Anyone else becoming frustrated with Nintendo?

It's like they live in their own little private world where the sun is always shining the the air smells like warm root beer...


IGNcube: Regarding online plans, Nintendo has really just announced its retail price for the modem and noted Sega's plans. What about the physical nature of getting GameCube online. We've heard that Nintendo is just instructing third-party publishers to set up their own networks. Is this true?

Beth Llewelyn: Yes.

IGNcube: So, will Nintendo host its own service separate from third-parties when it's ready?

Beth Llewelyn: Nintendo hasn't announced any plans for this yet. I think those kinds of plans will come later when we are ready to announce what games will come from Nintendo that take advantage of online.

IGNcube: So, just to get an understanding of it all then. There's no unified online service. For third-parties it will be completely up to them to run their own networks for their games. Is that right?

Beth Llewelyn: Correct.

IGNcube: Is Nintendo recommending any kind of charge for the service? Or is that up to the third-party publisher?

Beth Llewelyn: That's up to the third-parties and we're waiving our fees to them.

IGNcube: Why does Nintendo feel confident that third-party publishers will support its plan when Sony and Microsoft are being much more aggressive with their plans.

Beth Llewelyn: We're kind of looking at this from two standpoints. One is that of a hardware manufacturer. And, we recognize that online is an area that people want to explore and we want to make it as easy as possible for third-parties to do that. But, from a software publisher standpoint we're still very cautious. It's a niche market right now, we're still figuring out how to make money -- what's the business model? For us it just doesn't make sense to sort of jump into that. When we have a game that online would be a natural extension to it -- to improve the gameplay and make it more exciting -- then we'll be there with that. But, until that time we're doing a lot behind the scenes, but we're not ready to come out and say, "Hey, here's -- you know -- Mario online." For third-parties, certainly it is an area we want to make available to them.

IGNcube: Do you think that Nintendo itself as a software developer is really ready to bring GameCube online, or was this announcement prompted more by Sega's readiness to release Phantasy Star Online?

Beth Llewelyn: Again, it goes back to that from a manufacturer's point of view. The day that we announced GameCube was coming we talked about a broadband and modem adapter being available. But, from a first-party perspective, from a software publisher perspective, we're not ready to talk about that yet. We're still exploring. Our main objective has always been to make games that are compelling, exciting, entertaining. So if there's something that lends itself naturally to the online environment, you know, we may explore that. Right now there's still a lot of unknowns. And, when you have a game like Mario or Zelda where you sell millions of units as is and the online environment is still so limited -- why limit it that way?

IGNcube: All right, and we're going to throw you a little curve ball here. With Sony and Microsoft dropping the prices of their consoles in the U.S. does Nintendo have any plan to continue to price GameCube as the better buy by dropping its price?

Beth Llewelyn: We have no plans to make any price drop announcements. We set this price to what we thought was a good mass-market price and we still feel that way.

IGNcube: Nintendo still feels this way even if GameCube doesn't include DVD functionality as the PS2 and Xbox do?

Beth Llewelyn: It goes back to our core philosophy that GameCube is a gaming machine. That's what we're about. I don't have any numbers, but my understanding is that most people out there are buying game systems to play games. I don't think that has become a huge selling point.

IGNcube: All right, thank you very much for you time. Congratulations on your successful launch in Europe. We hope the trend continues.

[Professor S]

There are so many hippocracies in that interview I can't even list them all here, but I'll give it a try.

1) "Gaming Console - No DVD" - Nintendo has a GCN-DVD, just not in the states, so I guess they only feel that Japanese gamers like DVD.

2) "No Proce Drop" - What happened in Europe again?

3) "No unified Onlne Plans" - Online gaming a "niche" market? Yeah, that Everquest thing and Diablo 2 never caught on, did they? This basically proves a huge point. Nintendo knows their customers very well. They are made up of 2 distinct groups: a) hardcore Nintendo gamers and b) kids

a) They know that they don't have to work very hard to please these people other than releasing quality games. There is liitle need to give them the extras because Nintendo knows this consumer will stick with them no matter what. There is no financial gain to providing better online service.

b) Kids don't play much in the way of online games. That is more of a teen and adult thing.

Nintendo has ALWAYS been about profits. Look at the N64. They produced a console that was WAY short on memory and hard to develop for because the profit margin was higher. Financially, this is very smart, but it still stinks for the consumer in some ways.

That said, I'll still be getting a GCN

[Perfect Stu]

Bah. Nintendo is gonna drop out of the main-console-hardware business and only make handheld consoles. They will become a 3rd party developer for main consoles, just like SEGA.

:|

That's a little harsh, but...meh

With that also being said, I'm probably still gonna buy a Gamecube...

[Xantar]

Originally posted by The Strangler

1) "Gaming Console - No DVD" - Nintendo has a GCN-DVD, just not in the states, so I guess they only feel that Japanese gamers like DVD.

Except Nintendo doesn't have a GCN-DVD. Matsu****a does. And they can do that because they manufacture the GCN's disc drive in the first place. It wasn't Nintendo's decision at all.

2) "No Proce Drop" - What happened in Europe again?

Good point, although I think she was talking about North America only. Of course, now that the Xbox has dropped to $200, Nintendo will probably be forced to make a move. Remember that this interview was conducted before the official Xbox price drop announcement.

3) "No unified Onlne Plans" - Online gaming a "niche" market? Yeah, that Everquest thing and Diablo 2 never caught on, did they? This basically proves a huge point. Nintendo knows their customers very well. They are made up of 2 distinct groups: a) hardcore Nintendo gamers and b) kids

It may very well be true that Nintendo's audience is predominantly young (hey, I wouldn't know any better), but I have seen lots of doubts about online gaming expressed by people who own PS2s also (I don't know any Xbox owners, unfortunately). A lot of people balk at the idea of paying more than the price of three games in order to play a single game online for a year. These aren't people on the internet. These are people I personally know.

Nintendo's problem with online gaming is that they don't see a workable, profitable business model for it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Diablo 2 doesn't have a monthly fee other than whatever it costs to get an internet connection. Everquest is wildly popular because it was the first MMORPG. What about all the other online games? The only other wildly popular games that people play online (that I can think of) don't charge a monthly fee to play online.

Nintendo is not going to provide online service for free. That's just foolish. So their only other option if they want to go online is to make some game that is going to be so massively popular that people will be willing to pay a monthly fee to play it. I can think of one such game Nintendo could do, but if they have any plans for that game, they wouldn't announce it now.

Nintendo has ALWAYS been about profits. Look at the N64. They produced a console that was WAY short on memory and hard to develop for because the profit margin was higher. Financially, this is very smart, but it still stinks for the consumer in some ways.

Firstly, this comes as a surprise to nobody. Secondly, what are Microsoft and Sony? I'm sure that if Sony could have gotten away with the kinds of tactics Nintendo used in the last generation, they would have jumped at the chance. Look at financial reports for Nintendo and Sony's game division. The thing is Sony couldn't do what Nintendo did because they were the newcomer to the industry and didn't have nearly the first party support that Nintendo does.

I'm sure that if they could get away with it, Sony and Microsoft wouldn't have DVD-playback on their machines nor built in ethernet and hard drive in the caes of the Xbox.

Just relax and stop worrying about how companies are screwing over the consumer. With three competitors in the industry, nobody can afford to anger the consumer.

[TheGame]

Originally posted by Xantar

Firstly, this comes as a surprise to nobody. Secondly, what are Microsoft and Sony? I'm sure that if Sony could have gotten away with the kinds of tactics Nintendo used in the last generation, they would have jumped at the chance. Look at financial reports for Nintendo and Sony's game division. The thing is Sony couldn't do what Nintendo did because they were the newcomer to the industry and didn't have nearly the first party support that Nintendo does.

I'm sure that if they could get away with it, Sony and Microsoft wouldn't have DVD-playback on their machines nor built in ethernet and hard drive in the caes of the Xbox.

Your assumption.

The only fact is that Nintendo is more out for $$$ than the others. Nintendo has a monopoly over Nintendo fans, and they are exploiting it in a bad way. All this talk about games over hardware that they used to have was complelty untrue.

With MS and Sony it's all "if"s with Nintendo, there are facts...

a PRIME example in GBA... nothing can compete with it for 2 reasons

1) People (and Developers) will look at the brand name before the games

2) If a competitor had hardware that was near as out-dated as AGBs it would be laughed off the market, and if a competitor displayed what can REALLY be done with handheld systems now-a-days Nintendo would have an extreme price advantage and start porting big name games from old systems.

Bleh

I'm not trying to start a debate, but this issue with Nintendo pissed me off.

Nintendo would have been better off delaying GCN to late this year and having better games.

[Professor S]

Well, Sony and Nintendo are doing a pretty good job of pissing of some of their consumers. Look at the added cost for the PS2's upcoming hard drive and modem add ons. And gee, isn't there a memory card shortage for PS2? I'm sure that wasn't fabricated by Sony to create a NEED for the hard drive or anything. Same with the Gamecube with its memory cards. They are so small that you need to buy multiple cards if you like sports games. And for the cost of them, you should get a WHOLE lot more memory.

My point is that I think that Sony and Nintendo are taking advantage of their fanatical fan base. Their customers are so loyal that they don't have to rewrd their loyalty, they can actually abuse it to push an inferior product (PS2 console only) for the same price as a product that is twice as powerful.

Sony only dropped its price because they knew that MS was going to drop the price of the XBox. Its that simple. Sony should have dropped the price when the XBox and Gamecube first appeared on the market. They didn't need to because of the fanatical support of their consumers, so they didn't.

And if anyone thinks that Sony didn't know M was dropping the price, you have no idea about the cloak and dagger stuff that goes on in big business. I do marketing for GlaxoSmithKline, a major pharmaceutical company, and you wouldn't believe the **** that goes around that office about other companies that we shouldn't know. Nothing like a little industrial espionage to keep things on an even keel.

Anyway, I guess I just believe that console companies that are as successful as Nintendo and Sony should give a little back to the consumer voluntarily instead of trying to soak them more. Idaelistic, ain't I?

[Xantar]

TheGame:

So what you're saying is that if Microsoft had a monopoly, they wouldn't exploit it?

All I was saying was that if Microsoft and Sony had the sort of fanatical following (among other things) that Nintendo has, they'd exploit it, too. Why is it that Nintendo is more out for the money than Sony?

Think of what would have happened if the original Playstation had been cartridge based. The N64 would have killed it. But if Sony and Nintendo had switched places, do you honestly think Sony would have made a CD-based system knowing that they will be able to sell it anyway?

That's all I'm saying.

The Strangler:

Yep, you're an idealist.

And hey, you have a job!

[TheGame]

Originally posted by Xantar
TheGame:

So what you're saying is that if Microsoft had a monopoly, they wouldn't exploit it?

Not exactly... M$ and Sony are bigger wealtyier (sp?) companies than Nintendo. Nintendo just seems desperate for $$$ in every move they make, Sony and Microsoft haven't shown this so far in the console market, so I can't say they would or wouldn't exploit a Monopoly.

All I was saying was that if Microsoft and Sony had the sort of fanatical following (among other things) that Nintendo has, they'd exploit it, too. Why is it that Nintendo is more out for the money than Sony?

Look at how Nintendo prices everything... you can't tell me they aren't trying to maximize the profit off of everything they make.

1) GCN at launch lost a estimated $80 per unit sold, while Ps2 and Xbox lost more than $150 each. If they really wanted to make $$$, they could have dropped the price and relyed on game sales to carry them like Microsoft and Sony. But Wait! The games were the weakest on the market, so they relyed off of Hardware sales and dumb Nintendo fans to go out and buy ports and below average games like Luigi's Mansion and Wave Race.

2) GBA costed $99 at launch, you cant tell me that they weren't making at least a $40 profit on it. Not only that, they can't take the time out to develop a new mario or Zelda game, instead they port games from NES and SNES and they sell like they are new either way.

3) Gamecube's memory cards. Instead of releasing a "full" 8MB card, they release a 4mb card that can't handle ports. Why? Cause it costs them a handful or quarters to make, and they can sell it for $15 (which is a HUGE rip off). Why wait til this year to release the 251? So games can have memory that exceed 59 blocks, and people will have to go out and buy another rip off card at a rip off price. In 2003 they could do the same thing (it's not like most sports games on Xbox/Ps2 can fit on a 251 block card anyway).

Now give bigger examples of Microsoft and Sony sacrificing gameplay for $$$.

Think of what would have happened if the original Playstation had been cartridge based. The N64 would have killed it. But if Sony and Nintendo had switched places, do you honestly think Sony would have made a CD-based system knowing that they will be able to sell it anyway?

Um, no. Because Ps2 would have been an example to prove your point... but it isn't.

Ps2 sets the Standards for Game hardware, Xbox is abouve it, GCN is below it in everything but graphics.

Ps2 would have sold no matter how Sony released it... but they still put effort into it as far as hardware features and game quality.

[Xantar]

Originally posted by TheGame
1) GCN at launch lost a estimated $80 per unit sold, while Ps2 and Xbox lost more than $150 each. If they really wanted to make $$$, they could have dropped the price and relyed on game sales to carry them like Microsoft and Sony. But Wait! The games were the weakest on the market, so they relyed off of Hardware sales and dumb Nintendo fans to go out and buy ports and below average games like Luigi's Mansion and Wave Race.

That wouldn't have made them more money. If you look at launch sales, you'll see that GameCubes were going as fast as they were being made. They didn't quite outsell the Xbox because Microsoft had bigger production capacity (and a factory in Mexico is closer than one in China or Japan or wherever GameCubes are produced).

So if Nintendo had lowered the price of the Gamecube to lose $150 per unit just like Sony and Microsoft, they wouldn't have made any more money. All right, I grant that consumers would have purchased more games, but with the lineup that was available at launch, I imagine most people would have just saved up for Super Smash Bros.

I completely agree that the GameCube launch was not spectacular. But I think the only way Nintendo would have made more money off of it was by making better games (which may or may not have been possible. I don't know because I don't work for EAD).

In any case, what we're talking about is how Nintendo's tactics reflect a greedier approach than its competitors. I simply don't think that's true. As I said before, Microsoft wouldn't have gotten away with a launch like the GameCube's. They were forced to do things like offer Halo at launch along with DVD-playback, a built in hard drive and ethernet out of the box. If they hadn't done all that, they would have been laughed out of the market. Really, what would the Xbox have been without all those things at launch? A flop. So by including all that stuff, Microsoft was trying to make money. Surely you didn't believe Microsoft did that out of the goodness of their collective heart?

2) GBA costed $99 at launch, you cant tell me that they weren't making at least a $40 profit on it. Not only that, they can't take the time out to develop a new mario or Zelda game, instead they port games from NES and SNES and they sell like they are new either way.

You can't tell me that Microsoft or Sony wouldn't have done the same thing if they were the producers of the GBA instead of Nintendo (and also had access to all these NES and SNES games). In Microsoft's case, I have only to cite the example of Windows. There's a monopoly they have that they exploit. So you do have evidence that Microsoft would exploit a monopoly if they have one.

Now give bigger examples of Microsoft and Sony sacrificing gameplay for $$$.

I can't because they haven't. As I already explained, they wouldn't have gotten away with it. Nintendo can, so they did.

Um, no. Because Ps2 would have been an example to prove your point... but it isn't.

This might be a brilliant argument, but I'm afraid I don't follow. How exactly could the PS2 have proven my point? I don't believe the PS2 is analagous to the N64, if that's what you're saying. The PS2 had some anachronisms like not having four controller ports, but that's not nearly as blatant as going with cartridges instead of CDs. No matter what developers did, the N64 was incapable of doing anything remotely resembling what many Playstation games did (such as playing CD-quality music and FMVs). This is not the case with the PS2. It can go online. It can save things on a hard drive. It can play DVD movies. It may not do these things as well as competitors, but it's better than being incapable of doing such things in the first place.

Anyways, this is my last post on the matter. Let me try to wrap up.

You say that Nintendo price gouges and generally tries to maximize profit as much as possible, sometimes to the detriment of gamers. I agree with this. I contend that Sony and Microsoft would do the same. You either disagree or are sitting on the fence on this issue (your posts are giving me mixed messages). Whatever the case, that's fine by me. There's not a lot of evidence to go around even if we do accept the example of Windows. So I suppose we'll never know what Sony or Microsoft would do in Nintendo's position. I just like to think that I understand businesses well enough that I can predict that they would do whatever it takes to earn more money.

[Idiot]

Of course Microsoft have a monopoly TheGame. Ever noticed what 85% of computers operating systems are? The reason why SONY and Microsoft appear to be less cash motivated is because they have to hide the poor quality of their launch schedule, with ball**** on how they're the gamers 'freind'. Sorry, I'm just in a bad mood at this time....

[Perfect Stu]

Originally posted by Idiot
Of course Microsoft have a monopoly TheGame. Ever noticed what 85% of computers operating systems are? The reason why SONY and Microsoft appear to be less cash motivated is because they have to hide the poor quality of their launch schedule, with ball**** on how they're the gamers 'freind'. Sorry, I'm just in a bad mood at this time....

what an idiot...



JK

[gekko]

Originally posted by The Strangler
1) "Gaming Console - No DVD" - Nintendo has a GCN-DVD, just not in the states, so I guess they only feel that Japanese gamers like DVD.

Maybe a little research into the field of DVDs can answer this one. The US is the main region for films, ever hear of hollywood and wonder why so many award shows are here? Ever wonder why we don't get horrible voice-overs? Anyway, we got DVDs first, and since we're bigger with movies they caught on faster here.

At the time of the PS2's launch in Japan, very few people could afford a DVD player because they were still going at over $400 a pop. So granted, getting a new PS2 and a DVD player for that price is a good deal, isn't it? It wasn't that way in the US, but that's why Sony did so damn well in Japan, even though software sales weren't that high. As for Gamecube, it would really be a waste to release a Gamecube with a DVD player in the US, because DVDs are now so common. It's like releasing a Gamecube with a VCR. But Matsu****a still realizes there's a little money to be made with the Japanese market, so they chose to release a new console there.

They don't feel only Japanese like DVDs. But it's a waste of money adding a DVD player to a Gamecube in the US, because so many people own them anyway. Hell, I got 6, the 7th is shipping, and buying an Xbox remote gets me 8. See my point?

[Professor S]

If your point is that most people have 8 DVD players, I think you're off your rocker . In the real world, where money does not grow on trees, DVD players are not as abundant as shoes. Hell, I don't even own 8 pairs of shoes. 4 I think.

Anyway, my argument wasn't that the Gamecube SHOULD have a DVD player, but that Nintendo's rep was laying the BS chin high. If they truly wanted the Gamecube to purely be a gaming console they wouldn't have made, or liscenced, a Gamecube DVD. Nuff said.

Now, as for Nintendo gauging its customers, I think I understand it more now that I think about it. Nintendo is a company purely entrenched in the gaming industry. MS and Sony a monster companies who have their hands in multiple enterprises.

My point is that MS and Sony can afford to have smaller profit margins from their gaming segments because they make profits in other areas as well. Nintendo does not have the luxury of making up lost profits with TV or PC operating system sales. So Nintendo is off the hook in my eyes.

But Sony is still the spawn of Satan

[TheGame]

Xantar:

It's funny you skip my third point... the most obvious scam on the part of Nintendo.

In any case, what we're talking about is how Nintendo's tactics reflect a greedier approach than its competitors. I simply don't think that's true. As I said before, Microsoft wouldn't have gotten away with a launch like the GameCube's. They were forced to do things like offer Halo at launch along with DVD-playback, a built in hard drive and ethernet out of the box. If they hadn't done all that, they would have been laughed out of the market. Really, what would the Xbox have been without all those things at launch? A flop. So by including all that stuff, Microsoft was trying to make money. Surely you didn't believe Microsoft did that out of the goodness of their collective heart?

This war Xbox IS just a gift from M$... they aren't trying to win financially this war, they are trying to have the best games and the best selling system. Why? So they can sucseed financially next generation. So yes, everything about Xbox came out of the kindness of Microsoft's heart.... especially if Xbox flops.

You can't tell me that Microsoft or Sony wouldn't have done the same thing if they were the producers of the GBA instead of Nintendo (and also had access to all these NES and SNES games). In Microsoft's case, I have only to cite the example of Windows. There's a monopoly they have that they exploit. So you do have evidence that Microsoft would exploit a monopoly if they have one.

There are two kind of monopolys, one is selling a low quality product for a high price(just because they can), and the other is buying out competition and lowering prices to the point that competition can't compete.

Nintendo and MS fit into two different categories.

And how does Windows relate to the console market? If I rememberd correctly there are two different sides to M$ now.

This might be a brilliant argument, but I'm afraid I don't follow. How exactly could the PS2 have proven my point? I don't believe the PS2 is analagous to the N64, if that's what you're saying. The PS2 had some anachronisms like not having four controller ports, but that's not nearly as blatant as going with cartridges instead of CDs. No matter what developers did, the N64 was incapable of doing anything remotely resembling what many Playstation games did (such as playing CD-quality music and FMVs). This is not the case with the PS2. It can go online. It can save things on a hard drive. It can play DVD movies. It may not do these things as well as competitors, but it's better than being incapable of doing such things in the first place.

Ps2 would have proven your point about Sony being money hungry if they would have used the same tactics as Nintendo. Ps2 could have been a lot worse of a system, selling a lot better. But sony didn't take the cheap money hungry way out of it.

You say that Nintendo price gouges and generally tries to maximize profit as much as possible, sometimes to the detriment of gamers. I agree with this. I contend that Sony and Microsoft would do the same. You either disagree or are sitting on the fence on this issue (your posts are giving me mixed messages). Whatever the case, that's fine by me. There's not a lot of evidence to go around even if we do accept the example of Windows. So I suppose we'll never know what Sony or Microsoft would do in Nintendo's position. I just like to think that I understand businesses well enough that I can predict that they would do whatever it takes to earn more money.

I agree.. You are argueing that Sony and MS would do the same thing as Nintendo, but have no evidence in the video game market to back it up. And I am saying they wouldn't, and I don't have any evidence based on the fact that they aren't in the same position as Nintendo

PS

I don't understand why you would ask so many questions in your "last" post

[Professor S]

Um, Sony gauges just as bad if not worse than Nintendo, and Nintendo has an excuse because all they make are gaming products. Please read my prior posts to see my explanations.