaced by an analog button like the PSP for that range of control, or ther Stylus could have been an optional device instead of the default, I mean for many genres of games sometimes the traditional control is the best.

[Noukon]

Also take a look at the DS, the Stylus could have easily been replaced by an analog button like the PSP for that range of control, or ther Stylus could have been an optional device instead of the default, I mean for many genres of games sometimes the traditional control is the best.If the DS used an analog nub like the one on the PSP, I wouldn't have bought it. That thing is an absolute travesty of hardware design.

Also, most DS games have alternate control options.

I think what hurts nintendo the most is that out of the three major competators, they're the most gimmicky. I mean take the previous outings for instance, attaching the GBA to the Gamecube to unlock features, this was only used in a few games and more or less made it more complicated because it really could have just been done if they just used the GC comtrolers instead(i.e FF Crystal Chronicals).
If that's what hurts Nintendo the most, they must be pretty healthy. The worst outcome of those "gimmicks" is that very few people use them (which is pretty much the case with the GC-GBA link); it hardly damages them as a company.

[Artimus Gigan]

If the DS used an analog nub like the one on the PSP, I wouldn't have bought it. That thing is an absolute travesty of hardware design.

Also, most DS games have alternate control options.


If that's what hurts Nintendo the most, they must be pretty healthy. The worst outcome of those "gimmicks" is that very few people use them (which is pretty much the case with the GC-GBA link); it hardly damages them as a company.I'm speaking in terms of the gameplay...Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicals woul;d have been worlds better if you didn't need to purchase a few hundred dollars worth of hardware just to play it with 4 players(which you need towards the end)

Also the PSP knub, while it could be designed better it certainly works better on the road than the DS stylus, you go over a bump you end up jumping or whatever activates when you double tap on the screen, they could have developed somthing vaugly similar to it, not exactly coping it...Then again most people prefer to just use the D-pad

[Demonic Raven]

I'm speaking in terms of the gameplay...Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicals woul;d have been worlds better if you didn't need to purchase a few hundred dollars worth of hardware just to play it with 4 players(which you need towards the end) While that's true about the cost, the game just wouldn't work as well without the GBAs. You have to constantly change around your command list and use items and such, and the game would get awfully cluttered, screen-wise and gameplay-wise, if you had to constantly bring up all of the seperate menus for each person on the TV screen.
Also the PSP knub, while it could be designed better it certainly works better on the road than the DS stylus, you go over a bump you end up jumping or whatever activates when you double tap on the screen, they could have developed somthing vaugly similar to it, not exactly coping it...Then again most people prefer to just use the D-pad The DS wouldn't be the DS if it didn't have the touch screen. A majority of the games rely on the stylus as the main form of control, and for alot of those games a nub just wouldn't work.

[Noukon]

I'm speaking in terms of the gameplay...Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicals woul;d have been worlds better if you didn't need to purchase a few hundred dollars worth of hardware just to play it with 4 players(which you need towards the end)
There are only two games that require the connectivity, and the last one that did (Four Swords) absolutely bombed. It was a failed experiment that will not continue, and it speaks for itself, not for Nintendo as a whole.

Also the PSP knub, while it could be designed better it certainly works better on the road than the DS stylus, you go over a bump you end up jumping or whatever activates when you double tap on the screen, they could have developed somthing vaugly similar to it, not exactly coping it...Then again most people prefer to just use the D-pad
Yes, on the road, the d-pad is more appropriate for games with virtual-analog control. As I said, games with virtual-analog control tend to include the option of using the d-pad, a fact which conflicts with your statement:

or ther Stylus could have been an optional device instead of the default
The stylus is the default option, but others are there when needed (or if someone just can't figure out how to use the touchscreen). It's a non-issue.

Seriously, if you want, I can come up with some really negative things about Nintendo's current business. You'll know they're good ones, too, since they're coming from a die-hard supporter of the company. Saying that "what's really hurting Nintendo" is a gimmick feature on two games is weak at best.

[Artimus Gigan]

There are only two games that require the connectivity, and the last one that did (Four Swords) absolutely bombed. It was a failed experiment that will not continue, and it speaks for itself, not for Nintendo as a whole.


Yes, on the road, the d-pad is more appropriate for games with virtual-analog control. As I said, games with virtual-analog control tend to include the option of using the d-pad, a fact which conflicts with your statement:


The stylus is the default option, but others are there when needed (or if someone just can't figure out how to use the touchscreen). It's a non-issue.

Seriously, if you want, I can come up with some really negative things about Nintendo's current business. You'll know they're good ones, too, since they're coming from a die-hard supporter of the company. Saying that "what's really hurting Nintendo" is a gimmick feature on two games is weak at best.I'm saying that they don't support the gimmicks they create is a problem, not that it's a problem that they create gimmicks. It would be fine if they created things that last and have worth while support(i.e. the eye toy and dance pads). But really everything that they released was only for one or two games and then that was it, nothing further. They just didn't run with any of the stuff they created. The rumble pack for the N64 was used by pretty much every single game after Star Fox. The Rumble pack had substancial support, it was put into Golden eye and all their other big releases until the system was over. Even the upgrade pack had substancial support. None of the GC addons and such have that support that was provided.

Comparing the performance of the N64 and Gamecube, one of the main things the N64 had that the GC doesn't was continued support from a 2nd party developer that released a steady stream of quality games(big example there is Rare). Gamecube took it's sweet time in releasing high grade games and took too many chances. For example Windwaker(I personaly liked the graphic style) but many complained about it after getting two very well done Zelda games on the N64, they wanted the Next Genration graphics like they saw in the tech demos for WW(though the one draw back to WW I think was the 147 stattue quest that I didn't really like, the camera could only hold three pictures at a time). Same with Star Fox(I did like Adventures too) people wanted a more conventional and traditional game like the SNES and N64 had. I mean this has happened before, take a look at DK64, they overkilled the collecting and made it more complicated that it should have been and ended up driving it offcourse into unwanted territory.

I mean the GC seems to be more on how you play the game than what you play in the game..., it's more or less a wet blanket when compare to the N64 or SNES...it's just really not up to snuff with the previous generations...

I mean I'm not bashing nintendo, but really they really could have done better with the system overall. I want the revolution to have decent support so that the three companies can compete. Because when companies compete, the consumer wins.

[Noukon]

I'm saying that they don't support the gimmicks they create is a problem, not that it's a problem that they create gimmicks. The less successful an add-on is in the marketplace, the less support it will get. I'll add that GBA-to-GameCube functionality is actually pretty widespread in GC games.

It would be fine if they created things that last and have worth while support(i.e. the eye toy and dance pads). There is a dance pad coming out for the GameCube. Plus, as you state below, they have done several successful add-ons in the past.

But really everything that they released was only for one or two games and then that was it, nothing further. They just didn't run with any of the stuff they created. Name some products that were only used for one or two games. Don't say the GBA-GC link cable, because it's used in many more than "one or two" games.

The rumble pack for the N64 was used by pretty much every single game after Star Fox. The Rumble pack had substancial support, it was put into Golden eye and all their other big releases until the system was over. The rumble pack was an incredibly easy accessory to support.

Even the upgrade pack had substancial support. The memory upgrade wasn't supported much more than the GBA-GC link cable is now.

None of the GC addons and such have that support that was provided. I am trying to think of what GC add-ons have been released. There is the GBA-GC link cable, which supports numerous games. There's the Game Boy Player, which kind of lives on its own in terms of functionality.

The only accessory that didn't receive real support was the modem adapter. Even the broadband adapter got some extra use with the LAN function.

Comparing the performance of the N64 and Gamecube, one of the main things the N64 had that the GC doesn't was continued support from a 2nd party developer that released a steady stream of quality games(big example there is Rare). Gamecube took it's sweet time in releasing high grade games and took too many chances. The GameCube's game library is significantly larger than the N64's.

For example Windwaker(I personaly liked the graphic style) but many complained about it after getting two very well done Zelda games on the N64, they wanted the Next Genration graphics like they saw in the tech demos for WW(though the one draw back to WW I think was the 147 stattue quest that I didn't really like, the camera could only hold three pictures at a time).Same with Star Fox(I did like Adventures too) people wanted a more conventional and traditional game like the SNES and N64 had. I mean this has happened before, take a look at DK64, they overkilled the collecting and made it more complicated that it should have been and ended up driving it offcourse into unwanted territory. These are just little issues with a handful of games. They are irrelevant.

I will add that the sales figures for Wind Waker were monstrous (it was among the five top-selling games of 2003, if I remember correctly), so to name it as a failure in any way is a fallacy.

I mean the GC seems to be more on how you play the game than what you play in the game..., it's more or less a wet blanket when compare to the N64 or SNES...it's just really not up to snuff with the previous generations... Speaking as a die-hard Nintendo gamer (through all four generations of its console hardware), here is my analysis of how the GameCube stacks up:



In terms of first-party titles, it easily lives up to the days of the SNES and NES.
In terms of overall library, it beats the snot out of the N64 (many more third-party titles).
I mean I'm not bashing nintendo, You are, essentially, fabricating an argument for your generalized criticism. That reeks of bias.

but really they really could have done better with the system overall. I would agree with this. I believe the bulk of the GameCube's failings can be attributed to the general market stigma that has caused them to lose sales and alienate developers, however, since the only genuinely stupid thing Nintendo did with the GameCube was their horrible lack of online support.

The console did, however, earn them a hell of a lot of money. They're more profitable than Sony. There's something to be said about that.

I want the revolution to have decent support so that the three companies can compete. Because when companies compete, the consumer wins. Agreed. Personally, I believe that, if the Revolution ends up kicked around like the GameCube was, it will be for entirely different reasons on Nintendo's part.

[Artimus Gigan]

The less successful an add-on is in the marketplace, the less support it will get. I'll add that GBA-to-GameCube functionality is actually pretty widespread in GC games.

There is a dance pad coming out for the GameCube. Plus, as you state below, they have done several successful add-ons in the past.

Name some products that were only used for one or two games. Don't say the GBA-GC link cable, because it's used in many more than "one or two" games.

The rumble pack was an incredibly easy accessory to support.

The memory upgrade wasn't supported much more than the GBA-GC link cable is now.

I am trying to think of what GC add-ons have been released. There is the GBA-GC link cable, which supports numerous games. There's the Game Boy Player, which kind of lives on its own in terms of functionality.

The only accessory that didn't receive real support was the modem adapter. Even the broadband adapter got some extra use with the LAN function.

The GameCube's game library is significantly larger than the N64's.

These are just little issues with a handful of games. They are irrelevant.

I will add that the sales figures for Wind Waker were monstrous (it was among the five top-selling games of 2003, if I remember correctly), so to name it as a failure in any way is a fallacy.

Speaking as a die-hard Nintendo gamer (through all four generations of its console hardware), here is my analysis of how the GameCube stacks up:


In terms of first-party titles, it easily lives up to the days of the SNES and NES.
In terms of overall library, it beats the snot out of the N64 (many more third-party titles).
You are, essentially, fabricating an argument for your generalized criticism. That reeks of bias.

I would agree with this. I believe the bulk of the GameCube's failings can be attributed to the general market stigma that has caused them to lose sales and alienate developers, however, since the only genuinely stupid thing Nintendo did with the GameCube was their horrible lack of online support.

The console did, however, earn them a hell of a lot of money. They're more profitable than Sony. There's something to be said about that.

Agreed. Personally, I believe that, if the Revolution ends up kicked around like the GameCube was, it will be for entirely different reasons on Nintendo's part.
There was the microphone that was pretty much just for Mario Party

I mean other systems are releasing a constant line of hits, the PS2 line up measures out to one or two big name games a month or every other month right up to the holiday season. X-Box is going into X-Box 360 and Microsoft has prepared to have the system have as much killer app games possable. The GC is pretty much dragging it's feet, the only things on the horizen that appear to be High calibur are Zelda and Fire Emblem.

It's not that nintendo is a bad company it's just that their performance with the GC is less than stellar...I mean many of the games they hoped to bank on were more or less recieved with luke-warm acceptance from the media and the assorted fandoms. It wasn't like how Mario 64 wowed everyone or Zelda 64 made people buy it in a frenzy. The overall library leaves much to be desired in many genres, they lack fighters, they lack platformers, they lack RPGs.

Now I know if the GC was to pretty much bomb out like the Dreamcast or Saturn that wouldn't put an end to Nintendo itslef. But I would like them to hurry things along and get prepared to switch consoles from the GC to the Revolution, considering they are bolstering backwards compatibility.

[K-S-O]

Name some products that were only used for one or two games. Don't say the GBA-GC link (http://216.130.188.200/cgi-bin/ezlclk.fcgi?id=9788)cable, because it's used in many more than "one or two" games.
The NES had the Power Glove and ROB. I don't know too many games that applied those.

[maximumzero]

You know what was an underused accessory? The SNES Mouse. I can only think of two games that used it, (Vegas Stakes & Mario Paint) and then only one of those was technically a game.

[Captain Harlock]

You know what was an underused accessory? The SNES Mouse. I can only think of two games that used it, (Vegas Stakes & Mario Paint) and then only one of those was technically a game.

The only game I played with it was Sim Ant and Mario Paint. Some nifty internet searching found the entire list though.

Advanced Dungeons and Dragons: Eye of the Beholder, Civilization, Fun and Games, Lamborghini American Challenge, Lemmings 2: The Tribes, Mario Paint, Jurassic Park, Might and Magic III, Nobunaga's Ambition, Shien's Revenge, King Arthur's World, Sim Ant, Super GameBoy, Super Noah's Ark 3D, Super Solitaire, Terminator 2: The Arcade Game, Troddlers, Utopia, Vegas Stakes.

Curious as to how you could play Jurassic Park with the mouse.

[straw_hat]

What about the SNES Super Scope? It was huge and it had even less games you could use it for then the mouse.

[Noukon]

There was the microphone that was pretty much just for Mario Party
A microphone was also made for the N64, and used for (as far as I know) one game. The same even applies to the Sega Dreamcast. Additionally, the microphone was designed specifically as a gimmick pack-in for Mario Party. If Nintendo's biggest failure is that they included a cheap accessory in one game, then they must be really on top of things.

I mean other systems are releasing a constant line of hits, the PS2 line up measures out to one or two big name games a month or every other month right up to the holiday season.
The PS2's third-party support is legendary. This has little to do with the argument at hand, though, and I've already addressed it.

X-Box is going into X-Box 360 and Microsoft has prepared to have the system have as much killer app games possable.
And, so far, failing. Almost all of the 360's hype so far surounds the hardware; there aren't many exclusive, big-name titles announced yet.

The GC is pretty much dragging it's feet, the only things on the horizen that appear to be High calibur are Zelda and Fire Emblem.
There are a few more than that, but I'll admit that the release calendar is weak. Again, we've gone over this.

It's not that nintendo is a bad company it's just that their performance with the GC is less than stellar...I mean many of the games they hoped to bank on were more or less recieved with luke-warm acceptance from the media and the assorted fandoms. It wasn't like how Mario 64 wowed everyone or Zelda 64 made people buy it in a frenzy. The overall library leaves much to be desired in many genres, they lack fighters, they lack platformers, they lack RPGs.
Point one: You were arguing that the Nintendo 64 performed better than the GameCube has. This is patently incorrect.

Point two: The vast majority of their first-party titles have been received extremely well by both the media and your so-called "fandoms." Please back up your statement that is conflictory to this fact with some actual examples.

Point three: The GameCube is not lacking in any of the above genres. It has less titles compared to, say, the PS2, but the PS2 game market is flooded anyway.

Now I know if the GC was to pretty much bomb out like the Dreamcast or Saturn that wouldn't put an end to Nintendo itslef. But I would like them to hurry things along and get prepared to switch consoles from the GC to the Revolution, considering they are bolstering backwards compatibility.
I should note that a simple overview of what is currently known about the Revolution (which isn't even all that much) completely destroys your arguments.

[Killtacular]

And, so far, failing. Almost all of the 360's hype so far surounds the hardware; there aren't many exclusive, big-name titles announced yet.
Yeah, I guess Quake, Tony Hawk, Madden, FIFA, Battlefield, Ghost Recon, Elder Scrolls, Need for Speed, SSX, Call of Duty, Project Gotham Racing and Perfect Dark aren't big-name titles. Gosh. What was I thinking? As for their exclusivity, no "big-name" title is ever exclusive. The only way it becomes "big name" is by spawning across multiple platforms and sequels. Please don't forget the new and continuing franchises like Gears of War, Kameo, The Outfit, Jade Empire, and Sonic the Hedgehog (remember the tech demo?), all exclusive 360 titles.

[Zach]

Nintendo is succeeding. They may not have alot of third-party support, but it beats out the N64. Sony may have the most third-party support and games, but that's just because people are morons and like to decieve themselves into thinking that Nintendo is a bunch of kids games and that the PS2 is the more mature, manly system. (Much like the argument over the PSP vs DS)

[LordByronius]

The main reason Nintendo's market share continues to slip and slip isn't because of Hardware. It's the software. The only Nintendo game everybody wanted to play this year was Twilight Princess, and that's been delayed until next year. Resident Evil 4 could've been what saved the Gamecube this year, but Capcom was fretting losing millions of dollars on development of a title that would literally have to be in EVERY home with a Gamecube to make a profit, so it got ported to the PS2.

The only software Nintendo has that can even make a dent against multi-million system sellers like the Halos and GTAs are Zelda and Smash Bros., and those games seem to come about only once or twice a decade.

[Zach]

The main reason Nintendo's market share continues to slip and slip isn't because of Hardware. It's the software. The only Nintendo game everybody wanted to play this year was Twilight Princess, and that's been delayed until next year. Resident Evil 4 could've been what saved the Gamecube this year, but Capcom was fretting losing millions of dollars on development of a title that would literally have to be in EVERY home with a Gamecube to make a profit, so it got ported to the PS2.

The only software Nintendo has that can even make a dent against multi-million system sellers like the Halos and GTAs are Zelda and Smash Bros., and those games seem to come about only once or twice a decade.
Any Nintendo first-party title can beat Halo's ass anyday.

[Noukon]

Yeah, I guess Quake, Tony Hawk, Madden, FIFA, Battlefield, Ghost Recon, Elder Scrolls, Need for Speed, SSX, Call of Duty, Project Gotham Racing and Perfect Dark aren't big-name titles. Gosh. What was I thinking? As for their exclusivity, no "big-name" title is ever exclusive. The only way it becomes "big name" is by spawning across multiple platforms and sequels. Please don't forget the new and continuing franchises like Gears of War, Kameo, The Outfit, Jade Empire, and Sonic the Hedgehog (remember the tech demo?), all exclusive 360 titles. Your argument does not fit at all in context to mine, and is riddled with false information.

Only a few of the titles you list will be exclusive to the 360. My argument was in direct response to a claim that the 360 would have lots of "killer apps." So far, there are only a few potentials.

Your claim that no "big-name" title is ever exclusive is both patently incorrect and completely irrelevant here. You're saying that Halo 2 is not "big-name"? That neither the new Zelda game nor a recent hit like God of War could possibly be a major title, simply because they are not (or will not be) multiplatform? Please.

Additionally, the fact that the 360 has a slew of cross-platform titles may be relevant in many discussions of the 360's chances in the marketplace, but the argument you butted into was directly related to its killer apps. Cross-platform titles are not killer apps.

Regarding your last point, I have seen no announcement that a Jade Empire sequel is in development for the 360, nor can I find one right now. Also, the Sonic the Hedgehog tech demo at E3 was running on Xbox 360 hardware, but it's outright stupid to claim that it will be a 360 exclusive based on that. All indications are that the core Sonic games will continue to be multiplatform (and, I'll add, Sega has not officially announced their next-gen Sonic project yet).

Your post here is completely pointless, since you've contributed nothing to the argument at hand, and only tried to jump off of it with a slew of unrelated (and, in several cases, incorrect) counterpoints to points which I never even made. You're really only making yourself out to be a Microsoft fanboy.

[LordByronius]

Any Nintendo first-party title can beat Halo's ass anyday.
Yeah, just thinking about all the 1st-party Nintendo games that beat Halo 2's single-day, 100-million-dollar-plus sales record is... um. Nevermind.

I'm not talking quality. Look objectively for one second. Have ANY Nintendo games sold 5 million copies in MERE MONTHS like GTA has in the past four years?

[Zach]

Yeah, just thinking about all the 1st-party Nintendo games that beat Halo 2's single-day, 100-million-dollar-plus sales record is... um. Nevermind.

I'm not talking quality. Look objectively for one second. Have ANY Nintendo games sold 5 million copies in MERE MONTHS like GTA has in the past four years?
No. GTA is killing off the market. It's like Madden. It's not new and innovative unless you wait for a significant change (Much like going from GTA 2's visuals and gameplay to 3's) in the presentation and gameplay.

[Killtacular]

Your claim that no "big-name" title is ever exclusive is both patently incorrect and completely irrelevant here. You're saying that Halo 2 is not "big-name"?
Okay, maybe I exaggerated, but most of the hugest games are not exclusive at all. GTA and Madden outsell every other game and it's because they're available for everything known to man. Regardless, the non exclusive titles WILL be exclusive until Fall of 2006, if the PS3 isn't pushed back further. A year is a long time when it comes to software sales. Until that time comes, any big name franchise with a new installment is a potential killer app (considering Xbox 360 is largely competing with the old generation for the first six months before they really put up any resistance towards the PS3).

Additionally, the fact that the 360 has a slew of cross-platform titles may be relevant in many discussions of the 360's chances in the marketplace, but the argument you butted into was directly related to its killer apps. Cross-platform titles are not killer apps.
Well, um. What killer apps did the Gamecube have that were not created by Nintendo? Most of the third party games that people bought Gamecubes for (Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil 4) went to other platforms. Xbox, like the PS2 and PS3, is largely a haven for third-party developers. I mean Microsoft is making a sequel to Halo for next Fall as well as Amped, but people didn't buy the Xbox to play Microsoft Game Studios games. The era of gaming where the biggest games were exclusive? I don't think that ever existed. As far back as the 90s, Sega and Nintendo made a lot of strong first party games that were very popular but the SNES and Genesis shared a lot of titles. Games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat were huge apps and they've NEVER been exclusive.

Regarding your last point, I have seen no announcement that a Jade Empire sequel is in development for the 360, nor can I find one right now.
It's in development, and it obviously won't be for the original Xbox. IGN seems optomistic enough to list it on the 360 release list. They must know SOMETHING. They're not SPONG.

(and, in several cases, incorrect)
Nothing I posted was incorrect. The 360 has exclusive and non exclusive big name hits and multiplatform titles have a much better success rate at becoming huge sellers. I wasn't really trying to contribute to the discussion, I just saw you make a ridiculous claim and rebutted it, is all.

The only reason I look like a Microsoft fanboy is because I'm not a Nintendo fanboy.

[SirLemming]

There are only two games that require the connectivity, and the last one that did (Four Swords) absolutely bombed. It was a failed experiment that will not continue, and it speaks for itself, not for Nintendo as a whole. Oh, that bombed? That's a shame. I guess I didn't keep up with the news about that. Because it really is a wonderful gaming experience, even though it's somewhat rare to have enough GBAs and people for it. My brother got a bunch of GBAs through some special deal-mongering... Crystal Chronicles is also cool, but Four Sword Adventures (it's actually "the Four Sword", not four swords) is classic.

[Mr.E]

Yeah, just thinking about all the 1st-party Nintendo games that beat Halo 2's single-day, 100-million-dollar-plus sales record is... um. Nevermind.

I'm not talking quality. Look objectively for one second. Have ANY Nintendo games sold 5 million copies in MERE MONTHS like GTA has in the past four years?
just because it sells alot dosen't neccesarily mean its great.

[Mr.E]

I like the design for Revolution, it looks smart. Not Flashy, like XBOX 360 and PS3, which looks absolutely ugly.

[Artimus Gigan]

just because it sells alot dosen't neccesarily mean its great.Usualy it's still considered a sucess though...

and Halo 2 has one of the best Multiplayer modes ever...

[Noukon]

Okay, maybe I exaggerated, but most of the hugest games are not exclusive at all. GTA and Madden outsell every other game and it's because they're available for everything known to man.
The interesting thing in those cases is that those games sell massively on each console. If they were exclusives, they would still be huge- big-name hits; the cross-platform aspect simply boosts sales to even more astronomical numbers.

Regardless, the non exclusive titles WILL be exclusive until Fall of 2006, if the PS3 isn't pushed back further. A year is a long time when it comes to software sales. Until that time comes, any big name franchise with a new installment is a potential killer app (considering Xbox 360 is largely competing with the old generation for the first six months before they really put up any resistance towards the PS3).
Many games (especially amongst the ones you mentioned earlier) will still be cross-platform with current-generation consoles. Certainly, the 360 versions will sport much-improved graphics and additional features, but most consumers will not buy a new console just to have better graphics on games they can get anyway. They'll do nicely to flesh out the library available to 360 owners, but they are, by no means, killer apps.

Well, um. What killer apps did the Gamecube have that were not created by Nintendo? Most of the third party games that people bought Gamecubes for (Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil 4) went to other platforms.
What does it matter who developed a killer app? If an exclusive will sell systems, it's a boon for the first party, whether they created it or not.

Xbox, like the PS2 and PS3, is largely a haven for third-party developers. I mean Microsoft is making a sequel to Halo for next Fall as well as Amped, but people didn't buy the Xbox to play Microsoft Game Studios games.
Millions bought Xboxes to play Halo 2. I bought my Xbox to play Fable (which was obviously a mistake).

The era of gaming where the biggest games were exclusive? I don't think that ever existed. As far back as the 90s, Sega and Nintendo made a lot of strong first party games that were very popular but the SNES and Genesis shared a lot of titles. Games like Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat were huge apps and they've NEVER been exclusive.
This is absolutely true. There are many major exclusive hits, and there are many cross-platform hits. I'm not sure what the point of this argument is, though; the discussion point that you entered on here was in direct reference to killer apps. I'll happily agree with the (fairly base) acknowledgement that not all hit games are exclusive, but I'm wondering just what that has to do with a discussion on the merits (or demerits) of Nintendo's hardware.

It's in development, and it obviously won't be for the original Xbox. IGN seems optomistic enough to list it on the 360 release list. They must know SOMETHING. They're not SPONG.
Do you have a link? There isn't an entry for it in their Game List for the 360.

Nothing I posted was incorrect.
Well, you definitely still stated that Sonic the Hedgehog was a 360 exclusive, regardless of further reasoning on your other topics.

The 360 has exclusive and non exclusive big name hits and multiplatform titles have a much better success rate at becoming huge sellers.
This is true, yet irrelevant to my statement which you were arguing with.

I wasn't really trying to contribute to the discussion, I just saw you make a ridiculous claim and rebutted it, is all.
My claim, which you rebutted: "There aren't many exclusive, big-name titles announced yet." This statement was made in context with a discussion of killer app titles. Your point about the highest-selling games being multiplatform is correct (and a fact that I am well aware of to begin with), but not relevant. As far as I know, there are only a few potential killer apps that have been announced for the 360, but if you have a list that would refute this, I'd be happy to look at it.

The only reason I look like a Microsoft fanboy is because I'm not a Nintendo fanboy.
No, the reason you look like a Microsoft fanboy is because you made a venomous, condescending rebuttal to what you perceived as an attack on the 360 (which my statement was not).

[Mr.E]

I think what hurts nintendo the most is that out of the three major competators, they're the most gimmicky.Iam not sure about the PSP vs. DS sales in the US( I think its pretty close), but in Japan, The DS has been constantly outselling PSP with there "gimmicky" games.

[Noukon]

In my opinion, all it comes down to is the quality of the games themselves. PS2 and Xbox did better than Nintendo because they made better and more entertaining games than Nintendo. Simple as that.
First off, that is entirely subjective. I have all three consoles, and the GameCube is the only one of the three that doesn't bore the crap out of me.

Second, saying that quality and sales directly equate shows absolutely no understanding of the world at large.

I will add that, in terms of game sales, the GameCube was also very competitive with the PS2, despite the latter's massive hardware installed base.

[Conan-san]

In my opinion, all it comes down to is the quality of the games themselves. PS2 and Xbox did better than Nintendo because they made better and more entertaining games than Nintendo. Simple as that. my 'effing backside. The day Fifa is concered anywhere near entertainment is the day I sell off every game related item I own.

[Killtacular]

The interesting thing in those cases is that those games sell massively on each console. If they were exclusives, they would still be huge- big-name hits; the cross-platform aspect simply boosts sales to even more astronomical numbers.
Which is why people do it. There is simply more money in casting out the widest net you can. As much of a flop as Prince of Persia was, the sales of all 3 versions together saved it from being a DISASTER and it now is up to its third 3D installment. Now imagine if it was only for the PS2, or worse, the Gamecube. Would've been the end for sure.

Many games (especially amongst the ones you mentioned earlier) will still be cross-platform with current-generation consoles. Certainly, the 360 versions will sport much-improved graphics and additional features, but most consumers will not buy a new console just to have better graphics on games they can get anyway.
You would be surprised. I think Madden 06 is doing a good job fooling people into buying the same exact game twice with its TV campaign, only with much much nicer graphics and presentation. The cool thing is, Madden 06 on the 360 is actually ten times better looking than the PC version (why the PC version couldn't have stepped up to match it, I don't know).

Also, a lot of people will buy a 360 for the same reason they bought an Xbox. It's a standardized PC. They don't have to shell out upwards of $1000 to play the latest spec-murdering PC games. With PC gaming, their PC has to be optomized for the game. With the 360, the GAME is optomized for the SYSTEM. I think, for example, the 360 version of UT2K7 will be much more popular than the PC version, because UT is all about speed and intensity and the leap in graphics this time around is massive and will require BEASTLY PCs to come close to 60+fps, whereas the 360 will have it locked for certain. Spare the controller vs key/mouse argument for another thread. I think this will be a big factor in winning over hardcore gamers in addition to the mainstream Halonauts.

What does it matter who developed a killer app? If an exclusive will sell systems, it's a boon for the first party, whether they created it or not.
But see, that's one reason why the Gamecube is in last place. Because only one company makes great games for it, and no matter how many games they make, it'll never be enough to make up for the loss of third party developers that would rather produce for another system. Nintendo losing their exclusivity with Factor 5, Silicon Knights, Namco, Capcom.. Nintendo definitely makes money off of the Gamecube, but not as much as they could've made if they secured more companies and more franchises.

Granted that's ONE reason. There's no MAIN reason why it's in last place because there are many factors and honestly, I don't know why so many people have stopped buying Nintendo systems. Even the cross-platform titles like Madden sell considerably less on Gamecube. And stores are unfair at having tiny selections of Gamecube games to buy or rent. It's like the Powerpuff Girls Movie, where theaters only gave it matinee showings or one showing a day, making it impossible to make any money at all.

Millions bought Xboxes to play Halo 2. I bought my Xbox to play Fable (which was obviously a mistake).
owned

But the average Microsoft Games Studio game isn't Halo (which isn't them anyway, it's Bungie.. although I don't know WHAT is up with Halo 3.. could be either), it's usually AMPED or NFL FEVER or... BLINX.

This is absolutely true. There are many major exclusive hits, and there are many cross-platform hits. I'm not sure what the point of this argument is, though; the discussion point that you entered on here was in direct reference to killer apps. I'll happily agree with the (fairly base) acknowledgement that not all hit games are exclusive, but I'm wondering just what that has to do with a discussion on the merits (or demerits) of Nintendo's hardware.
As for how Nintendo's hardware factors into this, the Revolution's archetecture is the same as the Gamecube's, but that's not going to please any NEW developers, and Nintendo has LOST Gamecube developers. At E3 Nintendo was not even confident they could get many developers to sign on. Maybe the outcome will be different after the TGS, but you may once again be faced with a system whose titles are primarily Nintendo's.

Also in reference to the original poster, Nintendo is not keeping it simple because they're trying to "revolutionize" the controller which could mean that games for the Revolution will be unable to be ported to other systems. It's already almost impossible for companies to make both a PSP game and a DS game without having to do both with separate teams. If it's like that for the consoles, that could just mean developers will stay away. If Nintendo wanted to keep it simple they wouldn't change their controller at all. They'd just upgrade the system specs like the other two companies but keep it affordable.

I'd say that independent developers would swing for the Revolution, but Microsoft is doing a good job luring them with Xbox Live Arcade (though I have no idea if the 360 Arcade will be free to Live Silver members or not). I don't remember people saying the Gamecube was an easy programming platform either, so Nintendo would have to come up with easier tools for the small-scale companies or do what Sony is doing and adopt Linux.

Do you have a link? There isn't an entry for it in their Game List for the 360.
Listed here: http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/718/718964.html which is in reference to this:
IGN: There was an interview on Xbox.com with you about a month ago, and you said that in the future, yes, Microsoft would see sequels to the best sellers -- Forza Motorsport, Jade Empire, Project Gotham Racing, and Fable. Are you working with those developers right now on sequels on Xbox 360?

Shane: Yes. All of those. We have nothing to announce right now, but what I said in that interview still holds true going forward, which is that I think customers of those franchises can absolutely look forward to seeing them on the Xbox 360.

Well, you definitely still stated that Sonic the Hedgehog was a 360 exclusive, regardless of further reasoning on your other topics.
If it does go to other platforms I suppose it wouldn't be a surprise but depending on its release date it could still be exclusive for a while.

As far as I know, there are only a few potential killer apps that have been announced for the 360, but if you have a list that would refute this, I'd be happy to look at it.
These are exclusive to the 360 and in my opinion are games that would sell systems:
- Gears of War
- Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter
- Quake 4
- Call of Duty 2
- Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
- Dead or Alive 4
- Project Gotham Racing 3
- Halo 3 (3Q2006)

These are also exclusive to the 360 and may not sell systems but are also big-name titles:
- Perfect Dark 0
- Kameo
- Jade Empire 2
- Prey (2006?)

And these are new franchises exclusive to the 360. They could explode like Halo did or they might fizzle. Who knows?
- Frame City Killers
- Full Auto
- Wardevil
- eNCHANT arM
- Dead Rising (release TBA)
- The Outfit (1Q2006)
- Saint's Row (2006?)
- Too Human (2006?)
- The Darkness (2006?)

And all of those titles (except where marked) are being released within the launch window. There are expected to be more titles announced for the launch window as we get closer to November as well (Microsoft PROMISES 25 games for launch.. truth or fiction? Who knows).

The real question is, what would you want to see? I mean we're at the launch of a system and most system launches NEVER have killer apps. Most "killer apps" go into development for the second generation of titles. Keep in mind that I'm humoring you because really we've left the age of the killer app a long time ago. It's a phrase that's been bandied about so much it's lost meaning. It used to compare PC games to one another.. will this game be the DOOM KILLER? The QUAKE KILLER? But when it comes to sales, Halo 2 is one of the only video games in history that has rivalled box office revenue in its first week. I mean how do you define killer app? If you define it as a game that sells systems by the bucketload, then Nintendo hasn't had a killer app since Ocarina of Time.

I'd talk about the PS3's potential for "killer apps" but Sony is keeping even quieter than Microsoft. All we get are those same trailers of CG Killzone 2 footage. And how will we even know what Nintendo has planned since they won't even show us a controller? I have a feeling most developers are as in the dark as we are. Which is why I really have nothing to contribute to the original post. How would we know if the "gameboy route" is successful? We have no idea what the Revolution is going to be, what games are being made for it, which developers are interested in it, or how its features will be utilized. Will backwards compatibility cost money per title? Will the controller be a gimmick (i.e. "revolution") or a natural improvement (i.e. "evolution")? We won't know for at least another 6 months!

(unless SPONG is actually right for once and TGS will unveil it)

[shoujoaifan]

A question about something that's not relevant to the main subject of the thread, but is relevant to the thread overall: Is it necessary to say the full "killer apps"? :sweat:

Its one thing to mention it once or twice in a post, but some will have it written dozens of time over. Plus the "killer" part is an adjective. We'll still know what is being talked about if its just "apps".

[Sketch]

XBOX 360 has a lot going for it. I just wish it wasn't so dang expensive. I'd probably buy one if I could get it for 300 with a HD. But not 400. That's out of my price range for sure. And I figure by the time the 360 is 300 with an HD the Revolution will be out so I'd buy it instead (maybe).

Nintendo does make it hard for third parties to work for them often and that hurts things a lot even so it wasn't impossible to make a PS1 game ported for N64 and there were some so why so many third parties shafted the N64 back then is beyond me. Heck there was no reason to shaft the GCN much either since that time the hardware was relatively compatible.

The thing with the DS and PSP... They're not the same system by any means. The DS has touch features and the PSP has MUCH better graphics. It's downright impossible to do a direct port for both unless the port is weaker than both can accomplish.

Nintendo still thinks it's the only one playing the portable game and actually that could turn out to their benefit. If they don't try to be more like the PSP they'll give developers a hard time but as long as Nintendo sells the most portables they don't have much to worry about. Even so their way of doing things could kill their handheld market as well.

Nintendo still makes good games and all things considered... reliable and high quality hardware. So there's no reason for them to quit any time soon. But they do need to find a way to be more friendly to the consumers and the third parties.

[Dark Soul]

I definately agree on having Nintendo going the gameboy route. We all know Nintendo is somewhat declining when it comes to console. In the market Nintendo is owning the handheld. Instead of wasting time with Mario spinoffs and Pikmin they should concentrate on handheld. Eventually Nintendo wil be out of the console competition

[Zach]

In my opinion, all it comes down to is the quality of the games themselves. PS2 and Xbox did better than Nintendo because they made better and more entertaining games than Nintendo. Simple as that.
Wow, you have no clue about what you speak of, do you? Nintendo makes the best games on the market. Their first-party lineup can't be beaten by anything that third-party developers, Sony, or Microsoft can muster in terms of quality. Now, i'm not a fanboy, I own a PS2 as well and enjoy playing my friend's Xbox, but I am not nearly as entertained as with my Gamecube. The MGS games, Sly Copper Games, and Kingdom Hearts have been the only really great games I have played on the PS2. Halo (1 not 2, mind you) and Republic Commando have been the only awesome games I have played on the Xbox. However, Sunshine, Wind Waker, Jungle Beat, Star Fox Assault, Mario Kart: Double Dash! and many others keep me constanly entertained. :shrug:

[Mr.E]

I definately agree on having Nintendo going the gameboy route. We all know Nintendo is somewhat declining when it comes to console. In the market Nintendo is owning the handheld. Instead of wasting time with Mario spinoffs and Pikmin they should concentrate on handheld. Eventually Nintendo wil be out of the console competition
Nintendo is never going to leave the console competition,thats nonsense,they're aren't to end up like Sega, they never had constant string of unsuccessful consoles like they did. And besides, Gamecube sold about as well as the PS2.

[Zach]

I definately agree on having Nintendo going the gameboy route. We all know Nintendo is somewhat declining when it comes to console. In the market Nintendo is owning the handheld. Instead of wasting time with Mario spinoffs and Pikmin they should concentrate on handheld. Eventually Nintendo wil be out of the console competition
They can still survive. It all comes down to marketing. I made a post a long time back on Nsider about marketing and how it affects Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft know how to market a product so it appears to be cool while Nintendo has a much kiddie way of advertising. However, I just saw an ad on TV yesterday and it was very good. Slick, polished, exactly what the average consumer today would perceive as cool.

[Artimus Gigan]

They can still survive. It all comes down to marketing. I made a post a long time back on Nsider about marketing and how it affects Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft know how to market a product so it appears to be cool while Nintendo has a much kiddie way of advertising. However, I just saw an ad on TV yesterday and it was very good. Slick, polished, exactly what the average consumer today would perceive as cool.Bah, the best adds were the Nintendo Gross-out adds of the 90's,,,

(i.e. exploding guy commercial for the Yoshi game)

those grabbed your attention because iot made the games appear odd and interesting...

[Dark Soul]

Nintendo is never going to leave the console competition,thats nonsense,they're aren't to end up like Sega, they never had constant string of unsuccessful consoles like they did. And besides, Gamecube sold about as well as the PS2.Do you really actually think that Nintendo will survive on Mario alone. If Nintendo is going to get back in the game with the console they have to have a variety of franchies supporting it.

[Artimus Gigan]

Do you really actually think that Nintendo will survive on Mario alone. If Nintendo is going to get back in the game with the console they have to have a variety of franchies supporting it.Perferibly new ones...not reworked old ones(i.e. Metroid prime, Starfox Adventures)

I mean the reason why everyone is looking forward to Zelda is because the series is more adventerous and action oriented than the other nintendo series. I mean hell it's the only Nintendo franchise that has stayed in it's roots in every incarnation and made what made it great, better and better as the years progressed.

Now rather than using the current stable of characters and throwing what made them popular out the window. Why not just create an entirely new cast of nintendo characters that are more advanced than their precursors. I mean it can be done, they could do somthing on the realms of Jak or Ratchet or maybe an RPG...

[Artimus Gigan]

About about Nintendo tries to make an RPG series on the calubur of Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior

Gorgeous Graphics, Fast paced battle system, voiced characters, awsome story, etc. and I'm not talking about passing this on to a 2nd or third party developer, I want first party....

MORE EFFORT, MORE POWER!

[Dark Soul]

About about Nintendo tries to make an RPG series on the calubur of Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior

Gorgeous Graphics, Fast paced battle system, voiced characters, awsome story, etc. and I'm not talking about passing this on to a 2nd or third party developer, I want first party....

MORE EFFORT, MORE POWER!Thats exactly what they need

[Zach]

Thats exactly what they need
No. It's not. What they need is people to stop talking about how much they need to do and support them. They can keep making first-party titles based off of current franchises (Oh, yeah, there happens to be quite a few, not just Mario) and they say Miyamoto is working on a new one so they can keep beating the snot out off everyone quality-wise. People just need to shut up and be thankful that Nintendo is still around. Without Nintendo, the market will be doomed to be a giant toilet of corrupted crap. Nintendo keeps pushing the bar. Sony and Microsoft can't innovate enough to keep something fresh and new on the market.

[Dark Soul]

No. It's not. What they need is people to stop talking about how much they need to do and support them. They can keep making first-party titles based off of current franchises (Oh, yeah, there happens to be quite a few, not just Mario) and they say Miyamoto is working on a new one so they can keep beating the snot out off everyone quality-wise. People just need to shut up and be thankful that Nintendo is still around. Without Nintendo, the market will be doomed to be a giant toilet of corrupted crap. Nintendo keeps pushing the bar. Sony and Microsoft can't innovate enough to keep something fresh and new on the market.Yes I do agree with what you are saying but Nintendo should get a great RPG game.

[Killtacular]

Speaking of cross platform, the next Resident Evil title will be for Playstation 2 and Xbox, but not Gamecube. So now Nintendo has lost Capcom in full and not just in exclusivity. What on earth did they do to deserve the cold shoulder?

[Dark Soul]

Speaking of cross platform, the next Resident Evil title will be for Playstation 2 and Xbox, but not Gamecube. So now Nintendo has lost Capcom in full and not just in exclusivity. What on earth did they do to deserve the cold shoulder?Well Capcom went to the highest bitter with the bigger cash thats all

[Zach]

Yes I do agree with what you are saying but Nintendo should get a great RPG game.
Yes, Nintendo is lacking in the RPG gamer demographic.

[Zach]

Well Capcom went to the highest bitter with the bigger cash thats all
And the fact that there are more Xboxs and PS2s than Gamecubes. People percieve Nintendo as lame, therefore there is much more support for Microsoft and Sony.

[Artimus Gigan]

No. It's not. What they need is people to stop talking about how much they need to do and support them. They can keep making first-party titles based off of current franchises (Oh, yeah, there happens to be quite a few, not just Mario) and they say Miyamoto is working on a new one so they can keep beating the snot out off everyone quality-wise. People just need to shut up and be thankful that Nintendo is still around. Without Nintendo, the market will be doomed to be a giant toilet of corrupted crap. Nintendo keeps pushing the bar. Sony and Microsoft can't innovate enough to keep something fresh and new on the market.Sony and Microsoft have their 2nd and 3rd party developers do the innovation. It's just a different way of doing things to get the same end result. I mean The DDR series took off and spread from Playstation to Playstation 2, to X-Box and Gamecube. The eye toy introduced a different form of interactivity with the games themselves that developers like Sega made games for. Also the Jak series of games have no loading time from passing from zone to zone, it's all one big ass world connected. Also sony popularized the MMORPG genre with the creation of Everquest for the PC...

So they innovate...it's sorta similar to how movie studios release movies, the studio's themselves don't make the movies they just buy them from the director and such and distribute them.

To call the X-Box and PS2 games corrupted crap is not really the case. There are loads of 5 star Grade A games available on both systems...

[Dark Soul]

Xbox and Ps2 aren't corrupted crap even though some of the games are overated. Nintendo being makes the compitition for the best system intense. People also have more of a choice of what to buy. Should I get an Xbox 360, PS3, Revolution, or all three. Right now Nintendo has to step it up in order to stay close to Microsoft and Sony.

[Bird Boy]

Flaming Dragon and Mr. E: I've deleted your little fight in this thread. It's not the place for it, it's off topic and if either of you start it up again, you will both be warned and this thread closed.

If either feel the need to still bicker, take it to PM.

-BB

[Dark Soul]

Sorry it got out of hand

[LordByronius]

Speaking of cross platform, the next Resident Evil title will be for Playstation 2 and Xbox, but not Gamecube. So now Nintendo has lost Capcom in full and not just in exclusivity. What on earth did they do to deserve the cold shoulder?
You mean PS3 and Xbox 360.

.... eh. The DS is getting a warmed-over Resident Evil remake; but a Resident Evil remake is better than no Resident Evil at all. And I might be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure that's 1 more Resident Evil game than the PSP has.

[Noukon]

Which is why people do it. There is simply more money in casting out the widest net you can. As much of a flop as Prince of Persia was, the sales of all 3 versions together saved it from being a DISASTER and it now is up to its third 3D installment. Now imagine if it was only for the PS2, or worse, the Gamecube. Would've been the end for sure.
As I said, I agree with this point.

You would be surprised. I think Madden 06 is doing a good job fooling people into buying the same exact game twice with its TV campaign, only with much much nicer graphics and presentation. The cool thing is, Madden 06 on the 360 is actually ten times better looking than the PC version (why the PC version couldn't have stepped up to match it, I don't know).
At this point, you're talking more about hardware hype, which was what I was touching on to begin with. The game title itself isn't selling the console, the console itself is, with Madden being a means of demonstration.

Also, a lot of people will buy a 360 for the same reason they bought an Xbox. It's a standardized PC. They don't have to shell out upwards of $1000 to play the latest spec-murdering PC games. With PC gaming, their PC has to be optomized for the game. With the 360, the GAME is optomized for the SYSTEM. I think, for example, the 360 version of UT2K7 will be much more popular than the PC version, because UT is all about speed and intensity and the leap in graphics this time around is massive and will require BEASTLY PCs to come close to 60+fps, whereas the 360 will have it locked for certain. Spare the controller vs key/mouse argument for another thread. I think this will be a big factor in winning over hardcore gamers in addition to the mainstream Halonauts.
You're going off on a tangent. I never once even started debating whether or not the 360 would sell well. The debate was about Nintendo's products, and Artimus attempted to use the 360's launch software as a comparison. At this point, you're just throwing around all kinds of "Xbox 360 is great!" junk that doesn't even belong in the discussion. This is exactly what my "Microsoft fanboy" comment was referring to.

But see, that's one reason why the Gamecube is in last place. Because only one company makes great games for it, and no matter how many games they make, it'll never be enough to make up for the loss of third party developers that would rather produce for another system. Nintendo losing their exclusivity with Factor 5, Silicon Knights, Namco, Capcom.. Nintendo definitely makes money off of the Gamecube, but not as much as they could've made if they secured more companies and more franchises.
There are several fallacies interwoven here. First off, the GameCube isn't far behind the Xbox in the world market. Second, this thread is discussing things in Nintendo's terms; third parties don't even factor in there. Software sales drive their revenue, and they have that. Third, you're trying to use Nintendo's loss of exclusivity as a reason why the GameCube has lost a lot of ground, when the exact reverse is true; the GameCube was not the phenomenal success it could have been, so developers pulled their support.

As for how Nintendo's hardware factors into this, the Revolution's archetecture is the same as the Gamecube's, but that's not going to please any NEW developers, and Nintendo has LOST Gamecube developers. At E3 Nintendo was not even confident they could get many developers to sign on. Maybe the outcome will be different after the TGS, but you may once again be faced with a system whose titles are primarily Nintendo's.
Frankly, I expect that, at first, the Revolution will see very little external support. From what I've seen, though, which is far more than the general public, I'll be surprised if third-party support doesn't ramp up over the first couple years of the console's life cycle.

Also in reference to the original poster, Nintendo is not keeping it simple because they're trying to "revolutionize" the controller which could mean that games for the Revolution will be unable to be ported to other systems.
The Revolution controller will be fully compatible with traditional control schemes. This is official information; Iwata stated such in a recent EGM interview.

I don't remember people saying the Gamecube was an easy programming platform either, so Nintendo would have to come up with easier tools for the small-scale companies or do what Sony is doing and adopt Linux.
The GameCube is very easy to develop for. That's actually one of the reasons it saw so much more support than the N64 did.

If it does go to other platforms I suppose it wouldn't be a surprise but depending on its release date it could still be exclusive for a while.
You will not see a next-gen Sonic game until late 2006.

These are exclusive to the 360 and in my opinion are games that would sell systems:
- Gears of War
- Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter
- Quake 4
- Call of Duty 2
- Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
- Dead or Alive 4
- Project Gotham Racing 3
- Halo 3 (3Q2006)
Ghost Recon will see release on PC and PS2. Quake 4 will be on PC. Call of Duty 2 will be released on all three current-gen consoles and the PC. Halo 3 doesn't really enter the equation until it's officially announced.

These are also exclusive to the 360 and may not sell systems but are also big-name titles:
- Perfect Dark 0
- Kameo
- Jade Empire 2
- Prey (2006?)
Frankly, I think Perfect Dark 0 is the biggest "killer app" the 360 has going for it at this point.

And these are new franchises exclusive to the 360. They could explode like Halo did or they might fizzle. Who knows?
- Frame City Killers
- Full Auto
- Wardevil
- eNCHANT arM
- Dead Rising (release TBA)
- The Outfit (1Q2006)
- Saint's Row (2006?)
- Too Human (2006?)
- The Darkness (2006?)
Lots of question marks in there...

The real question is, what would you want to see? I mean we're at the launch of a system and most system launches NEVER have killer apps. Most "killer apps" go into development for the second generation of titles.
I will remind you, once again, that the original argument Artimus made was based upon major, exclusive titles being released at launch. I'm still failing to understand why the raving, off-topic, pro-360 arguments are necessary when they're rebutting things I never said, nor even implied.

Keep in mind that I'm humoring you because really we've left the age of the killer app a long time ago.
Yes, that's nice and condescending, given your completely off-topic diatribe. I'll note that bringing in "killer apps" wasn't my idea to begin with.

Which is why I really have nothing to contribute to the original post.How would we know if the "gameboy route" is successful?
Look back at your own statement. "Nothing to contribute." You're throwing these rantings about the 360 around when they're neither necessary nor appropriate, and you're backing them up with a mishmash of very obvious facts (that I'm perfectly aware of) and fabricated claims that make you come off as a colorblind person trying to describe the Land of Oz.

My turn to humor you: Yes, there is a difference between a next-gen version of a game and its current-gen counterpart(s). Yes, there is a difference between a next-gen version of a game and its PC counterparts.

The term "exclusivity," however, is a concrete one, and a concrete term cannot be slapped onto a rich spectrum of marketing philosophies, industry stigma, and consumer knowledgeability/opinion.

I am not in this thread trying to build up a company whose work I enjoy to proportions beyond itself; as a matter of fact, I could go on an extensive diatribe on the horrible mistakes they've been making over the past two generations. I am in this thread attempting to turn bizarre, misinformed (or, perhaps, simply reasonless) opinions around. See below:

Do you really actually think that Nintendo will survive on Mario alone.
Nintendo is, in fact, more profitable then either of its primary competitors, and all of those Mario spin-offs that everyone loves to decry are the primary reason.

Speaking of cross platform, the next Resident Evil title will be for Playstation 2 and Xbox, but not Gamecube. So now Nintendo has lost Capcom in full and not just in exclusivity. What on earth did they do to deserve the cold shoulder?
Once again, you're turning a rich tapestry of color into simple blacks and whites. So, they have announced one title for the competition, but not for the GameCube. Why does this mean that Capcom has fully and completely pulled support for Nintendo? That conclusion is absolutely moronic.

Sony and Microsoft have their 2nd and 3rd party developers do the innovation. It's just a different way of doing things to get the same end result.
Think about this: Nintendo has fallen into a position where their 2nd and 3rd party support is evaporating. They can sustain a profitable enterprise simply with their development teams. If Sony were to "pull an N64" (which, by all rights, they might be doing with the PS3), what are they left with?

[Artimus Gigan]

Think about this: Nintendo has fallen into a position where their 2nd and 3rd party support is evaporating. They can sustain a profitable enterprise simply with their development teams. If Sony were to "pull an N64" (which, by all rights, they might be doing with the PS3), what are they left with?
That's incredibly unlikely, they've sofar kept all the developers on for the PS3 and have ample support for the PSP. Also Playstation isn't a small userbase either, it's a recognised brand name. So I don't think that developers would shy away from it or Sony itself would deter them.

The only thing about the PS3 that they need to work out is the Price point and/or what features are they going to keep or leave on the cutting room floor. Heck they must just releases two versions of the PS3 just like the X-Box. But the system core itself is stable and will be able to play the next gen games.

[Noukon]

That's incredibly unlikely, they've sofar kept all the developers on for the PS3 and have ample support for the PSP. Also Playstation isn't a small userbase either, it's a recognised brand name. So I don't think that developers would shy away from it or Sony itself would deter them.
Nintendo had very strong developer support with the SNES. Then, they took a very arrogant, invasive stance with the N64, requiring a whole hell of a lot from developers and expecting consumers to buy into it just for the brand name (which, back then, was almost as well-regarded then as the PlayStation brand is now). Support evaporated as the N64 was released. Sony's stance right now is eerily similar.

I'm not saying it will happen, it's just a lot more likely than you seem to think.

[Mr.E]

Nintendo had very strong developer support with the SNES. Then, they took a very arrogant, invasive stance with the N64, requiring a whole hell of a lot from developers and expecting consumers to buy into it just for the brand name (which, back then, was almost as well-regarded then as the PlayStation brand is now). Support evaporated as the N64 was released. Sony's stance right now is eerily similar.

I'm not saying it will happen, it's just a lot more likely than you seem to think.

I don't understand, how is the situation simular ?

[Mr.E]

No. It's not. What they need is people to stop talking about how much they need to do and support them. They can keep making first-party titles based off of current franchises (Oh, yeah, there happens to be quite a few, not just Mario) and they say Miyamoto is working on a new one so they can keep beating the snot out off everyone quality-wise. People just need to shut up and be thankful that Nintendo is still around. Without Nintendo, the market will be doomed to be a giant toilet of corrupted crap. Nintendo keeps pushing the bar. Sony and Microsoft can't innovate enough to keep something fresh and new on the market.
Thats so true, Sony and Mircosoft can't keep up with nintendo at all with innovation. Nintendo cares about only about one thing, games, while the others take the easier route, features. Nobody whould be buying the PSP at all if it didn't have those features, there games are the same crappy ones on the PS2 ,REAL creative Sony......

[Noukon]

I don't understand, how is the situation simular ?
Take a look at Sony's posturing in regards to the PS3 in terms of possible price point and how lenient they're being to developers. It's the same "Nobody can touch us" attitude. Whether it hurts them or not remains to be seen, however; this is not the same industry it was ten years ago.

[Mr.E]

Take a look at Sony's posturing in regards to the PS3 in terms of possible price point and how lenient they're being to developers. It's the same "Nobody can touch us" attitude. Whether it hurts them or not remains to be seen, however; this is not the same industry it was ten years ago.
Ahh I see, it was the same attitude that cost Nintendo there position in the game industry. Even though that same attitude is still somewhat present at Nintendo today , they realize now that there is competition and they have been stepping up recently, Reggie Fils-Aime is a good sign that nintendo is indeed losing there arrogance.

[Zach]

Nintendo is going to have to dig themselves out of this huge hole they have gotten themselves into.

[Sketch]

As time has told... Nintendo can't seem to do that.

[Noukon]

Ahh I see, it was the same attitude that cost Nintendo there position in the game industry. Even though that same attitude is still somewhat present at Nintendo today , they realize now that there is competition and they have been stepping up recently, Reggie Fils-Aime is a good sign that nintendo is indeed losing there arrogance.
Not quite. Nintendo was pretty much rock-humbled by the N64, and they've become very meek. From one standpoint, it's a good thing; I respect them a lot more as a corporation now than I did ten years ago; but it makes them weaker in the marketplace. If Yamauchi was a wolf, Iwata is a shy little cat.

Nintendo is going to have to dig themselves out of this huge hole they have gotten themselves into.
It's not a hole, it's a profitable niche.

This is what kind of annoys me about these threads. We have an epic, multi-page debate over someone's complete misenterpretation of what's going on in the market right now, and then someone blatantly posts the exact same fallacy.

[Artimus Gigan]

Take a look at Sony's posturing in regards to the PS3 in terms of possible price point and how lenient they're being to developers. It's the same "Nobody can touch us" attitude. Whether it hurts them or not remains to be seen, however; this is not the same industry it was ten years ago.That's not emntirely true

Hardware-wise it may end up being the most powerful of the three(which was more of what it was refering to). I mean the PS3 is coming out after the X-Box so they have to bolster the hardware advantages to make it appealing to the customers.

However Nintendo had a strong 1st and 2nd party support for NES,SNES, and N64. Sony never had a strong 1st party support. They more or less relied on 2nd and 3rd parties since day 1. Not to mention every single big game on the Playstations have been 2nd or 3rd party games...none have been 1st party.

[Noukon]

That's not emntirely true

Hardware-wise it may end up being the most powerful of the three(which was more of what it was refering to). I mean the PS3 is coming out after the X-Box so they have to bolster the hardware advantages to make it appealing to the customers.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

However Nintendo had a strong 1st and 2nd party support for NES,SNES, and N64. Sony never had a strong 1st party support. They more or less relied on 2nd and 3rd parties since day 1. Not to mention every single big game on the Playstations have been 2nd or 3rd party games...none have been 1st party.
...And that is exactly what I said earlier (to demonstrate that, if put in the same position that Nintendo was with the N64, they wouldn't be able to deal with it as well).

Could you please actually read and consider a statement before arguing with it? Your posts don't tend to have any contextual purpose.

[Artimus Gigan]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.


...And that is exactly what I said earlier (to demonstrate that, if put in the same position that Nintendo was with the N64, they wouldn't be able to deal with it as well).

Could you please actually read and consider a statement before arguing with it? Your posts don't tend to have any contextual purpose.You're claiming that sony is acting arrogant and you linked it to how Nintendo fell from acting like that. Nintendo did that due to the software, sony is doing it to show off their hardware.

Sony is going to be the second horse out of the gate so their PR department has to talk a good game to garner support or to sway the people who may just want to buy one console instead of two or three.

It's two entirely different situations, sony already has the support that will give the PS3 top quality games. They're not icing out developers like Nintendo did.

[Mr.E]

Not quite. Nintendo was pretty much rock-humbled by the N64, and they've become very meek. From one standpoint, it's a good thing; I respect them a lot more as a corporation now than I did ten years ago; but it makes them weaker in the marketplace. If Yamauchi was a wolf, Iwata is a shy little cat.It seems like arrogance to me, Yamauchi stressed so many strict standards and ignored entirely what the competition was doing and gave the developers hell, thats why there in the shape there in today. Iwata realizes that Nintendo can't funcution like this, if they do, then it whould ultimately be there demise.

[Noukon]

You're claiming that sony is acting arrogant and you linked it to how Nintendo fell from acting like that. Nintendo did that due to the software, sony is doing it to show off their hardware.

Sony is going to be the second horse out of the gate so their PR department has to talk a good game to garner support or to sway the people who may just want to buy one console instead of two or three.

It's two entirely different situations, sony already has the support that will give the PS3 top quality games. They're not icing out developers like Nintendo did.
I said their stance was reminiscent; it isn't exactly the same.

[Mr.E]

I guess should post this here....

http://cube.ign.com/articles/649/649292p1.html


It seems very hopeful.