Quantcast
Nintendo's least successful consoles all have one thing in common

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo's least successful consoles all have one thing in common

TheMisterManGuy said:
SammyGiireal said:
The N64 might have had the greatest first party lineup of any Nintendo system if you count Rare as first party. What it didn't have was 3rd party support.

In terms of sheer quality, Absolutely. But as far as quantity and variety is concerned, it's easily one of Nintendo's worst showings. Take Rare out of the equation, and you mostly have Mario games, SNES sequels, and a few sports games. Sure Super Mario 64 and OoT were revolutionary, but Nintendo's overall N64 lineup was lacking in variety and quantity compared to their other systems.

Rare almost singlehandedly carried the N64 and basically solidified them as my favorite developer outside Nintendo in the 90s. Without them the library would have been a Wii U-esque dessert. Rare was actually the initial reason I made the jump to the Xbox line when 360 came out. 

Of course, most Xbox fans know it didn't really work out (although I did somewhat enjoy Kameo and even PDZ wasn't horrible, was sort of their last gasp for me). Regardless, got super into Gears, Bethesda games, and other random third parties on 360 anyway and never really looked back. 

But anyway yeah ultimately much of it just boils down to the quantity, and the relatively lack of appeal of many of the games that WERE there. Rare was fantastic but they were largely carrying the 2nd/3rd party weight themselves.



Around the Network

Rare games don't count for the N64... Lol, this place cracks me up.



They're also all dedicated home consoles. AVG Nintendo Home Console = 46.8m. AVG Nintendo Handheld = 107.5m



Predictions (Made July 2019)

LTD: PS4 - 130m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 52m       2019 : PS4 - 15m, Switch - 18.8m, XBO - 4.8m        2020: Switch - 22m (Peak Year)


Barkley said:

They're also all dedicated home consoles. AVG Nintendo Home Console = 46.8m. AVG Nintendo Handheld = 107.5m

Context is the key. Two nintendo consoles have focus in two Market: USA and Japan. Nes sells more than Playstation 4 in this two market. SNES sells more in Japan. Worldwide gaming only exist with Playstation 1.Nintendo with Switch does not yet reach as many different markets as Sony does. This globalized distribution system from Sony has been around since the mid-70s. Adding the population growth of the American region, makes the situation more interesting.



DarthMetalliCube said:
TheMisterManGuy said:

In terms of sheer quality, Absolutely. But as far as quantity and variety is concerned, it's easily one of Nintendo's worst showings. Take Rare out of the equation, and you mostly have Mario games, SNES sequels, and a few sports games. Sure Super Mario 64 and OoT were revolutionary, but Nintendo's overall N64 lineup was lacking in variety and quantity compared to their other systems.

Rare almost singlehandedly carried the N64 and basically solidified them as my favorite developer outside Nintendo in the 90s. Without them the library would have been a Wii U-esque dessert. Rare was actually the initial reason I made the jump to the Xbox line when 360 came out. 

Of course, most Xbox fans know it didn't really work out (although I did somewhat enjoy Kameo and even PDZ wasn't horrible, was sort of their last gasp for me). Regardless, got super into Gears, Bethesda games, and other random third parties on 360 anyway and never really looked back. 

But anyway yeah ultimately much of it just boils down to the quantity, and the relatively lack of appeal of many of the games that WERE there. Rare was fantastic but they were largely carrying the 2nd/3rd party weight themselves.

Aside from the Primes, what exactly did GC have that the N64 didn't? The N64 delivered many more games than the Wii U. The N64 failed because of the cartridge format. It alienated 3rd parties, its first partly line up was stellar.  Rare counts as first party.



Around the Network
SammyGiireal said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

Rare almost singlehandedly carried the N64 and basically solidified them as my favorite developer outside Nintendo in the 90s. Without them the library would have been a Wii U-esque dessert. Rare was actually the initial reason I made the jump to the Xbox line when 360 came out. 

Of course, most Xbox fans know it didn't really work out (although I did somewhat enjoy Kameo and even PDZ wasn't horrible, was sort of their last gasp for me). Regardless, got super into Gears, Bethesda games, and other random third parties on 360 anyway and never really looked back. 

But anyway yeah ultimately much of it just boils down to the quantity, and the relatively lack of appeal of many of the games that WERE there. Rare was fantastic but they were largely carrying the 2nd/3rd party weight themselves.

Aside from the Primes, what exactly did GC have that the N64 didn't? The N64 delivered many more games than the Wii U. The N64 failed because of the cartridge format. It alienated 3rd parties, its first partly line up was stellar.  Rare counts as first party.

GC had better third party support but if you mean from a first party point of view the was also Pikmin, Battalion Wars, Chibi Robo Animal Crossing, Luigi's Mansion and although not first party per say Nintendo localized and published games like Tales of Symphonia as well as co-fund and published games like Baten Kaitos which lead to the eventual acquisition of Monolith. 



Nintendo just faced legit competition at the beginning of the 5th generation. Pretty much anything Nintendo offered, the competition offered better. Better hardware, better features, better support. Nintendo had its amazing first party and exclusives but almost consoles have great exclusives.

Since 1996, Nintendo has had two home consoles that can be considered smash successes (Wii and the Switch) and three that could be considered disappointing or failures (N64, GameCube, Wii U). The two successes were the two consoles that broke away from the norm in ways that struck a chord with the public. Nintendo's first party has always been spectacular. They're my favorite gaming company. They just can't compete with the other systems on their terms. They have to be creative.

Nintendo has made a lot of things standard in gaming. Probably more than Microsoft and Sony combined. Their first party games are the kinds of games I find myself going back and enjoying DECADES later just as much as I did the first time I played them. Even the games on their "failed" consoles.

From my point of view, their lowest selling consoles do have one thing in common: They were watered down versions of what the competition was offering instead of being their own thing.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Nah. First and second party support were great in the N64 - GC era.

Since the market shifted tremedously during these decades, I think to pinpoint a single cause to their success, or lack thereof, is a futile exercise. As someone mentioned, the only thing they have in common is that they didn't sell well.