By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What Nintendo systems has Switch already surpassed for you?

Wyrdness said:
Soundwave said:

Splatoon has 14 new stages and 9 old stages from the 1st game, so a huge chunk of its content is taken from the first game, otherwise there's probably no chance that game makes it out that early in the Switch product cycle. 

Nintendo's buyer base seems very finicky on launch windows for whatever reason. Like you would think maybe people would say "well, y'know we know we're not getting these Nintendo IP on other systems so we'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just buy the system now" ... but Nintendo seems to get no benefit of the doubt from its fanbase for whatever reason. 

They have to prove themselves again every time with a new system from day 1, which is pretty hard to do. 

Sony has had drought periods, honestly even the PS2 launch wasn't that great (especially the Japanese one), but their buyer base just seems to buy it no matter what. PS3 was the only rough stretch they had with a home console because the system was absurdly expensive for its time. PS5 barely has any exclusives worth owning and they pretty much instantly sell out anywhere but Japan it seems like. 

The 3rd party thing probably makes a big difference, Sony fans are happy if they get their yearly Madden, FIFA, Call of Duty, NBA2K ... those are the main IP, Nintendo doesn't get that kind of help from 3rd parties in terms of system seller content so they have to bring their big guns. 

If I was Nintendo at this point I'd just save new Zelda games for launch windows, Nintendo fans seem stubborn about buying a new system until you show them a new Zelda, then they just open up the wallet like it's no problem. 

Those were added later in updates on launch it just had new stages this why the balance in the game differs from the first as the maps forced certain styles of play which were heaving on flanking and short range, the production cycle is smaller because they reused assets and the engine.

Nintendo's problem was never launch titles it was fundamental issues that impacted product appeal such as droughts and product identity this is apparent when you look at their most successful platforms (NES, GB/C, SNES, GBA, DS, 3DS, Wii, Switch) they knew what they wanted to do with these platforms and how to go forward and kept the droughts away resulting in appealing products that people bought.

Some of that honestly I think is revisionist history to a degree though. 

GameCube for example was really, really well deigned as a hardware platform. Cheaper than the PS2 while simultaneously being more powerful and much easier to develop for, eliminating most of the problems the N64 hardware had. A lot of GCN games still look quite nice today even when emulated at an HD resolution ... F-Zero X, Wind Waker, Wave Race: Blue Storm, Star Wars Rogue Squadron, Star Fox Adventures, etc. 

The DS, Nintendo didn't really know what the heck they were doing with it for a long while, even the concept is a fluke, Yamauchi just wanted two screens for no real reason and then they had to figure out why they even needed the 2 screens, lol, even Iwata thought it was a dumb idea but they wanted to humor Yamauchi I guess and not embarrass him (this is also probably why Nintendo gave the 64DD the most token release possible ... Yamauchi really backed the 64DD idea even though it was clear it should just be canned). 

GameCube needed to launch in 2000, and the only way that could have been feasible would have been to take N64 projects and repurpose them for the GCN ... but that wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea. Zelda: MM, Perfect Dark really could not run on the stock N64 anyway without the RAM Expansion Pak  that only a small minority proportion of the N64 userbase had anyway. Conker's Bad Fur Day also ran poorly on the N64, the game was too ambitious for that hardware. 

And Zelda: MM as a launch title for the GameCube would've calmed some of the controversy over Wind Waker later on being toon shaded, think people just wanted that Ocarina of Time sequel first and when Nintendo went in a dramatically different direction artistically, there was a lot of angry backlash and it didn't help the "Nintendo is kiddie" reputation that seemed hyper-magnified in the image conscious early-mid 2000s. 



Around the Network

Wii U games may have helped fill some gaps while Switch established itself, but that's frankly just par for the course since the start of the 8th gen, Xbox and PS do the same.
Even in 2017 Switch had plenty of content not on Wii U, from Mario Odyssey, Xenoblade 2, ARMS, and Kingdom Battle to Doom 2016, Rocket League, Skyrim, etc. Splatoon 2 is also very much its own game and doesn't really reuse much more than most iterative sequels.

We're way passed the point of Wii U games making up a substantial share of the lineup, and ever since third party support kicked into high gear around 2019 we're once again in a position where games from third parties fill the spaces between big Nintendo games.

If you stripped out all games from prior Nintendo systems, Switch would still be second only to the SNES I'd say.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023. (And over 130 million lifetime)

I mean it's kind of hard to remove MK8 and BOTW from the Switch, they're not just normal titles.

MK8 is the best selling and most popular game on the system, BOTW is the show piece game for the system, probably the system's most iconic title (as Mario 64 is to N64, Super Mario to NES, Smash to GameCube, etc.) and one of the top sellers too.

Arguably these are the two most important games on the system.

Without them I don't even know if Nintendo could launch in March 2017 ... like what are you launching with? 1,2 Switch? The system would've 3DS-ed itself.

Switch should be ahead too just by virtue of being the only Nintendo system, NES, SNES, N64, GCN, Wii, Wii U all had to share some portion of Nintendo's software output with the portable systems too.



Soundwave said:

I mean it's kind of hard to remove MK8 and BOTW from the Switch, they're not just normal titles.

MK8 is the best selling and most popular game on the system, BOTW is the show piece game for the system, probably the system's most iconic title (as Mario 64 is to N64, Super Mario to NES, Smash to GameCube, etc.) and one of the top sellers too.

Arguably these are the two most important games on the system.

Without them I don't even know if Nintendo could launch in March 2017 ... like what are you launching with? 1,2 Switch? The system would've 3DS-ed itself.

Switch should be ahead too just by virtue of being the only Nintendo system, NES, SNES, N64, GCN, Wii, Wii U all had to share some portion of Nintendo's software output with the portable systems too.

BOTW is a crossgen release, something commonplace on other platforms and even from Nintendo seen way back in 2006 with Twilight Princess. It's not recycled content as it was brand new when it hit Switch.

Mario Kart 8 is really the only major 2017 title that's recycled from Wii U, and in spite of its success it is only one game. They easily could have made Mario Kart 9 instead and seen similar numbers, and none of the other top 10 games on Switch are Wii U titles.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 01 December 2022

Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023. (And over 130 million lifetime)

Soundwave said:

Some of that honestly I think is revisionist history to a degree though. 

GameCube for example was really, really well deigned as a hardware platform. Cheaper than the PS2 while simultaneously being more powerful and much easier to develop for, eliminating most of the problems the N64 hardware had. A lot of GCN games still look quite nice today even when emulated at an HD resolution ... F-Zero X, Wind Waker, Wave Race: Blue Storm, Star Wars Rogue Squadron, Star Fox Adventures, etc. 

The DS, Nintendo didn't really know what the heck they were doing with it for a long while, even the concept is a fluke, Yamauchi just wanted two screens for no real reason and then they had to figure out why they even needed the 2 screens, lol, even Iwata thought it was a dumb idea but they wanted to humor Yamauchi I guess and not embarrass him (this is also probably why Nintendo gave the 64DD the most token release possible ... Yamauchi really backed the 64DD idea even though it was clear it should just be canned). 

GameCube needed to launch in 2000, and the only way that could have been feasible would have been to take N64 projects and repurpose them for the GCN ... but that wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea. Zelda: MM, Perfect Dark really could not run on the stock N64 anyway without the RAM Expansion Pak  that only a small minority proportion of the N64 userbase had anyway. Conker's Bad Fur Day also ran poorly on the N64, the game was too ambitious for that hardware. 

And Zelda: MM as a launch title for the GameCube would've calmed some of the controversy over Wind Waker later on being toon shaded, think people just wanted that Ocarina of Time sequel first and when Nintendo went in a dramatically different direction artistically, there was a lot of angry backlash and it didn't help the "Nintendo is kiddie" reputation that seemed hyper-magnified in the image conscious early-mid 2000s. 

It's revisionist on the part of those who overlook the flaws GCN had huge droughts every year that alone kills appeal, the design they gave it was also an odd look in regards to grabbing consumer attention it had some nice games but many were released far apart from each other.

DS was aimed at the blue ocean, it was targeted towards more casual players hence why it's flagship title was Nintendogs which highlights they knew what to do with the added screen and where they wanted to go with the platform. This even shows in how DS is the device that inspired Apple to embrace the use of touch screens as a result (first with iPod then iPhone) due to it's resonance with people and the ideas that the software was executing.

GCN would have still ended up in the same position it's like you're ignoring the fact that it had these constant large droughts, it doesn't matter when it released the problems weren't due to launch software it was a fundamental problem that even the N64 had. Goldeneye, PD, OOT etc... didn't remove the kiddie title so why do you think MM would? Fact is it would have made little difference.



Around the Network
Wyrdness said:
Soundwave said:

Some of that honestly I think is revisionist history to a degree though. 

GameCube for example was really, really well deigned as a hardware platform. Cheaper than the PS2 while simultaneously being more powerful and much easier to develop for, eliminating most of the problems the N64 hardware had. A lot of GCN games still look quite nice today even when emulated at an HD resolution ... F-Zero X, Wind Waker, Wave Race: Blue Storm, Star Wars Rogue Squadron, Star Fox Adventures, etc. 

The DS, Nintendo didn't really know what the heck they were doing with it for a long while, even the concept is a fluke, Yamauchi just wanted two screens for no real reason and then they had to figure out why they even needed the 2 screens, lol, even Iwata thought it was a dumb idea but they wanted to humor Yamauchi I guess and not embarrass him (this is also probably why Nintendo gave the 64DD the most token release possible ... Yamauchi really backed the 64DD idea even though it was clear it should just be canned). 

GameCube needed to launch in 2000, and the only way that could have been feasible would have been to take N64 projects and repurpose them for the GCN ... but that wouldn't necessarily have been a bad idea. Zelda: MM, Perfect Dark really could not run on the stock N64 anyway without the RAM Expansion Pak  that only a small minority proportion of the N64 userbase had anyway. Conker's Bad Fur Day also ran poorly on the N64, the game was too ambitious for that hardware. 

And Zelda: MM as a launch title for the GameCube would've calmed some of the controversy over Wind Waker later on being toon shaded, think people just wanted that Ocarina of Time sequel first and when Nintendo went in a dramatically different direction artistically, there was a lot of angry backlash and it didn't help the "Nintendo is kiddie" reputation that seemed hyper-magnified in the image conscious early-mid 2000s. 

It's revisionist on the part of those who overlook the flaws GCN had huge droughts every year that alone kills appeal, the design they gave it was also an odd look in regards to grabbing consumer attention it had some nice games but many were released far apart from each other.

DS was aimed at the blue ocean, it was targeted towards more casual players hence why it's flagship title was Nintendogs which highlights they knew what to do with the added screen and where they wanted to go with the platform. This even shows in how DS is the device that inspired Apple to embrace the use of touch screens as a result (first with iPod then iPhone) due to it's resonance with people and the ideas that the software was executing.

GCN would have still ended up in the same position it's like you're ignoring the fact that it had these constant large droughts, it doesn't matter when it released the problems weren't due to launch software it was a fundamental problem that even the N64 had. Goldeneye, PD, OOT etc... didn't remove the kiddie title so why do you think MM would? Fact is it would have made little difference.

The GameCube didn't have that many droughts, unless you are one of those people who are in the "well I will only buy Nintendo games on a Nintendo system and never touch 3rd party games". It had a library of about 652 games I think, which is not that terrible, the N64 was the one that was really crippled by software droughts. N64 should have been Nintendo's greatest system overtaking the SNES, they had it right there for the taking and sadly shot the poor machine in the foot before it was even on storeshelves to gift Playstation market dominance in the traditional console market. 

Nintendo's internal development is actually a lot more choatic and random than people think it is too. Like people think they designed the DS with this grand vision, but really it wasn't like that at all. 

The designer of the Game Boy was working on a slider Game Boy Advance successor, like the popular slide out phones that preceded smartphones that were popular circa 2003 or so (the ones Paris Hilton would carry around). The screen would slide out to reveval controls underneath. That guy simply liked a touchscreen, they had been experimenting with touchscreens since forever so that was part of the design already. 

Then Sony announced the PSP at E3 2003 and Yamauchi in a panic basically canned work on that GBA successor and said if the PSP has one screen well ... he wants two screens for a new portable because two is better than one and that had to be ready within like a year, lol. 

And even Iwata thought the idea was stupid as did most of Nintendo's designers, but Iwata wanting to be diplomatic to Yamauchi said they should at least explore the idea, and so the touchscreen concept was just merged from the GBA successor project that was supposed to just be more of a standard game portable really. 

The other thing is touchscreens while quite novel for the Western market, weren't quite as exotic in Japan, resistive touch screen PDAs were a common staple device for Japanese businessmen/women in the early 2000s. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 01 December 2022

Soundwave said:

The GameCube didn't have that many droughts, unless you are one of those people who are in the "well I will only buy Nintendo games on a Nintendo system and never touch 3rd party games". It had a library of about 652 games I think, which is not that terrible, the N64 was the one that was really crippled by software droughts. N64 should have been Nintendo's greatest system overtaking the SNES, they had it right there for the taking and sadly shot the poor machine in the foot before it was even on storeshelves to gift Playstation market dominance in the traditional console market. 

Nintendo's internal development is actually a lot more choatic and random than people think it is too. Like people think they designed the DS with this grand vision, but really it wasn't like that at all. 

The designer of the Game Boy was working on a slider Game Boy Advance successor, like the popular slide out phones that preceded smartphones that were popular circa 2003 or so (the ones Paris Hilton would carry around). The screen would slide out to reveval controls underneath. That guy simply liked a touchscreen, they had been experimenting with touchscreens since forever so that was part of the design already. 

Then Sony announced the PSP at E3 2003 and Yamauchi in a panic basically canned work on that GBA successor and said if the PSP has one screen well ... he wants two screens for a new portable because two is better than one and that had to be ready within like a year, lol. 

And even Iwata thought the idea was stupid as did most of Nintendo's designers, but Iwata wanting to be diplomatic to Yamauchi said they should at least explore the idea, and so the touchscreen concept was just merged from the GBA successor project that was supposed to just be more of a standard game portable really. 

The other thing is touchscreens while quite novel for the Western market, weren't quite as exotic in Japan, resistive touch screen PDAs were a common staple device for Japanese businessmen/women in the early 2000s. 

Of that 652 which were the worth while games to get the platform for though? The vast majority of notable third party titles it got were on PS2 so if a consumer was looking to buy a console it put the bulk of GCNs games on a rival platform that far outstripped it in regards to exclusives as well this also meant if you had a PS2 as well which was a likely case the GC hardly had anything for you to buy for long periods as most games outside of exclusives had little differences between them across platforms unless it was the Xbox version, we're not talking about the what ifs we're talking about the platforms as they are so the whole what N64 could have been talk is meaningless.

DS had been in development since 2002, Nintendo had been experimenting with two screens for a while with the GBA/GC link up as well as G&W as far back as 1980 had two screens this isn't some panic concept like you claim it's something they had been experimenting with for a while with the DS touch feature being the next experiment.

Resistive PDAs never had the software execution of the DS or all of the same features, for example games and software on the DS are akin to apps on Smart phones today as the were numerous non gaming software that utilized the platform features that PDAS could never replicate for example one software on the DS allowed someone to perform a rock concert using the DS as a stand in guitar. PDAs were essentially no different from standard mobile phones DS on the other hand unexpectedly laid the ground work for the iPhone and the smart phone era.



Wyrdness said:
Soundwave said:

The GameCube didn't have that many droughts, unless you are one of those people who are in the "well I will only buy Nintendo games on a Nintendo system and never touch 3rd party games". It had a library of about 652 games I think, which is not that terrible, the N64 was the one that was really crippled by software droughts. N64 should have been Nintendo's greatest system overtaking the SNES, they had it right there for the taking and sadly shot the poor machine in the foot before it was even on storeshelves to gift Playstation market dominance in the traditional console market. 

Nintendo's internal development is actually a lot more choatic and random than people think it is too. Like people think they designed the DS with this grand vision, but really it wasn't like that at all. 

The designer of the Game Boy was working on a slider Game Boy Advance successor, like the popular slide out phones that preceded smartphones that were popular circa 2003 or so (the ones Paris Hilton would carry around). The screen would slide out to reveval controls underneath. That guy simply liked a touchscreen, they had been experimenting with touchscreens since forever so that was part of the design already. 

Then Sony announced the PSP at E3 2003 and Yamauchi in a panic basically canned work on that GBA successor and said if the PSP has one screen well ... he wants two screens for a new portable because two is better than one and that had to be ready within like a year, lol. 

And even Iwata thought the idea was stupid as did most of Nintendo's designers, but Iwata wanting to be diplomatic to Yamauchi said they should at least explore the idea, and so the touchscreen concept was just merged from the GBA successor project that was supposed to just be more of a standard game portable really. 

The other thing is touchscreens while quite novel for the Western market, weren't quite as exotic in Japan, resistive touch screen PDAs were a common staple device for Japanese businessmen/women in the early 2000s. 

Of that 652 which were the worth while games to get the platform for though? The vast majority of notable third party titles it got were on PS2 so if a consumer was looking to buy a console it put the bulk of GCNs games on a rival platform that far outstripped it in regards to exclusives as well this also meant if you had a PS2 as well which was a likely case the GC hardly had anything for you to buy for long periods as most games outside of exclusives had little differences between them across platforms unless it was the Xbox version, we're not talking about the what ifs we're talking about the platforms as they are so the whole what N64 could have been talk is meaningless.

DS had been in development since 2002, Nintendo had been experimenting with two screens for a while with the GBA/GC link up as well as G&W as far back as 1980 had two screens this isn't some panic concept like you claim it's something they had been experimenting with for a while with the DS touch feature being the next experiment.

Resistive PDAs never had the software execution of the DS or all of the same features, for example games and software on the DS are akin to apps on Smart phones today as the were numerous non gaming software that utilized the platform features that PDAS could never replicate for example one software on the DS allowed someone to perform a rock concert using the DS as a stand in guitar. PDAs were essentially no different from standard mobile phones DS on the other hand unexpectedly laid the ground work for the iPhone and the smart phone era.

I mean that is kind of how 3rd party games work though ... they tend to be multiplatform. Like there's nothing stopping anyone from enjoying Prince of Persia or SSX Tricky or Soul Calibur 2 on a GameCube (might want a pad with a better d-pad though I suppose). 

The biggest thing I would tell Nintendo if you could go back in time and tell them something for GameCube is you have to launch in 2000. 2001 is too late and the XBox kind of made a lot of the work Nintendo did on the hardware (taking a lot of pain and effort to ensure it was easier to program for than the PS2, more powerful, and still affordable) redundant because the XBox also did a lot of those things. 

N64 they just needed a CD-drive (keep the cartridge slot no big deal) and a sit down with Squaresoft to get them back on board and they would've dominated that generation IMO. That would've been a better system than even the SNES. 

My point about Resistive touchscreens in Japan was simply that it wasn't like some kind of big deal. If you were riding a Japanese train circa 2002 you'd probably see a bunch of people with a pen out writing notes or whatever on their touchscreen PDA. It wasn't some unheard of tech in Japan anyway. iPhone is quite different from DS or anything else, that was just a quantum leap. 

Here is the history of the DS by the way, they were working on Game Boy Iris, then Yamauchi insisted they had to fast track a new portable to market, that portable was codenamed Nitro, which is the DS.

It's hilarious actually how much of Nintendo was basically just run on Yamauchi's whims and a lot of happen stance. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 01 December 2022

Soundwave said:

I mean that is kind of how 3rd party games work though ... they tend to be multiplatform. Like there's nothing stopping anyone from enjoying Prince of Persia or SSX Tricky or Soul Calibur 2 on a GameCube (might want a pad with a better d-pad though I suppose). 

The biggest thing I would tell Nintendo if you could go back in time and tell them something for GameCube is you have to launch in 2000. 2001 is too late and the XBox kind of made a lot of the work Nintendo did on the hardware (taking a lot of pain and effort to ensure it was easier to program for than the PS2, more powerful, and still affordable) redundant because the XBox also did a lot of those things. 

N64 they just needed a CD-drive (keep the cartridge slot no big deal) and a sit down with Squaresoft to get them back on board and they would've dominated that generation IMO. That would've been a better system than even the SNES. 

My point about Resistive touchscreens in Japan was simply that it wasn't like some kind of big deal. If you were riding a Japanese train circa 2002 you'd probably see a bunch of people with a pen out writing notes or whatever on their touchscreen PDA. It wasn't some unheard of tech in Japan anyway. iPhone is quite different from DS or anything else, that was just a quantum leap. 

Your argument is in regards to it performing as a platform to others though, against PS2 it severely lacked in third party and was beaten out in exclusives so as a consumer the is no reason to get a GCN unless you were a core Nintendo fan and the first party output back then by Nintendo wasn't how it was today it was far more lacking on the home console front. The third party GCN got lacked many of the major hitters as while you may enjoy your Prince of Persias and SC2s etc... PS2 had the DMCs, GTAs, FFs, DQs and so on so the gaps between major first party releases were far more apparent hence droughts.

They could release in 99 they'd get the same outcome as the problem wasn't release date look at WiiU released before the competition and fell flat mean while Switch releases mid gen and will be their highest selling platform at this rate it's already surpassed all their home platforms as the issue was never release date it was appeal as that alone can carry a platform.

Yeah and? They didn't so here we are and in the end it's worked out for the best as Nintendo went on to become more self sufficient we wouldn't have the likes of games like Xenoblade 3, Bayonetta 3 and so on meanwhile all the developers who left back then are finding their way back to Nintendo's platform.

Your point is well pointless because it's like saying people had mobile phones before the smart phone, the argument does nothing to refute the point because the execution of the tech's usage is what mattered, the usage of it inspired the app base smartphone era we're in to day.



Wyrdness said:
Soundwave said:

I mean that is kind of how 3rd party games work though ... they tend to be multiplatform. Like there's nothing stopping anyone from enjoying Prince of Persia or SSX Tricky or Soul Calibur 2 on a GameCube (might want a pad with a better d-pad though I suppose). 

The biggest thing I would tell Nintendo if you could go back in time and tell them something for GameCube is you have to launch in 2000. 2001 is too late and the XBox kind of made a lot of the work Nintendo did on the hardware (taking a lot of pain and effort to ensure it was easier to program for than the PS2, more powerful, and still affordable) redundant because the XBox also did a lot of those things. 

N64 they just needed a CD-drive (keep the cartridge slot no big deal) and a sit down with Squaresoft to get them back on board and they would've dominated that generation IMO. That would've been a better system than even the SNES. 

My point about Resistive touchscreens in Japan was simply that it wasn't like some kind of big deal. If you were riding a Japanese train circa 2002 you'd probably see a bunch of people with a pen out writing notes or whatever on their touchscreen PDA. It wasn't some unheard of tech in Japan anyway. iPhone is quite different from DS or anything else, that was just a quantum leap. 

Your argument is in regards to it performing as a platform to others though, against PS2 it severely lacked in third party and was beaten out in exclusives so as a consumer the is no reason to get a GCN unless you were a core Nintendo fan and the first party output back then by Nintendo wasn't how it was today it was far more lacking on the home console front. The third party GCN got lacked many of the major hitters as while you may enjoy your Prince of Persias and SC2s etc... PS2 had the DMCs, GTAs, FFs, DQs and so on so the gaps between major first party releases were far more apparent hence droughts.

They could release in 99 they'd get the same outcome as the problem wasn't release date look at WiiU released before the competition and fell flat mean while Switch releases mid gen and will be their highest selling platform at this rate it's already surpassed all their home platforms as the issue was never release date it was appeal as that alone can carry a platform.

Yeah and? They didn't so here we are and in the end it's worked out for the best as Nintendo went on to become more self sufficient we wouldn't have the likes of games like Xenoblade 3, Bayonetta 3 and so on meanwhile all the developers who left back then are finding their way back to Nintendo's platform.

Your point is well pointless because it's like saying people had mobile phones before the smart phone, the argument does nothing to refute the point because the execution of the tech's usage is what mattered, the usage of it inspired the app base smartphone era we're in to day.

Nintendo actually doesn't get enough credit for some of the 3rd party monster moves they did make with the GameCube. They cut a deal for the entire freaking Resident Evil franchise to be exclusive. At the time, Resident Evil was probably like the 2nd or 3rd biggest 3rd party IP ... maybe even first? That would be like Nintendo getting I dunno, Call of Duty exclusive today. They also cut deals for Metal Gear Solid Remake, got a Final Fantasy game, repaired their relationship with Namco to the point where Namco would work on Nintendo games, Capcom 5 to go with the Resident Evil games, EA would even market with the GameCube logo and Mario characters in games like SSX and what not. 

They did quite a bit. It just wasn't enough. Because Sony had a huge headstart, they could leverage better deals with 3rd parties and Nintendo was kind of in a weird awkward spot where MS probably would also offer more money than Nintendo. 

The goal shouldn't have been the beat Sony, Sony was too much of a juggernaut, the goal should have been to bury the XBox before it could get momentum (the same way the PS2 shit on the GCN with its headstart). If they could have carved out their place as the no.2 console they probably could have hit their sales target for the GameCube which Nintendo stated was somewhere in the range of 40-50 million units. 

The Wii U analogy doesn't really work because the Wii U was a full generation behind the PS4 in tech without the fancy gimmick of a controller craze it was a very unappealing, outdated system next to the much more appealing PS4. The GameCube was better hardware than the PS2 though. Unfortunately the XBox was even better hardware than probably the both of them (PS2 and GCN) and was easy to develop for also, so it stole a lot of the GCN's thunder. If it was just PS2 vs GCN, I think over time people would have been more appreciative of the GameCube's strengths versus the PS2. 

I don't think Apple gave two shits about gaming when designing the iPhone honestly. They didn't even highlight gaming at all when they unveiled it. Gaming is just something that developed on the iPhone later on as it made sense in the App ecosystem and developers themselves kinda took the intiative to start making games, not really something Apple themselves was pushing for. Once they realized it was a revenue source, of course they were fine with it. In fact one of the most famous moments in Jobs' iconic iPhone reveal event in 2007 was taking a giant shit on resistive touchscreen devices (which is what PDAs and the DS were) by saying basically "you don't need that stupid touch pen". 

If the iPhone had been designed for gaming, really a trackball (small one) in place of the home button would've been much better for gaming. The main thing that sucks about smartphone gaming is the lack of a physical directional input. On-screen buttons are OK (not ideal, but you can get used to that) ... but a touchscreen really can't replace a physical directional input for character controls.  

Last edited by Soundwave - on 01 December 2022