h2ohno said: For me the question is why certain games sell so many systems while other games don't.

I think some games core fandoms are about the few millions who buy the game in the first month or buy just right they got their hands in the console. I don't think majority of game sales are from fans, maybe on more niche games, but definitely not among blockbusters

Console needs to sell many times fandoms-sizes to be successful, and there is a intersection among franchise fandoms, as many Zelda fans are also Mario fans, Metroid fans, Smash fans, etc, etc

What were the the mega franchises blockbusters Wii U got other than MK8? No Pokemon, no Animal Crossing, no Zelda until the same game was released on Switch, no mainline 3D Mario, No Wii Sports/Wii fit, it had by far the worst first party line up ever for a Nintendo console and it totally reflected its dreadful sales

About why AC become big after DS is because the system sold the game and not the opposite; Like Switch ownership made me give a try to New Horizons, now I'm an Animal fan and very likely to buy next Nintendo console that got next Animal Crossing game (just like I got my DS to play Pokemon back on those days)

It can be a reach, but I do feel like Pokemon is Nintendo biggest system seller. Their sales are just so damn stable, no matter how popular is the system it was made for. Exceptions were 1st and 2nd gen madness, but since 3rd gen all Pokemon mainline games has about:

15 to 19 million sales from mainline entries
10 to 13 million sales from remakes
7 to 8 million sales from third versions

It's a 20 years old consistency that can't be ignored. Pokemon sales are the most front-loaded among Nintendo exclusives, meaning they are heavily anticipated and tbh I just don't feel so much excitement for Pokemon among other Nintendo-exclusive fans, seems a franchise that heavily rely on its own core fandom

Slownenberg said: shikamaru317 said: It's mind blowing to me that some people still think that. The specs clearly show it to be weaker than both Gamecube and Xbox, and the graphics on most of the 3rd party multiplat games that released on all 3 show a disadvantage for PS2 as well. Not to mention that most of gen 6's best looking games were either Xbox exclusives/console exclusives, or multiplat games running on Xbox. PS2 Gamecube Xbox CPU 294/299 mhz 485 mhz 733 mhz GPU 147 mhz/6.2 gflops 162 mhz/9.4 gflops 233 mhz/20 gflops RAM System- 32 MB DRAM Graphics- 4 MB Sound- 2 MB  System- 24 MB SRAM + 16 MB DRAM Graphics- 3 MB  64 MB unified RAM for both system and graphics PS2 only beats gamecube in having larger disc space and 1 MB more video RAM, and the few games that look worse on Gamecube than PS2 were mostly due to the storage size limitation of gamecube's discs, which forced devs to use lower quality textures and other assets in some cases just to fit on the discs. Some people also claim PS1 looked better than N64 haha. I don't know what it is that makes people claim PS1 and PS2 had better graphics and were more powerful than N64 and Gamecube, but obviously anyone who has played both those systems knows it isn't true. As has been stated, there were numerous reasons why GC failed. "Kiddy" design of console played into that kiddy stereotype, weird controller config, smaller discs, still struggling to gain 3rd parties after the exodus of 3rd parties on N64, the big games of the gen were basically Halo and GTA. I had a friend who worked at a toy store and he said he would actually dissuade people from buying a gamecube cuz he thought it was lame - I guess that pretty much sums it up, Gamecube was considered by consumers to be not as cool as the other two.

My Dad must've talked to your friend cos when we called up to buy us a Gamecube back in like 2004, the guy at the store talked him into getting an Xbox instead. Biggest disappointment of my childhood, haha.

Anyway, as far as specs go, power has never been any guarantee of success; most generations are won by weaker hardware. Gamecube easily bested the PS2 graphically, and could even give the Xbox a run for its money, yet at the end of the day more people would rather play GTA3 or FFX than Rogue Squadron II or Starfox Adventures, graphics be damned.

RolStoppable said: The Nintendo 64 focused on 3D games, and early 3D games feel clunky and stiff in comparison to the brilliant fluidity of the gameplay in the 16-bit era. Super Mario 64 may have been the foundation for a lot of 3D gaming, but it pales in comparison to how good SNES games were. Nintendo's direction with first party software did more damage to the Nintendo 64 than the loss of third party IPs to Sony's PS1.

Do you really believe this or is a made-up narrative that pop up from your mind because you refuse to believe people actually do care for 3rd parties and Nintendo systems just failed to delivery it?

Your point makes me wonder if Nintendo customers who owned a SNES dropped console gaming ignoring PS1/Xbox/Saturn existence until Wii was back so they could play arcade games or whatever (because Wii sports is for sure a very arcade-like experience) again

People jump from SNES to PS1 because 3rd party line up was stronger on PS1 than on N64. Nintendo 64 games were just as good as PS1 games and still just as well liked, but PS1 library was unbeatable in quantity. People in no way dislikes N64 games, nor those games alienated Nintendo fans you are in reality the first person I see saying such a thing

The only market I can agree with you that really behaves like this is Japan, as they really seems to cherish Nintendo 2D roots and home consoles from Sony/Microsoft never got as big there as Nintendo systems, but elsewhere...? Well, not really

The truth is most gamers (even current Nintendo owners) aren't 40 years old boomers who grew playing NES. Most of gamers know console gaming from 3D afterwards or from late 90's/early 00's handhelds. Those gamers expect a experience (as you call, PC gaming experience) and MS and Sony just made a better job doing it (well, according to sales), hence Nintendo need to change strategy to difference itself and recover some of its past market share

And saying Wii U was made thinking on 3rd party is quite a stretch when we compare its hardware to PS4 and XBONE. I'm curious why do you think a platform that had a Gamepad and Xbox 360 hardware power was supposed to attract 3rd party when all that 3rd party did was avoid that said system?

It's the games that sell a system, not the hardware
Look at the best selling games on ps2, 6 of them were not on the gamecube, but you also got to consider the console exclusive critically acclaimed games which sold the system as well, PS2 has Ico, Shadow of Collossus, Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 (gamecube only had remake metal gear solid twin snake), persona 4, devil may cry, onimusha, god of war, ratchet and clank, jax and daxter, dragon quest 8, silent hill 2, tekken 5, suikoden 3. etc

10. Kingdom Hearts – 6.40 Million
9. Medal of Honor: Frontline – 6.83 Million
8. Need for Speed: Underground 2 – 6.90 Million
7. Need for Speed: Underground – 7.20 Million
6. Final Fantasy X – 8.05 Million
5. Gran Turismo 4 – 11.66 Million
4. Grand Theft Auto III – 13.10 Million
3. Gran Turismo 3: A-Spec – 14.98 Million
2. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City – 16.15 Million
1. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas – 20.81 Million

IcaroRibeiro said: RolStoppable said: The Nintendo 64 focused on 3D games, and early 3D games feel clunky and stiff in comparison to the brilliant fluidity of the gameplay in the 16-bit era. Super Mario 64 may have been the foundation for a lot of 3D gaming, but it pales in comparison to how good SNES games were. Nintendo's direction with first party software did more damage to the Nintendo 64 than the loss of third party IPs to Sony's PS1. Do you really believe this or is a made-up narrative that pop up from your mind because you refuse to believe people actually do care for 3rd parties and Nintendo systems just failed to delivery it? Your point makes me wonder if Nintendo customers who owned a SNES dropped console gaming ignoring PS1/Xbox/Saturn existence until Wii was back so they could play arcade games or whatever (because Wii sports is for sure a very arcade-like experience) again People jump from SNES to PS1 because 3rd party line up was stronger on PS1 than on N64. Nintendo 64 games were just as good as PS1 games and still just as well liked, but PS1 library was unbeatable in quantity. People in no way dislikes N64 games, nor those games alienated Nintendo fans you are in reality the first person I see saying such a thing The only market I can agree with you that really behaves like this is Japan, as they really seems to cherish Nintendo 2D roots and home consoles from Sony/Microsoft never got as big there as Nintendo systems, but elsewhere...? Well, not really The truth is most gamers (even current Nintendo owners) aren't 40 years old boomers who grew playing NES. Most of gamers know console gaming from 3D afterwards or from late 90's/early 00's handhelds. Those gamers expect a experience (as you call, PC gaming experience) and MS and Sony just made a better job doing it (well, according to sales), hence Nintendo need to change strategy to difference itself and recover some of its past market share And saying Wii U was made thinking on 3rd party is quite a stretch when we compare its hardware to PS4 and XBONE. I'm curious why do you think a platform that had a Gamepad and Xbox 360 hardware power was supposed to attract 3rd party when all that 3rd party did was avoid that said system?

Can we drop the Boomers thing. Boomers are an actual generation category. The Baby Boomer from 1945 to the early 60s. Post-WWII babies. A literal baby boom happened. Stop using this as some hyperbolic generalized term. 

Leynos said: Can we drop the Boomers thing. Boomers are an actual generation category. The Baby Boomer from 1945 to the early 60s. Post-WWII babies. A literal baby boom happened. Stop using this as some hyperbolic generalized term.

I know, but it's funny to use as derogatory term :p

The console was poorly marketed and the competition did well to make the console, brand, and manufacturer look antiquated.

I owned a Gamecube back in the day, and to be honest it was a major part of the reason why I eventually dropped Nintendo consoles as my primary gaming system. It was missed out on so many great games that I saw were on the ps2, and if I was able to choose again, I'd definitely have skipped the gamecube in favour of a ps2.

A large part of the reason why I bought a gamecube was to play twilight princess and that essentially got delayed to coincide with the release of the Nintendo's next system (lol).

Thankfully I learnt my lesson and didn't have the Wii as my primary gaming console, and I didn't even bother buying the Wii U (and glad I didn't as all the games I wanted to play ended up on the Switch or are to come out on the Switch).

Don't mean to be negative about Nintendo but their consoles have a history of being starved of third party support and (my view) an over-reliance on a few major franchises / first party studios.

IcaroRibeiro said: RolStoppable said: The Nintendo 64 focused on 3D games, and early 3D games feel clunky and stiff in comparison to the brilliant fluidity of the gameplay in the 16-bit era. Super Mario 64 may have been the foundation for a lot of 3D gaming, but it pales in comparison to how good SNES games were. Nintendo's direction with first party software did more damage to the Nintendo 64 than the loss of third party IPs to Sony's PS1. Do you really believe this or is a made-up narrative that pop up from your mind because you refuse to believe people actually do care for 3rd parties and Nintendo systems just failed to delivery it? Your point makes me wonder if Nintendo customers who owned a SNES dropped console gaming ignoring PS1/Xbox/Saturn existence until Wii was back so they could play arcade games or whatever (because Wii sports is for sure a very arcade-like experience) again People jump from SNES to PS1 because 3rd party line up was stronger on PS1 than on N64. Nintendo 64 games were just as good as PS1 games and still just as well liked, but PS1 library was unbeatable in quantity. People in no way dislikes N64 games, nor those games alienated Nintendo fans you are in reality the first person I see saying such a thing The only market I can agree with you that really behaves like this is Japan, as they really seems to cherish Nintendo 2D roots and home consoles from Sony/Microsoft never got as big there as Nintendo systems, but elsewhere...? Well, not really The truth is most gamers (even current Nintendo owners) aren't 40 years old boomers who grew playing NES. Most of gamers know console gaming from 3D afterwards or from late 90's/early 00's handhelds. Those gamers expect a experience (as you call, PC gaming experience) and MS and Sony just made a better job doing it (well, according to sales), hence Nintendo need to change strategy to difference itself and recover some of its past market share And saying Wii U was made thinking on 3rd party is quite a stretch when we compare its hardware to PS4 and XBONE. I'm curious why do you think a platform that had a Gamepad and Xbox 360 hardware power was supposed to attract 3rd party when all that 3rd party did was avoid that said system?

I live in the US, and I can tell you that I knew many, many people who owned a NES.  None of my close friends in college had a SNES or Genesis, but I did see a fair amount of them around from various acquaintences.  I also knew a variety of people throughout the years who had computers, and as I got older I encountered more and more who gamed on a PC.  I also knew several people who had a PS1 when it was a current system.  I only ever saw one person who owned a N64 while it was a current system, and that guy also had a PS1.  Now obviously, I tended to hang out with people who were my own age.

Years later, when I started looking at sales data, I was shocked how many people actually owned a N64, and that North America was actually it's strongest region.  Where were all of these people?  The answer is that they were young kids when the N64 was a current system.  They never got accustomed to 2D Mario, so to them, 3D Mario is the real Mario.  Meanwhile, to the people who owned an NES when it was current, 2D Mario is the real Mario and 3D Mario is garbage.  That one guy I knew with the N64 let me try Mario 64, and my reaction was "WTF?"  It felt like Mario had jumped the shark.  It did not feel like a real Mario game at all.  Meanwhile all of the gamers my age were playing PS1 or PC (or both).  None of us wanted an N64.

Why did my friends and I switch to Playstation?  Two reasons: 1) N64 did not have games that I liked.  2) PS1 did.  Nintendo made games I liked for NES (especially) and also SNES.  But SNES also had great third party games like Final Fantasy 4/6 and Castlevania 4 and so on.  PS1 had the sequels to these games.  If N64 actually had 2D Mario and Zelda on it, then I would have had a really tough decision.  Do I get the system with Mario and Zelda or the system with Final Fantasy?  Since N64 didn't have 2D Mario and Zelda, then my decision was easy: get a PS1.

NES was not a system for kids only.  I knew lots of people with NES and I even saw some adults (parents) play it.  They tended to play games like Duck Hunt, Super Mario 1, Tetris and Dr Mario.  SNES didn't really have games that appealed to adults (parents) and N64 most certainly didn't (but PS1 didn't either).  Parents like to play games too, probably now more than ever, but have limited time.  Arcade games that are quick and intense appeal to parents and that is doubly true if they have local multiplayer.  During the NES days, kids liked these games too.  Everyone liked arcade style games during the 80's and older gamers still do.

So, Playstation games tend to be most appealing to male gamers in their late teens and 20's.  Nintendo systems always appeal to kids.  But that still leaves parents and female gamers.  When Nintendo makes good games for these groups, then they tend to get the most success.  And that large install base attracts more third party games, which in turn attracts even more people (even some male gamers in their teens/twenties).  Having a large game library helps a system a lot, because no one wants to buy a system and just play 1-2 games.  So third party games don't need to sell 10m+, but there do need to be a good amount of third party games to go with the first party staples.  On the other hand, if Nintendo doesn't make games for these groups, then some just don't game and others wander over to Playstation or XBox to see what they have.  Short, intense, arcade-like, action games are the most preferred for a large amount of people in the US though, as long as they are actually being made.

You make some good points, but the Resident Evil 4 port looked crappy on the PS2, it is not as sharp as the GC version, and even water bodies look flat on Sony's machine.

The GC was much more capable than the PS2 as a gaming machine, it just didn't have any support. There is no way that the PS2 could run Metroid Prime in the way that the GC did. 

Rogue Squadron 2 was also a magnificent show case of the system's capabilities. Specs don't lie, the GC was the better hardware, even if didnt have the same amount of great games.