It was 4% of the net sales price of DVD players and DVD decoders (not just the drive) , with a minimum royalty of $4.00 per player or decoder and a maximum of $8.00.  The Gamecube and Xbox would be considered the DVD players, and 4% of their net sales price would reach the $8 limit.  They would both be charged $8 per console at their launch prices.

Most PS2 games could fit on a Gamecube disc, and for those that couldn't they could use two discs (though it may be harder with some open world games) or use compression .  Besides, if they put a DVD drive in the Gamecube it would be less of a small CUBE. =P

I'd prefer it if you backed up your own claims.

Back up my own claims? what have i got to prove? to who? you?

This ismt ome of those sitiations where someone says some shit but doest know what hes saying and is gonna be called out for it, this is more like knowing ur shit and just not caring enough about those that cant go check it out themselves.... anyways, gonna help you do a small google sesrch.

heres one 

and another

and another

and another.......

all took me all of 1 min. 

Would have loved to go back about 24/25yrs to be able to key you in but hey... thats not poasoble yet. But i guess when i seem to hate the decisions a company makes to prevent third parties from releasing more than 5 games a year some may think im some sort of fanboy lol.

this like I don't have a ps3 I have a ps4 though but there are so many good ps3 games I wanna play ;~;

I only wish to confirm this situation isn't one "where someone says some shit but doest know what hes saying".

Thank you very much, this was very helpful.

So if it took you so little time and effort, why are you complaining about supplying said information when someone asked you for it?

You don't think Nintendo still has this policy in place do you?

They did be crazy if they did.... but i dont think they still do.

But its stuff like this that makes me say that if people reslly knew all abiut this industry, they would know nintendo really took the cake in making bad decisions. And they didnt juat do it once or twice, they tend to do it across gemerations. So when i see someone defend nintendo (not saying u are) i just see someone that doesn't really know what they were talking about.

Like most don't know that the whole practice of paying retailers for shelf placement when it comes to games was somwthing started by nintendo. But ninty didnt just pay for placement, they paid to keep their competetions products off the shelves period. Theu even got sued for it. 

This is the first I've heard of this. Care to elaborate?

Nintendo had to fight to get shelf space with retailers after the crash in the 80s with a lot retailers not wanting to bother with videogames at all.   Trying to get better shelf space was a old practice and something all products and companies wanted way before videogames. Nintendo convinced retailers to give them a chance and with the NES they found success with a wanted product.  Sony and Microsoft are also benefactors of the inroads Nintendo made back in the day for videogame shelf space.

As for keeping  their competitors products off the shelves, was there actually any lawsuits or was this just hearsay because unless I'm mistaken the lawsuit you're talking about is actually Atari vs. Sega in 1994 over shelf space for the Atari Jaguar? - source  

And thats just royalites, not to mentione that DVD player itself in PS2 defintly cost much more than optick in GC.

Yup. it happened. this is the most recent article i could fimd of the incident. 

That article actually talks a lot of nintys history but here is a snippet on this very issue.

The courts found Nintendo guilty and required amends to redistribute a large amount back to the consumers and break exclusive deals with third parties and retailers, but Nintendo ended up turning the loss into another victory. They distributed the price-fixing settlement in the form of thousands of $5 rebate checks, so to exercise the settlement consumers had to buy more Nintendo products.