Gamecube production halted!

[aep]

That "also ran" has sold as many machines as the XBox.

Yeah, the other also ran. There was only one winner of this round of
consoles.

Andrew.

 

[SewerFiss]

In reality, compared to game prices from as far back as 1996, games are
cheaper today. Why? Because $50 back then was a lot more money than it is
today. Heck, N64 games were sometimes $60 a pop.

Shit, go farther back and the games were literally more expensive, too.
Cartridge games always used to cost $60 as a standard price, that goes all
the way back to the Atari 2600. During the 16-bit era, large games like
Chrono Trigger or Phantasy Star IV cost up to $80 or $90 when they were
released. What short memories people have.


....word is bondage...

 

[Ted]

snip

Shit, go farther back and the games were literally more expensive, too.
Cartridge games always used to cost $60 as a standard price, that goes all
the way back to the Atari 2600. During the 16-bit era, large games like
Chrono Trigger or Phantasy Star IV cost up to $80 or $90 when they were
released. What short memories people have.

Don't forget the several hundred dollar Neo Geo AES home cart prices.
Those are still being released now and no one remembers them (well, they
will for a month or so when SNK v Capcom comes out on AES).

 

[Steve Linberg]

Don't forget the several hundred dollar Neo Geo AES home cart prices.
Those are still being released now and no one remembers them (well, they
will for a month or so when SNK v Capcom comes out on AES).

Hey, I remember the $40 Atari 2600 games (which I bought, at age 12 -
CURSE YOU, ASTERIODS AND PAC-MAN). I'm not saying games weren't
overpriced then, too. Just that they remain so NOW.

I know a lot of the N64 games were $60. I didn't buy many of those
either, I chose very carefully and deliberately. A game had to be a
real knockout if I was going to spend that kind of money on it.

 

[GTD]

That "also ran" has sold as many machines as the XBox.

Eh, Not quite, I can't seem to find the article, but The stats I read
says twice as many X-Box's were sold as GC's, But the PS2 sold almost
twice as well as XB. Bummer sence I opted for the X-Box. If I can find
the link I'll post it here. If I remember right, it was 14%, 29%, and
56%.

 

[Ben Pope]

I don't think that's right, I bought Space Invaders, (The 2600's
flagship game) before the first holliday season it was out and only
paid $30. I really don't remember any that cost more than that(besides
Adventure an Megamania, which I believe were $35 when they first came
out), And I had over 80 games for it.

I seem to remember games for Atari ST being about £30. Which would be about
$30 given the exchange rate and some bad mathematicians.

Ben

 

[Pham]

Ballpark math really, the exchange rate would come out to some $45 US.

 

[GTD]

I've got a similar problem for my PS2. I've felt like buying a new game for
a while now but there is nothing that strikes me as fun.

There seems to be 3 game types out there:
* Racing - I like racing games as much as the next guy. I don't like every
game to be a racing game, though.
* Fighting / Movie (it's like you're playing a semi-interactive movie) - I
like to watch movies, not play them. With the cut-scenes taking me from one
place to another, I feel like I'm watching a boring movie that I have to
play.
* Platform games - These game are OK, but, like the other two games, they're
all basically the same.

The last time I really felt like this was 1984ish when there were a ton of
games available and there was so much crap out there that no one could
figure out what the good games were.

I think that the developers/producers have really hosed up their market by
allowing themselves to be pigeon-holed into a few game types and, from what
it would appear, just re-using their engines over and over again. It reminds
me of all of the different types of Monopoly games currently floating about.
I like Monopoly. It's a good game. There is some novelty in Springfieldopoly
(The Simpsons Monopoly) but it's pretty obvious that it's the same game
underneath the different artwork. I don't expect to have much of a different
experience between the two so I just don't buy the next X-opoly game.

I want new/fun games, not another retread. It doesn't have to be 3D. It
doesn't have to use a whole lot of space on the CD/DVD. It just needs to be
fun. The enhanced graphics should *add* to the game, not just be there as a
gimmick.

I suspect that we're in for a downturn in the video gaming community, in
general. Although people in the specific newsgroups will rattle on about
frames per second, the average buyer really doesn't care and I don't think
that they'll keep funding games that play the same and only slightly better
in graphics (which seems to be the trend). Even here at work, where there
are some hard-core gamers, they seem to grow weary their new $50 games
within about a 2-week period. They also seem to be buying fewer games and
becoming, in general, increasingly frustrated in their satisfaction of the
games.

I'm glad I'm not the only one with that feeling, for a while I thought
I was outgrowing video games (I know, Blasphemous, but I did think
it). I've even resorted to installing a Commodore 64 emulator and a
bunch of games for it.

Bomberman, to me, is an excellent example of a fun game that is simple,
doesn't over use graphics, replayable, and original. I originally bought it
for my TurboGrafx based only on others saying, "This game is great!" It was.
I played quite a bit of it and often return to it (on the PS now). Then they
released Bomberman 3Dish adventure games. They lost me there.

You Don't Know Jack is another great (unique) game. It came out of no-where.

I still play Robotron.

I remember playing/enjoying Miner 2049er.

Yep, I got that one! I actually looked for an old Commodore / Atari
2600 joystick and some type of adapter so I can use it to play some of
those old classisc.

 

[Sean Connery]

Robert P Holley <[email protected]> wrote in message

Shit, go farther back and the games were literally more expensive, too.
Cartridge games always used to cost $60 as a standard price, that goes all
the way back to the Atari 2600. During the 16-bit era, large games like
Chrono Trigger or Phantasy Star IV cost up to $80 or $90 when they were
released. What short memories people have.

No. The average standard price of cart games in and around the 2600 era
was most certainly NOT $60. Not for carts. Not for disks. Not for
tapes. You obviouslly did not buy games back then and have pulled this
number from your head^H^H^H^Hpick an orifice.

 

[Phil]

Umm... this was for the April - June period, remember?


That "also ran" has sold as many machines as the XBox.

No 4 million less than the Xbox, of course the Xbox has also sold 40
million less than the PS2

According to EGM anyway.

 

[Phil]

this always strikes me as funny, and seems like people either hold MS
and Nintendo to two different standards, or talk out of both sides of
their mouths.

MS is doing great, only the xbox isn't selling that much!

Nintendo is doing lousy. they're still around, and selling just as much
as MS, but come on...they're dead in the water!

I hate spin.

as far as I can tell (unless I'm wrong, which is entirely possible as
I've been absent for like a month here) the GC and Xbox, overall, have
pretty much the same sales. yet one os doomed while the other is a smash
success. I don't get it.

You are wrong, latest numbers have Xbox up on GC by 4 million units.
Even if you spot it the 800k is this announcemnet from Nitendo thats
still 3.2 million more Xboxes sole than GCs. Of course the PS2 has
sold 40 million more than the Xbox so it's satying #1 in sales.

 

[Pluto \(M\)]

Agreed, if anything can be gleened from this article, it's that Nintendo
*might* be redesigning the Gamecube a little bit and re-releasing it.
Possibly something with DVD playback or maybe even something better. Hell,
if Sony can remake the PS2 into something with TIVO and make new regular PS2
with progressive scan and get away with it, surely nobody will feel "ripped
off" if Nintendo remakes the Gamecube right?

I hope they don't give it DVD playback. They need to stick to their guns
about that one. The Gamecube is a /GAME/ console, not a frickin' home
entertainment system...

I hate machines that combine functions...

 

[patrickp]

Ballpark math really, the exchange rate would come out to some $45 US.

Not after shipping, tax and importer markup for a £ price. The £1:$1 is a
pretty good rule of thumb.

patrickp

 

[Impmon]

Shit, go farther back and the games were literally more expensive, too.
Cartridge games always used to cost $60 as a standard price, that goes all
the way back to the Atari 2600.

Not quite, Atari 2600 games were $30-$40 and early NES and SMS games
were also under $40. It wouldn't be until late '80s when the price
started to climb toward the $60 mark. But if you adjust for inflation
compared to today's price you're looking at a big drop in price of game
cart.

Gameboy has been pretty much $30 for its whole life.

 

[SewerFiss]

No. The average standard price of cart games in and around the 2600 era
was most certainly NOT $60. Not for carts. Not for disks. Not for
tapes. You obviouslly did not buy games back then and have pulled this
number from your head^H^H^H^Hpick an orifice.

Damn. Refuted again. How will I live down the shame of it all.


....word is bondage...

 

[El Guapo]

"El Guapo" <[email protected]> wrote in message


No 4 million less than the Xbox, of course the Xbox has also sold 40
million less than the PS2

According to EGM anyway.

How many times do we have to point out to you that EGM was wrong? Did you
recently take a hit to the head? Have you been chewing on lead paint chips?
I mean, come on!

 

[El Guapo]

I hope they don't give it DVD playback. They need to stick to their guns
about that one. The Gamecube is a /GAME/ console, not a frickin' home
entertainment system...

I hate machines that combine functions...

Me too... but they should definitely consider doing it anyway. I like the
XBox scheme, where they pushed the DVD consortium fees to the consumer by
selling DVD as an addon (with a remote to go with it so that people at least
get something for their money when they buy it). Gives you lots of
options - you can sell it separately, pack it in later, or give it away as a
special offer like MS has done.

 

[jekbrown]

wrestleantares wrote:
Its losing money. Anybody but micro$oft would have gone broke with this.
This is like like the .com fever ... when it was more important to have
hype, style, and cool products than it was to have boring things like
profit... or even revenue.

Everyone, including MS, knew full well that Xbox1 was going to be a
break even adventure at BEST. They are losing money on console gaming
so far... but... ummm.. so what? Its a pittley amount of $ and not
even close to being a negative impact on MSs business. You dont step
in the ring with Sony and Nintendo and try to carve out a nitch for
free. Its amazing that they have even managed to eek out a #2 spot.

well, gc is losing developers and they sell less software AFAIK. As
we all know, software is where the $ comes from and titles per
console-wise, xbox is ahead of gc by quite a bit.

More hype. The company is profitable. Period. In 'the real world' that's
all that matters.

Im not sure what your point here is... Nintendo, Sony, and MS are all
profitable companies. Niether Ninny nor Sony can give MS any poop
$-wise... MSs market cap is rought 10x the size of Sonys. Xbox1 is a
down-payment on a long term investment for MS as it tries to move into
the videogame realm... $ they have lost so far is truly of no
consequence.

From 90%+ with the NES they really only had one direction to go. Sure
Sony has won this round, everybody agrees, but all three are poised for
the next round.

correction, Sony has won the last 2 rounds...

Its far too early to call a winner for the next round.
Maybe it'll be Microsoft... maybe its their turn in the sun... but
consoles aren't like operating systems or office suites, they get
replaced wholesale every few years and the next round after that is
anybody's grab.

well.. not exactly. Some console buyers have a memory and buy the
next console based on previous experience. Its not always a
determining factor, but it IS a factor.

And again profitability rears its ugly head. We all know Nintendo was
making more per title than MS. So even if MS outsold 2 titles to 1 its
possible Nintendo walked away with more cash from it.

"possible" and actually happening are two different things.

Sooner or later MS is going to want to run XBOX like a business, with
profitability expectations. When that happens it will be a much more
interesting environment.

i dont think ms has any illusions about the business end of things...
xb2 will be where they look for the $. That said, as consumers, Im
not sure we will notice the difference in how ms acts as a company
during the "ok, lets make some $ now" phase. Basically they just need
the next gen to come along so they can compete head to head with sony
when sony doesnt have a bazillion unit lead in console sales.

*Any* company can buy sales. But there really isn't any sustainable
business model for doing it, other than as a brief (depending on just
how deep your pockets are) marketing ploy.

xbox1 isnt a "marketing ploy" any more than GC or PS2 is. MS is
coming to the game with a different history and is just starting out
in consoles, so their approach is different, but a "marketing ploy" is
not an appropriate way to describe it.

j

 

[Scott H]

What would be nice is if they made the machine play GBA, N64, SNES and NES
games. That would boost sales for SURE! Imagine how many people have those
consoles. How much space do you have under your TV for 4 different Nintendo
machines !? Makes sense.

Do you have any idea how nasty the machine would look if it had a catridge
port capable of playing each of those formats?

 

[SewerFiss]

Do you have any idea how nasty the machine would look if it had a catridge
port capable of playing each of those formats?

Something like...THIS perhaps?

http://www.rattlebrain.com/~opaopa/ntower2.jpg


....word is bondage....