Support NeoGAF

[VanMardigan]

The GameCube was a PS2 with Better graphics and Nintendo franchises.

and far fewer mainstream hit games. Which isn't a problem for the Wii, where EVERY game seems to be built for mainstream appeal.

 

[quetz67]

To be fair, NOBODY can. Even the XBOX came in with online play as the differentiating factor from the PS2. The GameCube was a PS2 with Better graphics and Nintendo franchises.

Nintendo could have offered free online service on GC to differentiate them. I think it was due to arrogance and not trying harder that they did worse than MS. And MS proved even moneypits may result in sales or better brand name recognition.

 

[Shiggy]

Online gaming isn't what makes a console successful, so that wouldn't have made a difference.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Nintendo could have offered free online service on GC to differentiate them. I think it was due to arrogance and not trying harder that they did worse than MS. And MS proved even moneypits may result in sales or better brand name recognition.

Those were at significant costs, though, and would have probably meant the end for Nintendo.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Nintendo could have offered free online service on GC to differentiate them. I think it was due to arrogance and not trying harder that they did worse than MS. And MS proved even moneypits may result in sales or better brand name recognition.

What would that have proven? Microsoft barely eked out another 1-2 million over GameCube with online as the crux of their platform focus. Why would Nintendo go directly at Microsoft for something that they did better anyway? Not to mention that despite the success of XBOX Live, the PS2 hamstring network was even more popular. Nintendo had to differentiate further, and bean-shaped ergonomic controllers weren't doing it.

I will say again, while the timing of the DS was a direct counter to the PSP, Nintendo was planning the DS and Wii approach for years and it shows. Nintendo could have easily released a hardware beast, but it obviously wasn't doing them any good.

 

[Sharp]

Honestly, most people didn't know the Gamecube had better graphics. Even I didn't until relatively recently, largely because I didn't care. It was Xbox first, then PS2--but of course everyone knew the only game the Xbox had was Halo so it didn't matter.

Spoiler

See what I did thar?

The Gamecube filled an unneeded niche and was for the most part unloved except by the most diehard of Nintendo fans.

 

[jarrod]

Nintendo could have offered free online service on GC to differentiate them. I think it was due to arrogance and not trying harder that they did worse than MS. And MS proved even moneypits may result in sales or better brand name recognition.

Arrogance doesn't really apply to the Nintendo of the post N64 era... investing in a network platform for a niche machine like GameCube wouldn't have done anything in the end. It still would've been deemed generally inferior to Xbox anyway.

And unlike Microsoft, Nintendo can't afford "moneypits". That's the real reasoning behind their different direction and bowing out of the technology arms race.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Honestly, most people didn't know the Gamecube had better graphics. Even I didn't until relatively recently, largely because I didn't care. It was Xbox first, then PS2--but of course everyone knew the only game the Xbox had was Halo so it didn't matter.

Spoiler

See what I did thar?

The Gamecube filled an unneeded niche and was for the most part unloved except by the most diehard of Nintendo fans.

That was the inherent problem with the GameCube.

Developers didn't care about pushing the console, so the system was differentiated by the gamer: Nintendo franchise, and kid-friendly games. These generalizations tainted the system for years.

Similarly with the XBOX, it was early and often deemed a "shooter console", because that's while it specialized in.

Meanwhile, the PS2 became known as the system where you could get anything.

Flash forward to present time, the 360 is becoming known as a shooter console again, the PS3 isn't even being looked at as a gaming system primarily, and the Wii is seen as "fun". THIS is how perception affects your brand.

 

[quetz67]

Those were at significant costs, though, and would have probably meant the end for Nintendo.

Ever heard of Nintendo's warchest, which they just filled more with selling rare? Even the money they got for rare alone they could have financed a nice free online service.

 

[andthebeatgoeson]

I don't think that was the thought process.

There was a time that Nintendo thought that more complex and more hardware intensive was the way to go, but what good did it do them in the long run with the GameCube, or the N64 for that matter? Nintendo has often said that they've been watching the success of the PS2 and PS1 in the market. It wasn't the hardware they pushed that made them a success, it was the mantra that no matter what your taste, there was a game for you.

Gameplay wise, there's a story floating around about SNES era Nintendo dumbfounded at the popularity of Sonic, exclaiming that Mario was more complex, and deep. The common comment from Sonic fans was "I like this game because it isn't that complicated; you can play it with one button."

Make no mistake, the DS and Wii were conscious efforts from Nintendo to storm the gates and take their marketshare back. I think the PSP forced their hand with the DS, but had the PSP not existed, we would have seen the same product anyway. (But probably with a more sexy casing from the outset.)

Could have been SNES era but for the better part of the last 8-10 years, they have been dogging the game industry. They have been on this track for awhile and they needed the kick in the butt of losing to MS worldwide and losing most support in Japan to get the point.

 

[quetz67]

Arrogance doesn't really apply to the Nintendo of the post N64 era... investing in a network platform for a niche machine like GameCube wouldn't have done anything in the end. It still would've been deemed generally inferior to Xbox anyway.

IMO that is just wrong. You all see this looking back from the Wii era. But Nintendo didnt know about the success of the Wii. They had to handle the generation at hand and not to do whatever was needed to change perception was just ruining the brand name more in the home console sector.

The Capcom 5 were a beginning and actually there was hope for Nintendo to do better, but they just didnt take any of those chances. Eternal darkness, RE series and even that strange ghost game could have pushed the system in the direction they wanted, but they didnt really try.

The case of rising like a phoenix from the ashes and building a completely new brand recognition is like a one in a million chance.

 

[jarrod]

IMO that is just wrong. You all see this looking back from the Wii era. But Nintendo didnt know about the success of the Wii. They had to handle the generation at hand and not to do whatever was needed to change perception was just ruining the brand name more in the home console sector.

The Capcom 5 were a beginning and actually there was hope for Nintendo to do better, but they just didnt take any of those chances. Eternal darkness, RE series and even that strange ghost game could have pushed the system in the direction they wanted, but they didnt really try.

The case of rising like a phoenix from the ashes and building a completely new brand recognition is like a one in a million chance.

Er... what's the argument here? How's this show "arrogance" on Nintendo's part?

 

[chadums90]

I think the people who want Halo 3 are waiting to buy X360. It applies to me - I want a price drop and Halo 3 before I take the dive. As for the Wii, I want Mario, Zelda & MP3 before I buy it.

I really want MGS4 but...yeah...I won't pay THAT much for it.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

Er... what's the argument here? How's this show "arrogance" on Nintendo's part?

I don't think there is an argument. I think quetz is practicing his english on us, and is just being contrary to make sure he gets a response.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

So...you have a lower price point, inferior hardware (when compared to the PSP) AND you have an incredible software libary to pool from. Hmmm...where have I seen this before? Oh yeah...the PS2 vs. Everyone else last gen!

PS2 wasn't the lowest priced. Even now it's only $20 cheaper than GameCube was 5 years ago.

C'mon now. You can carry the entire GBA library around on a single SD card. No mods, no patches, plug&play, and it's been available as a single download (and updated regularly) sometime since 2002.

The fact that you need to specifically buy hardware enabling that for the GBA makes the barrier for entry much higher than PSP, where you only need the Memory Stick required for saving games anyway.

 

[quetz67]

I don't think there is an argument. I think quetz is practicing his english on us, and is just being contrary to make sure he gets a response.

Sorry, maybe it is my english. I dont connect the word arrogance automatically with negativity, I mean it rather as kind of snobbish carelessness Nintendo practices. I personally dont find it that bad, but when it comes to business decisions it may sometimes helpful to be a little more self-confident or self-contained.

However it is a totally different kind of arrogance than the one Sony practice all too often.

 

[jarrod]

Sorry, maybe it is my english. I dont connect the word arrogance automatically with negativity, I mean it rather as kind of snobbish carelessness Nintendo practices. I personally dont find it that bad, but when it comes to business decisions it may sometimes helpful to be a little more self-confident or self-contained.

No, your understanding of the word is just fine, it's your understanding of the market and Nintendo's motivations that needs work.

 

[quetz67]

No, your understanding of the word is just fine, it's your understanding of the market and Nintendo's motivations that needs work.

I dont think so, I have been following Nintendo for quite some time and years of news and statements painted that picture. When it comes to motivation I think the main one is to make money in a direct short term sense long forgotten by many other companies by producing hardware for their software and software for their hardware.

 

[jarrod]

I dont think so, I have been following Nintendo for quite some time and years of news and statements painted that picture.

Their PR excuses for online's exclusion were pretty shallow, but if you followed Nintendo at all closely, you'd know that was hardly the extent of it. It *really* just didn't make sense for them at the time financially, end of story.

When it comes to motivation I think the main one is to make money in a direct short term sense long forgotten by many other companies by producing hardware for their software and software for their hardware.

Uh... can you run that by me again?

 

[EternalGamer]

That was the inherent problem with the GameCube.

Developers didn't care about pushing the console, so the system was differentiated by the gamer: Nintendo franchise, and kid-friendly games. These generalizations tainted the system for years.

Similarly with the XBOX, it was early and often deemed a "shooter console", because that's while it specialized in.

Meanwhile, the PS2 became known as the system where you could get anything.

Flash forward to present time, the 360 is becoming known as a shooter console again, the PS3 isn't even being looked at as a gaming system primarily, and the Wii is seen as "fun". THIS is how perception affects your brand.

But you have to think about why these perceptions are formed and how they are continually re-enforced through out a given console's life cycle. It seems to me that it is primarily because the system's flagship software fits into those paradigms. This affects game development because it is easier to get financing for a project if you can point to similar projects on that platform that have succeeded. It proves that there is a market for that type of game on that particular system.

So, Halo proved there was a big market for FPSes on the Xbox. Nintendo's success with it's titles that had more a cartoonish aesthetic caused most of the 3rd parties titles that did end up being developed for it to be, likewise, cartoon-license and games of similar aesthetics.

My point is that all it takes is one or two break out hits of a particular type for 3rd developers to be given the green light to produce similar titles. This is why 1st party titles is so key: one big 1st party hit can lead to it becoming much easier for 3rd parties to find financing for similar titles.

 

[Version 3.0]

Ever heard of Nintendo's warchest, which they just filled more with selling rare? Even the money they got for rare alone they could have financed a nice free online service.

Nintendo didn't need an online service. All they needed to do was stop their public anti-online stance. PS2's online games were few and far between until the last couple of years, but they were enough to keep store clerks from telling people "it doesn't do online games". It was just a talking point for a long time--and largely still is. With the Wii, there is no online play, but people SAY there is or will be, and so it doesn't get the stigma that the Cube did.

But instead, with the Cube, Nintendo constantly bashed online and played up the GBA connectivity--and sales people repeated these horrible statements to customers. It was bad for business, period.

 

[D.Lo]

I will say again, while the timing of the DS was a direct counter to the PSP, Nintendo was planning the DS and Wii approach for years and it shows. Nintendo could have easily released a hardware beast, but it obviously wasn't doing them any good.

Yep, it's pretty self evident. Where did incredibly well thought out ideas like Nintendogs and Brain Training come from? Nintendo didn't whip up a whole new market in two months because the PSP had just turned up.

The DS was rushed out a few months early to beat the PSP, simply because they knew the pitfalls of not being out first. But it was clearly several years in the planning.

 

[quetz67]

Their PR excuses for online's exclusion were pretty shallow, but if you followed Nintendo at all closely, you'd know that was hardly the extent of it. It *really* just didn't make sense for them at the time financially, end of story.

I wasnt only talking about online, they had a general stance of "we dont compete"

Uh... can you run that by me again?

Nintendo wants to make money from day one. So they build profitable hardware to run their first party games. 3rd parties are more of an afterthought. And they dont care that much about the hardware and the software the competition produces.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Nevermind.

 

[D.Lo]

With the Wii, there is no online play, but people SAY there is or will be, and so it doesn't get the stigma that the Cube did.

Yes there is, I played it today.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

The DS was Iwata's brainchild before he ever took the reigns at Nintendo. It was no secret that Sony was going to reveal a handheld soon, so Iwata knew what he wanted to do well before the PSP was announced. It likely went through a bunch of changes before it came to fruition, but it's not like they saw "OH SHIT, PSP, QUICK MAKE A TOUCHSCREEN HANDHELD"

 

[ShockingAlberto]

With the Wii, there is no online play, but people SAY there is or will be, and so it doesn't get the stigma that the Cube did.

So

Europe and Japan are just, like, on drugs? Or what?

 

[VanMardigan]

Not to mention that despite the success of XBOX Live, the PS2 hamstring network was even more popular.

Really? Even after Halo 2?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

But you have to think about how and why these perception forms and continually re-enforced through out a given console's life cycle. It seems to me that it is primarily because the systems flagship software fits into those paradigms. This effects game development because it is easier to get financing for a project if you can point to similar projects on that platform that have succeeded. It proves that there is a market for that type of game on that particular system.

So, Halo proved there was a big market for FPSes on the Xbox. Nintendo's success with it's titles that had more a cartoonish aesthetic, caused most of the 3rd parties titles that did end up being developed for it to be likewise, cartoon-license and games of similar aesthetics.

My point is that all it takes is one or two break out hits of a particular type for 3rd developers to be given the green light to produce similar titles. This is why 1st party titles is so key: one big 1st party hit can lead to it becoming much easier for 3rd parties to find financing for similar titles.

I concur. However one must think that even development is the best avenue to take.

For instance, Microsoft knew that the 360 was going to be seen as a "shooter box" akin to the original XBOX, so attempts were made to branch out and differentiate the brand. (They didn't try nearly hard enough though...)

Similarly, when Nintendo released the Wii, they stayed as far away from "family-friendly as possible, as it only proved to earn them the "kiddy" moniker with the Cube. In press releases and marketing speak, you hear about the Wii being "fun" ad nauseum, so much so that it's stuck with the console.

Conversely, Nintendo is making efforts to reassure the quintessential hardcore gamer that they are still about their interests. The "Big 3" this holiday season is a testament to that: no sense in gaining a whole new demographic while losing another in the process.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Really? Even after Halo 2?

Yes, actually. I believe SOCOM (?) was the most active online console title last generation.

 

[D.Lo]

But you have to think about how and why these perception forms and continually re-enforced through out a given console's life cycle. It seems to me that it is primarily because the systems flagship software fits into those paradigms. This effects game development because it is easier to get financing for a project if you can point to similar projects on that platform that have succeeded. It proves that there is a market for that type of game on that particular system.

So, Halo proved there was a big market for FPSes on the Xbox. Nintendo's success with it's titles that had more a cartoonish aesthetic, caused most of the 3rd parties titles that did end up being developed for it to be likewise, cartoon-license and games of similar aesthetics.

My point is that all it takes is one or two break out hits of a particular type for 3rd developers to be given the green light to produce similar titles. This is why 1st party titles is so key: one big 1st party hit can lead to it becoming much easier for 3rd parties to find financing for similar titles.

Actually, this makes sense of Sega's behaviour last gen.

They released two ports/remakes on Gamecube - Monkey Ball and Sonic Adv 2, and both sold a million. They released a whole bunch of awesome original games on Xbox, all tanked, some horribly. They also released VF4 on the platform with the most competition in the genre, and it did ok to good sales.

So what did they do? Instead of thinking 'hey, the Gamecube audience likes our games, maybe we should try the others there', they released Billy Hatcher. And a kiddie VF spinoff. I seriously think Gamecube fans would have lapped up Orta, VF4 and JSRF, but they were never given the chance. But this paradigm theory makes sense of what the accountants were thinking (even though they were wrong IMO).

On the other hand, the other platforms got the benefit of the doubt. Without any proven audience, Xbox got Sonic and Monkey Ball.

 

[Evlar]

The DS was a reaction to the failure of GameCube, not the announcement of the PSP. Nintendo's R&D was badly damaged by the colossal failure of Virtual Boy. They lost key staff, and the general attitude throughout the company, starting at the very top, was cold toward hardware innovation. Game Boy Color, GBA and GameCube were reflections of this. While the handheld division performed well on the back of Pokemon (and the incompetence of all competitors) the Cube was a different kind of failure; a comparitively mild failure in matching expectations, but the impact on the company was as huge as Virtual Boy. Management became convinced they had to innovate again or die.

The internet community's response to the DS announcement was telling; an immediate, nearly universal shout of "Virtual Boy!" And it was a reasonable response in a way, the first time in a decade Nintendo had done anything daring. I'm sure the people inside Nintendo working on DS weren't surprised in the least by this response; they had been working under the shadow of Virtual Boy since 1995.

 

[Mithos Yggdrasill]

Twilight Princess is still hanging around. It's past 5 million WW now isn't it?

That's the first thing I noticed along with Super Paper Mario. Do we know how is the LTD of Twilight Princess ?

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Yes, actually. I believe SOCOM (?) was the most active online console title last generation.

'Twas. Just a testament to what a free online system can do for you.

 

[Version 3.0]

Yes there is, I played it today.

So

Europe and Japan are just, like, on drugs? Or what?

Er, yeah, sorry, I'm in the US, and talking US (this is an NPD thread, after all). Not just about online, but about everything--the way the Cube was perceived, marketed, etc.

 

[jarrod]

I wasnt only talking about online, they had a general stance of "we dont compete"

That's been more their motto this gen. Blue Ocean and that fluff. :lol

Nintendo wants to make money from day one. So they build profitable hardware to run their first party games. 3rd parties are more of an afterthought. And they dont care that much about the hardware and the software the competition produces.

I dunno if you could really look at Nintendo's vastly improved 3rd party relationships and software portfolio last gen as a sign of them arrogantly not giving a shit about it.

 

[quetz67]

I dunno if you could really look at Nintendo's vastly improved 3rd party relationships and software portfolio last gen as a sign of them arrogantly not giving a shit about it.

I didnt phrase it nearly that hard, but when I have a look at the Capcom 5 desaster I doubt their competence or will to handle that.

When I compare it to how MS handled Team Ninja last gen, Nintendo isnt even close when it comes to courting 3rd parties (though I think that relationship is pretty extreme)

But at least Nintendo seem to handle the pure technical part quite well.

 

[Version 3.0]

Actually, this makes sense of Sega's behaviour last gen.

They released two ports/remakes on Gamecube - Monkey Ball and Sonic Adv 2, and both sold a million. They released a whole bunch of awesome original games on Xbox, all tanked, some horribly. They also released VF4 on the platform with the most competition in the genre, and it did ok to good sales.

So what did they do? Instead of thinking 'hey, the Gamecube audience likes our games, maybe we should try the others there', they released Billy Hatcher. And a kiddie VF spinoff. I seriously think Gamecube fans would have lapped up Orta, VF4 and JSRF, but they were never given the chance. But this paradigm theory makes sense of what the accountants were thinking (even though they were wrong IMO).

On the other hand, the other platforms got the benefit of the doubt. Without any proven audience, Xbox got Sonic and Monkey Ball.

Exactly right. I hope that doesn't happen to the Wii, but it's too soon to say for sure. The market leader doesn't usually have to deal with this, but too much of what's going on is unprecendented to predict how things will work out. Because it's a Nintendo console, we might very well get stuck with second-rate copies of what Nintendo does, meaning mini-games and mascots (all the while hearing how 3rd parties can't sell their games). But if we're lucky, the Wii will have a very diverse library like the past market leaders, and reasonable success for those willing to take risks on unusual games and genres.

 

[Neomoto]

Seems like Super Paper Mario and Twilight Princess sold very well again, nice. A shame that Spiderman 3 for Wii sold that much considering it apparantly was pretty crappy. Also, good DS numbers and extremely good Xbox360 numbers.

 

[Flakster99]

The DS was a reaction to the failure of GameCube, not the announcement of the PSP. Nintendo's R&D was badly damaged by the colossal failure of Virtual Boy. They lost key staff, and the general attitude throughout the company, starting at the very top, was cold toward hardware innovation. Game Boy Color, GBA and GameCube were reflections of this. While the handheld division performed well on the back of Pokemon (and the incompetence of all competitors) the Cube was a different kind of failure; a comparitively mild failure in matching expectations, but the impact on the company was as huge as Virtual Boy. Management became convinced they had to innovate again or die.

The internet community's response to the DS announcement was telling; an immediate, nearly universal shout of "Virtual Boy!" And it was a reasonable response in a way, the first time in a decade Nintendo had done anything daring. I'm sure the people inside Nintendo working on DS weren't surprised in the least by this response; they had been working under the shadow of Virtual Boy since 1995.

Well thought out, makes a lot of sense. I haven't given much thought to how Nintendo's R&D, software, hardware and company mind share could have changed with the failures of the Virtual Boy.

It's an interesting line of thinking, that Nintendo tried something new, daring, and provocative, and in turn the outcome crashing extremely hard and very fast, and yet, they've gone back to those qualities.

You can also say that because of the failures of the VB, they learned some valuable lessons during the process. In turn, it seems to it helped Nintendo cultivate and focus their creative hardware and software minds into putting out a tighter, more entertaining product.

 

[Kurosaki Ichigo]

Software top is like...not enough at all...

Can we have platform tie ratios so we know how much software they moved in total and of course, their tie ratio? Pretty please?

 

[quetz67]

The DS was a reaction to the failure of GameCube, not the announcement of the PSP. Nintendo's R&D was badly damaged by the colossal failure of Virtual Boy. They lost key staff, and the general attitude throughout the company, starting at the very top, was cold toward hardware innovation. Game Boy Color, GBA and GameCube were reflections of this. While the handheld division performed well on the back of Pokemon (and the incompetence of all competitors) the Cube was a different kind of failure; a comparitively mild failure in matching expectations, but the impact on the company was as huge as Virtual Boy. Management became convinced they had to innovate again or die.

The internet community's response to the DS announcement was telling; an immediate, nearly universal shout of "Virtual Boy!" And it was a reasonable response in a way, the first time in a decade Nintendo had done anything daring. I'm sure the people inside Nintendo working on DS weren't surprised in the least by this response; they had been working under the shadow of Virtual Boy since 1995.

Too bad the VB and other VR desasters killed the possibility we will see Virtual Reality stuff again soon. I would choose a good VR display over a Wiimote any day.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Too bad the VB and other VR desasters killed the possibility we will see Virtual Reality stuff again soon. I would choose a good VR display over a Wiimote any day.

Ehn, VR's still completely impractical. There are far too many major issues that are lacking solutions. Things like a Wiimote seem to at least be thinking in the right direction, but I think everyone's still a bit gunshy about VR, and rightfully so.

VB had almost nothing to do with VR, though, other than piggybacking on its fame at the time via the name and "goggle" appearance.

 

[Oblivion]

If he did that he is quite stupid. The system had a very good launch in two territories and with a more aggressive price (after the PS2/xbox drops) and less arrogance (third parties, online etc.) would have easily been able to win over the xbox. Just keeping Rare (even if they werent that great any longer) could have given them some no brainer hits to fill some holes. And being less online-hostile they wouldnt have lost ports like Burnout.

I agree it had no chance against PS2, but it wasnt a dead born. How stupid to ruin a brand name even more (it is not like they could have known about the change this gen)

Erm..why? It was a system that pretty much failed in virtually every aspect. From games sales, to console sales. Tales of Symphonia and Billy Hatcher don't make up for millions of losses.

 

[quetz67]

Ehn, VR's still completely impractical. There are far too many major issues that are lacking solutions. Things like a Wiimote seem to at least be thinking in the right direction, but I think everyone's still a bit gunshy about VR, and rightfully so.

VB had almost nothing to do with VR, though, other than piggybacking on its fame at the time via the name and "goggle" appearance.

I know, I am quite into that stuff. But still being impractical stems mostly from not much effort put into developing stuff like that...had the first tries been a succes and been embraced by the mass market the stuff would be quite good today.

I am mostly talking about the visual aspect, I think the motion control part would not work with Wiimote stuff, but image analysis.

But it isnt a surprise it didnt take off, compared to playing Wii it is an extremely solitary way of playing.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

I know, I am quite into that stuff. But still being impractical stems mostly from not much effort put into developing stuff like that...had the first tries been a succes and been embraced by the mass market the stuff would be quite good today.

I am mostly talking about the visual aspect, I think the motion control part would not work with Wiimote stuff, but image analysis.

But it isnt a surprise it didnt take off, compared to playing Wii it is an extremely solitary way of playing.

Yeah, in hindsight it was an embarrassingly bad idea. I think even Nintendo knew that, but Gunpei used his clout to push it through.

 

[Parl]

Us popcorn eaters want you lot to axe the current scene and start disagreeing about the future of the gaming market again.

 

[quetz67]

Erm..why? It was a system that pretty much failed in virtually every aspect. From games sales, to console sales. Tales of Symphonia and Billy Hatcher don't make up for millions of losses.

I said it already, it wasnt dead born. It launched in the US with the same numbers as xbox and in europe (mainland) even better. It failed because it was left out in the dark after the xbox/PS2 price drop.

Nintendo could have tried to counter the eyetoy with something similar, just making better use of it (Sony pretty much f***ed that up and still it was quite successful in europe)

btw. what losses are you talking about?

 

[D.Lo]

Exactly right. I hope that doesn't happen to the Wii, but it's too soon to say for sure. The market leader doesn't usually have to deal with this, but too much of what's going on is unprecendented to predict how things will work out. Because it's a Nintendo console, we might very well get stuck with second-rate copies of what Nintendo does, meaning mini-games and mascots (all the while hearing how 3rd parties can't sell their games). But if we're lucky, the Wii will have a very diverse library like the past market leaders, and reasonable success for those willing to take risks on unusual games and genres.

Yes, that is still a worry. It's still true on the DS, Ubisoft and others seem intent on releasing Brain Training and Nintendogs clones (which will all fail), when the system need shooters, FPSes, racers and fighters, all easy, non creative genres for western devs. Luckily Nintendo's resources are wide enough that they've supplied us with three excellent platformers, and excellent FPS, an excellent racing game, as well as great original stuff like Ouendan.

What happens if the Wii totally dominates (70%+ marketshare) and yet this behaviour is still rampant with 3rd party devs? Some will go under, and genre selection will dwindle. the haters's cry that 'the Wii will ruin the industry' will become somewhat true, although it won't be Nintendo's fault directly.

I'd say it's unlikely at this point though, since Red Steel, while not being very good, was a non-Nintendo style game and sold a million. But I find it hard to believe that Nintendo has to make every good racer and fighing game on their system themselves. Soul Caliber 2 showed Gamecube fans were gagging for a fighter, and a decent realistic racer would go uncontested on the Wii.

 

[jarrod]

I didnt phrase it nearly that hard, but when I have a look at the Capcom 5 desaster I doubt their competence or will to handle that.

When I compare it to how MS handled Team Ninja last gen, Nintendo isnt even close when it comes to courting 3rd parties (though I think that relationship is pretty extreme)

But at least Nintendo seem to handle the pure technical part quite well.

I dunno what you mean about "disaster"... in terms of prestiege, Resident Evil was bigger coup than any exclusive Microsoft secured for Xbox 1. Obviously it fell through later on, but given GameCube's perfromance that was almost a given.... Xbox would've lost it too.

Nintendo made huge strides with 3rd parties last gen, again I don't think you really have a firm grasp over what you're talking about.