Do they NEVER learn?!

June 14, 2004 - Gamesindustry.biz reported today that Nintendo intends to continue GameCube support well into the next generation of consoles, including Nintendo's upcoming "Revolution" next-generation console.


Commenting in the Yomiuri Shimbun, one of the leading Japanese newspapers, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata said he expects GameCube to sell alongside "Revolution" for quite some time, anticipating a success similar to what Sony saw with the PSone during the PlayStation 2's ascent.

However, as Gamesindustry points out, the comments do not clarify whether this long-term support of the GameCube means ongoing software development, or simply continuing production of the Cube hardware to meet market demand.

We'll bring you every bit of news about the pending Revolution as its rumbles continue to be felt. Stay tuned.

**bangs head on table**

Nintendo could not have made a stupider move at this point. Instead of promoting their new console, whose sales are absolutely vital to the industry, they still optimize the lifespan of the Cube?! Why, Nintendo? Why would you be this retarded? The Cube failed, okay? They should focus on letting it go.

If one knew Nintendo at all, they would know that it is extremely unlikely that they would add on new hardware. In their eyes, that damned purple square is perfect. Nintendo seems fixed in their old habits of always being on top, the big dog. Now they're slowly diminishing, a downward spiral that will send them the way of the dodo. Or of Sega.

This is exactly why Nintendo deserves losing the console race. Maybe the sudden shock of the abyss will wake them up. They honestly suck in marketing, and I don't see a lot of actual "revolution" coming their way. We'll end up viewing the end results, as the once strong foundation of Nintendo crumbles to the demolition crew of PS3 And X-Box 2. It'll be tough to pull out of this nosedive, Nintendo. Godspeed.

~Mute

Mute, I'm sort of with you, but I think you're getting just a little out-of-hand with this one.

Originally Posted by Mute

Nintendo could not have made a stupider move at this point. Instead of promoting their new console, whose sales are absolutely vital to the industry, they still optimize the lifespan of the Cube?! Why, Nintendo? Why would you be this retarded? The Cube failed, okay? They should focus on letting it go.

Being in second place in the console wars is the mark of a dead console, is it, now? Considering they've also got several new and amazing titles just on the horizon, one would think the exact opposite, wouldn't they?

Originally Posted by Mute

If one knew Nintendo at all, they would know that it is extremely unlikely that they would add on new hardware. In their eyes, that damned purple square is perfect. Nintendo seems fixed in their old habits of always being on top, the big dog. Now they're slowly diminishing, a downward spiral that will send them the way of the dodo. Or of Sega.

Fixed on their old habits of being number one? Nintendo is well aware of their position in the marketplace. Just take a look at any recent interview on Nintendo and its future and you'll see clearly as day.

Originally Posted by Mute

This is exactly why Nintendo deserves losing the console race. Maybe the sudden shock of the abyss will wake them up. They honestly suck in marketing, and I don't see a lot of actual "revolution" coming their way. We'll end up viewing the end results, as the once strong foundation of Nintendo crumbles to the demolition crew of PS3 And X-Box 2. It'll be tough to pull out of this nosedive, Nintendo. Godspeed.

Why does Nintendo deserve to lose the console race, again? Because they're in second place? They are far from dead. As for the revolution, stop speculating on something that hasn't had anything but vague information on it released. You'd might as well go and rate a movie you haven't seen yet.

Oh, and nosedive? According to this article, Microsoft is eager to get their next console out of the gates before anyone else, even using a slightly modified Apple G5 computer with the Microsoft logo slapped onto it, for the sole purpose of saving themselves the effort of coming up with something new. With Microsoft the one so eager to start anem, wouldn't one be led to believe that they're the one that's in the nosedive, and not Nintendo?

It makes sense that Nintendo would declare continued support; They don't want consumers holding their wallets. Already my local retailers aren't shy to note the late life of modern consoles, particularly those selling in-store warrantees. Consumers need a bit of an ego boost. Nintendo made the same claims with the NES preceding the SNES's release, and while we saw one or two killer apps still released for the NES, it just doesn't make sense to dump the same amount of time and effort, if not more, toward less gain.

That said, other companies market backward compatibility, so I worry this means I'll need to keep my Gamecube when my next Nintendo console arrives. Regardless, it's the sort of thing to take with a grain of salt.

Originally Posted by SearanoX

According to this article, Microsoft is eager to get their next console out of the gates before anyone else, even using a slightly modified Apple G5 computer with the Microsoft logo slapped onto it, for the sole purpose of saving themselves the effort of coming up with something new.

Kinda like how Nintendo slapped a modified G3 into the Gamecube and contracted out all manufacturing and development to "save the effort of coming up with something new?" And wasn't Nintendo also shooting specifically to play the release date game in the past? Or is this one of those "it's bad because they're Microsoft" things?

Originally Posted by Dryth

Kinda like how Nintendo slapped a modified G3 into the Gamecube and contracted out all manufacturing and development to "save the effort of coming up with something new?" And wasn't Nintendo also shooting specifically to play the release date game in the past? Or is this one of those "it's bad because they're Microsoft" things?

I don't deny that Nintendo did similar things with the GameCube (albeit not quite to an extent as Microsoft). The issue isn't exactly what happened in the past, though.

Hold back on the strategy bashing for a while, Mute, there is a bigger picture to this.

There have been comments from Nintendo that the current genereation of consoles is pushing the limits of what a console can currently do in terms of realism. Couple that along side of the 'fact' that the 'Revolution' will offer things we've never fathomed before, akin to the DS more than the GameCube. Now we have the perfect reason to still continue support for the GameCube. This is especially true with backward compatibility on the horizon.

I think this is Nintendo's way of watering down the jump between consoles. If youhave a Gamecube, you can still buy new games even though the fancy liufe-changing system is out there; when you buy the new one though and you don't feel the revolution as much as the next guy you still have the last set of games and some new ones in the same traditional vein.

Eh, I think I'm a gamer that, like the majority, doesn't care too much about fancy specs. I just care about fun games B-)

The console that I'll buy will be the one with the fun games. In the past this has always been the Gamecube but now I've been left feeling a bit stranded. I get bored of most of their games (eg. MK, SM: Sunshine) pretty quickly and they don't have a lot of genres that I really enjoy - specifically RPGs and Aussie sport games. The PS2 has a plethora of games in those two categories.

So, as for the next gen of consoles, I'm not sure which I'll buy yet. I'll probably stick to Nintendo though.

Originally Posted by ZeldaFreak++

Hold back on the strategy bashing for a while, Mute, there is a bigger picture to this.

There have been comments from Nintendo that the current genereation of consoles is pushing the limits of what a console can currently do in terms of realism. Couple that along side of the 'fact' that the 'Revolution' will offer things we've never fathomed before, akin to the DS more than the GameCube. Now we have the perfect reason to still continue support for the GameCube. This is especially true with backward compatibility on the horizon.

I think this is Nintendo's way of watering down the jump between consoles. If you have a Gamecube, you can still buy new games even though the fancy life-changing system is out there; when you buy the new one though and you don't feel the revolution as much as the next guy you still have the last set of games and some new ones in the same traditional vein.

But imagine if they DIDN'T still market the GCN when Revoltion comes out. Nintendo fans would be forced to buy the Revolution, and any game plans Ninendo had planned for the GCN, they can easily just tack on to the Revolution. It would be a good move. Everyone wins.

Back in the days of the SNES, when N64 came out, they still produced SNES games. Not a one of them sold, but they had no competition, so there wasn't a sales loss. Sony wasn't really alive back then. On another note, I think Nintendo's taking the "revolutionary" stance way too far. I think it'll just be like any other console, with any other number of classical and new games and genres. It will be new, but not earth-shattering.

And Microsoft? They don't NEED the growth in development like Nintendo does. Microsoft has unlimited funding. It can pour all its money into the X-Box, if need be. Nintendo is never exactly a crowd pleaser. It needs something to keep gamers attached. Something to keep them really hooked. Something new, but not something way out there.

~Mute

Originally Posted by Mute

But imagine if they DIDN'T still market the GCN when Revoltion comes out. Nintendo fans would be forced to buy the Revolution, and any game plans Ninendo had planned for the GCN, they can easily just tack on to the Revolution. It would be a good move. Everyone wins.

Everyone wins? But if there were two consoles, naturally, it'd sell more than one, right? People would buy the Revolution anyway, and the GameCube sales would still be decent enough to warrant the production.

Originally Posted by Mute

Back in the days of the SNES, when N64 came out, they still produced SNES games. Not a one of them sold, but they had no competition, so there wasn't a sales loss. Sony wasn't really alive back then. On another note, I think Nintendo's taking the "revolutionary" stance way too far. I think it'll just be like any other console, with any other number of classical and new games and genres. It will be new, but not earth-shattering.

Actually, Sony's PlayStation was out before the Nintendo 64. Get your facts straight.

Oh, and just because you think the Revolution won't be anything special doesn't mean it won't be. Your opinion isn't fact, Mute. Plus, I don't see how someone could form such strong opinions over a few vague comments.

Originally Posted by Mute

And Microsoft? They don't NEED the growth in development like Nintendo does. Microsoft has unlimited funding. It can pour all its money into the X-Box, if need be. Nintendo is never exactly a crowd pleaser. It needs something to keep gamers attached. Something to keep them really hooked. Something new, but not something way out there.

Nintendo is a corporation that makes millions of dollars a year. Even if their next console bombed, they'd still make more than enough money to support themselves from Game Boy Advance sales alone.

And no crowd pleasers? What the hell do you call the new Zelda games? Metroid? Resident Evil 4? Viewtiful Joe 2?

Originally Posted by Mute

But imagine if they DIDN'T still market the GCN when Revoltion comes out. Nintendo fans would be forced to buy the Revolution, and any game plans Ninendo had planned for the GCN, they can easily just tack on to the Revolution. It would be a good move. Everyone wins.

The article doesn't say market, it says support. I can't imagine Nintendo pushing the 'Cube after the next release more than they do now. Considering advertisements are few and far between at this point, I don't think marketing of dead systems is much to be worried about.

Now with the software support, once again we'll apparently be seeingsomehting new in terms of hardware and gameplay(at least for the most part). Continuing to offer support to developers who want the more traditional gaming style would not be too much to ask.

Also, support for an older system would be great for the smaller developers who want to try and get into things.

Originally Posted by SearanoX

Everyone wins? But if there were two consoles, naturally, it'd sell more than one, right? People would buy the Revolution anyway, and the GameCube sales would still be decent enough to warrant the production.

You seem awfully faithful in the fact that millions of gamers would run out and buy the Revolution when they can still take on their GCN games and profit gaming time from it. There would be a decrease, and it's definately a smarter move to move on to their next console.

Actually, Sony's PlayStation was out before the Nintendo 64. Get your facts straight.

True, but it didn't sell extremely well until mid-way through its lifespan. It wasn't even considered a competition until Sony gained tons of ground on Nintendo.

Oh, and just because you think the Revolution won't be anything special doesn't mean it won't be. Your opinion isn't fact, Mute. Plus, I don't see how someone could form such strong opinions over a few vague comments.

You've got me there. But I was basing this off of past Nintendo experiances. The GBA-GCN link-up, according to Nintendo, was ALSO supposed to revolutionize gaming. And they ended up plugging it into any game they could, seemingly making a cheap buck off it.

[Quote]Nintendo is a corporation that makes millions of dollars a year. Even if their next console bombed, they'd still make more than enough money to support themselves from Game Boy Advance sales alone.[/Quote}

That may or may not be true. Even if it was, that doesn't mean they should be able to do whatever the hell they feel like, which includes resurrecting old systems and keeping them alive. This kind of arrogance will eventually get the better of them.

And no crowd pleasers? What the hell do you call the new Zelda games? Metroid? Resident Evil 4? Viewtiful Joe 2?

Once again, you've got me. Although, I was basing this off of past experiances again. Would you call FF:CC a crowd pleaser? How about Windwaker, in a graphical sense? Or Luigi's Mansion, as a launch game? Super Mario Sunshine, with the addition of a water pack, completely revamping the structure of levels? Nintendo always seems to throw in something in every game that makes a large part of the community hate it. It seems they do seem to be gradually learning with the games you mentioned.

Don't take it personally, Sear.

~Mute

Originally Posted by Mute

You seem awfully faithful in the fact that millions of gamers would run out and buy the Revolution when they can still take on their GCN games and profit gaming time from it. There would be a decrease, and it's definately a smarter move to move on to their next console.

People will buy things that are new. Sony suppored the original PlayStation after the PlayStation 2 came out, as did third-party developers. That didn't hurt the sales of the PlayStation 2 one bit.

Originally Posted by Mute

You've got me there. But I was basing this off of past Nintendo experiances. The GBA-GCN link-up, according to Nintendo, was ALSO supposed to revolutionize gaming. And they ended up plugging it into any game they could, seemingly making a cheap buck off it.

Ninendo never said it would revolutionise the way games were palyed, if I recall properly. They did over-estimate how popular it would be, but they certainly weren't aiming to change the face of the gaming world forever. Plus, let's face it - the link cables are an instant turn-off for gamers. It means they have to buy something separately. Now, if they were to, say, package the cables with either the Game Boy Advance or with games that support the linking (as seen with Four Swords Adventure), then it'd be bound to be more successful.

Originally Posted by Mute

That may or may not be true. Even if it was, that doesn't mean they should be able to do whatever the hell they feel like, which includes resurrecting old systems and keeping them alive. This kind of arrogance will eventually get the better of them.

Resurrecting old systems? Uh, the GameCube isn't old. In fact, it's their current console.

Originally Posted by Mute

Once again, you've got me. Although, I was basing this off of past experiances again. Would you call FF:CC a crowd pleaser? How about Windwaker, in a graphical sense? Or Luigi's Mansion, as a launch game? Super Mario Sunshine, with the addition of a water pack, completely revamping the structure of levels? Nintendo always seems to throw in something in every game that makes a large part of the community hate it. It seems they do seem to be gradually learning with the games you mentioned.

They were all million-selling games. I don't see what's to complain about.

Graphics, realism, and popularity don't make a good game. A good game makes itself.

While I will admit I do think Nintendo took it a little too far by cel-shading Wind Waker, they were trying to achieve something that had never been accomplished before, and they did their job well. Though the new Zelda game might surpass it in graphics, realism, and popularity, it certainly won't be as revolutionary as Wind Waker in terms of effects. Cel-shading won't likely be used in future games, but it was fun to enjoy it while it was used.

In short, just because Nintendo started off aiming their products at a younger market doesn't mean they can't come through with other, more mature greats, like the new Zelda '05 is turning out to be.

Nintendo will never die so long as there are innovative thinkers behind it.

Far as I can see it, there are two possibility here:

1. The GC will still get a little bit of continued support, much like the PS1 did after the PS2 came out. That worked out great, and if there is backwards capatability, any games that come out for the GC will be playable on the Revolution anyways.

2. Nintendo is lying/exaggerating so that people will continue to buy GCs, instead of getting afraid that the system will go defunct.


Now, Mute... it might take away from Revolution sales of the GC continues ot get a bit of support, though I think that is unlikely. But, even with slightly lowered Revolution sales, Nintendo would acheive higher profits letting the GC gracefully fade then they would if they just suddenly let the console die, like they did with the N64.


Winddjinnboy: Your post is completely and totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Meh, I don't know if this is really such an important topic to be arguing over, but I can't really resist a good debate, now can I?

I personally would drop the Cube once this Revolution came out. Why? One of Nintendo's greatest problems with selling it was the image problem. The purple color, the kiddie games, etc. It wasn't a huge hit. It remains not a huge hit. Let it die when its time comes. I don't think it's going to distract from Revolution sales; I just don't think it's gonna help at all. When the Revolution comes out, Nintendo's going to need to revamp their image, and it'll probably be significantly harder when they have their bright purple cubes still prominently displayed. Just let casual gamers forget about it.

Now, I don't know about this, but it's hard for me to justify the Cube as second place these days. It might just be my change of scenery, it might be that I don't follow video games like I used to, but everywhere I do talk about video games, I hear people ready to fire up their XBox. They're all pumped about Halo 2. I honestly don't hear jack about the Cube. Again, it could be that as I've gotten older, people have gravitated towards the more mature console, but it also might be that the population itself is swinging in Microsoft's direction...

Well, I'm not too sure what to say about that, but I'm glad the Revolution will support Gamecube games, so atleast when I buy it I'll already have a bunch of games for it from the Gamecube.

Jenova, my friend has noticed people in his school only play Xbox, so he thought Xbox was the number one console in the whole world. So wrong was he, it's on the freaking third place, isn't it?

And I do see how Nintendo easily can create tons of hype by simply doing what they always do, which is to tell us that a revolution is at hand and that we must all prepare to be swept away by the big power. We wait, and find something of the complete opposite. What's so special about the DS again? Dual screens? What use do I have for that? Maybe they should implent a MP3 player in the DS and have people using it for that? Why not add features that are useful?

Uh, Mute...I completely disagree...

I think the Gamecube was a turn-around for Nintendo. It's actually a good thing they went to the disc. And the mini-disc is the first of the video game kind. I too have also heard that there was a buttload of games coming in, so I'd wanna keep it alive. Besides, I love Nintendo. Sony is good, but if it weren't for a little disagreement with Nintendo, they wouldn't exist. Period.

Originally Posted by GoldIronKnuckle

I think the Gamecube was a turn-around for Nintendo.

Then you're a moron. It was the low point of Nintendo's career, no matter how good the graphics are.

It's actually a good thing they went to the disc. And the mini-disc is the first of the video game kind. I too have also heard that there was a buttload of games coming in, so I'd wanna keep it alive.

That's only stating the obvious. They have good games now, but maybe not in the future. This may be the last GOOD E3 Nintendo has to offer.

Besides, I love Nintendo. Sony is good, but if it weren't for a little disagreement with Nintendo, they wouldn't exist. Period.

And that is completely false. The birth of Sony didn't result from a disagreement. Sony just decided to branch outward.

Originally Posted by WilliamZelda4ever

Jenova, my friend has noticed people in his school only play Xbox, so he thought Xbox was the number one console in the whole world. So wrong was he, it's on the freaking third place, isn't it?

It's too close to call. Besides, more people are hyped about X-Box 2 than about Revolution. People are more hyped about Halo 2 than about Metroid Prime 2. So, really, X-Box is winning the two-horse race here.

~Mute

Originally Posted by Mute

Then you're a moron. It was the low point of Nintendo's career, no matter how good the graphics are.

Opinion. The GameCube, in my opinion, is actually a high point. It doesn't have as good games as the N64 era, for example, but they have far more third-party support than ever. And I love my third-party games. Ever played Timesplitters 2? One of the best games on the console, and it's not made by Nintendo. Not even produced by them.

That's only stating the obvious. They have good games now, but maybe not in the future. This may be the last GOOD E3 Nintendo has to offer.

And maybe they're just getting started? Blind speculation holds no water.

Originally Posted by Mute

And that is completely false. The birth of Sony didn't result from a disagreement. Sony just decided to branch outward.

Incorrect. Nintendo was set to make a console for Sony, which would have most certainly died out within a few months. However, at the last minute before the announcement, they pulled out of the deal. Sony got pissed off and went to build its own console, the PlayStation. The rest is history.

Originally Posted by Mute

It's too close to call. Besides, more people are hyped about X-Box 2 than about Revolution. People are more hyped about Halo 2 than about Metroid Prime 2. So, really, X-Box is winning the two-horse race here.

More people are hyped about Halo 2? Well, of course. Bungie's only doing all they can to hype up the game, when in reality, it looks to be more of the same, albeit with much better graphics. Granted, Metroid is "more of the same", but at least they have some more interesting additions.

I would like to see some statistics from an official source stating that more people are hyped about the XBox 2 than the Revolution, by the way. Shouldn't be too hard to find, if the information you're presenting is so correct.

Oh, and one more thing, Mute. Take a look at a couple of these GameFAQs polls.

GameCube

XBox

Now, it looks to me like there are more GameCube owners out there than there are XBox owners. It also says a lot, considering that the GameSpot community is composed almost completely of Microsoft and Sony fans.

The GC may be a lowpoint in terms of game quality, though that would depend on who you're asking. Sales, third-party support, advterising, and hardware-wise, it's a definite step up from the N64.

Incorrect. Nintendo was set to make a console for Sony, which would have most certainly died out within a few months. However, at the last minute before the announcement, they pulled out of the deal. Sony got pissed off and went to build its own console, the PlayStation. The rest is history.

Mute knows this, he just purposefully took advantage of bad wording on GoldIronKnuckle's part to create an entirely different meaning.

Sear: Mute made no claims that Halo 2 is the better game, merely that it's more anticipated then MP2.


And Gamefaqs is not a reliable or unbiased source for information like that... it's readers are not indicative of the general trends, and, strange as it may seem, the vast majority of gamers have never even heard of the place, or don't visit regularly.

Originally Posted by lord-of-shadow

The GC may be a lowpoint in terms of game quality, though that would depend on who you're asking. Sales, third-party support, advterising, and hardware-wise, it's a definite step up from the N64.

My exact argument.

Originally Posted by lord-of-shadow

Sear: Mute made no claims that Halo 2 is the better game, merely that it's more anticipated then MP2.

I was making the point that hype isn't everything. I admitted right there that Halo 2 was more hyped up, but then I expanded upon it.

Originally Posted by lord-of-shadow

And Gamefaqs is not a reliable or unbiased source for information like that... it's readers are not indicative of the general trends, and, strange as it may seem, the vast majority of gamers have never even heard of the place, or don't visit regularly.

I'm aware of that, and I know someone was going to say exactly that. The thing is that at least it's better statistics than Mute can seem to come up with. Plus, I'd rather have at least some proof of my statements rather than just blind opinion.