I ditched my N64 for credit towards a PlayStation. The rest is history.Because Halo.
And the N64 left a really bad taste in some people's mouths.
Most people, at least on gaming boards, look back at the what ifs of the Gamecube from usually a PS2 vs. Gamecube perspective with Xbox being on the side if mentioned, but I would argue the Xbox is the reason the Gamecube bombed as badly as it did, and why it failed to appeal to a large segment of the gaming population. and lost interest of developers..
The Xbox was the newcomer and people may not remember this but gaming boards from Atari Age to outlet boards were mixed to confused about Microsofts random Box entering the console race for the first time. While Microsoft would eventually have more games, many also on the PS2, and have more games exclusive in more genres well received than the Gamecube, initially the Gamecube has the upper hand and investing in the Xbox was an investment in PC game design or franchises brought to a home console for the first time, as the power gap between PC and consoles had relatively shrunken, while in the past computers were traditionally always (outside of early PC) miles ahead of consoles.
When you look at it without the PS2 involved:
1. The Gamecube had recognizable 1st and third party franchises out the gate and within the first 2 full years
2. Had access exclusively (fully or timed) to some of the top selling IPS in the industry
3. Had put out pre-release screenshots and videos earlier than Xbox did, so the power gap wasn't known yet and people figured it would be in the Gamecubes favor originally.
4.Nintendo was an established name.
5. Microsoft had a mixed game rep and a terrible corporate reputation for how they interacted in the computer industry and businesses within it.
6. Most consoles gamers were not sure about investing in a large selection of games that were not common in the console industry prior outside some compromised releases of some popular computer or PC hits.
7. The Gamecube could be gotten cheaper with pre-orders, and dropped in price in very short time after release compared to the Xbox.
Of course, overtime a lot of this changed, XBL happened, Xbox ended up with tons of games from both sides of the industry, Gamecube started missing out on many releases, but the situation became absurd later:
1.Gamecube stalled production in 2003 due to a heavy drop in sales,
2. Tons of large third parties, including ones that didn't need 3x the disc space, skipped the Gamecube
3. Several exclusives suddenly became non-exclusive
4. Gamecube forced to cut the price rapidly to $99 before anyone else (xbox and PS2)
and at this point Xbox was a good 4-5+ million units ahead.
But then the final nail had to be when Microsoft rapidly cut 1st party support and replaced the original Xbox with the 360 as it's main hardware product in 2005, with some shrinking third party support pushed out for another 1.5 years. The Gamecube, which was desperately trying to pick up releases, was an insanely good value, and had pushed several features (limited online gaming, mic, GB player, wavebird, etc.), and basically had the runner-up market to itself. The ps2 was coasting, Xbox was gone, they even kept the Gamecube running a bit after the Wii came out, and it could not close the gap, still leaving over 2 million units between it and the Xbox.
My question is what went wrong despite it's earlier advantages and it's later isolation on the track?
Was the Gamecube just never that appealing? Was Nintendo's hardware decline since NES each console a telling sign? Did Microsoft just have better games?
What could Nintendo have actually done to "beat" the Xbox with the GC?
Some will go to some PS2 comparisons, like the Gamecube not having a DVD player, but outside of game storage the Xbox didn't have DVD movie playback out the box, you had to buy an optional remote. It wasn't as easy to access as the PS2. They both also came out around the same time, so there isn't a timing advantage in Xbox's favor either.
What went wrong? What happened that an established player with an existing distribution and software partner network would flunk so badly to a new comer that even when the new comer left they still couldn't catch them?
Unfortunately MS had a clause that said if you are releasing a game on 360 and PS3 there should be content parity. They refused release on 360 if you had extra content on PS3 day one. They ended up burning DVD size games on a Bluray.I wish the small disc theory would die ; there's a bigger difference between ps3 blu ray and a 360 disc than a gamecube disc and a Ps2 DVD. Obviously the more space the better, but it wasn't a huge deterrent for developers or really made a significant difference in any game's content.
EDIT : Most you could argue was the lack of actual DVD movie playback was an issue in terms of sales, but not a game issue.
Dvd is completely overblown.
The hype for ps2 was insane. It was unstoppable. Ps1 was the most dominant console ever, ps2 was second comming.
Dvd mattered but it was not that important.
This thread is hilarious. Are we seriously talking about why the original Xbox was successful? It sold 24 million lifetime units. It's competitor sold 155 million. That's not a success. New console or not.
The same would be true if GameCube sold 24 million and Xbox sold 22 million.
Never has the phrase, "second place if the first loser" rung more true than when the score was 155 to 24 to 22.
This thread is hilarious. Are we seriously talking about why the original Xbox was successful? It sold 24 million lifetime units. It's competitor sold 155 million. That's not a success. First console or not. Especially when that new player is a company as huge as Microsoft.
The same would be true if GameCube sold 24 million and Xbox sold 22 million.
Never has the phrase, "second place if the first loser" rung more true than when the score was 155 to 24 to 22.
Some day we will have a thread why Stadia was so successful compared to some other random streaming service that had even 10% fewer players than Stadia's abysmal numbers.
I advertise for PlayStation. For free.
Yeah both were bottom feeders in sales.Against Xbox?? Xbox didn't sell either. What are you talking about?
GameCube - 22 Million
Xbox - 24 Million
PlayStation 2 - 155 Million
No they did not "sell" (action) near each other.They sold near each other, no? Both failed.
I mean fail is a strong word. The Xbox sold like 4 million more? That's nothing. Nintendo failed in general after selling less than the N64 which sold dramatically less than the newcomer PS1.
They sold nearly the same.
It sold 2 million more, but still bombed. I disagree with the third-party comment. GameCube got some great third-party games, especially from Capcom.
the PS3, even tho it still sold more than the 360,
I wish the small disc theory would die ; there's a bigger difference between ps3 blu ray and a 360 disc than a gamecube disc and a Ps2 DVD. Obviously the more space the better, but it wasn't a huge deterrent for developers or really made a significant difference in any game's content.
Got to the point on 360 where 2 discs became normal, usually to hold the multiplayer. Treyarch said COD was limited in its textures because of 360's space. Single player action games like Castlevania needed 2 discs even. Why? Because it was a ps3 lead game ; imagine how many games were lead 360 and could have had more unique assets with bigger storage media.
Point being, 360 was a huge success despite storage limits. Gamecube had a demographic problem.
EDIT : Most you could argue was the lack of actual DVD movie playback was an issue in terms of sales, but not a game issue.
Momentum is quite important - that the reason PS5 is doing better than PS4 launch also plays the part I think. PS4 launch, they had to do many things right considering Sony struggled the most on PS3 times, almost going head-to-head with Xbox 360 in U.S. Plus, they didn't have BC for PS3, so it was basically like launching a brand new console platform. They had a lot of hurdles, but I think the no-nonsense approach and system's superior power vs Xbox One also helped out. Sony did a lot of things right for PS4, and such success is helping them out on PS5 launch too.
MS had good momentum going on Xbox One - but they lost out eventually, unable to keep the momentum into XSX, which I think is one of the reason that it's not selling as much as PS5. MS, however does seem to be doing a lot of things right this gen, so we'll see how it goes at the end of the cycle. Currently Sony does seem to suffer from some negativity at the moment - will see how they'll turn it around.
Xbox did very well to carve out a spot for those who cared more about cutting edge visuals and shooters, and just happened to have a killer app that carried it. It had nerd cred amongst a certain crowd. Shit, some games could do 720p if you had the right set-up to handle that. So they had their niche. But it had nothing to do with the Cube failing.
I lived next to a game store. You are right that Xbox took that shelf space. What you don't get is that if Xbox hadn't existed Nintendo would still have lost that shelf space, just to more PS2 stuff.Xbox literally beat the Gamecube in all the places the N64 did well in except Japan and maybe France. They took shelf space and developers away indirectly and directly, and retailers, gaming mags, and even Nintendo though MS as short sighted.
If Xbox wasn't there Gamecube would have at least doubled sales.
Not only are you rushing off into a completely different topic, but you're making an assumptions that's already been debunked. You are talking about something not selling good that is selling 1:1 every unit they produce? That doesn't make sense, the actual logical reason would that the console has obstructions preventing larger manufacturing. There's even a thread on that, multiple, and the "number" put out by a "source" about the XSX sales numbers isn't even accurate anyway, I'm sure we'll start seeing Vgchartz used as a sales source soon forXSX shipments,
This thread is hilarious. Are we seriously talking about why the original Xbox was successful? It sold 24 million lifetime units. It's competitor sold 155 million. That's not a success. First console or not. Especially when that new player is a company as huge as Microsoft.
The same would be true if GameCube sold 24 million and Xbox sold 22 million.
Never has the phrase, "second place if the first loser" rung more true than when the score was 155 to 24 to 22.
Some day we will have a thread why Stadia was so successful compared to some other random streaming service that had even 10% fewer players than Stadia's abysmal numbers.
Easy. Xbox was brand new, while Nintendo had decades of experience with built in fans. Xbox outselling Nintendo on their first try might only be by a measly 2 million units, but it might as well be 20 million considering that.
How did Sony manage to outsell Nintendo by nearly 70 million on their first try then?
Because they were a hardware company known for excellent products that only had two major competitors (Sega with Saturn and Nintendo with N64) - who both massively fucked up their own products?How did Sony manage to outsell Nintendo by nearly 70 million on their first try then?
Because they were a hardware company known for excellent products that only had two major competitors (Sega with Saturn and Nintendo with N64) - who both massively fucked up their own products?
Whereas Microsoft (a software company) was entering an industry with an established juggernaut and a dynamite console (Sony with PS2). Furthermore, the entire console games industry was titled towards Japan at that time so an American company had a massive disadvantage in dealing with software devs. They had a huge uphill climb.
The context matters. Xbox was Microsoft's first piece of hardware and established a new business for them that still continues today. It was a success by any metric.
^^^ Because Halo.Because Halo.
And the N64 left a really bad taste in some people's mouths.
^^^ Because Halo.
And I loved the N64, but aside from a few exclusives here and there at the time, RE4, REMake, Eternal Darkness, Twilight Princess, etc, the lack of a great FPS to follow up on the N64's Goldeneye and Perfect Dark really hurt it. Local multiplayer felt like it was constricted to Mario Kart and Mario Party. For gamers in their teens or older at the time, that just didn't cut it.
Hard to imagine. Would have been INSANE.Yeah imagine Nintendo GC coming out of the gate swinging with online support for Mario Kart, later Smash etc. Holy shit that would have been a completely different story in the early 2000s.
Sucks man. N64 was the best.I ditched my N64 for credit towards a PlayStation. The rest is history.
It wasn't even the N64. Nintendo changed when the Gamecube came out. They targeted a younger demographic and lost Rareware, which made the N64 so great.If you were into gaming culture at the time, it's obvious that the Gamecube's fate had absolutely nothing to do with the Xbox, and everything to do with the aftermath of PS1 vs N64, and then the huge launch of the PS2.
The feeling at the time was that Nintendo had lost 3rd party support irretrievably to Sony, and that their first party software was too few and far between. Further, games were just becoming mainstream in culture outside of just being a kid's toy. Magazines (who were desperate for gaming to be legitimized) pushed this aspect hard both in the US and the EU, and Sony was the standard bearer of this "cool gaming" moment. This meant that Nintendo was written off as "kiddy" (even in publications aimed at kids!) and their rep really suffered at the time. It sounds silly to us in 2021, but that kiddy label was a fucking killer in the very different marketing landscape of 2001. Coming out with a big purple lunchbox that couldn't even play DVDs (the new hot shit) as their hardware sealed the deal.
Hardware matters. Almost all of the record breaking Switch software was on Wii U or had a quality equivalent on Wii U. It didn't matter, because people didn't want the hardware. Such was the case with the Cube. I bought it and loved it, but I was well into gaming culture at the time and it was clear which way the wind was blowing.
Xbox did very well to carve out a spot for those who cared more about cutting edge visuals and shooters, and just happened to have a killer app that carried it. It had nerd cred amongst a certain crowd. Shit, some games could do 720p if you had the right set-up to handle that. So they had their niche. But it had nothing to do with the Cube failing.
Yes, losing Rare was a killer blow. Goldeneye was the title that made N64 somewhat cool. Yeah, you might play Mario 64 and Zelda all day, but to your friends you'd say "I got it for multiplayer Goldeneye and Mario Kart" and that was considered cool. Perfect Dark continued that tradition.Sucks man. N64 was the best.
It wasn't even the N64. Nintendo changed when the Gamecube came out. They targeted a younger demographic and lost Rareware, which made the N64 so great.
As a 13 year old I enjoyed Melee and Double Dash when it came out, but it was nothing compared to how amazing Halo was. Kids didn't care about Metroid Prime or Wind Waker, we wanted GTA and Halo. GC had good games, I even bought Splinter Cell on GC over Xbox for some reason, but the trend was that the bigger games were coming to Xbox.
I actually owed both a GC and Xbox that gen, getting both in 2002. Only picked up a PS2 in 2019.