padib said: That is very interesting to say the least. Only thing is they completely failed by making the disk limited in space compared to the competition. They needed and still need to be careful with that sort of thing, but it's nice to see that Nintendo at one point admitted that price and console capabilities were important factors in design.

They were under different management. 

Shadow1980 said: 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),

Interesting to note, GTA3 and Vice City would have fitted no problem on a single Gamecube disc each.

jonathanalis said: and seems that dint work. why would work now?

For the same reason Xbox OG had limited success whilst the 360 thrived.

"and seems that dint work."

PS2 owned the market before the gamecube/Xbox was even out. Architecture was so vastly different in the prior generation most important devs (Japanese) worked on a single platform basis and this carried over in the PS2/Gamecube era. ALthough Gamecube recieved third party support, the biggest titles of the generation were PS2 exclusive and designed as such from day 1. Many arrived before the gamecube and xbox even launched in 2001 or just as they launched.

GTA3 (2001), Final Fantasy X (2001), Metal Gear Solid 2 (2001), Tekken Tag (2001), kingdom hearts (2002): These are literally the biggest sellers of the generation.

The equivalent today would be if the PS4 launched a year before the X1 with COD and Assassins Creed, GTA6 and Final Fantasy XV as exlcusives. Their would literally be no room for the competition, this was pretty much the case back in 2000.

Due to the more similar nature in architecture and increased cost of production, when gen 7 came along developers stopped handing out exclusives just for for lack of caring and actually tried to captalise on their games sales potential and port to relevant platforms, note that PC ports were not at all common before the 360/PS3. This alongside a helpful year head start is why the 360 quadrupled the OG xbox's sales. The year is 2015, if developers have a relevant plaform to port their game to, they will do it. To no surprise the industry was very different 15 years ago

green_sky said: Gamecube, Wii U (Gamecube HD) strategy just doesn't work for Nintendo. Third parties are the bread and butter for Xbox and Playstation but for Nintendo success has come only when they tried to make a mass market device and support it with their own first and second party software. Differentiating its product from competitors, rather than imitating them.

The Wii U is far closer to the Wii in concept (weak hardware, gimmicky control), then it is to the gamecube (powerful hardware, unitrusive design/control).

Nintendo have had 5 financially successful home console generations and the blue ocean strategy only played part in one of the them. Wii U tried it with the tablet and failed, Wii U is not designed for the core gaming market like the NES, SNES, n64 and Gamecube (all which were all very profitable)

zorg1000 said: So Gamecube & Wii U both had the intention of reclaiming "hardcore" gamers by way of 3rd party support and are Nintendo's worst selling consoles, maybe it would be wise to give up on them.

The Wii U making its first impressions on the hardcore market. Forget what words came out Reggie's mouth, the system was not designed around reclaiming the core market.

Gamecube was a brilliant effort, but the PS2 was an unbeatable foe. People seem to act Xbox topped the gamecube by a huge margin, they were really in the same boat, Microsoft just stuck to the path and improved upon their branding.

ganoncrotch said: The original Xbox wasn't a dvd player out of the box either, you needed to buy a dvd adapter thing for it that cost about €50 here in Ireland, still cheaper than most dvd players at the time but I guess the original Xbox didn't really stand much competition to the monster PS2 at the time either.

The gap between the OG Xbox and Gamecube was not big. Although I will say that one thing that the OG xbox did was innovate in the online space driven by Halo and introduced high acclaimed western RPGS to the console space (Edlerscrolls Morrowind, Star Wars Knights of the old Republic 1/2,  Jade Empire, Fable).

Genre wise the gamecube didn't excel in anyway the PS2 didn't; PS2 matched and surpassed it in every category. The Xbox on the otherhand actually carved its own niche as a PC for console gamers.

It is just a reminder that Nintendo come up with a "we are going to get 3rd parties this time" message before they release a new console but in the end they don t really care about attracting 3d parties or they would have done so on the wii u

They will come up with some other "we are going to get 3rd party story" for the NX too, so the can try to build a good launch but the same thing will happen - people just need to learn from history and experience

The NX will not have many 3rd party games in the end either

Soundwave said: zorg1000 said: Well ur basing that off of pretty much nothing, Nintendo made a console that doesn't appeal to casuals this generation, that however doesn't mean casuals are no longer willing to buy consoles. To say the Wii U isn't aimed at casuals I think is a bit of a lark. It's branded the Wii. A casual brand. All the TV marketing was for the casual/family demographic. Half of Nintendo's first year titles were party/mini-games. The lead title for the system was Nintendo Land, a game aimed specifically at casuals. It uses a toucscreen controller similar to other popular casual gaming devices like the DS and iPad.  To say this system was aimed at hardcore players is a laugh. The PLAYSTATION 4 is aimed at, marketed to, and built for core gamers.  Wii U was aimed largely at casuals with a few concessions thrown in to hardcore players (here's clickable analog sticks and a port of a crappy Ninja Gaiden game and the same Call of Duty you can already play on the your PS3/XBox!).  Nintendo just failed this time out because that's the nature of the "gimmick controller" beast ... sometimes it hits, but the Wii U showed the dark side of that approach ... if your controller idea doesn't take off, then you're basically screwed. It's not even like they divorced the Wiimote from the Wii U. You can't even play the pack-in title (Nintendo Land) without Wiimotes, as the game basically requires Wiimotes for any kind of multiplayer. The system was clearly designed to be sold to the existing Wii audience. Heck in Japan the Wiimote still comes bundled with the Wii U, yet this is the lowest selling market for the system.

I said it didn't appeal to them, not it wasn't aimed at them.

Stupid.

Why do all that WHEN YOU MAKE IT INTO A PURPLE LUNCHBOX. Even I wouldn't buy on the looks alone.

Hypocrites.

prioritizing an architecture that makes it easy for software developers to develop over things like "power efficiency" or backwards compatibility is something nintendo should do regardless of 3rd parties.


if the hardware is in-line enough with the rest of the industry so that porting is easy 3rd party support will come regardless of prior history. ...and even if it doesn't at least nintendo won't have the massive delays that plagued nintendo's early 1st party wiiU efforts.