The reason the Gamecube IS CLOSE TO FAILING, IMO

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I'm not talking about MS objectives. I'm talking about the GC as a failure. If Nintendo was having a time like MS, losing money on consoles, it would be a failure, but if it was making money, it'ss not really failing. Plus there's the fact tha MS haven't really broekn into Japan, which is a fairly big player, but Nintendo have a strong foothold there. The success/failure of a console isn't determined by America.

There is more to a game system than how much cash per box you make.

How much was R&D? How much was marketing? The more boxes you sell, the more units you have to spread those costs around.

The actual "cost" of the finished GameCube box is less than they sell them for, but how much did all the other non-manfacturing items cost?

Is Nintendo making enough money off GameCube to pay for the development of the next system? And the one after that?

Hopper

 

[arcain]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
what about the fact that it cant play DVDs

Depends if you buy your game console to be a game console or a DVD player.

At launch day prices, you could have bought a low-end dedicated DVD unit with the price differential between the DVD-capable consoles and a GameCube, particularly if you take into account the fact that neither PS2 nor XBox included a remote.

Not playing DVDs also helps Nintendo with the production costs because they don't need a DVD license. This was why the X Box doesn't play DVD's out of the box, but requires an addon (because Microsoft did not want to pay for DVD license for every machine like Sony did).

 

[Tallgeese]

For MS...it's all about market share this round.
And that IS what matters here for them.

The more installed seats MS captures with Xbox 1, the more "automatic" sales they'll have for Xbox 2 with its ability to play games developed for Xbox 1, a la Sony's tactic with the PS2's backward compatibility. This, of course, assumes that capability will be included in Xbox 2. If it isn't, MS can kiss any future with Xbox 2 goodbye.

Considering that Sega was forced out of the hardware market facing both the juggernauts of Sony and Nintendo...Microsoft has done DAMN well for a first outing in a totally new area. NO ONE can argue otherwise.

They've gained serious legitimacy with the Xbox when everyone expected they would be "in and out" of the console business in six to nine months.
Xbox Live is a fantastic success, and both Sony and Nintendo have been caught flat-footed by their mistaken beliefs that "nobody's interested in online play for consoles."

Japan will be a continue to be a TOUGH market for MS, even in future generations.
It's a cultural thing, primarily...which is why all the gee-whiz technical features won't mean cr@p.
MS must put somebody in charge of the Asian region who knows how to position and market in that very rigid culture.
At the very least, maybe they could bundle in a "Hello Kitty" vibrator peripheral or something?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I'm not talking about MS objectives. I'm talking about the GC as a failure. If Nintendo was having a time like MS, losing money on consoles, it would be a failure, but if it was making money, it'ss not really failing. Plus there's the fact tha MS haven't really broekn into Japan, which is a fairly big player, but Nintendo have a strong foothold there. The success/failure of a console isn't determined by America.

There is more to a game system than how much cash per box you make.

How much was R&D? How much was marketing? The more boxes you sell, the more units you have to spread those costs around.

The actual "cost" of the finished GameCube box is less than they sell them for, but how much did all the other non-manfacturing items cost?

Is Nintendo making enough money off GameCube to pay for the development of the next system? And the one after that?

Hopper

so how much is MS loosing per xbox when you take those into account?

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: Lonyo
I'm not talking about MS objectives. I'm talking about the GC as a failure. If Nintendo was having a time like MS, losing money on consoles, it would be a failure, but if it was making money, it'ss not really failing. Plus there's the fact tha MS haven't really broekn into Japan, which is a fairly big player, but Nintendo have a strong foothold there. The success/failure of a console isn't determined by America.

There is more to a game system than how much cash per box you make.

How much was R&D? How much was marketing? The more boxes you sell, the more units you have to spread those costs around.

The actual "cost" of the finished GameCube box is less than they sell them for, but how much did all the other non-manfacturing items cost?

Is Nintendo making enough money off GameCube to pay for the development of the next system? And the one after that?

Hopper

Having read about the development of Nintendo as a company, I think that they will have enough to succeed and make a new console, even if it's off GB sales.
To be honest, I would guess that advertising for the GC has cost less than for other consoles, because there seems to be less of it (in the UK at least, and possibly in the US as well).
Japanese businesses aren't the same as American/European ones. After reading a book about Nintendo, the sort of character the head is, leads me to believe that taking a western view of business practices won't really give an accurate picture.

Some stuff here

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: Tallgeese
For MS...it's all about market share this round.
And that IS what matters here.

Yep, and Microsoft is an expert at that...

They do compete with their first version or two of a product, then they run off with the market.

MS-DOS didn't start running off with the market until version 3.2 came out. Windows didn't run off until 3.0 came out. MS Office didn't run off until version 3.5 came out. IE didn't run off until 3.0 came out. PalmPC (PocketPC) didn't run off until 3.0 came out (Pocket PC is version 3 and is really selling well now)

And so on...

XBox 2 will still compete with PS3 and whatever Nintendo comes out with next, but XBox 3 should run off with most of the market.

Microsoft will spend however much money it takes to make it happen.

The more installed seats MS captures with Xbox 1, the more "automatic" sales they'll have for Xbox 2 with its ability to play games developed for Xbox 1, a la Sony's tactic with the PS2's backward compatibility. This, of course, assumes that capability will be included in Xbox 2. If it isn't, MS can kiss any future with Xbox 2 goodbye.

Because it uses such standard hardware, it should be simple to make it compatable.

They've gained serious legitimacy with the Xbox when everyone expected they would be "in and out" of the console business in six to nine months.

I remember thinking that too at one point, like "oh Microsoft SO doesn't know what it is getting into here". But alas, they seem to have figured it out well enough to get legitimatcy...

Xbox Live is a fantastic success, and both Sony and Nintendo have been caught flat-footed by their mistaken beliefs that "nobody's interested in online play for consoles."

Anyone remember Sega's attempts to get the 32X online? It worked too, sorta... using a 28.8k modem.

Japan will be a continue to be a TOUGH market for MS, even in future generations.

Yes, it will... But Microsoft can afford to wait.

Hopper

 

[Lonyo]

Nintendo were the first to realise the potential of getting a console online, they were'nt the first to do it, but it was the President on Nintendo in the 80's who thought of it, but didn't realise it couldn't be done the way he envisaged. I hope Nintendo will do something special soon.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so how much is MS loosing per xbox when you take those into account?

Microsoft has indeed lost money on XBox. How much? About three months of profit total...

Hopper

 

[Storm]

Originally posted by: Grasshopper27

Originally posted by: ElFenix
so how much is MS loosing per xbox when you take those into account?

Microsoft has indeed lost money on XBox. How much? About three months of profit total...

Hopper

I thought they were losing at least $100 per Xbox they sold.

 

[Storm]

Originally posted by: Tallgeese
For MS...it's all about market share this round.
And that IS what matters here for them.

The more installed seats MS captures with Xbox 1, the more "automatic" sales they'll have for Xbox 2 with its ability to play games developed for Xbox 1, a la Sony's tactic with the PS2's backward compatibility. This, of course, assumes that capability will be included in Xbox 2. If it isn't, MS can kiss any future with Xbox 2 goodbye.

Considering that Sega was forced out of the hardware market facing both the juggernauts of Sony and Nintendo...Microsoft has done DAMN well for a first outing in a totally new area. NO ONE can argue otherwise.

They've gained serious legitimacy with the Xbox when everyone expected they would be "in and out" of the console business in six to nine months.
Xbox Live is a fantastic success, and both Sony and Nintendo have been caught flat-footed by their mistaken beliefs that "nobody's interested in online play for consoles."

Japan will be a continue to be a TOUGH market for MS, even in future generations.
It's a cultural thing, primarily...which is why all the gee-whiz technical features won't mean cr@p.
MS must put somebody in charge of the Asian region who knows how to position and market in that very rigid culture.
At the very least, maybe they could bundle in a "Hello Kitty" vibrator peripheral or something?

MS just needs Japanese developers or learn to create games towards the japanese public. Like rpgs, dating sims and the other wierd games that are popular.

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: Storm

Originally posted by: Tallgeese
Japan will be a continue to be a TOUGH market for MS, even in future generations.
It's a cultural thing, primarily...which is why all the gee-whiz technical features won't mean cr@p.
MS must put somebody in charge of the Asian region who knows how to position and market in that very rigid culture.
At the very least, maybe they could bundle in a "Hello Kitty" vibrator peripheral or something?

MS just needs Japanese developers or learn to create games towards the japanese public. Like rpgs, dating sims and the other wierd games that are popular.

What MTG calls "YYD" games...a la Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball

BTW: If you wanna try to figure out MTG's acronym, the first "Y" stands for "Yank"

 

[Dark4ng3l]

Three months of profits for M$ is an HUGE loss.

 

[everman]

The design of the console itself is ok, but I believe a sleeker 'high tech' look such as the PS2 could help sales in the US marginally. The controller on the other hand is nice, it fits the hand well and comfortable.
By no means is it close to failing though.

 

[Storm]

Originally posted by: Tallgeese
What MTG calles "YYD" games...a la Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball

BTW: If you wanna try to figure out MTG's acronym, the first "Y" stands for "Yank"

Hahahaha thats funny.

 

[AU Tiger]

Originally posted by: everman
The design of the console itself is ok, but I believe a sleeker 'high tech' look such as the PS2 could help sales in the US marginally. The controller on the other hand is nice, it fits the hand well and comfortable.
By no means is it close to failing though.

The PS/2? High tech look? I think it to be the ugliest of the three consoles. It looks sort of outdated to me, but then again it is the oldest.

 

[joohang]

Sorry. Wavebird 0wnz j00!

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: AU Tiger

Originally posted by: everman
The design of the console itself is ok, but I believe a sleeker 'high tech' look such as the PS2 could help sales in the US marginally. The controller on the other hand is nice, it fits the hand well and comfortable.
By no means is it close to failing though.

The PS/2? High tech look? I think it to be the ugliest of the three consoles. It looks sort of outdated to me, but then again it is the oldest.

What he said.

 

[joeSmack]

Since we are getting into a console war, here is my 2 cents since I own all three consoles:

Xbox - Does NOT have a good selection of GOOD games. Halo and Panzer Dragoon, nothing else is really worth playing. About the design. XBox looks like a giant piece of crap.

PS2 - PS2 has a lot of games and A LOT of GOOD games. That's the bottom line. The controller is not as good as GameCube because the analog aspect of it is not that great. With regards to looks, PS2 doesn't look as bad as Xbox but its pretty close. It looks truly ugly VCR from the 80's with its hard lines and framing.

GameCube - GameCube is not a good console for sports playing games. It's basically the buttons on the controller. One huge green button, a little red one, two buttons on side and some buttons on the top. It makes sense for the majority of games where you typically favor one button, ie. jumping in Super Mario Sunshine. It sucks for sporting games where you have to push all the buttons or have to hit two buttons at once. That being said, GameCube has the BEST games. Metroid Prime is probably the best game ever made. Mario Sunshine, Luigi's Mansion, Animal Crossing, Resident Evil 0 and the next Legend of Zelda is sure to be a hit. Quality over quantity my friends. Bad in the old days I didn't buy a N64 and I really regret it because I never got a chance to play some of the best games of that generation. And the design. The GameCube is a thing of beauty. So I don't understand any of the comments that it has a poor look.

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: joeSmack
Since we are getting into a console war, here is my 2 cents since I own all three consoles:

Xbox - Does NOT have a good selection of GOOD games. Halo and Panzer Dragoon, nothing else is really worth playing. About the design. XBox looks like a giant piece of crap.

PS2 - PS2 has a lot of games and A LOT of GOOD games. That's the bottom line. The controller is not as good as GameCube because the analog aspect of it is not that great. With regards to looks, PS2 doesn't look as bad as Xbox but its pretty close. It looks truly ugly VCR from the 80's with its hard lines and framing.

GameCube - GameCube is not a good console for sports playing games. It's basically the buttons on the controller. One huge green button, a little red one, two buttons on side and some buttons on the top. It makes sense for the majority of games where you typically favor one button, ie. jumping in Super Mario Sunshine. It sucks for sporting games where you have to push all the buttons or have to hit two buttons at once. That being said, GameCube has the BEST games. Metroid Prime is probably the best game ever made. Mario Sunshine, Luigi's Mansion, Animal Crossing, Resident Evil 0 and the next Legend of Zelda is sure to be a hit. Quality over quantity my friends. Bad in the old days I didn't buy a N64 and I really regret it because I never got a chance to play some of the best games of that generation. And the design. The GameCube is a thing of beauty. So I don't understand any of the comments that it has a poor look.

OK...so now I'm confused

If it's all about the games, then why does the design of the console itself make any damn difference?

And...for a short list of EXCELLENT Xbox games that are NOT Halo or PDO:

Splinter Cell
Rallisport Challenge
Jet Set Radio Future
Sega GT 2002
Project Gotham Racing
Ghost Recon (Live)
MechAssault (Live)
Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Dead or Alive 3
Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball (very compelling, and not for the T&A)
Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Deathrow
Gunvalkyrie (same folks who did PDO)
Sega Sports games (Live)
Steel Battalion

Coming soon:
PSO I & II (Live)
Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb

 

[joeSmack]

If it's all about the games, then why does the design of the console itself make any damn difference?

It doesn't. But since there was so much talk about the topic I figured I may as well comment.

And...for a short list of EXCELLENT Xbox games that are NOT Halo or PDO:

Splinter Cell
Rallisport Challenge
Jet Set Radio Future
Sega GT 2002
Project Gotham Racing
Ghost Recon (Live)
MechAssault (Live)
Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Dead or Alive 3
Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball (very compelling, and not for the T&A)
Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Deathrow
Gunvalkyrie (same folks who did PDO)
Sega Sports games (Live)
Steel Battalion

Coming soon:
PSO I & II (Live)
Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb

I'll give you Splinter Cell and a MechAssault. But those other games? Come on. Steel Battalion is like a $200 game. Dead or Alive 3 sucks in comparison to games like Tekken or SoulCaliber. Elder Scrolls Morrowind is a PC game that isn't all that fun. And Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

Do you think this list compares to a list of PS2 or GameCube top games? I don't think so.

 

[ohtwell]

I don't think it is close to failing at all! I love my GC.


: ) Amanda

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: mpitts

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: flavio
It has failed?

no, just a fanboy who doesn't know what the hell hes talking about rambling on about things he shouldn't.

Fanboy of what? I don't have any consoles.

Then how exactly have you formed the opinion that it has failed?

I asked before. What constitutes success to you? If it was all black with an all black controller and had the same sales #'s, would you still deem it a failure?

Success is not having your rival sell units twice as quickly. Small market share may be enough to get by.. but look what happened to Sega.

Nintendo has a very loyal following of fans. Their market share may not be as large as Microsoft or Sony's, but I am sure it large enough for the company to continue making consoles and games.

Just because they aren't making as much money as the other two consoles, that doesn't mean they aren't making a lot.

You got that right!!!

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Jellomancer

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: flavio
It has failed?

no, just a fanboy who doesn't know what the hell hes talking about rambling on about things he shouldn't.

Fanboy of what? I don't have any consoles.

Dude, you are sad.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: ohtwell
I don't think it is close to failing at all! I love my GC.

: ) Amanda

That's it! I change my mind, GameCube rocks!!!!

(cause Amanda owns one of course)

Hopper <--- /me doesn't own any current game console

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: joeSmack

If it's all about the games, then why does the design of the console itself make any damn difference?

It doesn't. But since there was so much talk about the topic I figured I may as well comment.

And...for a short list of EXCELLENT Xbox games that are NOT Halo or PDO:

Splinter Cell
Rallisport Challenge
Jet Set Radio Future
Sega GT 2002
Project Gotham Racing
Ghost Recon (Live)
MechAssault (Live)
Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Dead or Alive 3
Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball (very compelling, and not for the T&A)
Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Deathrow
Gunvalkyrie (same folks who did PDO)
Sega Sports games (Live)
Steel Battalion

Coming soon:
PSO I & II (Live)
Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb

I'll give you Splinter Cell and a MechAssault. But those other games? Come on. Steel Battalion is like a $200 game.

Worth every penny...and if they weren't in such short supply I would own it right now.

Dead or Alive 3 sucks in comparison to games like Tekken or SoulCaliber.

All fighter suck in comparison to Soul Calibur...because SOUL CALIBUR 0WNZ!!!

Elder Scrolls Morrowind is a PC game that isn't all that fun.

Depends on how hardcore of an RPG fan you are. Nevertheless, it is a very good game.

And Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

Have you actually played it? It's the BEST game no one paid any attention to.

The new Indiana Jones game uses the Buffy engine...and looks to be even BETTER than Buffy.

Do you think this list compares to a list of PS2 or GameCube top games? I don't think so.

Post 'em and we'll discuss.

BTW: Hi Amanda!