Quantcast
Interesting Quote About the GameCube's Design

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

oniyide said:

its been expressed time and time again for years now. There is nothing possible about it. Sony has worked more closely with 3rd parties than Ninty has, these are facts. And the biggest factor in why one company's product is getting more support than another. IMHO thats more reasonble than some conspiracy against Nintendo.

As for Origin, IMHO thats heresay and ive yet to see concrete proof, it doesnt even make that much sense, its not like the other two use Origin and they still get support (if im wrong, correct me). Why would EA use that as an excuse to not support Ninty when they can just not support Ninty? And even if that were true thats only one company, hardly indication of a pattern. 

Who said anything about a consipracy?

As for Origin, it would be a mix of reasons, the origin fallout just topping off what was already a shaky relationship.



Around the Network
Shadow1980 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.


You really think hardware design decisions had nothing to do with this? It's the only thing that makes sense. It's a problem that began with the N64. The N64 had the specs, but cartridges hurt it. An N64 cartridge cost something like $10-15 to manufacture vs. only one or two bucks for a CD, yet could hold only a fraction of the data. The biggest N64 cartridges had a capacity of 64MB, while a CD can hold up to 700MB. Indeed, the average PS1 game was much larger than the largest N64 game; FFVII, the game that tipped the scales in Sony's favor, weighed in at over 1.3GB, so big it needed more than one CD.

Actually N64 games were usually much bigger than PS1 games.

Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Conker and Super Mario 64 are far bigger platformers than the Crash Bandicoot trilogy.

Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask are far bigger adventure games than anything on the PS1.

Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark obliterate any FPS games on the PS1.

Mario Kart 64 & Diddy Kong's Racing are around the similar size of Crash Team Racing.

Don't know about you guys but Final Fantasy VII looks like ass compared to Paper Mario visually speaking.

All that extra space on CD-ROMS went to silly looking FMVs and voice acting lol. Cringeworthy voice acting might I add. The FMVs worked wonders to convince people to buy the PS1 though, that can't be denied. Also the much cheaper option, something that also can't be denied.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

I think the Gamecube strategy is something Nintendo should look at in the next few year, at least when it comes to specs. Maybe a less goofy design (though goofy as it is I love that little purple box) and obviously don't cheap out like the mini-DVD, just give us a Blu-Ray disc playing Nintendo system.

The Gamecube's third party support wasn't the best, but it was a solid step in the right direction. I will point out that it's a bit unfair to talk sales in relation to that generation because it was pretty much "meh" for anything not named the "PS2". The Dreamcast crashed. The Gamecube declined, and even the original Xbox didn't sell all that greatly (not to mention it was much more expensive for Microsoft). Sony just had a huge grip of the industry that generation.



padib said:
oniyide said:

its been expressed time and time again for years now. There is nothing possible about it. Sony has worked more closely with 3rd parties than Ninty has, these are facts. And the biggest factor in why one company's product is getting more support than another. IMHO thats more reasonble than some conspiracy against Nintendo.

As for Origin, IMHO thats heresay and ive yet to see concrete proof, it doesnt even make that much sense, its not like the other two use Origin and they still get support (if im wrong, correct me). Why would EA use that as an excuse to not support Ninty when they can just not support Ninty? And even if that were true thats only one company, hardly indication of a pattern. 

Who said anything about a consipracy?

As for Origin, it would be a mix of reasons, the origin fallout just topping off what was already a shaky relationship.

what other reasons? besides the one that EA actually gave which is not supporting the Wii U cause it wasnt doing well, which it hasnt and it isnt



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.


I agree somewhat with this, it's a view I have as well only the thing behind the bias is developers wanting to be in control of the industry rather then the platform holders. Sony and MS utilize approaches that give developers and publishers more control over the industry so they'd rather see those platforms succeed, Nintendo's approach puts the platform holders more in control and that's what it comes down to.

What people don't understand is that if developers began supporting Nintendo as equally and they became market leader consistently both MS and Sony would gladly adopt the same approach as Nintendo and the industry would mainly be back in control of platform holders, this would mean it would be harder to pull things like the Evolve DLC fiasco or release games that are bugged to hell until a patch comes out (Skyrim PS3 anyone). Developers don't want that as they won't get away with a number of things they do today and can't be lazy either so will use any excuse knowing that people will believe it at face value no matter how silly it it, some people still believe the Wii U is only as powerful as the 360 for reference.



Around the Network

Many people believe the wii u is actually weaker than 360 and for many parts of the spec it is. We know that the cpu performance of the wii u is crippled because we know it has 3 basic 32bit risc processors running at 1.25ghz. So the insanity is the people that seem to believe the wii u is more powerful when many games simply can't perform to the same level on wii u as they do on 360 and PS3 because of their cpu requirements. The actual reality clearly supported by the evidence is that the wii u is at approximately last gen performance, less cpu power but more gpu power means some games are better and some are worse. It is utterly amazing that people can't grasp this obvious reality when we know the the cpu and memory bandwidth performance of the wii u is very low.

The issue for third party developers has always been I guess the customer base of Nintendo products. A little younger, less mature and not as wealthy often depending on parents to buy their consoles and games and a poor market for mature games. Often it seems marketed as family friendly and for young children. Often the consoles themselves are robust and capable of taking a few knocks too.

Add to that Nintendo's reputation now for weak or flawed hardware many developers simply can't work with Nintendo hardware. Bethedsa couldn't work with the wii for their games like Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim the hardware was just too primitive and for Fallout 4 etc the wii u is clearly even weaker than 360 and PS3 for such a cpu intensive game. There is no supporting hard drive either for streaming in a lot of data fast. So even in the case of the wii which had a huge market share, it was the wrong hardware and the wrong customer base and was simply ignored.

How does Nintendo come back from this situation? They clearly need a sexy, stylish and reasonable powerful console that will appeal to a wider audience and one that is capable of running the lastest games ideally using x86 architecture. It needs to be adult friendly and look like a fantastic bit of technology under the tv. A console that no adult will be ashamed to own. They need launch games with mature appeal that will get such people to get their wallets out. Is it possible for the Nintendo brand to move back into that space easily? I don't know but the legacy of the wii was a console with crap games, it was often joked about the wii gathering dust as those who had bought it for mainstream gaming were bitterly disappointed with its low performance level and the same can be easily said of the wii u where mature games are generally a disaster not capable of running at 360 and PS3 levels let alone ps4 and xbone.

For me personally the Gamecube was a huge success. I loved its games and found it a brilliant console. I think for those who owned it they could say they were generally satisfied with what was available. Many brilliant exclusives, good multiformat support and the console itself had some nice functionality especially the blisteringly fast loading times. Clearly the design was not mature friendly though. You can't imagine anyone buying it who didn't have children unless they were a real nintendo fan.

Now more than anytime before the mature market is where the money is because casual gaming is saturated with hardware and software at very low prices. It's only really dedicated reasonably powerful hardware that can get away with £20/$30 plus software pricing. That's where Nintendo need to be I think. If they can't do that they need to realise they are dealing with a market niche and be profitable even if the hardware sells sub 15 million units or even units lower than 10 milliion. They need to reign in R&D and create a product using more off the shelf-components with less customisation. What other choices do they have either play for the big time or go neogeo style niche market direction.



@Bonzo. That's why it has a gpgpu.

oniyide said:
padib said:

Who said anything about a consipracy?

As for Origin, it would be a mix of reasons, the origin fallout just topping off what was already a shaky relationship.

what other reasons? besides the one that EA actually gave which is not supporting the Wii U cause it wasnt doing well, which it hasnt and it isnt

You're contradicting yourself. You just said that Sony has worked closely with 3rd parties. So that would be another reason that you yourself suggested.

That's why I dislike arguing with you, you just want to say that what I post is wrong even if you just said the same thing.



Alkibiádēs said:

Actually N64 games were usually much bigger than PS1 games.

Patently false. Total file sizes for PS1 games were typically far larger than the capacity of even the largest N64 cartridges. Super Mario 64 was on an 8MB cart, GoldenEye 007 was about 12MB, and Perfect Dark was on a 32MB cart (ROM sites peg the total file size at about 28.6MB). The biggest N64 carts could hold up to 64MB. Meanwhile, most PS1 games were well over 100MB, a problem for an N64 cart but no problem for CDs which could hold 700MB of data. Furthermore, CDs cost only a buck or two to manufacture while an N64 cart cost on the order of $15 or so.

All that extra space on CD-ROMS went to silly looking FMVs and voice acting lol. Cringeworthy voice acting might I add. The FMVs worked wonders to convince people to buy the PS1 though, that can't be denied. Also the much cheaper option, something that also can't be denied.

You can call FMVs "silly" or whatever you want. The point is is that many developers wanted them, because even 20 years ago many of them had a desire to add more "cinematic" elements in games. The level of detail and scope in FFVII's cinema scenes was something I thought was mind-blowing at the time, and the N64 most certainly couldn't pull off anything like them. Most developers were going to go with the best format there was that could fit their needs, and for the fifth generation that was CDs. The move away from cartridges was inevitable. They cost too much and couldn't hold enough data. Both today and back in the latter half of the 90s the N64 was to me by far the better fifth-gen system because I like its overall library more, but despite my preference for the N64 I can look back at it and see why third parties began flocking to PS1, and it was because Nintendo stuck with a format they wrongly thought still had some relevance in the console market. Sure, carts had no load times, were harder to pirate, and were more durable, but cost and capacity were the deciding factors that ensured discs were the future.





Shadow1980 said:
Alkibiádēs said:

Actually N64 games were usually much bigger than PS1 games.

Patently false. Total file sizes for PS1 games were typically far larger than the capacity of even the largest N64 cartridges. Super Mario 64 was on an 8MB cart, GoldenEye 007 was about 12MB, and Perfect Dark was on a 32MB cart (ROM sites peg the total file size at about 28.6MB). The biggest N64 carts could hold up to 64MB. Meanwhile, most PS1 games were well over 100MB, a problem for an N64 cart but no problem for CDs which could hold 700MB of data. Furthermore, CDs cost only a buck or two to manufacture while an N64 cart cost on the order of $15 or so.

All that extra space on CD-ROMS went to silly looking FMVs and voice acting lol. Cringeworthy voice acting might I add. The FMVs worked wonders to convince people to buy the PS1 though, that can't be denied. Also the much cheaper option, something that also can't be denied.

You can call FMVs "silly" or whatever you want. The point is is that many developers wanted them, because even 20 years ago many of them had a desire to add more "cinematic" elements in games. The level of detail and scope in FFVII's cinema scenes was something I thought was mind-blowing at the time, and the N64 most certainly couldn't pull off anything like them. Most developers were going to go with the best format there was that could fit their needs, and for the fifth generation that was CDs. The move away from cartridges was inevitable. They cost too much and couldn't hold enough data. Both today and back in the latter half of the 90s the N64 was to me by far the better fifth-gen system because I like its overall library more, but despite my preference for the N64 I can look back at it and see why third parties began flocking to PS1, and it was because Nintendo stuck with a format they wrongly thought still had some relevance in the console market. Sure, carts had no load times, were harder to pirate, and were more durable, but cost and capacity were the deciding factors that ensured discs were the future.



You didn't read my post well. I don't mean the file size was bigger, I meant to say that the scope of N64 games were bigger. Bigger worlds, better graphics and better gameplay.

My post also touches on the subject that Nintendo made a dumb decision not going with CD-ROMS because customers were easily fooled by those silly FMVs and cringeworthy voice acting. But gameplay wise I'm glad the N64 didn't have those, the N64 classics aged much better than the PS1 classics.

People still talk today about how great Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Paper Mario, Super Mario 64, Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Conker, Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark are. I barely hear people talk about the PS1 classics anymore besides FF VII and Crash Bandicoot. Kind of a shame too as Soul Blade is one of my favorite games of all time.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

padib said:

@Bonzo. That's why it has a gpgpu.

oniyide said:

what other reasons? besides the one that EA actually gave which is not supporting the Wii U cause it wasnt doing well, which it hasnt and it isnt

You're contradicting yourself. You just said that Sony has worked closely with 3rd parties. So that would be another reason that you yourself suggested.

That's why I dislike arguing with you, you just want to say that what I post is wrong even if you just said the same thing.

That gpgpu argument is incredibly weak, for a start the radeon in the wii u is no more than 352 gflops, more likely 176 gflops so there isn't going to be much spare capacity but more importantly it can only assist minor functions of the cpu its no substitute for a more powerful cpu. Surely we have reached the stage where not one cpu intensive game works well on the wii u that we can stop using that ridiculous fanboy defence. The radeon gpu area of the wii u is shared with the original wii gpu, the main 32MB of eRAM etc. Anyway the point is we know the cpu is weak, weaker than 360 and PS3 by a long way, there is no technical or honest defence of this so whatever the gpu situation we know the wii u performs below 360 and PS3 for cpu performance and this is verified easily anyway by looking at game performance. Any fair minded person would never simply claim the wii u is more powerful when the evidence absolutely destroys their argument for many genres of games which require higher cpu resources. It seems you can never be too surprised how low Nintendo will go in performance nowadays and I think that is the issue for many defenders of the wii u they are in denial about the wii u. However if they really believe they have a defence it needs to be focused on why they think 3 old 32bit ppc cpu's designed in the last century running at 1.25ghz is competitive in performance with more modern cpu designs and also explain how this performance works when the cpu has to work with very low 12.8gb/s bandwidth memory in combination with the gpu. It will be interesting to read if nothing else.