will the platinum cube drop to 99.99 as well?

the Big N should do a bundle that include the GC, GBA sp, and the GC player for $199.99, that is a good marketing stradegy and it will sell more than the xbox and ps 2 if they bundle the gc, gba sp, and gc player for the 199.99 price tag.

Nintendo has already made their money on the Cube. Now it's time for them to focus on delivering the best possible system in the next generation. Granted they didn't win this race against the PS2 and XBox but they'll come out fighting in 2005-6

Well that was fast. $99 GC sold out at ToysR'Us/Amazon.com:

$99 Gamecube

I don't know why people are making such a big deal about this. The GC with the GB Player at $150 was exactly the same as the GC for $100 and the GB Player for $50. To me it's not that much of a difference and Nintendo is not losing nearly as much (if anything) as people seem to think.

The big deal is that it is rumored that they will bundle a Zelda compliation or Mario Kart DD with the cube this Xmas season for $99.

It's not so much that I want them to fail, but I wonder how many mistakes a company can make and still survive.

Nintendo should go third party. Everyone pretty much universally agrees that their games are top notch across the board. It's also a fairly common statement that the only reason to own a Nintendo console is to play the first party titles. It would be better for everyone if Nintendo would just get out of the hardware business -- then I wouldn't have to buy yet another console to play the games I want to play, and Nintendo could sell their games to a much wider audience. As it is, any Nintendo title has a potential market of about nine million. There simply isn't a way to sell more copies, because more consoles haven't been sold. Meanwhile, a title for the PS2 has a market of 55 million, and an X-Box | PS2 | GameCube title has a market of about 70 million.

No, I don't think that Nintendo will change its ways anytime soon. I think they are very adamant about building the hardware they want to build, and delivering the experience they want to deliver, then considering how best to sell that, rather than figuring out what people want and delivering that product. And yes, most of their hardware is flawed. Let's take the GameBoy Advance. The only reason it's thriving today is because of a basic lack of anything similar competing against it. It's got some really good games, but if we look at it, they are just reselling SNES titles. But, if that's the case, why are there only four buttons on the GBA? The SNES had six, which makes porting some games over problematic, and compromises the gaming experience. I'm sure they planned on selling rebadged SNES titles, so why not the same controller layout? On top of that, they also convienently forgot to put a backlight in the original GBA, which lead to some real visibility problems. This is well documented, and was so bad that people actually modified (or paid good money to modify) their GBAs to put in the missing backlight. Even still, the backlight on the GBA SP isn't what I'd call stellar, and still is not as good as the aftermarket kits for the original. It will be interesting to see if Nintendo can keep its revenue up when Sony releases its PSP.

I'd hate to see Nintendo go away. However, I just see them making stupid decision after stupid decision. When you once owned your market, and ten years later you are fighting to make sure you don't end up in last place for market share, you have made a LOT of dumb decisions. Nintendo has to make a lot of right decisions now, and I'm not sure that following up two poorly selling consoles with another is the right decision. Sega tried it, and nearly killed themselves on the Dreamcast. Now that they have become a third party developer, they are a viable company again. Why shouldn't Nintendo follow this lead?

Well since Microsoft has also only sold 9 million systems, should they go 3rd party as well? I mean why should Halo 2, PGR, Ninja Gaiden etc. also be limited to "a potential market of about nine million".

But for some strange reason we don't see many "MS should go 3rd party" messages. Hmmmmm...

What I don't understand is the fact that Sony is in the number 1 position. It doesn't make sense to me because just about everyone I know has either an Xbox or a GameCube and nobody has a PS2. Must be that they calculate it on worldwide sales. What are the console sales base in just the US?

North American sales:

PS2: 26 million
Xbox: 6 million
GC: 5 million

Wow! I had no idea the PS2 has that much of a lead in sales over the Xbox and Gamecube. Makes no sense to me. Do you think that can be attributed to piracy? I wonder if software piracy can actually drive hardware sales. Something to think about.

It might not be a bad idea, but Microsoft isn't really in the console software business the way Nintendo is. Even many of their "exclusive" titles are available or will be available on PC. Seeing that Halo is soon to be released for PC, I'm sure that in due time, Halo 2 will be as well. You won't see Mario Sunshine on any other console or system ... ever. While Ninja Gaiden is exclusive to XBox, neither Tecmo or Team Ninja are owned by Microsoft. PGR is considered a first-party title, but Bizarre Creations isn't owned by Microsoft either.

Even still, I'm willing to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt for this round. If they have another unsuccessful console, you'll see me saying that they should probably get out of the business. Nintendo has had two consoles in a row that have experienced declining market share and declining third party supports. That suggests a downward trend, and I would put money down that the next console from the big N doesn't reverse that trend.

Yeah - they're totally going software only.

Sorry for my earlier post, it wasn't the best, I had been drinking.


Anywho, perhaps people don't suggest MS should go software only because MS has very little good software they make in the first place.

Actually, they have alot of good software... the reason I don't suggest they go software only is cuz they are a software company and this is their first foray into the console hardware market. Suggesting a software company goes software only just sounds kinda dumb. Plus - MS invested a ton of money in this and it was evident early on that the payoff wouldn't be until Xbox 2. They've got deep pockets and it isn't likely that they are gonna quit already... but who knows. Nintendo has seen a steady decline since SNES - while they have deep pockets too, they just don't NEED to keep trying like MS does at this stage. There'll probably be at least one more console from Nintendo - beyond that, there's no way to even speculate... however, (as I've said numerous times) I think it would be a good idea for Nintendo to go software only like Sega did - Not saying that they WILL, just that they should (IMO).

I'm surprised that anyone would want Nintendo to stop making GC. One less competitor will only drive up prices on the other 2 systems. GC going to $99 will only force PS and Xbox to lower their prices also.

Me personally, I bought GC specifically for the Mario type games. They make their money on the games anyway, so selling the console at a loss is not surprising.

For $99, I bet a lot of GC will be bought this Christmas.

Yeah, and you only need a PC to enjoy it.

Nintendo's going to put out one more console and after 20 years in the business I think they have the right to try again just as much as Microsoft. If they don't do any better with the next console and they don't correct the mistakes they have made with the last two consoles then I agree it may be time for them to just become a publisher only and focus on the thing they do better than anyone else, publish games. If the Xbox 2 struggles again (to be honest I hope they kick Sony's ass) then the same question marks will be over their heads as well.

We had all better hope that two of the three survive as console makers though. If only one company is making the consoles you can bet the hardware and software is going to be pretty damn expensive. After dealing with the bad hardware Sony has released as a console maker I would much rather see Microsoft and Nintendo continue making consoles and Sony leave the market, but thats just me.

This quote from the article is significant.

"As far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, Pidgeon says Sony is likely to be unfazed by the price drop. However, Pidgeon says, "Microsoft should care. They could lose the number two position, which is very important for Microsoft [to maintain]."

Can't believe you left is out.

My only problem with Nintendo...I wished they'd try harder to foster some good relationships with third-party developers. In my eyes, Square jumping to the Playstation was a pretty big blow for Nintendo.

I agree. If the don't fix their problems with keeping third party developers happy and make their next console more third party and sports game friendly then they might as well not even release it.

Just releasing a new console won't be enough, they have to finally learn from their mistakes and correct them. Hopefully their new President understands this.

I want them to keep making consoles for a couple of reasons.

1. Cost. The GC was $100 less than the competition. The next one will probably be at least that much less than the competition as MS and Sony are hell bent on Set top boxes that do a bunch of non-gaming crap like Tivo. I don't want to pay extra for a bunch of features I'm never going to user, or already own in superior stand-alone hardware. Of course, maybe they'll wise up and put out cheaper gaming only systems as well, then this point would be alleviated.

2. Quality. If they go third party, quality will likely drop as they'll have to spend time making the games work on at least 2 systems. Pretty much all the AAA games IMO are on only one system as this allows developers to just make the game the best it can be, and optimize it for that hardware, rather than taking time making it work on all three. Not to mention the lowest common denominator fact that usually makes games less that what they could be on the more powerful systems.

This could be alleviated if Nintendo went second party and joined up with Sony or MS and only made games for one console. Hopefully they'd be allowed to design the controllers as well.


So basically, I really don't want to see them go third party, but I wouldn't mind them going second party as long as whoever they partnered with put out a cheaper gaming only alternative to their rumored set-top boxes.

But at any rate, Nintendo is already working on the GCs successor so no change will happen until at least next generation. If the successor does poorly, and the PSP stills some of the GB's thunder they could be in trouble.

Fair enough, but I don't know many people who bought the GameCube because it was the cheapest console. Most of the bulk of your sales don't come from the early adopters, they come from the midgame, when the consoles have been selling for $150 and $200. For several weeks, the PS2 and X-Box have only been $25 more. That's not enough to force a decision on price alone.

I also understand that you don't want those extra features, but I think it seriously hurt Nintendo. For many families, it's easier to justify the cost of a $200 gaming system when it comes bundled with a (however crappy) DVD player. I have good standalone hardware, but my X-Box is a better DVD player than my three year old stand-alone Sony, and even my PS2 sees time as a spare DVD player. The GameCube already has a DVD drive in it, it just isn't big enough to read full size DVDs, and doesn't have any DVD playback software. Nintendo did sell a GC in Japan with a DVD player, they just didn't sell it here. It probably would have cost them $5 a console to add it, and they chose not to. Personally, I can see where a bundled 'extra' like a DVD player would help move consoles, but I can't understand someone not buying a PS2 because "it plays DVDs, and I just want to play games!"

I'm also seeing people complain that if Nintendo wasn't around, prices would be higher. Perhaps, but not that much higher. There's always going to be a second competitor to keep prices in check, and if there isn't, someone will develop one, like Sony is doing with the PSP. Still, I don't think the GBA or GBA SP is vastly overpriced despite a lack of direct competitors.

Quote:

2. Quality. If they go third party, quality will likely drop as they'll have to spend time making the games work on at least 2 systems. Pretty much all the AAA games IMO are on only one system as this allows developers to just make the game the best it can be, and optimize it for that hardware, rather than taking time making it work on all three. Not to mention the lowest common denominator fact that usually makes games less that what they could be on the more powerful systems.

Maybe, maybe not. Madden springs to mind as a game that is very good across all three consoles. Granted, the X-Box version looks prettier (as it should), and the GameCube version feels less polished, probably because they spent the least amount of time porting it to that console.

Personally, I can't stand Nintendo's controllers.

I don't mind DVD players. They don't add much cost. Especially if they go like MS and require a remote (that way the cost of the DVD license isn't automatically passed on to consumers).

I agree that the quality is ok for Joe Six Pack and others that aren't anal about audio video quality or have an older player. Any kind of "all in one" device is really just a cheap convenient option for those that don't know any better, or those that don't care IMO. However, Tivo and others stuff I won't use is just added cost. I'm not paying extra for something I won't use.


I also agree that the cheaper price isn't necessarily a reason for most to buy a console. I was just stating it's a huge plus for me as I'll never play more than $199 for a console. I'm just not into games enough to pay more than that.

As for cross platform games, of course their are exceptions to every rule. Soul Calibur 2 is another example. But most games are either one good version and some shoddy ports. Or they are designed for the weakest console (ps2 currently) and the other systems don't get their extra power taken advantage of.

I bought the N64 when it hit $99 and there was still a ton of life left in that system at that point. I still say the N64 was easily the best system of the previous generation, I'm mystified by people who seem to have convinced themselves that it was a failure...

Anyway, waiting to hear about the Zelda bundle, but I think I know one thing I'm going to get for Xmas

I get why people who support xbox would be opposed to MS not longer making a console. I have one and love it. If MS stopped making a console I would then have to use a Nintendo, Sony or a phantom. MS doesn't really have anything to offer the console world except it's consoles and mabey Halo.

Anyway, my question is this. Why do Nintendo suporters get so pissy when someone suggest Nintendo go 3rd party? All that would mean is that Nintendo could then make games for other consoles and get their games out to wider audiences. That would make more money for nintendo, they could stop worrying about building new hardware and just keep pumping money into the games and into the GBA. Nintendo wouldn't be going away, just playing to their strengths. I am pretty sure most people don't intend to insult Nintendo or it's fans when they make these comments. They are just pointing out a possible business decision.

A little comparison on the amount of time it took the following consoles to go on sale at $100 less than their original price:

North America:
Xbox: (11/01 to 5/02) = 6 months
Dreamcast: (9/99 to 1/01) = 16 months
Gamecube: (11/01 to 9/03) = 22 months

Anyone remember how long it took the PS2?