Video Game Talk The Place to talk about and trade Video & PC Games

Nintendo of France says Rare is going multiplatform.

Old 07-31-02, 02:46 AM
  #51  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Space Junk Galaxy
Posts: 2,471
Originally posted by joltaddict
Yeah that bastard still owes me twenty bucks.

Losing Rare could be the begining of the end. As good as Mario/Zelda/Metroid/StarFox are thats about blowing their load. Four titles in the next year? Ouch. Conker on the Box? Double ouch. PD0 cross platform?
How exactly is Conker on the Xbox going to hurt Nintendo? You do know that Conker bombed on the N64 right? Conker did nothing for Nintendo. Do you also know that Perfect Dark, Banjo Tooie, and Jet Force Gemini all sold below Nintendo's expectations? Some of you have it wrong when you say Rare is leaving Nintendo. Its the other way around. Nintendo is the one who is ending its relationship with Rare because they longer want to pay Rare's bills when their games aren't selling well.

Nintendo's new relationship with Rare (Starfox Adventure) will be like their current relationship with Namco (Starfox), Sega (F-Zero), and Capcom (Zelda GBC). Nintendo will still get exclusive content from Rare, but they will no longer pay the bill's for Rare's bombs. Nintendo wins yet again.

I actually believe Rare is the one who will suffer most from Nintendo ending its contract with them. No longer will Rareware have the extended timeframe that Nintendo afforded them to create the best games they could. Does anyone believe whichever American publisher Rare links up with will have the same type of patience as Nintendo of Japan? American publishers will not stand for delays. Just look at all the rushed titles every American publisher puts out these days for proof. American publisher's want results now and this will result in Rare not having the time they need to properly finish their games. The quality of Rare's titles will drop. StarFox Adventures will most likely be the last great Rareware game.

Last edited by CreatureX; 07-31-02 at 02:56 AM.
CreatureX is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 02:51 AM
  #52  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Orlando
Posts: 594
How come everybody is saying this is and should be Nintendo's last console? Are they losing money? No. Are they almost bankrupt? No. Is this another N64 situation? No.

If you go by console sales, then all fingers should point to xbox as being the console to drop out of the race. The sales that xbox puts up matches GC sales in the US and is pretty self explanatory in Japan.

disclaimer - I'm not bashing xbox.

I think consoles get more and more profitable in the long run. That's why Nintendo sticks to it.

If this thread was during the launch of the GC in Japan (March 2001?) then maybe, just maybe, I might agree. But since then, GC has picked up quite a bit.
khai is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 03:04 AM
  #53  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Space Junk Galaxy
Posts: 2,471
Actually Nintendo would love for the Gamecube to become another N64 because Nintendo made tons of money on the N64. Here is a quote from Steven Kent who follows the business side of the gaming industry:
It is worth noting, however, that while Sony sold more than twice as many game consoles as Nintendo in the last generation, year-in and year-out, Nintendo ran its Nintendo 64 business profitably. Sony cannot claim the same for the last years of the original PlayStation.
soure: MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/758317.asp

Please tell me which is better, selling 30 million systems and being profitable or selling 70 million systems and posting a loss?
CreatureX is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 03:05 AM
  #54  
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 70,839
Whether Nintendo makes another console or not in the next generation is immaterial. Personally, I'm hoping that they'll work with Microsoft in the next generation...neither one of them can take down Sony by themselves, but together it might be possible.

Back on topic: Rare going multiplatform. This is good news for everybody. It means that Rare can develop games targeted at different audiences. For example, Conker might not do so well on the Cube, but would be perfect for the Xbox. Rare makes great games, and I have confidence in them regardless of the platform(s).
Groucho is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 03:12 AM
  #55  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,460
Well I don't see how fans of Nintendo can say that Xbox should pack it in since they are outselling Gamecube (I guess in Japan the GC outsells the Xbox?) - in any case, the sales are pretty close which should be alarming to fans of Nintendo. Nintendo has been around for ages and Xbox just hit the scene. If Nintendo is a success, then Xbox is a huge success since it has a larger hill to climb. If Xbox is a failure, then Gamecube is a monumental failure since the name Nintendo alone should've been enough to sell at least a few consoles not to mention that the GC was cheaper by 100 bucks for most of this time period until recently.

Sega tarnished their reputation with the Saturn and the 32X, but the Dreamcast was supposed to be the make-it-or-break-it last-ditch effort. Sales of the Dreamcast were acceptable and respectable to say the least - they just weren't impressive enough to keep the company in the console-making business. It's a shame cuz the Dreamcast 2 would've been sweet. If Microsoft could've bought Nintendo's Console division as well as purchase Sega's console division, it would've been the end for Sony.

I say for a company that has never made any consoles before and going up against the 2 industry giants that are Sony and Nintendo, Microsoft has done very well in this market. Carving out nearly 25% of the pie for themselves as newbies is respectable and if you compare that with other first-timer console launches, it's damn near impressive. Xbox sales right now are enough to keep it a promising venture... with a future outlook of growth and profit... Gamecube's sales right now indicate the opposite when compared to their history. It's signifying the end of their reign as the dominant console maker. Trends look like 2nd and 3rd parties are walking away from Nintendo while Microsoft looks like they are getting huge 3rd party support. It doesn't matter if Microsoft bought, bribed, borrowed, or beat the 3rd parties into developing games for them... the fact is, they are getting games developed. That's important for a console to survive in the long run. As for Nintendo, the only games I hear people talking about are either first party games, followed by second party games, or Resident Evil by Capcom.
Trigger is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 03:17 AM
  #56  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Space Junk Galaxy
Posts: 2,471
Originally posted by Groucho
Whether Nintendo makes another console or not in the next generation is immaterial. Personally, I'm hoping that they'll work with Microsoft in the next generation...neither one of them can take down Sony by themselves, but together it might be possible.
The point that many people miss, especially the Nintendo haters, is that Nintendo does not see themselves in competition with either Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo does not need to "take down" Sony because as I stated in my above post, even though Sony is the hardware leader, Nintendo is still the profits leader.

A couple of months ago the new Nintendo president stated that Nintendo was going to focus on games. All the Nintendo haters assumed this meant Nintendo was going 3rd party. They were wrong. The president of Nintendo was saying that Nintendo was not trying to create some type of "set top entertainment box" like Sony and MS are trying to build. Nintendo was saying that they are all about making games. Games that only appear on Nintendo consoles.
CreatureX is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 03:27 AM
  #57  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,460
Originally posted by CreatureX
The point that many people miss, especially the Nintendo haters, is that Nintendo does not see themselves in competition with either Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo does not need to "take down" Sony because as I stated in my above post, even though Sony is the hardware leader, Nintendo is still the profits leader.
Again - as people have stated... this is only true because of the GBA and Gameboy products. These are a totally seperate issue because we're talking about consoles. Sony and Microsoft aren't trying to compete with Nintendo in the handheld department. It's not even relevant to what we're talking about. Using financial figures that include sales of the GBA and GBC and GB is totally misleading for the purposes of our discussion here.

Nobody is arguing that Nintendo isn't a successful company. GBA and GBC are hugely successful and profitable for them. This console isn't and as far as the console market is concerned, I think it would be in their best interest to pull a Sega.
Trigger is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 04:03 AM
  #58  
zig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 810
You say in almost every post how the GameCube isn't profitable for Nintendo. Please, back it up.
zig is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 04:37 AM
  #59  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Banging your mother
Posts: 18,386
Originally posted by CreatureX
How exactly is Conker on the Xbox going to hurt Nintendo? You do know that Conker bombed on the N64 right? Conker did nothing for Nintendo. Do you also know that Perfect Dark, Banjo Tooie, and Jet Force Gemini all sold below Nintendo's expectations?
Those grapes were sour anyway. Who wants them!
So four games on the horizon? I will be buying Metroid and Mario Sunshine but WTF? Without Rare the cubes lineup is enemic.

Originally posted by Groucho
I'm hoping that they'll work with Microsoft in the next generation...neither one of them can take down Sony by themselves, but together it might be possible.
Am I the only one who doesnt care what my games play on? I dont care if it says GE on the side I want the games.

Originally posted by CreatureX
the new Nintendo president stated that Nintendo was going to focus on games. All the Nintendo haters assumed this meant Nintendo was going 3rd party. They were wrong. The president of Nintendo was saying that Nintendo was not trying to create some type of "set top entertainment box" like Sony and MS are trying to build. Nintendo was saying that they are all about making games.
Isnt that a little bit of a hint about the future?

Once again... WHERE HAVE I SAID NINTENDO IS IN TROUBLE? Why dont you argue the points I posted instead of just making up things I didnt? CreatureX did you even read any of the posts here?
joltaddict is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 04:43 AM
  #60  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,460
Originally posted by zig
You say in almost every post how the GameCube isn't profitable for Nintendo. Please, back it up.
If you're referring to me, I don't think I've said that the Gamecube isn't profitable. The closest thing to that I've said is that from what I've read, Nintendo is losing money on each console sold for the first time. I also said that I couldn't find where I had read or heard that so I can't verify the validity of it. In any case, that's not why I think Nintendo should go the same route Sega did. I'd say it again, but it's a broken record by now and I think I was pretty clear as to why I thnk so.

edit: Oh - I see... A few posts up I said "This Console isn't... " but I was saying that "this console isn't hugely successful"... that's easy enough to see. Whether or not it's a success is something we won't know until Nintendo starts releasing numbers relating to this console alone... something they'll never do unless it's good news. I don't know - the Gamecube may be profitable, it may not.

Last edited by Trigger; 07-31-02 at 03:31 PM.
Trigger is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 04:57 AM
  #61  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,460
Originally posted by joltaddict
Am I the only one who doesnt care what my games play on? I dont care if it says GE on the side I want the games.
Exactly - same here... For all I care, they could release a console that looked like a Priority Mail shipping box that said "Game Machine" in generic text on the side as long as it had all the features of the Xbox plus the ability to play PS2, PS1, Nintendo and Dreamcast games. That would be sweet. There are only three differences among the consoles themselves... console specific features (like 5.1 surround or hard drive or whatever), the look of it (asthetics), and the controllers. I'm sure everyone has their preferences though so your point (albeit a good one) wouldn't work for everyone. Personally, out of the three - here's how I stack them up...

Console Specific Features: (Very important)

1. Xbox - Clear winner (to me anyway)
2. Gamecube - tough call between this and PS2, but a distant 2nd
3. PS2 - very close 3rd

Controllers: (very important)

1. Xbox - Hands down the best (for me)
2. PS2 - old faithful
3. Gamecube - ugh

Looks: (not the least bit important really)

1. Xbox - looks good with hi-fi components
2. PS2 - looks dated, but at least it doesn't look like a Gamecube
3. Gamecube - never been asthetically pleasing to me.

So for me, my preference would be that all games be playable on the Xbox. Someone else would think the Gamecube tops all the lists and another person would have the PS2 on top. Too bad we couldn't all agree on the Game Machine design as long as it had all the features of all the consoles and allowed you to use any of the 3 controllers.
Trigger is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 08:23 AM
  #62  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Space Junk Galaxy
Posts: 2,471
Originally posted by joltaddict
CreatureX did you even read any of the posts here?
Yes I have. But you've seem to have missed the posts that keep saying Nintendo makes loads of money off their own consoles, why should they become a third party? You keep saying things like:
Originally posted by joltaddict
How on earth does that make it more profitable to restrict Mario Sunshine to 75% less of an audience? (my numbers are probally a little off but if anything its on the low side) The aggregate money they make off the Gamecube cannot compare to what the sales on this one title alone would have done cross platform.
First off, you ignore the fact that Nintendo type games tend to sell poorly on PS2 (Jax&Daxter, Dark Cloud, etc.). Since the Gamecube is not even a year old yet, we don't have enough sales data to compare against the PS2 software numbers. However, if we look back a few years at a similar situation (the N64 vs. PSX), we can see your point proven false. Keep in mind the PSX 70 million user base vs. N64 30 million user base.

Top Selling Console games of 2000:

1) Pokemon Stadium (N64) - Nintendo
2) Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (PSX) - Activision
3) Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask (N64) - Nintendo
4) Gran Turismo 2 (PSX) - Sony
5) Tony Hawk Pro Skater (PSX) - Activision
6) WWF Smackdown (PSX) - THQ
7) Tony Hawk Pro Skater (N64) - Activision
8) Madden 2001 (PSX) - EA
9) Mario Party 2 (N64) - Nintendo

source:TRST NPD

The data shows that Nintendo with its N64 (30 million user base) software, outsold the PSX (70 million user base) software. Nintendo making more profit working with less of an audience. In fact, if you look at the source article, Nintendo's console software even outsold the top selling PC title. Strong performance coming from a company that "restricts" their software.

These sales numbers, along with the earlier link I posted above stating the N64 was always profitable for Nintendo, prove that Nintendo's profits don't come solely from Gameboy sales. Nintendo's consoles also play a big part in helping Nintendo remain the number one publisher year after year.

Nintendo has now positioned its Gamecube in becoming an even stronger more profitable console than the N64. The Gamecube already has more games available than the N64 had during the same period of time. The Gamecube also has more 3rd party support than the N64 ever had during its lifetime. Nintendo have also turned the GBA into a peripheral for the Gamecube. This GBA/Gamecube connectivity will only help sales of the Gamecube and further blur the lines between Nintendo's console/handheld profit margins that the Nintendo haters whine so much about.

Nintendo was profitable with its N64 console. Now they have created an even better system with the Gamecube to continue and even surpass what they did with the N64 profit wise. But hey who really knows, Nintendo may become a third party one day. But with what they've done in the past and what they have shown for the future, it just doesn't seem likely...
CreatureX is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 09:24 AM
  #63  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 30-minute drive from Tampa HR....
Posts: 1,261
Excellent post CreatureX.

Note to future posters: Post Factual Data.

If there is going to be intelligent discussions regarding consoles, profitability, game sales etc - provide numbers. Too much of this thread is "from what I've read - ..." and "I think that this will happen". Post what you've read, and don't tell us your opinion. Everyone hates the fanboys, but this thread is laced with unintelligent comments with no factual merit by people claiming not to be biased. Give me a break! If you're going to create an argument, give me some data. All of this Nintendo going 3rd party talk reminds me of the previous year's "I think the PS2 will drop on this date talk". In the end, nobody knew. Hell, it didn't even seem that Sony knew until the announcement came. The point is, lets keep this from being like IGN & create meaningful discussion.

Interesting article on Rare. I myself can't really determine the implications of such a move. I'll wait to see a press release to validate its credibility. But thanks for the info anyways.
spankyj is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 11:00 AM
  #64  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,331
another interesting thread turned in to a console war...

blah blah blah
boobietheclown is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 11:18 AM
  #65  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
I don't care what system I play my games on either. I just don't want to have to buy a stupid set top box that will cost a ton more than a plain game system because includes a bunch of features I don't need because I'll already have higher quality stand alone version of the machines that do the features that I have any interest in.

If Sony or MS wasn't going for this set top box crap, I'd be tickled to death of Nintendo joined with one of them and I only had to buy one system instead of 2 to play most of the games that interest me.
Josh H is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 11:30 AM
  #66  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Beverly, MA
Posts: 5,506
wow... very entertaining stuff. since there really is no real information from anyone, we have to play my console is better than yours... great.... i hope there is another thread ike this soon.

i'll wait five minutes and check back.... i'm sure there will be
huh? is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 12:26 PM
  #67  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Drexl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 16,003
I think it just makes sense for Rare to go multiplatform, considering how "rare" their games are. They only make one or two per year, right? Why not make it available on all of the systems?

I really hope they release all of their games (except those that feature Nintendo characters, of course) on all three systems.
Drexl is online now  
Old 07-31-02, 01:36 PM
  #68  
Shawn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
First off, you ignore the fact that Nintendo type games tend to sell poorly on PS2 (Jax&Daxter, Dark Cloud, etc.).
Do you honestly think that Mario would sell poorly on any system?
 
Old 07-31-02, 02:51 PM
  #69  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Elmhurst, IL
Posts: 448
Creature,

A few points you seem to miss.

1- Nintendo games always were in the top 10, because there were SO FEW games to buy for the N64. There was a lot more selection for PSX, meaning that people got to split their gaming dollar amongst more games. Whereas on N64, it was basically 1 game every once and a while that the majority of people wanted, or that kids wanted (Pokemon) so thats why they were in the top 10. The top 10 list overall means very little in that case.

2-The article you keep stating says that Nintendo made profit from Nintendo64 in its last years whereas Sony lost money on the PSone in its last few years. This is true, but Sony made TONS of money on the PSone while it was their main system. Mind you, it also came out well before N64. The last couple years are what we are expericing now, after PS2 came out. They arent making any money on their PSone division now (sure), as its selling for $50 and they arent really selling any new games for it. They still sell it, however, to hope people move up to PS2 eventually.

So who cares if N64 made more than PSONE in Psone's last two years. That means nothing. PSOne still made more money when it was actually a relevant system than when N64 did.

-Jim
YujiNaka is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 03:47 PM
  #70  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Space Junk Galaxy
Posts: 2,471
Those are some good points Yuji. But the last year of the PSX was its biggest year. Also if you want to go back even further to the so called "relevent" years of the PSX, you will still see N64 games such as Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, GoldenEye, Donkey Kong 64, Zelda Ocarina of Time, Pokemon Snap, etc. were all yearly top sellers for the N64 that held their own against PSX titles.

I am only trying to make one point. And that point is that Nintendo's console games sell and make Nintendo loads of money. So it just doesn't make sense for Nintendo to become a third party when they already sell loads of software on their own consoles.
CreatureX is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 04:06 PM
  #71  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,460
Originally posted by CreatureX
These sales numbers, along with the earlier link I posted above stating the N64 was always profitable for Nintendo, prove that Nintendo's profits don't come solely from Gameboy sales. Nintendo's consoles also play a big part in helping Nintendo remain the number one publisher year after year.
Year after year for 2 whole years. The second 'year' showing what a success its handheld is. Nobody's saying Nintendo should pack it in and dissolve as a company in bankruptcy. We all know Nintendo makes lots of money. Since there are no real numbers up-to-date that show how much money Nintendo is making off the Gamecube yet - bringing "factual data" into the conversation that was from years before this console came out doesn't really tell the story either.

Top Selling Games of May 2002:

1. Spider Man - PS2
2. Dragon Ball Z - GBA
3. GTA3 - PS2
4. Medal of Honor - PS2
5. Gran Tourismo 3 - PS2
6. Resident Evil - GC
7. Spider Man - Xbox
8. Halo - Xbox
9. Spider - Man - GC
10. Super Mario Adance 2 - GBA

11-20 has mostly PS2, and PS1 games with a few GBA games, an Xbox game at #14 and one GC game at #20. In Japan, GC and Xbox are absent from the top 10 list completely. Nobody is saying Nintendo isn't a successful company with the GBA... but the Gamecube isn't faring any better than the Xbox - each holds less than 25% of the console market right now. Of course, PS2 had been out a year before either Xbox of GC... but still - Nintendo is used to being #1 with the NES and SNES. N64 may not have been a failure, but it wasn't the success story that previous consoles were. If it happens again with GC, who knows.

Sega had a huge success with their Genesis and milked it. Then they put out a few bad eggs. When the Dreamcast finally came out, it was too late. Sure - Nintendo is in a different situation because they would continue to be a profitable company whether the GC was a success or a failure. All I'm saying - and I think I'm speaking for those who are saying the same thing - is that Nintendo's game sales for May 2002 would've been alot different had their games been available for the PS2 or Xbox, and that maybe they should stay out of the fight between Xbox2 and PS3 next round and let those companies lose money trying to one-up each other in hardware and focus on making games that people simply must have. Hell, that's what I would do - I'd take my money and sit back and let the others duke it out... then I'd make more money off their efforts and go "HAHAHA".
Trigger is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 04:21 PM
  #72  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,543
All I'm saying - and I think I'm speaking for those who are saying the same thing - is that Nintendo's game sales for May 2002 would've been alot different had their games been available for the PS2 or Xbox
Yeah, Nintendo would have sold more games but they also would have sold no Gamecubes, no controllers, no memory cards, no licensing fees, no nothing.
Kellehair is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 04:30 PM
  #73  
DVD Talk Legend
 
darkside's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 19,847
Originally posted by YujiNaka
Creature,

A few points you seem to miss.

1- Nintendo games always were in the top 10, because there were SO FEW games to buy for the N64. There was a lot more selection for PSX, meaning that people got to split their gaming dollar amongst more games. Whereas on N64, it was basically 1 game every once and a while that the majority of people wanted, or that kids wanted (Pokemon) so thats why they were in the top 10. The top 10 list overall means very little in that case.


-Jim
Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the quality of the Nintendo titles.
darkside is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 04:31 PM
  #74  
zig
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 810
I don't understand what difference it makes if the Gamecube is #1 or #2 or #3. What matters is, is it profitable? Answer: yes. Is it successful? Yes, because that's what products are supposed to do, make a profit. I'm sure they'd love to be #1 in the market because that would mean even more profit. But they have no reason to call it quits just because they're in "last place."

Oh, and who cares what the reason their games were in the Top 10? Money is still money.
zig is offline  
Old 07-31-02, 04:31 PM
  #75  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,460
Originally posted by Kellehair

Yeah, Nintendo would have sold more games but they also would have sold no Gamecubes, no controllers, no memory cards, no licensing fees, no nothing.
Well I guess then at this point since we don't have their financial data for any of these things yet and since it's impossible to predict how much they would make off their games alone, everyone here is speculating. You and me included.

Yay! The debate is over! Nobody wins! We all win! Woo Hoo!
Trigger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.