GCN vs Xbox

[PuPPeT]

Come on people! any one who says Xbox PS2 or Xbox only has 2 good games coming out this year are real fanboy twats!


For me it's got to be the Xbox in 2003-2004, Gamecube may have lots of 1st party games on it (Not that Nintendo games are any better some 3rd party games now). But the fact is the Xbox has so many 3rd party devs on there side pluss all of Microsofts money that it is coming up with soom really kool software. Also don't right off Microsoft 1st party games so fast Microsoft owns some damn good devs now.

Bungie, Rare, Day 1 Studios, Presto Studios, Adrenium, Digital Anvil, Just Add Monsters, Blitz Games and more then 10 in house teams and 5 in Japan, There is more but i can't think of them.

Also Genki Co, Digital Illusions, Climax Group, Bizarre Creations, Big blue box, Intrepid Computer Entertainmen, Stormfront Studios, Progress Software, Dream Publishing, High-Voltage Software, Oddworld, Curly Monsters Ltd and Climax Group all working on games for them! not bad is it.

[BreakABone]

*Looks around and sees the fire is dying out in the thread*

I'm sure there is a lot more you folks can talk about in here, like the GCN's even decreasing 3rd party support or the fact that most Japanese companies are still shunning the Xbox or even Enter the Matrix or the new X-Men RPG.

[fingersman]

Originally posted by BreakABone
*Looks around and sees the fire is dying out in the thread*

I'm sure there is a lot more you folks can talk about in here, like the GCN's even decreasing 3rd party support .

But who should you blame for that? Nintendo, the third parties or the GC owners? I mean the third parties just want to make money and if their game isn't going atleast make the break even point what's the sense of making/porting it to the cube?

Then Nintendo fans don't want to purchase medicore/average third party games cause they want the Nintendo 1st party stuff.


And if your Nintendo, I'm sure you won't be decreasing the quality of your games and if you lower your license fee, and the games still don't sell, then you'll be making a lost.


I think the decreasing of third party support is directly related to the user base.......look at Sony alot of average games sell over 500,000. Now if your a third party and you know your game is average, what system will you want to put it on?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm but then again, I don't hear third party companies complain about how their games sell on Xbox and they don't have a real big lead in terms of user base.

I don't know. What do you guys think? Do you think the decreasing support has to with Nintendo quality, the user base or both?

[BreakABone]

Originally posted by fingersman
But who should you blame for that? Nintendo, the third parties or the GC owners? I mean the third parties just want to make money and if their game isn't going atleast make the break even point what's the sense of making/porting it to the cube?

Then Nintendo fans don't want to purchase medicore/average third party games cause they want the Nintendo 1st party stuff.


And if your Nintendo, I'm sure you won't be decreasing the quality of your games and if you lower your license fee, and the games still don't sell, then you'll be making a lost.


I think the decreasing of third party support is directly related to the user base.......look at Sony alot of average games sell over 500,000. Now if your a third party and you know your game is average, what system will you want to put it on?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm but then again, I don't hear third party companies complain about how their games sell on Xbox and they don't have a real big lead in terms of user base.

I don't know. What do you guys think? Do you think the decreasing support has to with Nintendo quality, the user base or both?

Well in my opinion, it's a mix of the fanbase, Nintendo and 3rd parties. I mean there is no single party here to blame, but they can all take some relief in knowing they are part of it. I mean well it's a long complex theory but eh.

[TheGame]

the way I see it... with sports games at least... It's a mix of Nintendo's fault, the fanbase's fault and the developer's own damn fault too! But it all boils back down to Nintendo.

Nintendo is the reason that Developers have to spend extra time on thier version of the game(because of memory card restraints), and it's also Nintendo's fault that they get the worst version of games that are meant to utilize online gaming.... that's Nintendo's step in it, then add the fact that 3rd party developers don't want to go the extra step with Gamecube (like no free CD with NBA Live, and buggy Sega sports titles). Also, on top of that, the fanbase shows no interest in buying non-exclusive games for GCN.

I think it's because most GCN owners own Ps2's or Xboxs also, and most third party games are just better on the dark side. I mean, if Nintendo get's the drop dead worst version, and they have the most stubborn userbase, how the hell are the third party games supposed to sell?

Nintendo is far from the lead, as is Xbox... the difference is, on Xbox at least, there is an effort given to make every third party game either Equal or better than thier Ps2 counterparts. Nintendo's third party games just don't do it.

Now, I'm not saying that a perfectly excecuted third party plan would have made sales increase, but I know it couldn't have hurt.

[gekko]

Originally posted by TheGame
[b]Nintendo is the reason that Developers have to spend extra time on thier version of the game(because of memory card restraints), and it's also Nintendo's fault that they get the worst version of games that are meant to utilize online gaming.... that's Nintendo's step in it, then add the fact that 3rd party developers don't want to go the extra step with Gamecube (like no free CD with NBA Live, and buggy Sega sports titles). Also, on top of that, the fanbase shows no interest in buying non-exclusive games for GCN.

Now, now, at least be reasonable.

Memory cards is Nintendo's fault. Online gaming is the developers fault, and the sales are either the fault of the fanbase, or the developer.

Gamecube getting the worst version of online games means nothing. The developers could put it online if they want to, they choose not to. Sega games are only online for Xbox, Madden is only online for PS2. The developers aren't putting in the time to make them online for all systems, and not all of the sports games are online either. World Series Baseball 2K3 isn't online, because it was too buggy. Practice makes perfect.

And for the low sales, is that because the GC owners don't like sports games, or because the developers are giving them a half-assed version of the game? If a GC owner, like myself, also has an Xbox, and wants NFL 2K3 (because no sane person would buy Madden). They have a choice between a buggy game with no online support, or a less buggy game that can be played online. Which do you expect them to choose? Unless developers put more time into making the GC version as good as the rest, they can't expect people to purchase it. GC fans are stubborn, yes. Developers should know a half-assed effort won't cut it.

[GameKinG]

Yes, it is partially the developers fault (other then Nintendo). I know they could make a better online service, but there are other means of online games for cube. Sega already has a system set for online cube games, yet they dont seem to put their own games on their.

Developers try to point the blame at cube for every problem, and sometimes its a little bit of cubes fault, but their is no reason they couldnt make a good sports game for cube thats equal with its other-console counter parts, except for the memory thing. I doubt many consumers take into consideration the controller for cube, some who do may actually love it. But they generally arent that analytical (if thats a word).

[BreakABone]

Well, I know that the Cube's sport issue isn't entirely Nintendo's fault, it's not entirely the developers' fault or the fanbase.

But what about other genres, I mean it's rumored that Eidos is looking to drop support (which I don't know about), THQ (which doesn't make many sports game) and some other people. What do you think the problem is therE?

And since this is a GCN vs Xbox debate, why is it that some developers won't even get near the Xbox or if they do give it very poor support?

[TheGame]

Originally posted by gekko
Now, now, at least be reasonable.

Memory cards is Nintendo's fault. Online gaming is the developers fault, and the sales are either the fault of the fanbase, or the developer.

Gamecube getting the worst version of online games means nothing. The developers could put it online if they want to, they choose not to. Sega games are only online for Xbox, Madden is only online for PS2. The developers aren't putting in the time to make them online for all systems, and not all of the sports games are online either. World Series Baseball 2K3 isn't online, because it was too buggy. Practice makes perfect.

Well, we got to look at the other consoles though... I mean, if Nintendo took all the same steps as Microsoft in making a "Nintendo Live" () network you think Developers wouldn't jump on it and start supporting it.

Nintendo and online gaming just ain't meshing... Nintendo is giving less then a Sony effort and on a platform that hasn't really sold enough units to compare to Ps2.

Nintendo is getting out of online gaming exactly what they put in... damn near nothing. If nintendo gave online gaming more effort, much like Microsoft, they wouldn't have many problems.

And for the low sales, is that because the GC owners don't like sports games, or because the developers are giving them a half-assed version of the game? If a GC owner, like myself, also has an Xbox, and wants NFL 2K3 (because no sane person would buy Madden).

They have a choice between a buggy game with no online support, or a less buggy game that can be played online. Which do you expect them to choose? Unless developers put more time into making the GC version as good as the rest, they can't expect people to purchase it. GC fans are stubborn, yes. Developers should know a half-assed effort won't cut it.

That's basically what I said... Well, EA didn't give an half assed effort (I mean, no buggyness), but hell, EA didn't even attempt to make the GCN version of games special in any way. As for Sega... sheesh, I'll put it like this, if they keep supporting GCN with buggy games like they have the whole 2k3 season, I'm glad they ditched GCN. I mean, Jesus, in NBA 2k3 you would be LUCKY to finish 5 straight games without the game freezing or the announcers screwing up.

3rd party Developers in general just don't make Nintendo a priority... But who's fault is that? Maybe we can blame Sony and MS for going the extra mile to ensure good support from third parties.

[fingersman]

Originally posted by TheGame
Well, we got to look at the other consoles though... I mean, if Nintendo took all the same steps as Microsoft in making a "Nintendo Live" () network you think Developers wouldn't jump on it and start supporting it.

Nintendo and online gaming just ain't meshing... Nintendo is giving less then a Sony effort and on a platform that hasn't really sold enough units to compare to Ps2.

Nintendo is getting out of online gaming exactly what they put in... damn near nothing. If nintendo gave online gaming more effort, much like Microsoft, they wouldn't have many problems.



3rd party Developers in general just don't make Nintendo a priority... But who's fault is that? Maybe we can blame Sony and MS for going the extra mile to ensure good support from third parties.

Game point, set and match.
Come on guys be realistic....... how do you expect 3rd parties to jump on the bandwagon when the company( Nintendo) who makes the console hasn't shown much interest in it.
They have made no annoucement about major online support or a network ( thanks to that whole keep everything a secret else everyone will steal it attitude), so Nintendo 's future online look pretty blurry right now.

[BreakABone]

Originally posted by fingersman
Game point, set and match.
Come on guys be realistic....... how do you expect 3rd parties to jump on the bandwagon when the company( Nintendo) who makes the console hasn't shown much interest in it.
They have made no annoucement about major online support or a network ( thanks to that whole keep everything a secret else everyone will steal it attitude), so Nintendo 's future online look pretty blurry right now.

We are playing Tennis? COOLbeans.

As for the whole point on online gaming, it is true that Nintendo hasn't given it much effort (if any at all), but that doesn't mean folks can't make use of it, I mean Sega did, and wouldn't it be a bit wiser to release your game on a system with limited online support? I mean the market is a bit less crowded there so it has a better chance of standing out.

But no one has really answered my question, if the developers can't make the game to go online because of weak support, why can't they take advantage of some of the Cube's specific feature. I mean the only two I could think of are the "digital click" and the GCN/GBA connection, and like Nintendo and several other 3rd parties have shown the GCN/GBA connection has some flexibitliy to open up features on the Cube version that no other console could match.

[TheGame]

Originally posted by BreakABone
We are playing Tennis? COOLbeans.

As for the whole point on online gaming, it is true that Nintendo hasn't given it much effort (if any at all), but that doesn't mean folks can't make use of it, I mean Sega did, and wouldn't it be a bit wiser to release your game on a system with limited online support? I mean the market is a bit less crowded there so it has a better chance of standing out.

Not exactly true... Online game developers don't want to stand out. There could be one great online game for a console, but is that enough to go out and buy that modem adapter? Think about it... anybody who plays PSO aid $80 for the game, plus montly fees.

Now, on the same note, if there were 12 other games online, chances are that more people would buy modems, thus making the online gaming userbase bigger. I mean, no developer wants to be the one to initiate the online gaming experience unless it's a first party or they were paid to do it.

I mean, Ps2 had Madden 2003, NBA Live 2003, THPS4, and Everquest online... are these games really hurting each other? Nope. One guy may buy the modem for Madden, and the other for Everquest... but once they get the modem it opens them up to buy the other games at less of a hit on the wallet.

Kind of like consoles... is it safer to make a game for Ps2 or GCN? A racing game may stand out on GCN, but on Ps2 it has WAY more potential buyers.

But no one has really answered my question, if the developers can't make the game to go online because of weak support, why can't they take advantage of some of the Cube's specific feature. I mean the only two I could think of are the "digital click" and the GCN/GBA connection, and like Nintendo and several other 3rd parties have shown the GCN/GBA connection has some flexibitliy to open up features on the Cube version that no other console could match.

In this case, there is simply too much competition. How many games that use the link up feature are considerd bad? None I can think of. They are all just extremely marketable games, or simply good games.

Any ol third party couldn't really take adventage of it. Some will though, like in Splinter Cell. The fact is, if the game isn't a game that will sell extremely well, that feature is useless.

I mean, banking on a person who own a GBA owning a Cube... then a person owning a cube owning a link cable... and the person owning the link cable owning the GCN game... and then the person falling so deep in love with that game that they are willing to spend $40 on a GBA version...

Chances are slim. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, and Sonic could slip through that system easily... but any ol game just won't do that. Hell, even RE probably couldn't do it.

[BreakABone]

Originally posted by TheGame
Not exactly true... Online game developers don't want to stand out. There could be one great online game for a console, but is that enough to go out and buy that modem adapter? Think about it... anybody who plays PSO aid $80 for the game, plus montly fees.

Now, on the same note, if there were 12 other games online, chances are that more people would buy modems, thus making the online gaming userbase bigger. I mean, no developer wants to be the one to initiate the online gaming experience unless it's a first party or they were paid to do it.

I mean, Ps2 had Madden 2003, NBA Live 2003, THPS4, and Everquest online... are these games really hurting each other? Nope. One guy may buy the modem for Madden, and the other for Everquest... but once they get the modem it opens them up to buy the other games at less of a hit on the wallet.

Kind of like consoles... is it safer to make a game for Ps2 or GCN? A racing game may stand out on GCN, but on Ps2 it has WAY more potential buyers.

You have a valid point, and I was thinking along the same lines, but it really depends on how other folks look at it. The fact is an established online roster would encourage more developers to use the feature, but someone has got to start. And it doesn't look like it will be Nintendo any time soon.

In this case, there is simply too much competition. How many games that use the link up feature are considerd bad? None I can think of. They are all just extremely marketable games, or simply good games.

Any ol third party couldn't really take adventage of it. Some will though, like in Splinter Cell. The fact is, if the game isn't a game that will sell extremely well, that feature is useless.

I mean, banking on a person who own a GBA owning a Cube... then a person owning a cube owning a link cable... and the person owning the link cable owning the GCN game... and then the person falling so deep in love with that game that they are willing to spend $40 on a GBA version...

Chances are slim. Games like Pokemon, Zelda, and Sonic could slip through that system easily... but any ol game just won't do that. Hell, even RE probably couldn't do it.

Well with your previous logic, I assume t would be much easier to find a person who owns a GBA/GCN and link cable. I mean look at the games that take advantage of it, Metroid Prime, Animal Crossing, Sonic Adventure 2: Battle and some others. All those games have atleast broke the half a million mark in the US alone or are pretty close to it so I mean there is a chance that there is a large number of people who use it.

I mean Splinter Cell is doing, RayMan 3 is doing it and some other 3rd party games are, but I guess with your prior logic, it was because Nintendo actually supports it and yet won't toouch online gaming.

[Shadow Fox]

Originally posted by Perfect Stu
SF's rant was interesting...to me it sounded like one giant "BAH!" which would seem appropriate to what he was trying to convey.

I'm disappointed with both XBox and Gamecube so far...but that doesn't mean things can't change. For Xbox...Why ignore (maybe that's the wrong word?)

Well, that defeats the purpose of my entire post, now doesn't it? While it wasn't exactly the topic's exact premise, I am utterly disappointed in both consoles from a retail and expectation standpoint. This is my take:

-Xbox promised online (way back in January 2k1) AT LAUNCH. That didn't happen, and when it did happen a year later, how many games are XboxLive capable? Barely more than PS2's online offering, which is FREE.

-GameCube promised great software, which it does have now, but was only limited to Rogue Leader and Super Monkey Ball at launch. Yawn.

And that's basically it in a nutshell, Stu. As for my positive assertions, I'll post that when I deem it relevant.

Halo 2, Fable, Perfect Dark 2, etc. based on the system's past (which you call utterly disappointing, to which many will argue against)? Rare is on board, and they have a past of VERY high quality games. Microsoft is more than likely giving them more of an opportunity to fully utilize their creativity. "The sky's the limit"...well, apparently in Rare's fairly recent past, Nintendo's franchises/restrictions have been the limit. Conker was a step in the right direction (in some areas)...Possibly we'll see some newer, more original ideas?

Somehow I doubt it. Rare will continue to cash in on their previous franchises, and then maybe it will produce a new product. Right now only 3 projects are confirmed from the team, and all three of them were once GameCube-specific.

As for Gamecube...it's hard to say. "One man's trash is another man's treasure." To some, many (if not most, if not *gasp* all) of Nintendo's efforts are considered instant classics. Others will disagree completely. I think the problem with the system is that it gets TOO close to limiting the consumer to the Nintendo brand, and the Nintendo brand only. 3rd parties, for the most part, have chosen to unleash their big dawgs on one of the other two systems (Resident Evil being the big exception). If your gaming interests are primarly >NINTENDO<, the system has delivered to a certain extent, and I'm sure will deliver in coming years. Most gamers want more variety (the whole 'mature games' crap has been beaten to death one too many times...I'll stay away from that) in their system.

We all know that this has actually been an improvement for Nintendo over N64 (GameCube really has had just as many 3rd party releases as Xbox over the course of 2002, and just as many overall titles). And yes, the 'mature games' crap has been beaten to death, and considering how false it is, one can deduce why.

Luckily, as all gamers will agree, there's something out there for everyone. Be it mostly XBox, mostly Gamecube, mostly PS2 or mostly PC...pick and choose the games that fit your gaming interests, and try not to think much about the ones that don't.

Hey, you forgot Macintosh and Linux!!! You fanboy!!!

Lol...

At any rate, GCN has proved to be a viable (though not as strong) third-party console, as has Xbox proved to be a viable first-party console (though also not as strong). That's about the only expectations I feel have been met. End rant 2.

-Official Ninja of [coming soon]...