Support NeoGAF

[flak57]

These numbers look pretty good, except that they might be from years earlier than that 2005 post. Going by the hardware figures (and you have to dig all the bundles out of there), the N64 numbers look pretty good for end-of-life: they add up to 17 million, and Nintendo's end-of-life shipment data (for "The Americas", not US) was 20 million. So that seems about right.

But the PS1 hardware numbers, once you dig up all the bundles as well, adds up to 28 million. That seems very, very low - Sony's reports show that they had shipped 40 million Playstation 1 units to "USA" (on their reports, but given the reported regions were "Japan", "USA", and "Europe", perhaps it really means NA) by 2003.

Given that the N64 was pretty much off shelves by 2002, but the PS1 continued to sell for years, I'd say this data is probably from some time earlier, but is otherwise accurate.

On the other hand, Sony's PS1/PS2 data has never jived particularly well with sales trackers. Back then, they reported manufactured units as "shipped" and shipped units as "sold", but even with channel stuffing, there were always large discrepancies.

edit: these pages:

http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/N64ussales.htm

http://www.gamepilgrimage.com/Ps1ussales.htm

have the same data, and claim it covers 1995-2003.

This team-xbox post with the same numbers claims it's through only jan 2003 (post was made in Oct 03) -
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=224347

 

[Version 3.0]

Guys Nintendo wasn't dethroned during the n64 psx era at least software sales wise!

Nintendo has always had the top selling games every generation. The best Sony could sell was 3m of a title while SM64, Goldeneye, and MK64 broke 5m+ (USA only of course), then next gen GTAIII actually outsold all of Nintendo's next-gen titles, followed by Halo, then Vice city, Halo2, etc THAT'S what NoA was so upset about, that'd never happened before, Nintendo was dethroned!

That's a fair point. Hardware-wise, Nintendo (and NoA, which is what the article is about) has had tough competition all the way back to the Genesis, and certainly had been "dethroned" long before the Gamecube.

But on the game side of the equation, you're absolutely right - they were used to topping the charts with every major release, and selling far more long-term as well.

 

[Version 3.0]

This team-xbox post with the same numbers claims it's through only jan 2003 (post was made in Oct 03) -
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=224347

Good find. That fits well. I have some other NPD data - life-to-date game sales from Nov 2004 - which are a bit higher in some cases. Gran Turismo 2, for example, is about 100k higher. So I think you've found the right date. Thanks!

 

[freezamite]

This article seems pure bullshit to me.
Let's start analizing it:

In meetings it was clear [Nintendo of Japan] could not understand why the brand had fallen so far here in North America or comprehend why the mature titles, and more powerful consoles, were so successful.

How could they be worried about "more powerful consoles" when the most successful console at that time had much worse graphics than the Game Cube?
It's of course because she has made up the whole story and she is incompetent enough not to put things on perspective.
This is not good even as a fiction.

Someone, sadly I forget who, would later quote in one of those meetings that “Consumers don’t want fun anymore; they just want to kill people… in HD."

Yeah, in HD, during the PS2/GC/Xbox era where nobody had HD TVs. Oh, and I already know that there were a few games on the Xbox that could run at 720p, and 1 game on PS2 that could achieve 1080i (GT4), but its PRETTY OBVIOUS that the "HD" wasn't the reason people bought PS2. It's pretty obvious to me that this is, again, pure bullshit no matter how you look at it.

Those two single quotes are a PROOF that this article has nothing to do with reality.

”No one, not a single soul, could believe that Nintendo was capable of being unseated as Number 1, even while it was happening right in front of them.”

Yes, yes, of course. The N64 sold worse than the PS1 in every part of the world, it's just that the marketing team didn't realize that until '05 or '06. BULLSHIT.

At the time, Nintendo believed “Geist” — a first person shooter published by Nintendo — would be GameCube’s “Halo Killer”. And everyone inside the meeting reassured Reggie that “Geist” would become a huge hit with the older hardcore gamers who loved “Halo”.

“And then at the end [of the presentation], Reggie looked around the table and basically said “Look, don’t bullshit me. How do you guys really think this thing is going to hold up?” No one said a word for a minute

Cool story. The problem is that Geist, despite being a FPS, wasn't by any means the typical shooter. It was more like an adventure game mixed with a shooter, so I simply can't see how they could think about it as a Halo killer if it wasn't even the same type of game.
They could have high expectations about it, but that game was closer to "portal" (first person puzzle-adventure) than to Halo (first person shooter), it wasn't meant to steal the Halo fanbase by any means.

“Pride turned to arrogance. Ugly arrogance. Nintendo started to develop contempt for the gaming community. They felt as if they were being betrayed by the gamers they created. The marketing teams started to look at gamer focused strategies with ire and spite.” says Mercury. “The “hardcore” Nintendo audience was equally cast aside. “Why bother? They’re going to buy anything we put out anyway.”

Whatever. The problem with that bit is that we have reality to check. How come they didn't bother about the Hardcore audience when they launched Metroid Prime 1/2, Zelda WW/TP, Mario SunShine, Baten Kaitos 0 and 1, published Tales of Symphonia on the west, money-hated exclusives from capcom (RE:Remake, RE0, one year of RE4, PN5) and Konami (remake of MGS) etc. etc.? All of them are hardcore games of undeniable quality, and some are even considered master-pieces and the best of the best of their genres.
This doesn't make any sense at all!!!

The problem with the GC was that they were late. When they entered the race PS2 had been selling for a whole year with no competition, and at that point was when the strongest titles were about to launch (MGS2, GT3, etc.). For that reason, third parties went with SONY and that made a huge difference that Nintendo couldn't overcome by itself, but still did a good job in terms of software output despite some severe droughts at the end of the life-cycle of the console.

 

[Square2015]

Yes, yes, of course. The N64 sold worse than the PS1 in every part of the world, it's just that the marketing team didn't realize that until '05 or '06. BULLSHIT.

They couldn't be outsold SW-wise by PSX, Sony couldn't get a game to sell much more than a million without dropping it to $20, on N64 Nintendo could sell 5m+ without ever dropping below $40, no they were not dethroned until PS2/XB (GTAIII and Halo etc).

It's unusual in the article tho how they referred to NoA's stiffest competition came from the "genesis days", uh I think PSX provided some stiff competition too! Lol

This implies Sega SW sales rivaled Nintendo's more so than Sony's which could actually be true, (ill have to look through my data).

Mortal kombat outsold SNES's highest seller, Street fighter II, pretty easily and before that Sonic 2 was outselling Nintendo's next best sellers: Super Mario kart, Zelda III, and then Star Fox (going into '93)
Now that I think about it nintendo was never threatened by any SW from PSX, N64 just dominated SW wise (and HW wise) right from launch. The top selling game on PSX in the fall of '97 before FFVII was Madden 97 (not even close to a million) and Super mario 64, wave race 64, shadows of the empire, cru'n USA, then Mario kart 64, star fox 64 quickly surpassed EVERYTHING on PSX. N64 dominated!

So yeah, Nintendo's biggest threat of being dethroned as software KING came from Sega NOT Sony and not by a long shot!

 

[Square2015]

I understand gamescom is going on but this thread needs a bump, it's still an interesting yet inconclusive thread. My hats off to the OP for finding this

 

[SeventhSon]

Guys Nintendo wasn't dethroned during the n64 psx era at least software sales wise!

Nintendo has always had the top selling games every generation. The best Sony could sell was 3m of a title while SM64, Goldeneye, and MK64 broke 5m+ (USA only of course), then next gen GTAIII actually outsold all of Nintendo's next-gen titles, followed by Halo, then Vice city, Halo2, etc THAT'S what NoA was so upset about, that'd never happened before, Nintendo was dethroned!


My sentiments back in 2002 also, I'm there with ya Nintendo.

Not first party, but the PlayStation Tomb Raider games each sold 7m+

 

[Square2015]

Not first party, but the PlayStation Tomb Raider games each sold 7m+

Yes but that's worldwide and most of that was sold at $20 (well in US, can't speak for Europe), the figures I gave are US only (I don't have WW figures) (as I think that's the focus of this thread).

 

[A Black Falcon]

This article seems pure bullshit to me.
Let's start analizing it:

How could they be worried about "more powerful consoles" when the most successful console at that time had much worse graphics than the Game Cube?
It's of course because she has made up the whole story and she is incompetent enough not to put things on perspective.
This is not good even as a fiction.

Uh, Microsoft ("more powerful consoles") did more damage to Nintendo's audience than Sony did that generation, honestly. Sure, Sony utterly dominated, but as I've said earlier, when you look at MS and Nintendo, the two basically split the N64's audience, with Microsoft taking the shooter/sports fans, and the Gamecube taking Nintendo fans and children. Microsoft badly hurt Nintendo, and Nintendo couldn't find an answer to it.

Yeah, in HD, during the PS2/GC/Xbox era where nobody had HD TVs. Oh, and I already know that there were a few games on the Xbox that could run at 720p, and 1 game on PS2 that could achieve 1080i (GT4), but its PRETTY OBVIOUS that the "HD" wasn't the reason people bought PS2. It's pretty obvious to me that this is, again, pure bullshit no matter how you look at it.

How long was the guy at Nintendo? Maybe that was referring to the Xbox, or is it about Wii vs. PS360...

Yes, yes, of course. The N64 sold worse than the PS1 in every part of the world, it's just that the marketing team didn't realize that until '05 or '06. BULLSHIT.

That one was a bit weird, but it is true that the N64 in the US at least was competitive in software, and wasn't that far behind in the 1996-1999 period from before the N64 faded. With the Gamecube, they had no such positives to take the edge off of not winning, and they finished third, not second as they had with N64. But yeah, it was a little weird for him to say that.

Cool story. The problem is that Geist, despite being a FPS, wasn't by any means the typical shooter. It was more like an adventure game mixed with a shooter, so I simply can't see how they could think about it as a Halo killer if it wasn't even the same type of game.
They could have high expectations about it, but that game was closer to "portal" (first person puzzle-adventure) than to Halo (first person shooter), it wasn't meant to steal the Halo fanbase by any means.

Oh come on, Geist is a FPS with multiplayer and stuff, as is Halo, so of course it's fair for them to think of Halo. Sure, they're not the same kind of FPS, but both are in the same genre. Geist's closer to being like Halo than the Metroid Prime games, so it's the closest thing Nintendo had to it... and even if it's definitely not perfect, it's better than its sales suggest, at least.

Whatever. The problem with that bit is that we have reality to check. How come they didn't bother about the Hardcore audience when they launched Metroid Prime 1/2, Zelda WW/TP, Mario SunShine, Baten Kaitos 0 and 1, published Tales of Symphonia on the west, money-hated exclusives from capcom (RE:Remake, RE0, one year of RE4, PN5) and Konami (remake of MGS) etc. etc.? All of them are hardcore games of undeniable quality, and some are even considered master-pieces and the best of the best of their genres.
This doesn't make any sense at all!!!

The problem with the GC was that they were late. When they entered the race PS2 had been selling for a whole year with no competition, and at that point was when the strongest titles were about to launch (MGS2, GT3, etc.). For that reason, third parties went with SONY and that made a huge difference that Nintendo couldn't overcome by itself, but still did a good job in terms of software output despite some severe droughts at the end of the life-cycle of the console.

No, consoles which release after the competition can win. The first console of a generation almost never wins, after all. You can even release three years after your competition (in the same generation!) and still manage to win; that's what Nintendo did wtih the SNES in Japan, remember. Sure, releasing a year after the PS2 was a problem, but releasing after other systems is not immediate doom for your system, to say the least.

And anyway, had the GC and Xbox released the same day as the PS2, the results would probably still have been the same... other factors were more important than the release date.

 

[freezamite]

They couldn't be outsold SW-wise by PSX, Sony couldn't get a game to sell much more than a million without dropping it to $20, on N64 Nintendo could sell 5m+ without ever dropping below $40, no they were not dethroned until PS2/XB (GTAIII and Halo etc).

It's unusual in the article tho how they referred to NoA's stiffest competition came from the "genesis days", uh I think PSX provided some stiff competition too! Lol

This implies Sega SW sales rivaled Nintendo's more so than Sony's which could actually be true, (ill have to look through my data).

Mortal kombat outsold SNES's highest seller, Street fighter II, pretty easily and before that Sonic 2 was outselling Nintendo's next best sellers: Super Mario kart, Zelda III, and then Star Fox (going into '93)
Now that I think about it nintendo was never threatened by any SW from PSX, N64 just dominated SW wise (and HW wise) right from launch. The top selling game on PSX in the fall of '97 before FFVII was Madden 97 (not even close to a million) and Super mario 64, wave race 64, shadows of the empire, cru'n USA, then Mario kart 64, star fox 64 quickly surpassed EVERYTHING on PSX. N64 dominated!

So yeah, Nintendo's biggest threat of being dethroned as software KING came from Sega NOT Sony and not by a long shot!

Software sales are related to hardware sales, and the fact that those sales are dispersed between a higher number of games doesn't negate the fact that for Nintendo the most important thing to look at when it comes to market share is the hardware sales.

Software sales were lower on GC because hardware sales were also lower, it's that simple, and there are TOO MANY incoherences on this article to not think that it's been an invention from top to bottom.

Uh, Microsoft ("more powerful consoles") did more damage to Nintendo's audience than Sony did that generation, honestly. Sure, Sony utterly dominated, but as I've said earlier, when you look at MS and Nintendo, the two basically split the N64's audience, with Microsoft taking the shooter/sports fans, and the Gamecube taking Nintendo fans and children. Microsoft badly hurt Nintendo, and Nintendo couldn't find an answer to it.

No, that doesn't make any sense. As you said, the Xbox took the shooter part of the N64 market on the USA, and what this means is that Nintendo lost customers because of the lack of FPS, not because their console was "underpowered".

Not only that, but the article says "more powerful consoles", PLURAL. Considering that the GC was (and even this could be questioned) in the worst case, the second best performing console, it's pretty obvious that this statement doesn't have even the slightest sense.

How long was the guy at Nintendo? Maybe that was referring to the Xbox, or is it about Wii vs. PS360...

So they were desperate because of the falling sales during the years they were selling the most? This makes even less sense!!!
It's simply that this article is pure fiction and it's so badly written that contradicts things that can be easily checked.

That one was a bit weird, but it is true that the N64 in the US at least was competitive in software, and wasn't that far behind in the 1996-1999 period from before the N64 faded. With the Gamecube, they had no such positives to take the edge off of not winning, and they finished third, not second as they had with N64. But yeah, it was a little weird for him to say that.

As I said before, from the company's point of view this doesn't make any sense. If the problem was "people that buy nintendo consoles doesn't buy as many games as before" then the other complains about "more powerful consoles" wouldn't make any sense.

Oh come on, Geist is a FPS with multiplayer and stuff, as is Halo, so of course it's fair for them to think of Halo. Sure, they're not the same kind of FPS, but both are in the same genre. Geist's closer to being like Halo than the Metroid Prime games, so it's the closest thing Nintendo had to it... and even if it's definitely not perfect, it's better than its sales suggest, at least.

Geist was a good game, very Nintendo-ish because of how many puzzles it has. Its a mixed experience, with segments of the game being a pure FPS and then other segments being pure puzzle/adventure. A game where you can play during 1 hour without shooting more than a few bullets it's not a conventional FPS.
All in all, I agree with you in that IT COULD BE POSSIBLE that some guys at Nintendo could think of Geist as a Halo killer, but the rest of the article makes me think that even this is part of the fiction.

No, consoles which release after the competition can win. The first console of a generation almost never wins, after all. You can even release three years after your competition (in the same generation!) and still manage to win; that's what Nintendo did wtih the SNES in Japan, remember. Sure, releasing a year after the PS2 was a problem, but releasing after other systems is not immediate doom for your system, to say the least.

There are tons of factors to consider when speaking about a complex market like this.
But back at the PS2/GC/Xbox era, being first was a definitive advantage. I don't say that if GC had been first PS2 couldn't still be the first in terms of sales, but it surely would have sold better than what it really did.

But the main point I make on that paragraph is not being first, but how false is that "Nintendo didn't care about the hardcore" when they launched/published tons of games to that public, and all of them with an undeniable quality.