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


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

Around the Network
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.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

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.



teigaga said:
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)

I disagree but am really not interested in going back and forth with this. We've beaten this drum so many times on this site. Am not really sure good arguments ever really change the viewpoints of the those with opposing outlook anyway. 

Cheers. 



Around the Network
foxtail said:

The Xbox 360 had over 50 games which were multiple disc and it didn't seem to be a problem.

The X360 was an HD system stuck using DVDs while the PS3 was using high capacity Blu-rays.

The 360 was released before Blu-ray hit the market. The PS3 was not only the first console to use BDs, at the time of its launch it was also one of the first BD players ever. However, go look through that list of games again. Notice a few things? 16 of them are special editions, or some other unusual case (ODST had the complete Halo 3 multiplayer on disc 2, for example), and most of the rest are more recent games (<5 years old) . For the first few years of the 360's existence, hardly any sort of standard release was multi-disc aside from Blue Dragon, which was exclusive. Indeed, nearly all of the older 360 games (2010 and earlier) that are multi-disc are a literal handful of JRPGs, and most of those were exclusive or timed exclusive. I imagine whatever MS paid for exclusivity rights covered the expense of releasing across multiple discs. FFXIII was the first major multi-disc multiplatform seventh-gen title, and at the time it was released the 360 was still ahead of the PS3 in global lifetime sales, so it's obvious that it made more economical sense to release on the 360 to get the extra sales than to forgo said sales due to the additional expense and hassle. It wasn't until well into the 360's life when it already had a massive install base that games besides JPRGs started to really run afoul of the size limitations of DVD. Meanwhile, the GameCube was already lagging far enough behind the PS2 that for many devs it simply wasn't worth the hassle and expense to split games across multiple discs of a proprietary variant of a non-standard format. At least the Xbox had the benefit of using standard DVDs, which is likely why it had better overall third-party support than the GC (even GTA showed up on it eventually).

Simply looking at a list of 52 multi-disc games on the 360 and saying "See, the GC's format wasn't an issue" completely ignores any sort of larger context. DVD didn't really become an issue for the 360 until well into its lifespan, at which point the 360 was too huge to ignore. While Sony was likely able to leverage their massive market share to their advantage to garner the best degree of third-party support, it seems clear to me that the GC's non-standard format was a contributing factor to it having the weakest third-party support.



gc had good 3rd party support!



Shadow1980 said:

Simply looking at a list of 52 multi-disc games on the 360 and saying "See, the GC's format wasn't an issue" completely ignores any sort of larger context. DVD didn't really become an issue for the 360 until well into its lifespan, at which point the 360 was too huge to ignore. While Sony was likely able to leverage their massive market share to their advantage to garner the best degree of third-party support, it seems clear to me that the GC's non-standard format was a contributing factor to it having the weakest third-party support.

Why didn't the Gamecube get all the 3rd party Sports games, disc space wasn't a problem for them since they ported a few games but not all.  

There were lots of games that the Gamecube didn't get where disc space wasn't a problem.  

Which 3rd party games came out on both the PS2 & Xbox but not on the Gamecube that were big sellers besides the GTA series?  

And exactly which big and popular games did the Gamecube miss specifically because of disc space?

Why did the Xbox get games like Metal Gear Solid 2 but miss out on Metal Gear Solid 3?  

I don't think disc space was always the main factor for the Gamecube missing out on games.



foxtail said:
Shadow1980 said:

Simply looking at a list of 52 multi-disc games on the 360 and saying "See, the GC's format wasn't an issue" completely ignores any sort of larger context. DVD didn't really become an issue for the 360 until well into its lifespan, at which point the 360 was too huge to ignore. While Sony was likely able to leverage their massive market share to their advantage to garner the best degree of third-party support, it seems clear to me that the GC's non-standard format was a contributing factor to it having the weakest third-party support.

Why didn't the Gamecube get all the 3rd party Sports games, disc space wasn't a problem for them since they ported a few games but not all.  

There were lots of games that the Gamecube didn't get where disc space wasn't a problem.  

Which 3rd party games came out on both the PS2 & Xbox but not on the Gamecube that were big sellers besides the GTA series?  

And exactly which big and popular games did the Gamecube miss specifically because of disc space?

Why did the Xbox get games like Metal Gear Solid 2 but miss out on Metal Gear Solid 3?  

I don't think disc space was always the main factor for the Gamecube missing out on games.


^This. The real thing issue with the gamecube was it came out in a time where exclusives could stay that way (I say could because of the Resident Evil 4 thing). Now it seems companies have to pay to just get a "play it first on". I think if Nintendo pushes for the same thing the gamecube tried to do, it could do a LOT better sales wise. companies are looking for cheap ways to make a buck. The Wii U lost support because it was so different and more difficult to develop for. If it were easy, all these multiplat titles would come to it.



foxtail said:

Why didn't the Gamecube get all the 3rd party Sports games, disc space wasn't a problem for them since they ported a few games but not all. 

It got most of them. It had every Madden and FIFA game, most of the NBA games, etc.

There were lots of games that the Gamecube didn't get where disc space wasn't a problem.

Examples?

Which 3rd party games came out on both the PS2 & Xbox but not on the Gamecube that were big sellers besides the GTA series?  

Well, since you narrowed it down to big sellers (which I'll assume means at least about a million copies), let's see: Star Wars Battlefront 1 & 2, Battlefield 2, Burnout 3, Metal Gear Solid 2, GRAW, Max Payne, Driver 3, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Mortal Kombat: Armageddon and Shaolin Monks, Mercenaries, Fight Night 2004, Brothers in Arms: Road to Hill 30 and BiA: Earned in Blood, Destroy All Humans!, ... do I really need to keep looking for more? I've been at this for twenty minutes.

And exactly which big and popular games did the Gamecube miss specifically because of disc space?

Lots of games on the PS2 and Xbox were well above 1.5GB in size. Go look them up yourself.

Why did the Xbox get games like Metal Gear Solid 2 but miss out on Metal Gear Solid 3?

Because maybe at that point Konami wrote off Xbox as a waste of time? Essentially the entire MGS fanbase was on PlayStation anyway.

I don't think disc space was always the main factor for the Gamecube missing out on games.

But it was a factor. I don't think you can argue it didn't play any role at all.