Jump to content
IGNORED

The Gamecube


sandman
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Are you being deliberately ignorant?

12.jpg

CapcomVSsnk2.JPG

mvsc2_xbox_box.jpg

packshotpcf.jpg

dinocrisis3.jpg

tekki2.jpg

Yeah, I agree! Genma Onimusha is the ONLY Capcom game on the Xbox!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

There's one key difference between Coke and Dyson from EA, however, and that is the nature of the product that they produce. When Dyson do tons of market research, they find out what's wrong with their current vacuums and they build better ones with funky cyclone thingies. The same thing applies to Coke (although the infamous failure of the new Coke indicates that sometimes the marketing just gets it dead wrong. Anyway...). My point is that these things are products, and products are things that can be researched accurately and upgraded. A customer comes to a product expecting certain things, as it is something that they will use. You could argue that even consoles and other hardware fall into the same sort of thinking. Product markets are predictable.

However, the entertainment industry operates the other way around, because customers come to the offerings of the entertainment industry looking to be surprised. It is next to impossible to derive accurate marketing based on what people will find surprising, and next to impossible to predict how a piece of entertainment will behave in such circumstances. The movie industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year trying to divine audience tastes, and even with all of that, the only way that they can manage to come to some degree of certainto is with massive marketing campaigns and blanket strategies to spend the other guy out of the high street completely, so most customers will never have a choice to make.

That is the secret of EA's modern success. They spend a clanking fortune on advertising and make sure that they hitch their wagon to as many big movies as possible. They're trying to spend everyone to death.

That's why it's faintly ridiculous to assume that publishers benefit from giant amounts of research fruitfully. Their customers are interested in certain reasonably predictable genres (movie based games, crime games, first person shooters, whatever), but they want to be surprised within those genres, not just offered up an exact clone of what went before. It's a tricky balancing act to create a great game that appeals to lots of people, as a result, and not one that any amount of research can directly give you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re Capcom: You could have basically said 'just Tekki' (which they got a big fat handout from MS for), and it would have been pretty much accurate. Like Sega and Konami, they were cautiously enthusiastic early on and then got burnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's not including Silent Hill 2 and 4, and whatever else they've released.

(And also some other games)

Silent hill 2 and 4 are Konami.

As for the Capcom games: Tekki is Meh, Dino Crisis 3 is rubbish, and that leaves what; two 2d fighters of dubious worth and a fishing game. Yeah, Capcom is really throwing it's full strength at the Xbox. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Well, I'm not surprised it failed. That's not marketing, mate. Not all companies are marketing orientated, and if what you say is true, then LLoyds TSB aren't.

Pretty stupid move by them, really, as I'm sure you agree. <_<

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."

Of course, with GTA doing well in the charts, there were going to be reactions to it. True Crime was one. Driv3r is another. Hell even Jak II is a reaction of some sorts. But that doesn't mean no market research was carried out pre, during, and post production and release.

Indeed, Driv3r is the 3rd title in the range. The originals span back to the PlayStation era, and in their day, were the Vice Cities of their time.

Regardless, my arguement is that Atari will have done market research of some form (perhaps not just for Driv3r, but for all their releases) to find out what kind of titles sell on the GameCube. It obviously suggested to them that this kind of title wouldn't, not enough anyway. I brought this whole idea up as a telling bit of evidence as to one markets the GameCube doesn't appeal to, or at least not as well as it's competitors.

I still believe that. Apart from multi-format True Crime, there are no titles in the GTA market on the GameCube. It would also be interesting to see how well the GameCube version of True Crime sold compared to the PS2 and Xbox in the UK anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's one key difference between Coke and Dyson from EA, however, and that is the nature of the product that they produce. When Dyson do tons of market research, they find out what's wrong with their current vacuums and they build better ones with funky cyclone thingies. The same thing applies to Coke (although the infamous failure of the new Coke indicates that sometimes the marketing just gets it dead wrong. Anyway...). My point is that these things are products, and products are things that can be researched accurately and upgraded. A customer comes to a product expecting certain things, as it is something that they will use. You could argue that even consoles and other hardware fall into the same sort of thinking. Product markets are predictable.

However, the entertainment industry operates the other way around, because customers come to the offerings of the entertainment industry looking to be surprised. It is next to impossible to derive accurate marketing based on what people will find surprising, and next to impossible to predict how a piece of entertainment will behave in such circumstances. The movie industry spends hundreds of millions of dollars every year trying to divine audience tastes, and even with all of that, the only way that they can manage to come to some degree of certainto is with massive marketing campaigns and blanket strategies to spend the other guy out of the high street completely, so most customers will never have a choice to make.

That is the secret of EA's modern success. They spend a clanking fortune on advertising and make sure that they hitch their wagon to as many big movies as possible. They're trying to spend everyone to death.

That's why it's faintly ridiculous to assume that publishers benefit from giant amounts of research fruitfully. Their customers are interested in certain reasonably predictable genres (movie based games, crime games, first person shooters, whatever), but they want to be surprised within those genres, not just offered up an exact clone of what went before. It's a tricky balancing act to create a great game that appeals to lots of people, as a result, and not one that any amount of research can directly give you.

That's an interesting arguement - but I stress again the misconception people have of marketing.

It is simply not advertising or promotion. In fact, that is a very small element of it. Indeed, it also isn't Dyson looking at whats wrong with their latest model, and sticking a few new nobs and bobs on it. That's not marketing at all.

The difference between marketing orientated companies and other companies is that marketing orientated companies seek to get their ideas from public needs, and make profit from them.

When Ford started out, they weren't a market orientated company. "You can have any colour car you want.. " Henry Ford said, "as long as it's black."

Compare that to what the CE of Black & Decker said a few years back, after their drill became the number one seller in the UK; "We don't sell lots of drills because people like our drills. We sell drills because people want to make holes."

See the difference? Marketing stems from what people want.

Now I don't know whether EA, Atari, Rockstar, or any of them are marketing orientated companies. But marketing is as common-place in the entertainment field as it is in any industry. Pop groups are created, to fill gaps that market research has shown the public want filled. Movie studios are not always based in ideas. Their films are tailored and promoted in a fashion that their research has shown will appeal to the public.

In my opinion, a company as successful as EA will also have a huge marketing machine behind it. I mean, even advertising requires a huge amount of research to make it successful. Again, often more money spent on that than the actual advert. So if they are willing to shed vast amounts of money on advertising, chances are they've paid for the research behind it to ensure the likeliness of it's success. All marketing <_<

Now, I'm not talking about EA. The whole of my point was that the GameCube has a narrower market than its competitiors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Silent hill 2 and 4 are Konami.

As for the Capcom games: Tekki is Meh, Dino Crisis 3 is rubbish, and that leaves what; two 2d fighters of dubious worth and a fishing game. Yeah, Capcom is really throwing it's full strength at the Xbox. <_<

You make a statement saying they've only released Onimusha, then when I prove you wrong, you think that by calling one of the most innovative and impressive games (Steel Battalion), meh. I think that shows how much of an ignorant idiot you are.

I never said they're throwing everything at it, but you were wrong, and you seem to think saying that they're not very good or somesuch, makes you right.

Great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Simpsons: Hit & Run sold fairly well, IIRC, and that's basically GTA Springfield.

Heh, again multiformat. He assured me he could come up with an exclusive alternative. His words, not mine.

Again, it would be interesting to see the sales figures of that title compared to Xbox and PS2.

No one is going to buy a GameCube solely for Hit and Run, though many people bought a PS2 for either GTA III or Vice City, and the value-for-money double-pack convinced many people the Xbox was worth a go at Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst it isn't true, I think there may be a general perception that the GC is the console you buy for your kids, before moving onto a more mature platform. And to a degree you could argue that both the design of the cube itself and the controller (with it's big, bold coloured buttons) adds to this perception.

Saying that, I don't own a GC, nor a N64 before that, for the simple reason that I percieve it to consist mainly of genres I do not enjoy (such as platformers or racing games).

Sadly, without doing my research I wouldn't even really be able to tell you what other titles the GC has a decent library of - and that may well be the case for many other people, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a statement saying they've only released Onimusha, then when I prove you wrong, you think that by calling one of the most innovative and impressive controllers (Steel Battalion), meh.  I think that shows how much of an ignorant idiot you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a statement saying they've only released Onimusha, then when I prove you wrong, you think that by calling one of the most innovative and impressive games (Steel Battalion), meh.  I think that shows how much of an ignorant idiot you are.

I never said they're throwing everything at it, but you were wrong, and you seem to think saying that they're not very good or somesuch, makes you right.

Great.

What's innovative about it apart from an oversized controller? As a game it's meh. Average at best hence it's average reviews in most places. Tekki was a one off experiment. Don't call me an ignorant idiot, please. I never called you names, Mr Spew, so play nice. I said that Onimusha was the only one I could remember apart from some 2d fighting games. Tekki and some obscure fishing game which I had never even heard of (did it get a Pal release as that's an NTSC box by the way) hardly show sustained and prolific support. Which was my point in the first place.

And you still didn't admit you were wrong with the Silent Hill games as well. Capcom, Konami - hey, they're all the same I suppose. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting arguement - but I stress again the misconception people have of marketing.

It is simply not advertising or promotion....

See the difference? Marketing stems from what people want.

I understood you perfectly first time around, as I was not talking about advertising and promotion either, but about research. And you are entirely correct, makreting-oriented companies work from the basis of the product stemming fromwhat people want, be that a vacuum with bits and bobs, or a washing machine that is 60% more efficient with its water and power usage (Dyson).

However, and here's the huge problem, with entertainment, most people fundamentally do not know what they want.

Now I don't know whether EA, Atari, Rockstar, or any of them are marketing orientated companies. But marketing is as common-place in the entertainment field as it is in any industry. Pop groups are created, to fill gaps that market research has shown the public want filled. Movie studios are not always based in ideas. Their films are tailored and promoted in a fashion that their research has shown will appeal to the public.

This is simply incorrect.

One common aspect of both pop music and film is that they have latterly come to rely ever increasingly on young markets to appeal to, and they have also managed to create an industry that only releases a small number of heavily-promoted products (not unlike the games industry is becoming).

The reasons for this are well understood: Customers do not know what they want. However, certain brackets of customers can be relied upon to choose from a small number of choices provided they remain only aware of those choices. Furthermore, those brackets of customers tend, on the whole, to be less than discerning over a long term, and they regenerate.

In other words, kids will buy into almost anything.

That some amount of market research occurs to determine the best way to appeal to the youth market is a given. But even still, that 'given' is fairly limited, and it involves a lot of cloning.

Yet if you move beyond the sphere of children and young adults, it become very hard to accurately research what adults will find entertaining, perhaps because adult tastes are a bit more sophisticated. Yet the principle of limited choice applies. Many television shows only gain ratings because there are only five channels, and you've got to watch something. Cinemas only show the same ten films. Music stores and book shops have been heavily promoting select lists of titles for years now. And then there's MTV.

And all this to keep the number of prospective choices low, and with each ultimately being owned by one of the six major media conglomerates, the theory goes that everything will splash into some sort of profit. This isn't marketing, though. It's pure guesswork.

In my opinion, a company as successful as EA will also have a huge marketing machine behind it. I mean, even advertising requires a huge amount of research to make it successful. Again, often more money spent on that than the actual advert. So if they are willing to shed vast amounts of money on advertising, chances are they've paid for the research behind it to ensure the likeliness of it's success. All marketing :twisted:

You'd be surprised heavily then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, and here's the huge problem, with entertainment, most people fundamentally do not know what they want.

See, this is the fundamental point. I think people do know what they want. Entertainment needs are no different to any other.

People didn't want a dyson.. they wanted a more effective way of cleaning. People want to be entertained, and the marketing industry researchs in what way, and relates this to any ideas they already have.

I'm not saying all companies in the entertainment industry take part in marketing research. But this isn't to say it isn't possible, and that no companies do it. I am willing to accept that it is a different kettle of fish in the entertainment field.

However, I'm not prepared to accept that EA hasn't got a massive marketing machine behind it. God only knows, it has to, to secure all those licenses whilst release mediocre title, one after another.. :twisted:

My point was though, that if Nintendo did marketing research, they'd see that there are a lot of 'gaming markets' that they simply don't appeal to with their GameCube, and the titles on it, however good they are.

This could be a reason to the GameCube's supposed downfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but you're simply wrong, Boyatsea.

People do not know what they want. People don't need most of the stuff they have.

Cameraphones are a prime example. They told people they need them. That they want them. Now look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not surprised it failed. That's not marketing, mate. Not all companies are marketing orientated, and if what you say is true, then LLoyds TSB aren't.

Pretty stupid move by them, really, as I'm sure you agree. :twisted:

I keep thinking of the line in Point Break where that guy tells Keanu Reeves that he knows nothing. If you even knew that you know nothing, that'd be something, but you don't. You know the theory. You know what your lecturer has told you. You have no experience. You sound silly, and naive, and patronising, and it's very annoying.

Of course, with GTA doing well in the charts, there were going to be reactions to it. True Crime was one. Driv3r is another. Hell even Jak II is a reaction of some sorts. But that doesn't mean no market research was carried out pre, during, and post production and release.

Indeed, Driv3r is the 3rd title in the range. The originals span back to the PlayStation era, and in their day, were the Vice Cities of their time.

Really? I wondered what the 3 was for ... Seeing as we're in full on patronising mode again, GTA was actually the GTA of its day.

Regardless, my arguement is that Atari will have done market research of some form (perhaps not just for Driv3r, but for all their releases) to find out what kind of titles sell on the GameCube. It obviously suggested to them that this kind of title wouldn't, not enough anyway. I brought this whole idea up as a telling bit of evidence as to one markets the GameCube doesn't appeal to, or at least not as well as it's competitors.

No, you *think* that's what they do. I'm just trying to give you a bit of a warning.

I still believe that. Apart from multi-format True Crime, there are no titles in the GTA market on the GameCube. It would also be interesting to see how well the GameCube version of True Crime sold compared to the PS2 and Xbox in the UK anyway.

Round and round in circles. The issue is not that the games aren't there, the issue is why, and on those reasons we differ.

Heh, again multiformat. He assured me he could come up with an exclusive alternative. His words, not mine.

I posted True Crime in reponse to you saying "because I don't think the Cube caters for the Driv3r/GTA market very well".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is the fundamental point. I think people do know what they want. Entertainment needs are no different to any other.

How many times have we seen a film that 'comes from nowhere' and becomes a runaway success? Quite a few times. Yet most of the major 200 million dollar audience-researched-up-the-asshole blockbusters films rarely make any significant profit.

People do know what they want in one small level: They want to be entertained. What does 'be entertained' mean?

The usual associations are that they are made laugh, that they are made feel emotions, that they get a good satisfying story, or gameplay experience. What do those things entail.

The best jokes are the ones that seem natural, that you don't see coming. Eddie Izzard gets his greatest laughs when he catches an audience unawares. People go to see Eddie Izzard because he's able to surprise them. People watched Friends endlessly because of the bizarre situations that the characters enter into creates comedy. It's zany and you don't know what will happen next. The worst kinds of jokes are the ones that you can see coming from a mile away. Therefore, the essence of comedy is surprise.

A great romance film, like Shakespeare in Love, is so because the characters fall in love and it is tragic. But it's not just that. What makes it a great romance is that the path of it is unexpected. The audience watching it doesn't know which way it will turn, who will end up with who, and how it will all turn out. Great horror films are made great by the fact that you don't know what will happen next, you don't know where the scares will come from, and because the main character is a surprising person who doesn't act like a cliche, you feel for them greatly. On the other hand, a tedious romantic film like Bounce, or a crappy remake horror like H20, are basically researched 'people know what they want' films, and they fall completely flat on their faces.

Similar thinking applies to all sorts of stories. Great stories work by subverting our sense of what we expect to happen, and constantly surprising us as a result.

The same is true of games. Halo proved to be such a surprising game, in the way that the Elites behaved, or when you first realised that you could only carry two weapons, or that the jeep controls allowed all manner of crazy swing-about movement. Again, because all these qualities are a surprise, you could never derive this as a product through market research.

Ultimatelt the goal of marketing-based comapnies is to give people what they want. Unfortunately, this directly contradicts the root purpose of entertainment, which is to surprise them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

referring entirely to the start of this thread where people were only discussing games on this "sleeper" console, can i just drop Unity into the mix. I don't imagine it will make many people run out and buy a gamecube but it would for me if i didn't already have one.

for me, the gamecube has had a few absorbing games - pikmin, ZTWW, f-zero, animal crossing, monkeyball. ikaruga is hard as iron and so hasn't grabbed me yet so i don't count it and the legacy of kain game is just my dirty secret.

when unity comes out, i'm having my sleep surgically removed. FACT. even though i know next to nothing about it, i don't see how it can be a bad game for someone who grew up playing and loving pretty much everything the Yak put out there B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A want or need in the entertainment sense is not "I want GTA III". The want or need in that sense is that people wanted to be liberated. People wanted a sense of freedom in their games. A sense of non-linear reality.

The result of this stems as wide as the free roaming ability of the modern 3d GTA era to the fact Nationwide league teams were included in FIFA 2004. If anything is naive about this, its thinking that any of this is simple.

To deny that any of this exists is pure ignorance.

And, AGAIN I say to you Linkster, you assured me you could come up with a GameCube exclusive equivilant of GTA. You didn't. You showed me True Crime. Did you expect me to say nothing?

The fact is the GameCube does not cater well for the average casual gamer. In my opinion, anyone on the outskirts of gaming will see the PS2 and Xbox as a more attractive bet. Any market research done by publishers and developers will highlight this point.

To be frank, I am not going to delve into petty and personal arguements with people over this. I'm most certainly not going to be told "you're just wrong" flat out by people who don't know me. And I also am not reeling this off from my lecturer, given that I don't studying straight Marketing or any Marketing units (Advertising and PR) in my degree. Any knowledge I have has been off my own back, because of my interest in this subject, related to my course. So until people have something civil or constructive to say, don't expect me to rise to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same is true of games. Halo proved to be such a surprising game, in the way that the Elites behaved, or when you first realised that you could only carry two weapons, or that the jeep controls allowed all manner of crazy swing-about movement. Again, because all these qualities are a surprise, you could never derive this as a product through market research.

I'm not saying "the whole of Halo was created by marketing research". I'm saying that the valuable information gained by any entertainment company is fused with the creative element, to create a game that is much more marketable and appeals to the public's wants and needs. See above post.

The public's wants and needs were not for Halo, but there are certainly elements of this game that fill those wants and needs, for it is one of the few FPS' that managed to appeal to both the hardcore, and casual non FPS fan. (Myself included.)

I know exactly what you're saying mate, and your points are valid, but surprise is not the only form of entertainment. If that was the case, they'd be no need for The Day After Tomorrow because we'd already had Independence Day. In fact, the majority of Hollywood blockbusters are lacking in surprise - earth/hero put at peril, hero saves the day.

Surprise is a valid form of entertainment, yes. In fact the majority of films that I enjoy have negative endings, and I enjoy then purely because they're not a cliche.

I'm not suggesting that all entertainment companies are marketing orientated. No industry is completely marketing orientated, with some being completely void of it because it isn't effective or appropriate, but the entertainment field is not one of them. I'm saying that it is possible to be a marketing orientated company, and work in the entertainment field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, what about Vice City? There were no surprises there; everybody was saying it 'needed' all the stuff they added to it (bikes, planes, shooting out tires and all that) and that's just what it had. And it was brilliant (entertaining). Also, San Andreas will be using the Manhunt aiming system (or similar) like people wanted or expected it to have, so that'll be unsurprising but (hopefully) entertaining regardless. Surely these elements were researched and a 'need' was discovered, right?

Just to add stuff, y'know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, what about Vice City? There were no surprises there; everybody was saying it 'needed' all the stuff they added to it (bikes, planes, shooting out tires and all that) and that's just what it had. And it was brilliant (entertaining). Also, San Andreas will be using the Manhunt aiming system (or similar) like people wanted or expected it to have, so that'll be unsurprising but (hopefully) entertaining regardless. Surely these elements were researched and a 'need' was discovered, right?

Just to add stuff, y'know.

I thought there was quite a lot about Vice City that was surprising, customer requests aside.

But I also thought that on the whole I didn't find it as entertaining as GTA3 either.

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.