Quantcast
Interesting Quote About the GameCube's Design

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Interesting Quote About the GameCube's Design

Ruler said:
Shadow1980 said:

The GameCube had decent third-party support, but it fell way short of the PS2 in that regard, and even the Xbox had better third-party suport than the GC. The likely culprit? The little guy on the left here:

With less than one-third the capacity of even a single-sided single-layer DVD (1.5GB vs. 4.7GB), the GC's proprietary miniDVD format didn't do the system any favors. Now, I know there's all the "Well, they could have just split the game across multiple discs" talk, and sure, there's been plenty of multi-disc games before and after, but A) they weren't exactly common, B) some games probably couldn't get split across multiple discs as they take place in a single contiguous environment (think GTA), and C) I honestly doubt that anybody really wanted to split their games across multiple discs and usually only did so when it was necessary (even CD's 700MB capacity was not enough for many PS1 games; it was just a hell of sight better than the 64MB that the biggest N64 carts could hold, plus CDs cost a lot less to make). Not only is it extra work to split just one port up into multiple discs, but it also incurs greater expense (you're talking about an extra dollar or two per copy in manufacturing costs, which does add up). While a handful of publishers felt it was worth it for at least some titles, many major third-party games that came to PS2 and Xbox were no-shows on the GameCube, and the non-standard format is the only plausible explanation why.

Not true at all multiple CDs werent a big deal at the time, PC games like Doom 3 even launched with multiple installatio  Discs much more than any gamecube game had


Multiple discs were not that big of a deal, but when you are developing multiplatform games and in one environment, everything can fit on one disc, while in another you have to split the game across at least two, which also adds to cost because the multiple mini discs (which were specially designed so that they couldn't be copied by pirates as easily as PS1 and Dreamcast discs were in the past) and the packaging to contain them isn't exactly free, you have to ask which would you as a publisher that wants to get the most money back without spending a lot as possible work on.

The GC mini discs were the EXACT same problem the N64 had just with a different medium. By the time the Wii rolled around Nintendo had finally gotten to DVD type discs when everyone else went on to a higher standard with more room again. Combine that with lower specs, lack of online infrastructure and motion controls as the standard they burned a number of bridges, especially as PC style and Western developement started to come to the forefront.

The because the GC was more powerful then the PS2, perhaps if it had gotten off to a better lead it might have done better, but the rise and fall of the Wii and the middle tier of Japanese development in general shows that the industry was going one way and Nintendo was unlikely to make that change at a quick enough pace that they still wouldn't have seen the same problems we see them facing now. The problem isn't the GC design principal of trying to make it 3rd party friendly, ALL consoles should have such a design principal, the problem is that Nintendo went about it in one way design wise of the console and in another factor did something that made it harder for developers to make titles on multiple systems.

Heck one can say that SINCE the N64, Nintendo has always made home console devices where the storage medium and the main controller have made it more difficult for multiplatform games to be made.



Around the Network
Soundwave said:
UncleScrooge said:

QFT.

It's really amazing how people invent crazy theories for these things instead of just looking at the obvious. And I cringe at people saying the Wii U is anything like the Wii. 

N64, Gamecube, Wii U = sustaining innovation, focus on getting third parties, focus on core gamers.

NES, Wii = disruptive innovation, focus on expanding the gaming market.

It's quite clear which strategy lead Nintendo to success in the past. 


How was the N64 focused on getting third parties? It's was designed basically to alienate third parties, lol. 

The NES dominated because it had all the third party support due to Nintendo's (smart, but borderline monopolitisic) decision to force third parties to only make games for their console. 

Sega could not make any headway against Nintendo at all until Nintendo had to break the lock-out chip rule for the SNES, so developers were able to make games for the Genesis, whereas they weren't able to for the Sega Master System. 


Yeah, N64 doesn't really work here, you're right. Sorry for that one :P It was a sustaining innovation, though, unlike the NES. The NES dominated because Nintendo was the only relevant player for most of its life (due to it being a disruptive product and expanding the market), not because of their 3rd party restrictions. Those policies were installed because Nintendo was the dominant player and could afford to lock third parties to their platform. (I can only praise the book "Game Over", by the way. It's a really amazing and in-depth read). 



After so many years it's still shocking how willfully people buy into third party excuses. Third party support isn't about horsepower, ease of programming or even sales. It's first and foremost driven by bias.

There are people here who seriously argue that the GC's storage medium was a notable culprit for lack of third party support, but don't you guys realize how difficult the PS3 was to program for? But not only had Sony created a monster, it also led to a year where virtually every major third party player posted a loss (the only exception I remember is Disney Interactive). That's a significant difference to the Nintendo situation where games simply didn't sell as well as third parties hoped for; so you are looking at too low profits for third parties on one side (Nintendo), and outright losses for third parties on the other side (Sony). The PS3 was also in third place. Yet all of those factors combined didn't lead to third parties dropping support for the PS3, instead it became the lead platform for development in many cases. Third parties were willing to endure losses to keep PlayStation in the game.

Not too long ago there have also been interesting quotes from Square-Enix and Nippon Ichi concerning the Japanese market for dedicated gaming devices. Both companies stated that they have to drive the installed base of PlayStation which runs contrary to the premise that third parties don't consider themselves responsible for moving hardware because that's the console manufacturer's job. The obvious question is why don't they develop more games for the 3DS which already has a huge installed base and sells the most third party software in Japan. And that's when you should realize that not even sales play that big of a role in determining third party support. It's first and foremost something that is driven by bias.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

padib said:
hansrob00 said:
So many armchair CEOs in this thread...

What should Nintendo do? I'm not sure, there seems to be downsides to whatever route they take. If they try to compete with Sony hardware wise and fail, they potentially sink the company.

They go the gimmicky route, it's not as much of a money pit, but Nintendo gets pushed further out of the console market.

The answer is that I'm not really sure and neither does no one else, except perhaps Nintendo who knows most about their own company.

All I can say to that is 1) You're on a sales forum and 2) you're doing the same thing.

So really what's the point of that comment? Think about it.

Perhaps, I guess I was just somewhat shocked by the onesidedness of the comments or will make comments telling Nintendo to make a system that appeals to them.

I phrased my post badly admittedly.



RolStoppable said:

After so many years it's still shocking how willfully people buy into third party excuses. Third party support isn't about horsepower, ease of programming or even sales. It's first and foremost driven by bias.

There are people here who seriously argue that the GC's storage medium was a notable culprit for lack of third party support, but don't you guys realize how difficult the PS3 was to program for? But not only had Sony created a monster, it also led to a year where virtually every major third party player posted a loss (the only exception I remember is Disney Interactive). That's a significant difference to the Nintendo situation where games simply didn't sell as well as third parties hoped for; so you are looking at too low profits for third parties on one side (Nintendo), and outright losses for third parties on the other side (Sony). The PS3 was also in third place. Yet all of those factors combined didn't lead to third parties dropping support for the PS3, instead it became the lead platform for development in many cases. Third parties were willing to endure losses to keep PlayStation in the game.

Not too long ago there have also been interesting quotes from Square-Enix and Nippon Ichi concerning the Japanese market for dedicated gaming devices. Both companies stated that they have to drive the installed base of PlayStation which runs contrary to the premise that third parties don't consider themselves responsible for moving hardware because that's the console manufacturer's job. The obvious question is why don't they develop more games for the 3DS which already has a huge installed base and sells the most third party software in Japan. And that's when you should realize that not even sales play that big of a role in determining third party support. It's first and foremost something that is driven by bias.


Part of me has always wondered if the reason that major third parties gimp the pc port is due to the fact that if the differences between console and the pc versions of games were ever too large, then too many people would give up consoles and go buy or build a pc. 



Around the Network
Ruler said:

Not true at all multiple CDs werent a big deal at the time, PC games like Doom 3 even launched with multiple installatio  Discs much more than any gamecube game had

We're talking about consoles here, but for some reason (perhaps not enough people having DVD drives for their computers yet) PC games were still being released on CD well into the 2000s when consoles had already switched to higher-capacity storage media. On consoles, multi-disc games have been historically rare and most multi-disc games were done out of practical necessity or were some kind of special edition or other unusual case.



RolStoppable said:

After so many years it's still shocking how willfully people buy into third party excuses. Third party support isn't about horsepower, ease of programming or even sales. It's first and foremost driven by bias.


I Have seen this from you multiple times, so I guess I got some statements and questions.

 

PS3 vvas hard to develop for but it had similar specs to 360 making certain games look the same an appealing thing. PS3 came off the back of PS2 success. And because of that vvould you not think that planning three years before the PS3 released to make games for it? VVii came off the sales flop Gamecube, so three years in advance they probably should not develop for the Gamecubes successor.

In addition the PS2 vvas still trucking along at this point in time. So games vvith similar control schemes (DS2, DS3, 360) could easily be made right?

PC games are also much closer to PS3 and 360 then the VVii.

Install base? 360 and PS3 alvvays ahead. PC+360+PS3?  Therefore ahead, but PC is not knovvn. And idk if any PS2 games after 2006 didnt come out on just PS2 and 360. So likely PS2 helped PS3.

And many multiplat games for vvii, ps3, 360 sold vvorst on vvii.

I mean PS2 gen obvious, PS2 takes off after major PS1 gen therefore; not much support for competitors.

PS3 gen then maybe 3rd parties expected the same? VVith 3 year dev cycles that gets the PS3 set til 2009.



Not counting the pre-PlayStation era, the Gamecube had the strongest third-party support of any Nintendo console... And that's despite being a commercial failure only topped by the Wii U. That approach definitely helped.

Despite that, though, it was still a pretty awful platform for third-party support.



Farsala said:
RolStoppable said:

After so many years it's still shocking how willfully people buy into third party excuses. Third party support isn't about horsepower, ease of programming or even sales. It's first and foremost driven by bias.

I Have seen this from you multiple times, so I guess I got some statements and questions.

 

PS3 vvas hard to develop for but it had similar specs to 360 making certain games look the same an appealing thing. PS3 came off the back of PS2 success. And because of that vvould you not think that planning three years before the PS3 released to make games for it? VVii came off the sales flop Gamecube, so three years in advance they probably should not develop for the Gamecubes successor.

In addition the PS2 vvas still trucking along at this point in time. So games vvith similar control schemes (DS2, DS3, 360) could easily be made right?

PC games are also much closer to PS3 and 360 then the VVii.

Install base? 360 and PS3 alvvays ahead. PC+360+PS3?  Therefore ahead, but PC is not knovvn. And idk if any PS2 games after 2006 didnt come out on just PS2 and 360. So likely PS2 helped PS3.

And many multiplat games for vvii, ps3, 360 sold vvorst on vvii.

I mean PS2 gen obvious, PS2 takes off after major PS1 gen therefore; not much support for competitors.

PS3 gen then maybe 3rd parties expected the same? VVith 3 year dev cycles that gets the PS3 set til 2009.

Well, the point regarding initial support for the then new consoles is true.

But sales numbers didn't meet expectations, so there should have been a clear shift in resources after the intial wave of games. It's also not an "either or" scenario where third parties had to pick between developing everything for either 360+PS3 or Wii. But that's what third parties did; they decided that the 360+PS3 would get everything and that the Wii's installed base was not worth pursuing. Instead the Wii was merely used to cash in and funnel those profits into the development of HD games (that's something that publishers like Ubisoft even openly admitted). There was also zero respect for Wii owners; numerous test games were launched; the audience got insulted when crappy games didn't sell. It was never a relationship between third parties and gamers that suggested that publishers were interested in doing business with Wii owners; it's simply bad form to blame consumers, that goes doubly so when the product sucks.

If we apply the point regarding initial support to handhelds, you should notice some oddities. Nintendo handhelds have always sold well and third party software had no problems selling. Yet when the 3DS came around, third parties didn't put much weight behind the system. Instead they took a wait-and-see stance because they didn't believe in Nintendo for whatever reason. Additionally, nowadays the 3DS doesn't get many more games than the Vita despite the massive discrepancy in installed bases. If you truly believe that 360+PS3+PC>Wii justified the decisions of third parties, then you must raise an eyebrow why 3DS>>>Vita didn't lead to a similar result. Not to mention that third parties at large have found much more success on the 3DS than on the Vita.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:

If you truly believe that 360+PS3+PC>Wii justified the decisions of third parties, then you must raise an eyebrow why 3DS>>>Vita didn't lead to a similar result. Not to mention that third parties at large have found much more success on the 3DS than on the Vita.

Well... Mobile>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3DS>>>Vita

Why bother with either when you can churn out a cheap companion game/app?