GCN 2 Early Launch... Will Not Help Nintendo.

[JohnCrichton]

I hear they're going to try and get out their next console before MS and Sony does.

Dreamcast did this too.

All that's going to happen in the mind of the masses is the feeling of, "Wow! GCN2 has some amazing graphics! If I save my money and wait, the PS3 and XBox2's graphics are probably going to be even BETTER!!!"

I wonder when Nintendo is going to buy a clue as to what to do.

I'm happy with my system and the games I got. Got more than I can handle and more games than I have time to beat. But I absolulely destest their business strategies and lazy attitude in respects to the competition.

[KingKoopa]

I think they're looking for the advantage PS2 has over Xbox and GCN, but if they don't play their cards right, they'll wind up like Dreamcast.

[Bird Boy]

If they do it like Dreamcast? Yes it'll fail.

If they do it like PS2? Then they have a chance.

Really just depends how it'll all play out. Time will tell...

-BB

[JDuncan]

Yeah let's hope they don't follow the Dreamcast's example. I mean, who has time to play so many great games at launch, anyway? PS2's "**** for 8 months" plan was much better.

[Matt Hazuda]

Plus Sony paying off all EB employees to encourage people not to pick up a Dreamcast because PS2 was gonna kick its butt probably helped as well.

[SNS]

The Dreamcast didn't die because it was out early, it died mainly because of financial problems Sega had before the Dreamcast was even released.

[Beat]

That and 3rd part supporters.

[Floydian Slip]

meh, the dreamcast ruled. and why can't Nintendo think of a new name? Gamecube 2 sucks prety bad.

[SNS]

Gamecube 2 is most likely just a temporary name until they come up with the real one.

[Animation Otaku]

Gamecube was originally called the Dolphin, but that was simply a prototype name, GCN 2 is the same.

[Catlover]

When was the Gamecube released, back in November of 2001? If I'm correct the system has been around for a little more then a year and a half. I speculate the GC2 will be released at most Q4 of next year. If I was in charge of nintendo, I'd keep the Gamecube in stores for another five years and let it build up a bigger library of games. Anyway, I'm glad I haven't bought a Gamecube yet, I'll just wait till the price drops to $99.99

[SNS]

5 years would be too much time, the Playstation 3 will be out by 2005 & Microsoft's next system will be out by 2006.

[The Penguin]

I'm starting to not like this whole race thing these three have going on. I've barely had enough time to enjoy my GameCube and now I have to worry about being outdated right away. Nintendo has always waited for the others and then improved upon it one way or another. I don't think jumping to the front will serve them well.

[The Jinjo]

When will they realize that PS2 is not in the lead because of it's head start, but because it has what the public wants? They seem to not realize that their lacking sales are due to the fact that not everyone likes their stuff.

[LEGACY]

When will they realize that PS2 is not in the lead because of it's head start, but because it has what the public wants? They seem to not realize that their lacking sales are due to the fact that not everyone likes their stuff.


More like everyone don`t like carppy games made by third parties. And just becasue PS2 have games that the mainstreme wants don`t mean thire games are better.

[ProdigyCube]

More like everyone don`t like carppy games made by third parties. And just becasue PS2 have games that the mainstreme wants don`t mean thire games are better.

There is no question that Nintendo's games are the best in the market. But if they want some $$$, they need to push some of the non-Nintendo games.

[Znath]

not help nintendo? lol
it's not like nintendo is in bad shape or anything (they're not)

lets say a nice imaginary situation
nintendo looses the console market
they've still got the GBA right...
that lil guy nearly outsold the number of PS2s of its first day
not to mention that there are thousands of GBA games out already

especialy my favorite to date Golden Sun 1,2

i kinda wish they'd think of a new name for it but oooh well
maybe they'll reissure the GCN as a mini thing like they did
with the SNES and NES lol

nintendo has alot of 3rd party people helpin em out
and generaly whatever is out on the ps2..
is out on GCN eventualy and vice versa
i'd love to see the two merged (GCN PS2)... that would be unstoppable
but unlikely i think...

in short... nintendo's doin fine from what i've seen so far
if you wanna look for trouble
i've heard alot of problems with Microsoft keeping their Box afloat
at the beggining of it's release it was barely making profit
(after manufacturing costs and such) so when the price was lowered
it came into trouble even more...

as i always say time will tell...
i realy doubt nintendo will be gone for a long while

[ClockStomper]

What's so messed up about this is Nintendo games and systems are useless once they upgrade. With Sony, your games are still good. But this time, my Gamecube will be useless after only 2 years.

I quit, Nintendo. I freaking quit! Screw you and your total focus on Gameboy.

[SNS]

The PS1 & PS2 are both CD-based systems, so of course they can easily make the PS2 backwards compatable. The N64 is cart-based & the GCN is CD-based, to make the GCN backwords compatable is not as simple.

[Bird Boy]

What's so messed up about this is Nintendo games and systems are useless once they upgrade. With Sony, your games are still good. But this time, my Gamecube will be useless after only 2 years.

I quit, Nintendo. I freaking quit! Screw you and your total focus on Gameboy.

If the next system isn't backwards compatible with GCN, then I will be seriously P.O-ed. Like SNS mentioned, there's no way GCN could be backwards compatible with previous systems...but if the next one isn't compatible with GCN games...yeah, there's gonna be hell to pay.

-BB

[LEGACY]

There is no question that Nintendo's games are the best in the market. But if they want some $$$, they need to push some of the non-Nintendo games.



It hard to push non nintendo games when they are bad.

[Artemis]

This is something I've been meaning to ask.

You say if they do it like Dreamcast, they'll fail and if they do it like PS2, they'll succeed.

But what does that mean?

They both came out earlier than the others but what exactly did Sega do "wrong" that Sony did "right"?

[Bird Boy]

This is something I've been meaning to ask.

You say if they do it like Dreamcast, they'll fail and if they do it like PS2, they'll succeed.

But what does that mean?

They both came out earlier than the others but what exactly did Sega do "wrong" that Sony did "right"?

At the time, both systems were announced and whatnot. DC hit earlier, but not many bought it cause they were going to hold out on the newer, and more powerful PS2.

So if Nintendo releases GCN 2, say, 6 months ahead of the competition, they won't win. People will wait for XBOX2 and PS3.

Sony, however, released PS2 years ahead of GCN and XBOX, so instead of waiting a whole year, people clammored over PS2.

-BB

[Artemis]

So if Nintendo wants to succeed, they'll have to release it a whole year before Sony's and Microsoft's next console.

But Sony want to get the PS3 out as early as 2005.

That means GCN2 should be out in 2004 which is next year. By then GCN would have only been out for two years.

That's a short lifespan for a console. And that's not good considering many are still buying GCNs. That really screws them over if they found out Nintendo's releasing a new one in just 6+ months, if that were so.

I guess, for me, this comes back to my distaste for this "Console Race." Remember how SNES and Genesis lasted 5-6 years? And PSX?

By Christmas 2003, PS2 would have been out for three years and GCN/XBOX two years. None have had a chance to build up a decent library of games, at least many that are memorable. Yes, they should be thinking about their next one, but do they gotta push it so early?

I don't think it's Nintendo that should wait. They ALL should.

[SNS]

At the time, both systems were announced and whatnot. DC hit earlier, but not many bought it cause they were going to hold out on the newer, and more powerful PS2.

So if Nintendo releases GCN 2, say, 6 months ahead of the competition, they won't win. People will wait for XBOX2 and PS3.

Sony, however, released PS2 years ahead of GCN and XBOX, so instead of waiting a whole year, people clammored over PS2.

-BB

DC was released one year before the PS2 & the PS2 was released one year before the GCN & the Xbox, so I don't know what you are talking about.


That means GCN2 should be out in 2004 which is next year. By then GCN would have only been out for two years.

2001 to 2004 is 3 years not 2.


I guess, for me, this comes back to my distaste for this "Console Race." Remember how SNES and Genesis lasted 5-6 years? And PSX?

Just like the current systems. Playstation 3 is coming out in 2005 which would give the Playstation 2 a five-year lifespan (2000-2005) & "Xbox 2" is coming out in 2006, which would give the Xbox a five-year lifespan (2001-2006).


By Christmas 2003, PS2 would have been out for three years and GCN/XBOX two years. None have had a chance to build up a decent library of games, at least many that are memorable. Yes, they should be thinking about their next one, but do they gotta push it so early?

I don't think it's Nintendo that should wait. They ALL should.

1998 (3 years after the PS1 was released), Sony revealed pics of the kind of graphics the PS2 could do. 1999 (3 years after the N64 was released), Nintendo started talking about the Gamecube (then known as the Dolphin). And you're saying that they are rushing things?

[Artemis]

DC was released one year before the PS2 & the PS2 was released one year before the GCN & the Xbox, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Hey, he's right. Dreamcast was 1999 and PS2 was 2000 and GCN/XBOX was 2001.

Sooo, that brings me back to my question what did Sega do "wrong" that Sony did "right"? Judging by this information, their releases weren't all that different.




2001 to 2004 is 3 years not 2.

I'll admit, I was thinking 2002 when I wrote this (the year I got my GCN). My mistake.



Just like the current systems. Playstation 3 is coming out in 2005 which would give the Playstation 2 a five-year lifespan (2000-2005) & "Xbox 2" is coming out in 2006, which would give the Xbox a five-year lifespan (2001-2006).

You're right. So I guess the only real offender is Nintendo. GCN came out in 2001 and it still has yet to build a decent audience. Yeah, it's improving but it's not quite up there enough to release a new system so soon.



1998 (3 years after the PS1 was released), Sony revealed pics of the kind of graphics the PS2 could do. 1999 (3 years after the N64 was released), Nintendo started talking about the Gamecube (then known as the Dolphin). And you're saying that they are rushing things?

Nintendo will be rushing if they are actually serious about releasing GCN2 before PS3, which is pretty impossible unless they are talking about a couple months. And if that's the case, I can gurantee most of the gaming public will hold out for the PS3. This will not help Nintendo.

[SNS]

Somehow I forgot this was a discussion about Nintendo releasing the "Gamecube 2" in 2004, when I replied to that :o

You're right though, 3 years it's too short for a system's lifespan.

[Sandro]

If I were the execs in charge of Nintendo, I'd hold my hand until I see the other player's cards. Playing a trump card too early could result in getting screwed the rest of the game.

Then again, I'm not much of a card player.

Anyways, this isn't nearly as bad as the computer video card industry. Between NVidia and ATI, they're putting out video cards like about every six months or so now. Not to mention the top-of-the-line models are now something like $500. It's getting pretty bad.

[LEGACY]

The PS2 is no more suprior then the DC, X-box or GC. People thinks any sony system will have good games while the other wont. Which is just stupid.

[EinBebop]

A little editorial that I pulled out of the mailbag at IGN. I found it to be interesting up to the last paragraph. :)


The problem is a little more complicated than the question about quality. Yes, when a multiplatform game ships late on GameCube, sales will be worse. Yes, when a multiplatform is worst on GameCube, it will sell fewer copies. But the low sales problem also extends to quality titles like TimeSplitters 2, Bond: Nightfire, and similar multiplatform releases that aren't worse or late on GameCube. Even when Xbox was not yet ahead in US sales, the GameCube versions would consistently sell fewer copies. Sure, there are the odd exceptions, like EA's Harry Potter or Burnout (1), but after numerous titles selling less on GameCube, retailers reacted by simply stocking fewer GameCube games in favor of more PS2 and Xbox titles. This, of course, resulted in even less sales. The problem is one of publisher AND retail relations, of marketing presence, of image, of catering to a limited userbase, of forward thinking and competitive behavior, and last but not least, of quality assurance.

I can't say this often enough, but remember that Microsoft spent considerable amounts of money to ensure that Xbox would come out ahead of GameCube in the US. It's not a situation of Nintendo and MS meeting on even fields. Nintendo makes money on each sold GameCube, MS loses money on each Xbox that's sold. Microsoft was aggressive about making sure the initial wave of Xbox multiplatform releases were superior (remember the extra level in Spider-Man, MS involvement with Splinter Cell to make sure the game looked best on Xbox, etc), Nintendo was less active on third-party support -- it made sense, since it has very strong in-house teams. With very few hit franchises and unproven in-house development teams, using third parties to bolster the Xbox lineup was the only possible course of action. That (and the fact that it has the GBA) is why Nintendo also made more money than Microsoft -- and most definitely made more money for every dollar spent. In a way, it's as sound of a business decision as Microsoft's entry into the console market. The question is just if it's the correct thing to do in the longterm sense.

Even if every third-party game from now on looked or sounded worse on Xbox, gamers are already trained to think that the same game on Xbox is always better than its PS2 or GameCube counterpart. The hardware is more powerful; there is no question about it. With its harddrive, digital sound, 1080i and 720p graphics support, the Xbox is a much more expensive machine to build than the GameCube. Which is why you're seeing Nintendo pushing the GBA link-up angle like no tomorrow. Nintendo has the advantage of some big key franchises, a compacter design and lower price point, wireless controllers, and a popular handheld that can be linked to the GameCube. Mainstream gamers didn't seem to care about the compact design or lower price (the whole DVD playback feature sold plenty of PS2s, as it turns out), the franchises have lost some of their draw that they had in the last generation, and the wireless controllers are awesome, but certainly no system sellers -- so Nintendo is exploiting the one feature that neither PS2 nor Xbox can offer to get people interested in the Cube: GBA link-up.

Is it an act of desperation? Well, only if it's the only thing Nintendo is doing. But it's not. Again, the presence of Resident Evil, Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid on GameCube is a sign that Nintendo is strengthening its third-party relations. If joint projects like F-Zero and Star Fox pan out, that's another huge step towards getting closer with companies that were once Nintendo's biggest competitors. It's a smart move. The only problem is that in order to really take on MS or Sony, you need breadth. You need an audience that doesn't only buy Nintendo games -- and for that, you need a lineup that's not only Nintendo games.

Nintendo isn't ignoring the success of games like Madden on the PS2 (the Madden games on PS2 sold more copies than all GameCube third-party game released by the end of 2002 combined.) The recent EA partnership announcement (though once again approached from the GBA link-up angle) is an indicator that Nintendo wants to get closer with the Redwood City giant. So for all the *****ing we all do about what Nintendo should be doing, there's a whole lot that it IS doing. It's just a little late in the game (and it really should never have come to this point). I'm sure the experience with GameCube will prep Nintendo for what it should do with the next platform. I'm also sure that existing GameCube gamers like you and me won't have to worry about a steady stream of quality software. While there weren't many surprises at E3, I still found plenty of stuff at Nintendo's E3 booth that I really want to play.

Which leads me to the end of this rambling mini-editorial. Ask yourself, what games do you own? Did you buy GameCube third-party games like Burnout 2 or Madden when they came out, or did you pick them up at a value price much later on? Are you rewarding third-party publishers with your hard-earned dollars when they release a quality GameCube title or bring the GCN version out earlier? Did you pick up Rayman 3? Resident Evil? Godzilla? Ikaruga? Beach Spikers? Because without your support, the numbers on those monthly TRSTS spreadsheets that publishers get will tell them to skip GameCube game development. So take a look at this list and pick up some quality GameCube software.

[Tommy Lawson]

Looks like JohnCrichton was right on the money. Check out this link at IGN Cube:

http://cube.ign.com/articles/422/422116p1.html

The first paragraph really sums it up:

"Various development sources have confirmed to IGNcube that preliminary talks about the successor to GameCube have begun. Nintendo has allegedly told studios to prepare for a spring 2005 release for the still-unnamed next-generation console.

Asked if they had received any official documentation for the machine, all software houses contacted said no. "

Hmm. Makes me wonder if they're setting themselves up to be in the same situation as the Sega Saturn was- an early launch with games that make it look underpowered. The Saturn suffered from comparisons between Daytona USA and Ridge Racer on PS1, with Ridge Racer having the graphical edge. Of course, that was then, and that was Sega not Nintendo, so we'll see what Nintendo does with their next system.

[Zapages]

It's sad but it looks like the Big N is slowly going down, and the only thing that's holding them are the handheld market.:(

[RKillian]

::sigh::

If Nintendo launches early, gamers will save their money for PS3 or XBox2. They will complain about lack of launch titles, lack of continued GameCube support, smaller increase in power, or anything else to back up their conclusion that Nintendo is stupid.

If Nintendo launches late, gamers will storm the gates and burn Nintendo for waiting too long. They will complain about already buying another system, lack of foresight and innovation, or anything else to back up their conclusion that Nintendo is stupid.

So Nintendo is screwed as far as the casual gamer is concerned. People just won't give them a chance and will instead crucify them at every opportunity. That's the reality causes their fans and other people who know/care about what they've done for the industry to get so upset.

Here's hoping Nintendo pulls a miracle out of it's hat.

[RKillian]

If the next system isn't backwards compatible with GCN, then I will be seriously P.O-ed. Like SNS mentioned, there's no way GCN could be backwards compatible with previous systems...but if the next one isn't compatible with GCN games...yeah, there's gonna be hell to pay.

-BB

Yes, it can be backwards compatible. Nintendo has stated as much for several years. It's just a little on the expensive side and they know the majority of people won't pay for it.

Getting back to the supposed "right" of backwards compatibility, where do current gamers get off? Back in the NES/SNES days, people didn't think Nintendo (or anyone else for that matter) "owed" them this feature. Sure, it would've been nice to have, but we accepted it as a necessary evil to the upgrade process.

Your old system doesn't suddenly stop working the day you buy a new one. I've never been in such a position that having an extra console or two was an unbearable difficulty. If you think about this from a progressive standpoint, think about why the game company wants you to purchase what they're selling now.

1. System manufacturers traditionally make little money on their hardware. The most common culprits are the R&D costs and the expense of custom microchips/materials. The majority of their profits come from the software and licenses they sell.

2. Old games have already been paid for by the store, meaning the game company already has their money. Buying an old or used game doesn't free space on the shelf for the new console. If new games fail to sell, more new games fail to get ordered.

Throughtout all this, nobody ever remembers that the GameBoy has been backwards compatible and playable on both the SuperNES and GameCube. I think Sony's lauded feature was more or less by chance and the nature of optical media and not out of some generous gift to the gaming public.

Edit:
I wonder, in retrospect, if the proliferation of trade-in deals (your system and 15 games for a paltry $100 store credit) has helped spur this belief amongst the casual gamer?

[Nik Jam]

I think something like Spring or Summer 2005 works nicely. Maybe at the end of the school year in 2005 people might be celebrating with a new console, this might not be the case as most consoles are probaly sold at the fall for a reason, but then again the GBA was June 2001. and the PS2 and Xbox will probaly be Q3-Q4 2005. Nintendo wouldnt make a mistake by doing something in Q1-2 2005. However, a 2004 release WOULD be a mistake.

They'd also better come up with launch titles, a Mario game (without canning the next GCN one), Too Human, and others, Star Fox Adventures and Eternal Darkness were almost launch titles but they didn't happen. And I'm sure the GCN (and those two games for that matter) would have done MUCH better if ED and SFA were out in 9/01.

And of course, if there's no backwards compatiblity, that'd be a mistake. I think backwards compatiblity will be the standard for the new consoles.

[Roman Legion]

Ah, the old "DC has some amazing graphics, I'll bet the PS2 will be even better!" arguments. Heh. Even when the PS2 arrived with sub-par graphics, people were still hyped about it, believing the next wave of games would deliver what had been promised. The graphics improved, but still didn't compare to the DC's, but by that time, so many more people owned PS2's and saw the DC begin to fail that it was too late.

What was the difference between the two releases? As I remember, it was hype. Major, major hype... and fudged system specs, which failed to take hardware bottlenecks and actual game conditions into account. People were eating up the hype so fast that I'm surprised Sony could keep up.

That's my take on it, anyway. :p

I won't be surprised to see the same thing happen again with the PS3.

--Romey

[All-Star 1.5]

Looks like JohnCrichton was right on the money. Check out this link at IGN Cube:

http://cube.ign.com/articles/422/422116p1.html

The first paragraph really sums it up:

"Various development sources have confirmed to IGNcube that preliminary talks about the successor to GameCube have begun. Nintendo has allegedly told studios to prepare for a spring 2005 release for the still-unnamed next-generation console.

Asked if they had received any official documentation for the machine, all software houses contacted said no. "

Hmm. Makes me wonder if they're setting themselves up to be in the same situation as the Sega Saturn was- an early launch with games that make it look underpowered. The Saturn suffered from comparisons between Daytona USA and Ridge Racer on PS1, with Ridge Racer having the graphical edge. Of course, that was then, and that was Sega not Nintendo, so we'll see what Nintendo does with their next system.

Well, word on the street is that Nintendo has renewed its contract with chipmaker ATI.

And for the record the GCN2 will be make or break based on if they can get some good titles that appeal to the casual gamer and the Nintendo fanboys . I mean it seems to me that they are just starting to do that with Metroid Prime, P.N 03, and F-Zero GX among other titles. If they can do that with thier next console then they already have a foot hold on Microsoft and maybe Sony.

[James]

If Nintendo launches early, gamers will save their money for PS3 or XBox2. They will complain about lack of launch titles, lack of continued GameCube support, smaller increase in power, or anything else to back up their conclusion that Nintendo is stupid.
So Nintendo is screwed as far as the casual gamer is concerned. People just won't give them a chance and will instead crucify them at every opportunity. That's the reality causes their fans and other people who know/care about what they've done for the industry to get so upset.


Same with any other system. The DC was slammed for an early release, the PSX2 was slammed for holding back a year and risking losing the market to the DC (which it didn't) and GC was slammed for a late release with limited games. Everyone gets slammed. The only truth in deciding a best time to release comes with the market figures... :p


The PS2 is no more suprior then the DC, X-box or GC. People thinks any sony system will have good games while the other wont. Which is just stupid.


What suprises me is how much people here say Nintendo is crucified and yet all I see is Nintendo people slamming all the other console.. :)


Seriously, I don't think it's the casual gamer which is the concern for you all. The casual gamer will make his choices based on publicity. He hasn't the time nor interest to hunt for a specific game, so whatever is hyped that looks good, he'll go for. So the target of frustration for Nintendo fans must lie with Nintendo marketing and media support for the console.



Getting back to the supposed "right" of backwards compatibility, where do current gamers get off? Back in the NES/SNES days, people didn't think Nintendo (or anyone else for that matter) "owed" them this feature. Sure, it would've been nice to have, but we accepted it as a necessary evil to the upgrade process.


It's a market issue. People will buy a system if they feel they can run older games on it. Market forces will make or break a console. You can get angry about the ethics of it all, but in the end if you want a strong console and you want it to survive, backward compatiability is vital.