Jump to content
IGNORED

The Gamecube


sandman
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's true. He does.

Reeling out Twin Snakes and Rogue Leader as some sort of counterpoint.

Facts are so inconvenient to your little rants aren't they?

Tell you what man, you can argue when the GC version of Burnout 3 arrives, ok?

By tomorrow I'll have returned to normal and just started ignoring you again, so make the most of it while you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe, I believe you said "exclusive" mate.

And 1 title does not cater for a whole genre.

Can you see what's happened here. I posit one argument which you counter with an unrelated game (how the fuck is Eyetoy like Dancing Stage Ultimate?). Add to this that the Dancing stage games have appeared on numerous formats as well and I'd hardly call it an exclusive.

When Linkster then shows you the same argument, you laugh it off as not an exclusive likle that somehow negates the game being on the cube.

Man, you're arguments are all over the place.

Oh, and Resident Evil 4 on Xbox? You're having a laugh mate. Mikami has stated that it is categorically a Cube exclusive. And that's that. The only capcom game I can remember on the Xbox is Genma Onimusha, so how you can assume they'll be porting the exclusive RE4 over baffles me.

Mate, they are two different lines of conversation.

You asked where the Singstars and EyeToys of the world are, on Xbox. Of course, it doesn't have those Sony titles, but it does have titles that appeal to the same market, such as those I cited.

I never said they were exclusive. I was never even talking about exclusivity. I was simply saying that this casual gamer market is one that both the PlayStation2 and Xbox appeal to, via these games. Notice that no Dance Dance Revolution titles have ever appeared on GameCube, to my knowledge.

Secondly, linkster assured me he could come up with an exclusive equivilant of Driv3r and GTA. He brought the word 'exclusive' up, not me. I thought about it, and couldn't think of an exclusive equivilant. So I, and another forumer, asked to come up with one, like he promised he could. Instead he showed me a picture of True Crime: Streets of LA. I was just pointing out that this title wasn't exclusive, like he'd said. Until then, I'd never mentioned exclusivity if you read back, fella.

And, I can only go on what I've read, and what I've read is that Resident Evil 4 will appear on Xbox, too. Shoot me if I'm wrong, though. However, regardless, Resident Evil is not the same kinda title as Driv3r et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts are so inconvenient to your little rants aren't they?

Not particularly. One's a remake and the other's the epithomy of Lucasart's Star Wars-centric fall into mediocrity.

Where's Onimusha? Where's Fatal Frame? Where's CM4, Silent Hill, GTA3, Vice City and Manhunt? Where's Midway Arcade Classics, a title so budget, they were knocking out for 15 notes on release. Too much of a financial risk on GC?

How you've got the nerve to chew someone out for lacking faith in Gamecube's sorely dimishing 3rd party support is beyond me, especially considering the recent turmoil concerning Driv3r. The most grossely commercially-orientated title in recent years and no Gamecube version? What does that tell you, you utter halfwit?

By tomorrow I'll have returned to normal and just started ignoring you again, so make the most of it while you can.

By tomorrow, you'll still be the same complete dick you were today, only (hopefully) you'll be a little less vocal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not particularly.  One's a remake and the other's the epithomy of Lucasart's Star Wars-centric fall into mediocrity.

Still proof of support from Konami and Lucasarts, not going to debate the quality with you.

Where's Onimusha?  Where's Fatal Frame?  Where's CM4, Silent Hill, GTA3, Vice City and Manhunt?  Where's Midway Arcade Classics, a title so budget, they were knocking out for 15 notes on release.  Too much of a financial risk on GC?

Or just fuckwitted marketing driven decisions based on the same kind of misconception and ignorance you and others trot out. For your argument to have any merit, it would require that marketing people always make sound financial decisions, and get it right each time. Manhunt and Fatal Frame were hardly cash cows (Fatal Frame nearly didn't even make it onto the Xbox such was the incompetence of Dreamcatcher and Wanadoo.)

How you've got the nerve to chew someone out for lacking faith in Gamecube's sorely dimishing 3rd party support is beyond me, especially considering the recent turmoil concerning Driv3r.  The most grossely commercially-orientated title in recent years and no Gamecube version?  What does that tell you, you utter halfwit?

See earlier answers.

By tomorrow, you'll still be the same complete dick you were today, only (hopefully) you'll be a little less vocal.

And you'll still be the bitter mediocre hack you've been since you first made a fool of yourself all those years ago. Maybe you should change your name again, see if you can trick more people into having conversations with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still proof of support from Konami and Lucasarts, not going to debate the quality with you.

Still, you can debate the numbers though. Let's try this one on for size:

Xbox and PS2 have stronger third party support. They host more games from the established publishers. Would you like to contest this point?

Or just fuckwitted marketing driven decisions based on the same kind of misconception and ignorance you and others trot out. For your argument to have any merit, it would require that marketing people always make sound financial decisions, and get it right each time. Manhunt and Fatal Frame were hardly cash cows (Fatal Frame nearly didn't even make it onto the Xbox such was the incompetence of Dreamcatcher and Wanadoo.)

I think I missed the punchline, but this is all pretty hilarious stuff.

And you'll still be the bitter mediocre hack you've been since you first made a fool of yourself all those years ago. Maybe you should change your name again, see if you can trick more people into having conversations with you.

But Linkster, you're just a nobody, pretending to be a somebody. And if no-one gave a fuck about what you thought before, they'll certainly not be entertaining your fuck-witted notions in the future. Really, it's time to put away childish things. I suggest you get rid of the 'Ninty boy' rhetoric or get out. No-one has dragged the Gamecube or Nintendo through the mud here, except for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW Wah Wah, it was simply a figure of speech. It's just that PS2 offers so much, far surpassing Xbox or GC in terms of choice. And isn't choice what all of us want at the end of the day? That's why we buy more than one console, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, you can debate the numbers though. Let's try this one on for size:

Xbox and PS2 have stronger third party support. They host more games from the established publishers. Would you like to contest this point?

PS2? Of course not, if you'd bothered reading what I posted, as if it needed saying, I only got involved in this thread after someone said the Xbox was a mass market console, the GameCube wasn't, in the hope of hearing some kind of evidence to back that up. Turned out that was only an opinion.

Of course there's numbers and there's stronger titles. Monkey Ball, F-Zero X, Eternal Darkness, Metroid Prime and Resident Evil are IMO very strong third party titles that are exclusively on GameCube. As I've said, not having GTA and perhaps Driv3r in that is IMO a mistake, a poor decision by the respective publishers, based on ignorance.

But Linkster, you're just a nobody, pretending to be a somebody.  And if no-one gave a fuck about what you thought before, they'll certainly not be entertaining your fuck-witted notions in the future.  Really, it's time to put away childish things.  I suggest you get rid of the 'Ninty boy' rhetoric or get out.  No-one has dragged the Gamecube or Nintendo through the mud here, except for you.

I'll stop now. I really don't enjoy the insults, either giving or receiving, so I apologise for having a go, but I know there's no talking to you. Shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS2? Of course not, if you'd bothered reading what I posted, as if it needed saying, I only got involved in this thread after someone said the Xbox was a mass market console, the GameCube wasn't, in the hope of hearing some kind of evidence to back that up. Turned out that was only an opinion.

But my dear, I have read what you said. And you were being extremely aggressive.

The thing is, Microsoft have made several concessions where Nintendo has not. And, let's be honest here, Xbox does have a slightly better level of third party support, certainly now at least. Does this make Xbox's direction and Microsoft's target more mainstream than Nintendo's? I'm not sure. I doubt anyone is sure. But dismissing the idea seems a little silly.

As I've said, not having GTA and perhaps Driv3r in that is IMO a mistake, a poor decision by the respective publishers, based on ignorance.

Indeed. But by the same token, these decisions may have been made for purely financial reasons, not market misconceptions. Still, one does wonder why True Crime made it and the above didn't.

I'll stop now. I really don't enjoy the insults, either giving or receiving, so I apologise for having a go, but I know there's no talking to you. Shame.

Accepted, and returned. Just remain calm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking about it for a moment, if both consoles can be considered mainstream in direction, then they have set out on different paths to achieve general acceptance:

Nintendo has chosen cost and accessibility.

Microsoft has chosen features.

And both have their merits, but which is more appealing? To my mind, it's impossible to determine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or just fuckwitted marketing driven decisions based on the same kind of misconception and ignorance you and others trot out.

Mate, decisions such as this aren't taken lightly. More money is spent on research in most marketing cases than is spent on the actual promotion of a product.

If the research they have done leads to the result of the publishers not publishing games on the GameCube, then you have to say they think their titles won't sell in sufficient proportions on the console.

They don't go on hear'say, fella. They don't risk millions on the fact that some bloke down the road thinks it won't sell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilarious 'facts' I have learned from this thread:

It is better to be third place in two regions than just the one.

Gamecube, although selling to a smaller audience, has exactly the same level of third party support as its competitors. Except from Konami.

And Tecmo of course.

And EA, Take 2, Lucasarts, Codemasters, Activision, Midway and Atari.

PC gaming has not gone to seed. Hmmmm, yes. It's going to be real interesting looking at the comparitive sales figures for DE2, Thief 3 and Galleon when they turn up.

Because Konami (and Capcom, Sega, Koei, Namco, Square etc.) have clearly thrown their full weight behind the Xbox. :(

Oh noes! No support from Codemasters, Midway or Atari?

Come to think of it, Atari, Lucasarts and EA do all support the GC. So I'm not sure what this was supposed to prove, apart from your talent for half-baked bluster.

There's a PC version of Galleon? I'd expect format specific titles to sell better than console ports, so it's a moot point (although I would be pretty certain DX2 has sold more on PC than Xbox, out of sheer disparity of install base apart from anything else).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice to believe this wasn't true.

It's pure ignorance if you don't believe that in the majority of cases, marketing decisions are taken as a result of marketing research.

That doesn't mean it's the right decision, but it's certainly not something they take lightly. Any market orientated company spends a colosus amount on research. I guess it just depends whether Atari and Rockstar are marketing orientated companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pure ignorance if you don't believe that in the majority of cases, marketing decisions are taken as a result of marketing research.

This assumes that games publishers work to the same standards of professionalism as publishers in any other entertainment industry. (Although I'd concede that Rockstar actually do take marketing more seriously than virtually anyone else apart from perhaps EA.)

The decision makers at publishers don't play games, don't have access to accurate or relevant marketing data, and above all else are completely averse to taking any risks. Because by the time platforms are chosen and a game is released, it's too late to reverse their decision, they can be assured that no one will ever take them to task for lost sales on other platforms. (Mainly because any multiplatform game is going to include the PS2 by default anyway.)

A publisher dropping platforms for a given multiformat game is 99 times out of 100 more indicative of their lack of faith in their product than the suitability of the host platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to be rude. Believe me when I tell you you are wrong.

I'd be pretty foolish if I took a strangers word for it, without any evidence whatsoever. So come on mate, tell me.. whats your experience with the marketing world? What makes you so right, and me so wrong?

Marketing orientated companies such as Coco Cola, Dyson et al spend more than you can imagine researching what the public wants. For that is the whole point of Marketing - providing solutions for people's needs. Their products and related advertising would be pointless without this research, because they are marketing orientated companies.

Sony and Microsoft are too.. very much so.

Now, all I'm saying is, if Rockstar and Atari have the same orientation, they obviously have substantial research hinting that their titles would not be profitable on the GameCube. Perhaps Activision's research showed different, hence the release od True Crime. Who knows. I'm not saying it's the right or wrong decision, though I can see why they've taken it.

To dismiss their decisions as ignorance is, well.. ignorant.

Right.. lunchtime!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This assumes that games publishers work to the same standards of professionalism as publishers in any other entertainment industry. (Although I'd concede that Rockstar actually do take marketing more seriously than virtually anyone else apart from perhaps EA.)

The decision makers at publishers don't play games, don't have access to accurate or relevant marketing data, and above all else are completely averse to taking any risks. Because by the time platforms are chosen and a game is released, it's too late to reverse their decision, they can be assured that no one will ever take them to task for lost sales on other platforms. (Mainly because any multiplatform game is going to include the PS2 by default anyway.)

A publisher dropping platforms for a given multiformat game is 99 times out of 100 more indicative of their lack of faith in their product than the suitability of the host platforms.

Perhaps. But in one breath there you said that Rockstar take Marketing very seriously, and then you said decisions are taken without any research to hand.

The most important part of Marketing is the research process. If Rockstar are a market orientated company, then their decisions will be heavily influenced by their primary or secondary research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be pretty foolish if I took a strangers word for it, without any evidence whatsoever. So come on mate, tell me.. whats your experience with the marketing world? What makes you so right, and me so wrong?

Well, to give one example, a couple of years ago I was sat in the boardroom of Lloyds TSB with some senior VPs while a discussion went on about launching a new online bank. They wanted to launch it in Spain, because if it failed it was only Spain, and not a core market. But what did Spanish people want in a bank? They asked, er, a Spanish person to come in and tell them. Then chipped in a few ideas of their own. And a bank was born. Amazingly it failed, despite a fair bit of money spent on promoting it.

To give a games example, Driv3r existed not because of market research, but because someone had an idea for a game. Atari reacted to the fact that GTA had done well and bought it up. So the market research was "fuck me, that's number one. We better get one." They then spent a lot of money promoting it, and a lot of money promoting the fact that they spent a lot of money promoting it. At some point they probably focus tested it - 20 or so students. The developer then probably told them the feedback was useless. Course that's all speculation, but it's as good as yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Konami (and Capcom, Sega, Koei, Namco, Square etc.) have clearly thrown their full weight behind the Xbox. :(

(Plus additional petty fluff)

Christ, as soon as one concedes, another fills the void.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.