The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
For the first time in years, there are more than two serious consoles hitting the market. Even more amazingly, two of these consoles are launching head-to-head, and the other is extremely well established... both with brand name and games.
So, not only has Nintendo got to compete with Sony (again!), but this time Microsoft have joined the scene. Add to that, the PS2 has had two Christmases worth of sales, and a huge repetoire of games, and the Xbox has a huge marketting budget (and a strong launch to go).
Clearly, Nintendo cannot compete with Microsoft on the TV screens- they simply don't ahve the money for that.
Oh no... Ninty have a far greater weapon at their disposly- games. And lots of them. With characters and franchises ranging from Mario and Zelda to Metroid and Kirby you wouldn't be suprised if Nintendo launched the Gamecube with the best line up of AAA titles seen...
In fact, I thought Nintendo had gone one better when they announced, a while back, that they had given the rights to many of their games away. Metroid, Smash Brothers and Starfox, amongst others, were to have sequals made by developers outside Nintendo. This would then enable Nintendo to concentrate on making some of the most spectacular games ever. Maybe a new Zelda for launch? Maybe something totally new!
But alas, things seem to be crumbling. First we hear news of Ninty's in house games. It turns out that Mario and Zelda will be absent from launch, to be replaced by a couple of weaker games. Ok, so the in house games are good fun, no doubt, BUT will these attract gamers to buy the Gamcube. Methinks not.
Nor will the news of a new Zelda wet gamers appetites- 90% of gamers are the casual sort who will buy a console on brandname alone, and don't read multiformat mags. How are Nintendo going to get these gamers to part with their PS2s, and buy a console that looks like a kids toy? (Sorry, but the console doesn't look "serious".)
OH! And things get worse!...
Those franchised games Ninty have given out aren't all they were promised to be.
At Spaceworld, there was a big absence of Metroid clips- only 8 seconds of the game were shown. Asked why this was, Mr. Miyamoto had to admit that he'd only got the code for the game just before the show, and he wasn't impressed by what he saw. The game had bad pop-up, no sound, was not interactive, and certainly wasn't worth the months of work that had been spent on it. (I believe the game was 8 months into developent at this time!). In fact, the whole future of the game looked on a knife edge.
The other games Ninty had handed out were all good, but many were so far from ready that you wonder why Nintendo didn't just make one of these games themselves to get it out at launch.
Before Nintendo fans throw a riot, let me just saya few things:
1) I am only talking about launch titles
2) I'm a huge Miyamoto fan and will be buying a GC myself
3) This topic is MEANT to cause discussion.
Oh, and remember, all the titles that miss release will come out eventually. So those Zeldas and Marios will certainly mean the console is a great piece of kit. That;s not what I'm arguing about.
I just want to know where all of Ninty's time has gone? They've given away many of their big games, has ages to make a killer titles, and instead they come out with Pikmin... fun, but not AAA by any means.
Sonic
So, not only has Nintendo got to compete with Sony (again!), but this time Microsoft have joined the scene. Add to that, the PS2 has had two Christmases worth of sales, and a huge repetoire of games, and the Xbox has a huge marketting budget (and a strong launch to go).
Clearly, Nintendo cannot compete with Microsoft on the TV screens- they simply don't ahve the money for that.
Oh no... Ninty have a far greater weapon at their disposly- games. And lots of them. With characters and franchises ranging from Mario and Zelda to Metroid and Kirby you wouldn't be suprised if Nintendo launched the Gamecube with the best line up of AAA titles seen...
In fact, I thought Nintendo had gone one better when they announced, a while back, that they had given the rights to many of their games away. Metroid, Smash Brothers and Starfox, amongst others, were to have sequals made by developers outside Nintendo. This would then enable Nintendo to concentrate on making some of the most spectacular games ever. Maybe a new Zelda for launch? Maybe something totally new!
But alas, things seem to be crumbling. First we hear news of Ninty's in house games. It turns out that Mario and Zelda will be absent from launch, to be replaced by a couple of weaker games. Ok, so the in house games are good fun, no doubt, BUT will these attract gamers to buy the Gamcube. Methinks not.
Nor will the news of a new Zelda wet gamers appetites- 90% of gamers are the casual sort who will buy a console on brandname alone, and don't read multiformat mags. How are Nintendo going to get these gamers to part with their PS2s, and buy a console that looks like a kids toy? (Sorry, but the console doesn't look "serious".)
OH! And things get worse!...
Those franchised games Ninty have given out aren't all they were promised to be.
At Spaceworld, there was a big absence of Metroid clips- only 8 seconds of the game were shown. Asked why this was, Mr. Miyamoto had to admit that he'd only got the code for the game just before the show, and he wasn't impressed by what he saw. The game had bad pop-up, no sound, was not interactive, and certainly wasn't worth the months of work that had been spent on it. (I believe the game was 8 months into developent at this time!). In fact, the whole future of the game looked on a knife edge.
The other games Ninty had handed out were all good, but many were so far from ready that you wonder why Nintendo didn't just make one of these games themselves to get it out at launch.
Before Nintendo fans throw a riot, let me just saya few things:
1) I am only talking about launch titles
2) I'm a huge Miyamoto fan and will be buying a GC myself
3) This topic is MEANT to cause discussion.
Oh, and remember, all the titles that miss release will come out eventually. So those Zeldas and Marios will certainly mean the console is a great piece of kit. That;s not what I'm arguing about.
I just want to know where all of Ninty's time has gone? They've given away many of their big games, has ages to make a killer titles, and instead they come out with Pikmin... fun, but not AAA by any means.
Sonic
Page:
By GOD, I think turbonutter's right...
Anyway, if Son and Microsoft did start to decline in the console market then it could be possible that they leave the market all together as they have so many other things they could be doing. whereas Nintendo ONLY do gaming, so all thier efforts will be towards their consoles.
Anyway, if Son and Microsoft did start to decline in the console market then it could be possible that they leave the market all together as they have so many other things they could be doing. whereas Nintendo ONLY do gaming, so all thier efforts will be towards their consoles.
Strafex wrote:
> I think that Nintendo are the least vunerable financially.
Firstly, while MS
> and Sony are pouring countless billions into selling the machine, Nintendo are
> putting in the bare minimum, leaving advertising until it's absolutely
> neccessary.
Also, it seems that the hardware itself is being sold at a lesser
> loss than the competiting machines.
And Nintendo get all the revenues for
> games using it's Optical Disks and Cartriges while DVD makers take a share from
> Sony and Microsoft's games.
What's more, GBA games (which cost pennies to
> make compared to the big 3D games on consoles) are being sold for nearly as much
> as these heavy 3D games.
Nintendo are clearly making VERY big profits
> there.
And while Nintendo won't sell as many Gamecubes as Sony will
> Playstations, Nintendo doesn't need to and will still probably make a bigger
> profit.
Nintendo make a fortune from their own games (almost every single
> Gamecube owner will be buying Mario and Zelda), and haven't spent countless
> billions on advertising that they need to make back in order to make a
> profit.
Nintendo are the safest because they're not relying on their console
> to be the biggest hit in history, which is what both Microsoft and Sony need to
> achieve if they're going to make a real profit.
There's more to profit than
> simply selling in large quantities.
Starfex, may I remind you that Mircosoft are the most successful company in history? May I also remind you that Sony make and are market leaders in the field of: TVs, VCRs, CD players, Hi Fi seperates, DVD players, Minidisc players, and professional film equipment?
Seriously now, who do you think is the LEAST vunerable between Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo?
> I think that Nintendo are the least vunerable financially.
Firstly, while MS
> and Sony are pouring countless billions into selling the machine, Nintendo are
> putting in the bare minimum, leaving advertising until it's absolutely
> neccessary.
Also, it seems that the hardware itself is being sold at a lesser
> loss than the competiting machines.
And Nintendo get all the revenues for
> games using it's Optical Disks and Cartriges while DVD makers take a share from
> Sony and Microsoft's games.
What's more, GBA games (which cost pennies to
> make compared to the big 3D games on consoles) are being sold for nearly as much
> as these heavy 3D games.
Nintendo are clearly making VERY big profits
> there.
And while Nintendo won't sell as many Gamecubes as Sony will
> Playstations, Nintendo doesn't need to and will still probably make a bigger
> profit.
Nintendo make a fortune from their own games (almost every single
> Gamecube owner will be buying Mario and Zelda), and haven't spent countless
> billions on advertising that they need to make back in order to make a
> profit.
Nintendo are the safest because they're not relying on their console
> to be the biggest hit in history, which is what both Microsoft and Sony need to
> achieve if they're going to make a real profit.
There's more to profit than
> simply selling in large quantities.
Starfex, may I remind you that Mircosoft are the most successful company in history? May I also remind you that Sony make and are market leaders in the field of: TVs, VCRs, CD players, Hi Fi seperates, DVD players, Minidisc players, and professional film equipment?
Seriously now, who do you think is the LEAST vunerable between Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo?
Strafex wrote:
> I think that Nintendo are the least vunerable financially.
Firstly, while MS
> and Sony are pouring countless billions into selling the machine, Nintendo are
> putting in the bare minimum, leaving advertising until it's absolutely
> neccessary.
Also, it seems that the hardware itself is being sold at a lesser
> loss than the competiting machines.
And Nintendo get all the revenues for
> games using it's Optical Disks and Cartriges while DVD makers take a share from
> Sony and Microsoft's games.
What's more, GBA games (which cost pennies to
> make compared to the big 3D games on consoles) are being sold for nearly as much
> as these heavy 3D games.
Nintendo are clearly making VERY big profits
> there.
And while Nintendo won't sell as many Gamecubes as Sony will
> Playstations, Nintendo doesn't need to and will still probably make a bigger
> profit.
Nintendo make a fortune from their own games (almost every single
> Gamecube owner will be buying Mario and Zelda), and haven't spent countless
> billions on advertising that they need to make back in order to make a
> profit.
Nintendo are the safest because they're not relying on their console
> to be the biggest hit in history, which is what both Microsoft and Sony need to
> achieve if they're going to make a real profit.
There's more to profit than
> simply selling in large quantities.
Starfex, may I remind you that Mircosoft are the most successful company in history? May I also remind you that Sony make and are market leaders in the field of: TVs, VCRs, CD players, Hi Fi seperates, DVD players, Minidisc players, and professional film equipment?
Seriously now, who do you think is the LEAST vunerable
> I think that Nintendo are the least vunerable financially.
Firstly, while MS
> and Sony are pouring countless billions into selling the machine, Nintendo are
> putting in the bare minimum, leaving advertising until it's absolutely
> neccessary.
Also, it seems that the hardware itself is being sold at a lesser
> loss than the competiting machines.
And Nintendo get all the revenues for
> games using it's Optical Disks and Cartriges while DVD makers take a share from
> Sony and Microsoft's games.
What's more, GBA games (which cost pennies to
> make compared to the big 3D games on consoles) are being sold for nearly as much
> as these heavy 3D games.
Nintendo are clearly making VERY big profits
> there.
And while Nintendo won't sell as many Gamecubes as Sony will
> Playstations, Nintendo doesn't need to and will still probably make a bigger
> profit.
Nintendo make a fortune from their own games (almost every single
> Gamecube owner will be buying Mario and Zelda), and haven't spent countless
> billions on advertising that they need to make back in order to make a
> profit.
Nintendo are the safest because they're not relying on their console
> to be the biggest hit in history, which is what both Microsoft and Sony need to
> achieve if they're going to make a real profit.
There's more to profit than
> simply selling in large quantities.
Starfex, may I remind you that Mircosoft are the most successful company in history? May I also remind you that Sony make and are market leaders in the field of: TVs, VCRs, CD players, Hi Fi seperates, DVD players, Minidisc players, and professional film equipment?
Seriously now, who do you think is the LEAST vunerable
Soul Calibur 2 looks really good. And guess how good it looks. Apparently the Gamecube version will look the best of the consoles.
As for Madden on XBOX, GC and PS2, Madden on GC comes out top too.
As for Madden on XBOX, GC and PS2, Madden on GC comes out top too.
Soul Calibur 2 looks promising...
oh, Tekken GBA... well in that case Smash Bros. will definintely be better!
Sorry i should of said Nintendo have Tekken, GBA! GC was virtually definate at one point... whatever happened?
GC has Tekken? I thought that was unconfirmed rumour... Oh well, but Smash Bros. is better...
;-)
;-)
Strafex You have successfully said what i've been trying to say for a while to Sonic at least (although not as successful as you).
If Sony are precieved as adult and cool then as the Gamecube has basically the same titles like SSX, Tony Hawks, Resident Evil, Eternal Darkness, Simpsons road rage, Tekken, Soul Calibur etc... then why are Nintendo still not cool. Seems to me as if they have the big Sony names combined with the big Nintendo ones which may prove to be a winning combination.
If Sony are precieved as adult and cool then as the Gamecube has basically the same titles like SSX, Tony Hawks, Resident Evil, Eternal Darkness, Simpsons road rage, Tekken, Soul Calibur etc... then why are Nintendo still not cool. Seems to me as if they have the big Sony names combined with the big Nintendo ones which may prove to be a winning combination.
The N64 looked cute with Mario being the only launch game.
Will the Gamecube look as cute with Rogue Leader and the likes of Fifa and Tony Hawks on the shelves?
I don't think that the Gamecube will be percieved as cute in the same way that the N64 was.
And with Nintendo making smaller deficiets from selling the console (far less money spent on promotion and I doubt that they're making half the losses when selling the Gamecube compared to what Microsoft and Sony lose on their machines).
Even if the Gamecube only sells half of what the PS2 sells, the profit won't be THAT much less.
Will the Gamecube look as cute with Rogue Leader and the likes of Fifa and Tony Hawks on the shelves?
I don't think that the Gamecube will be percieved as cute in the same way that the N64 was.
And with Nintendo making smaller deficiets from selling the console (far less money spent on promotion and I doubt that they're making half the losses when selling the Gamecube compared to what Microsoft and Sony lose on their machines).
Even if the Gamecube only sells half of what the PS2 sells, the profit won't be THAT much less.
Page: