Viewing Thread:
"A thought about the price drop of Gamecube"

So the games at £40 with a console at £129.

And you're happy paying almost a 3rd of the console cost for each game?
Hmmmm.
That's the equivalent of paying £65 per PS2/Xbox game.

Good on Nintendo for dropping the price. Before it's even launched.
That shows confidence in a product.
Hell, the GBA is more than half the price of a Gamecube.

It's odd though, the Xbox drops it's price and red-faced Ninty's start peeing in their nappies about how that means the Xbox is failing, despite decent sales figures at full price.

But when Nintendo announce they're dropping the price, before it's even launched, that suddenly means that Nintendo aren't worried.
No, that means Microsoft are even more scared?

I'm saying neither, just saying be consistent you big simple 'tards.
hur hur

Goatboy wrote:
> This is my point, try and pay attention.
>
> Microsoft does it, and you leap about fouling your diaper.
>
> Nintendo does EXACTLY THE SAME yet this is a good thing?
>
> Explain.
> In words of more than one syllable.

This could be because the X-Box is microsoft's first attempt at a console, and has yet to get a reputation like nintendo and sony. Allot of people aren't willing to invest in a console which has yet to prove it can survive on a market against stiff competition from the PS2 and GC.

Its the only way I can explain it really.

I see your point.
But what is Nintendo's rep?
It's never really cracked the next-gen console market has it?

Sure,the Master System and Super Nintendo were ok.
But the N64?
I got one at launch for £250, only to see the price drop 5 weeks later (sounding familiar?).
You needed to buy a Rumblepack as an extra, whereas Sony managed to get the controllers with it built in after a while.
You had to buy expansion packs for the graphics?
And then the games dried up, which is just as well seeing as they sold for £50-£60 a pop.

Nintendo were good at little consoles, but they got ownder by the Playstation and Dreamcast.

Goatboy wrote:
> Sure,the Master System and Super Nintendo were ok.
> But the N64?
> I got one at launch for £250, only to see the price drop 5 weeks
> later (sounding familiar?).
> You needed to buy a Rumblepack as an extra, whereas Sony managed to
> get the controllers with it built in after a while.
> You had to buy expansion packs for the graphics?
> And then the games dried up, which is just as well seeing as they sold
> for £50-£60 a pop.

Well, firstly the Master System was Sega.
Despite the Playstation being more successful, the N64 still had the better games like Zelda, GoldenEye, Mario64, Waverace, 1080, F-Zero, Perfect Dark etc---it was never a flop.
You didn't NEED an expansion pack, only to give some extra power so that great games like Perfect Dark & DK64 could show off their true potential.
The rumble feature was pioneered by Nintendo (i think?), though Sony did utilise it better in the PSOne controller.
Not all the games were that expensive, only the selected few (though Turok was £70!!!)

The N64 was a lot more successful than the Dreamcast. And i think they will crack the next-gen market even further with the Gamecube.

since when did the GC's price drop to £130? have i missed something here?
slik ~_~

It's cheaper, I'll save some money.

I would have bought it at £200 as it's the only console that appears to be delivering the types of games I like to play.

Yep Goatboy, big bright retard games, for retards. ;-p

Meka Dragon wrote:

> Yep Goatboy, big bright retard games, for retards. ;-p

--

Y'see, that's all I'm saying.

Totoro wrote:
Well, firstly the Master System was Sega.
> Despite the Playstation being more successful, the N64 still had the
> better games like Zelda, GoldenEye, Mario64, Waverace, 1080, F-Zero,
> Perfect Dark etc---it was never a flop.

This is a personal opinion though, I played those and they stank like ass, but only because I didn't like them.

> You didn't NEED an expansion pack, only to give some extra power so
> that great games like Perfect Dark & DK64 could show off their
> true potential.

But surely with a console costing £250, you'd expect them to be able to use all this power? Instead of requiring another little cost to shiny them graphics up?

> The rumble feature was pioneered by Nintendo (i think?), though Sony
> did utilise it better in the PSOne controller.
> Not all the games were that expensive, only the selected few (though
> Turok was £70!!!)

No, all N64 started at £40 and ranged up to £70.
I never ever found one less than £40 in the year I had my N64.

Goatboy wrote:
> I see your point.
> But what is Nintendo's rep?
> It's never really cracked the next-gen console market has it?
>
> Sure,the Master System and Super Nintendo were ok.
> But the N64?
> I got one at launch for £250, only to see the price drop 5 weeks
> later (sounding familiar?).
> You needed to buy a Rumblepack as an extra, whereas Sony managed to
> get the controllers with it built in after a while.
> You had to buy expansion packs for the graphics?
> And then the games dried up, which is just as well seeing as they sold
> for £50-£60 a pop.
>
> Nintendo were good at little consoles, but they got ownder by the
> Playstation and Dreamcast.

I think the N64 was an attempt by nintendo to do something different, but it was perhaps doomed to fail with competition from the origanal Playstation. The N64 had a large amount of problems against the PSOne, the games were very expensive costing over £50 sometimes, and like you said goatboy, N64 owners had to upgrade the graphics and joypad rumble feature, when sony had them built in.

The market is different now, and I think nintendo have learned from their past mistakes with the gamecube. The console already looks like it'll give sony and microsoft a run for their money. Although I suppose we'll have to wait and see whether or not the GC will dominate the console market, its something that looks uncertain for all consoles.

Goatboy wrote:
>
> You didn't NEED an expansion pack, only to give some extra power so
> that great games like Perfect Dark & DK64 could show off their
> true potential.
>
> But surely with a console costing £250, you'd expect them to be
> able to use all this power? Instead of requiring another little cost
> to shiny them graphics up?

But the expansion pack came out quite late in the N64's life when the console was a lot cheeper, and the developers needed the increased power of the ram pack to fully beef up their games (they had to move the goalpots for what the N64 could achieve but in doing so had to release new hardware--but isn't that similar to a pc anyway??)). I certainly didn't mind getting it, though i got mine FREE with Donkey Kong 64, though the game was slightly more expensive to include the price of the ram pack, it provided me with more hours of entertainment than any of my PS2 games have done so far.

Goatboy wrote:
> Meka Dragon wrote:
>
> Yep Goatboy, big bright retard games, for retards. ;-p
>
> --
>
> Y'see, that's all I'm saying.

Shouldn't your tagline be
"space for rant"

??

;-p