Jonathan Metts: Did anyone else read IGN's "Nintendo Minute" from Friday? The question is about why GameCube has exactly one game being released in April, while PS2 and Xbox have a couple dozen or so coming out, and how Nintendo expects to be able to retain interest in the system with this kind of release schedule (a la the late days of the N64...actually, all the days of the N64).

George Harrison begins by saying that the April releases on PS2 and Xbox are spillover from the holiday season...but how can that excuse GameCube? If GameCube had as much third-party support, it too would have had games spilled over from Christmas into the spring.

Then he completely jumps over April with this phrase: " Looking ahead towards early summer..."

Reading that line pisses me off so much. He's dodging the question in that time-honored Nintendo fashion. "Wait for E3." "Wait for Spaceworld." "Wait for Christmas." Good things are always around the corner, but not happening now. And of course, the games inevitably get delayed and are no longer even around the corner, but around the block.

Jonathan Lindemann: The line that killed me was, "But periods of slow product release are

nothing new for the games industry."

No George, periods of slow product release are nothing new for

*Nintendo*. The rest of the industry is doing just fine.

Jeff Shirley: Or the PS2 launch. And heck the PSP games are looking pretty thin as the year goes.

Jonathan Metts: The difference being that GameCube launched over three years ago...launches are almost always thin, as are the months immediately afterwards. I could

be a lot more critical about the dearth of DS titles, but I think it's

understandable and perhaps excusable considering how long the system has

been out and how unusual it is to design for. The problem here isn't that

publishers are still gearing up for GameCube releases, it's that they're

winding down their plans for the system (even faster than they are for the

other consoles).

Jonathan Lindemann: I gotta say though, it's frustrating when Nintendo launches the DS,

virtually does nothing with it for four months, and then the PSP comes

along with a launch lineup 20+ titles deep. Not to mention the fact

that 4 of those titles scored high 8's or 9's on most websites

(WipeOut Pure, Lumines, Ridge Racer, Tony Hawk) and 4 others allowed

online play over the Internet. It really makes you look at how

Nintendo's fumbling around with their online capability and weak-ass

DS game library and ask, "Do these guys even know what the hell

they're doing anymore? Can they make anything other than Mario or

Pokemon games?"

I really try not to be so negative all the time, but Nintendo makes it

hard to be positive. They'll always be around, mainly because their

business practices emphasize profit even at the expense of market

share, but doubt they'll ever be at the forefront again.

Another knee-slapper:

"...including Polarium, which is a triple-A puzzle title soon to be

used in the same sentence as Tetris around the world."

I think the sentence he's talking about goes something like, "It would

have been great if the DS had shipped with a puzzle game like Tetris,

but instead we're stuck with Polarium."

How can this guy sleep at night?

Michael Cole: Frankly, I'm coming to the conclusion that Nintendo will never be

"king" again, simply because they're a 1st party that acts like a third

party (that cares only about its own games). Unless this changes...and that's

unlikely...I know, not very insightful, heh. But true.

Justin Nation: Definitely agree about all of the lameness on Nintendo's part with making

excuses and as always being completely oblivious to the realities of the

market in certain aspects. Thing is... since having my PSP and letting my

almost 5-year-old play with my DS a bit there are things they seem to deeply

understand, just that nobody else cares about. She had played with my old

GBC and Pokemon Pinball but she never really seemed to put together what to

do to control it even with some guidance. I let her play with my DS and

Wario Ware Touched though and it is totally different.

With no words of encouragement or instruction she can play a vast number of micro games and be very successful actually, sometimes beating the entire board and moving

on to the next level. The little gizmos like the yo-yo and harmonica are

dopey to me and yet even with something passive really odd like the

metronome she'll sit there manipulating it and drawn in. So the DS lacks

control setup and aura of cool suited to what the older market wants... and

that may rob them of market share forever.

Now, not to simplify, Nintendo's

problems also have a lot to do with their only caring about the success of

their own titles and gouging everyone they can for every cent possible.

Thing is, they do understand some fundamentals and have an almost uncanny

knack for sucking kids in younger and younger. The fact that they never got

their little movies/games that were more interactive videos thing going was

a pity, I was interested to see how they compared to PC software for

toddlers that does the same. Dunno, with a young one there is something to

it all. You keep the existing franchises and you don't play with the

formula, that would risk having fans turned away and not hooking their kids.

I look at Donkey Konga, Jungle Beat, Wario Ware, Animal Crossing... just

they don't seem to focus on making the knockout success game, just they want

to be the first to push the envelope and hope they get it so right it is a

blockbuster. So market leader or not, frustrating rat bastards of uncool or

not, stuff like Ali playing the game and loving life and being good at

something put it together.

Jonathan Lindemann: I never had a problem with Nintendo courting the kid market. Most of

their younger-skewing games are brilliant. It's the fact that they

pursue this market to the exclusion of all else that bothers me. For

example, I'm playing God of War on PS2, absolutely amazing game, sure

it skirts some boundaries but it's spectacular. Why isn't it on

GameCube? There's no real reason aside from the fact that Sony has

cultivated that "mature" (whatever that means) market segment while

Nintendo has ignored it, so games like GoW are never released for

their platforms. Most people only buy one system, and that's the one

that has the widest spectrum of games. Nobody in their right mind

will tell you that Nintendo systems have a GOOD SELECTION of games for

everybody (it irritates me when somebody brings this up to a Nintendo

talking head and they say something like, "That's wrong, we have

Resident Evil 4"....for crying out loud, that's one game over the

course of three years, it's a token gesture).

The difference is that Nintendo has its mascot/"kiddie" games and 1 or

2 token titles in other areas, while Sony has an assortment of

"kiddie" games and then a freakin' avalanche of everything else. It's

no wonder the PSP has the support it does, it's just continuing the

trend.

Mike Sklens: Actually God of War isn't on the GameCube because it was produced by a

Sony second party studio, Incognito (also known for Twisted Metal), and

published by Sony Computer Entertainment America. But your argument

still applies to basically any M rated game. Nintendo says they make

games for "everyone." What this really means is that they shoot for the

lowest common denominator, kids. If it's suitable for a child then it

is suitable for everyone older than a child. If they make a game only

suitable for adults, then kids can't play it, and as such it is not for

"everyone." Nintendo flying the "everyone" flag is a bullshit response

to a real need. Sure I could play another family friendly game, but

sometimes I need something else, something with edge and genuinely

excellent storytelling mixed into a bloodbath of destruction (that

being God of War). I doubt we'll see a better game released on the PS2

all year. Eternal Darkness and Giest (if it ever comes out) are not

enough to satisfy my need for an older title. That's two games in five

years!

Nintendo should take it's coffers of money and start up, or invest in,

some new studios to make some genuinely mature games. I thought it was

going to happen back when Silicon Knights was looking to be a pretty

solid stable in the Nintendo 2nd party line-up, and n-Space looking

like they might be the next to join the club already occupied by SK and

Retro, but then everything fell apart. SK split and now they're making

some game for Sega, Retro is already being shoe-horned into "those guys

that make Metroid, and nothing else" and n-Space still has yet to prove

themselves.

Jonathan Metts: I think Nintendo went into this generation with a real plan for winning

third-party support. The plan just fell flat on its face. Then they moved

to a different plan, which also failed, and then another...

Plan A: Reduce royalties and sell so many systems that the platform looks

attractive from a business standpoint.

Failure: Royalties still higher than those of competitors. System sells

extremely well at launch, then falls off quickly as almost no games are

released for nearly a year following the debut. No killer app strong enough

to push buzz and system sales on through to the second generation of games.

Plan B: Woo third-parties creatively by cooperating with them on first-party

titles.

Failure: Externally developed games vary in quality (from F-Zero GX to Star

Fox Assault). Third-parties do not increase publishing support with their

own games despite fruitful cooperations.

Plan C: Whore out Nintendo characters and other properties for use in

third-party titles.

Failure: Dilutes the essence of the characters while producing minimal

effect on sales of the GameCube versions (excepting Soul Calibur II). Even

successful cases do not sway subsequent third-party support (see: Soul

Calibur III).

Michael Cole: There's more to "Plan C"...While Plan A and B were designed to gain more

interest in the GameCube, Plan C is simply to hold on to what they do

have--Nintendo fans that like Mario and the gang. Not a bad idea this late

in the generation, as long as they are doing more for Revolution. Speaking

of which, Nintendo needs to provide a variety of first party titles at

launch to set a standard, instead of parceling them out like they've done

forever.

Justin Nation: Haha, but putting a bunch of them out there at once around launch and not

releasing them in two to three-month intervals would mean their own titles

might compete against each other and thus not be as profitable. You need to

be sick in the head the way they are to appreciate the brilliant greed at

the cost of all else at work there.

Michael Cole: Not if by sacrificing those costs they can encourage more third party

support and therefore more ROYALTIES. Of course, someone at Nintendo is

already refuting this, pointing out that profits from well-scheduled first

party sales are more assured than third party sales historically. Yey.

And they'd probably be right, too. I'm not the only Nintendo whore GameCube

owner.

Still, they can afford to eat those "losses," I'm only talking about doing

this at launch. Besides, what if three first party titles are released

together and DO sell well? That would look awfully good to third parties,

etc.

Justin Nation: I think this points to a bigger problem for Nintendo than either of their

competitors though. Right out of the box when you develop for a Nintendo

platform you're somewhat resigned to the fact that probably 90+% of the time

you're competing for dollars with an installed base that is probably most

loyal to Nintendo first. So, with the exception of certain titles that break

the mold, if you're a third party you don't have those break-out odds for

your title. Weird but probably almost entirely true.

Jonathan Lindemann: That's a great point Justin. Nintendo would be smart to almost step

back a bit and release less big first-party titles so third-parties

have a chance...

...but they'll never do that because they're greedy bastards. It's

funny though, I used to think that Sony's lack of first-party titles

was a bad thing, but it's really been great for them because they've

built up great third-party relationships because of it.

TYP, I think you're a Nintendo whore partially because there's no

alternative. Sure, you know those first-party titles are going to be

good, but then there's nothing else out there is there? If the choice

is between, say, Metroid Prime 2 and a bunch of Electronic Arts ports, You're going to buy the first-party title without hesitation.

At work I was reading a magazine called Fast Company. If any of you

have read it, it's a sorta techy/contemporary business magazine.

There was a story in there about a famous business consultant, George

Stalk, who wrote a book called "Hardball: Are You Playing to Play or

Playing to Win?" In this book he lists five major strategies for

crushing competition (coincidentally, all five of them have been used

by Electronic Arts in the past year, but that's another discussion),

and one of them is "Destroying your competition's profit sanctuaries".

A profit sanctuary is the part of a company's business that they can

rely on for profits when all else fails. Nintendo's handheld business

is their profit sanctuary. GameCube sales tanking? No problem, the

GBA SP is kicking ass. That first-party GCN release not doing as well

as they planned? Don't worry, their first-party GBA games will more

than compensate for those losses. But what happens if their handheld

market dries up? They're SCREWED because they don't have anything to

fall back on. They're no longer a versatile company. Sony is now

directly attacking that handheld profit sanctuary, and if they succeed

Nintendo is in trouble. That day of reckoning is several years away,

but it's coming. Especially if Sony keeps releasing high-caliber

products like the PSP.

David Trammell: Nintendo's goal is to make money not rule the world. Why should they scale

back 1st party releases to help third parties make money when they can make

more money for themselves. They're supposed to be greedy. They're a

business.

Jonathan Metts: You're right, of course. Nintendo's status as a software publisher has

always interfered with its ability to provide a fair platform for other

publishers, even back in the days of the NES (there just weren't any other

good options for publishers back then).

But the solution to cracking the hardcore fans' stranglehold on Nintendo

systems is not to stop catering to them or to try to force third-party

software on them. The solution is to bring in more people who are not as

loyal to Nintendo and who care more about the third-party stuff in the first

place. And how do you do that? With abundant third-party releases and some

hot exclusive third-party titles, just as Sony and (to a lesser extent)

Microsoft have done. Nintendo is looking for alternative ways to do it,

rather than join the club and admit that the competitors have found the most

effective method. So far none of the alternatives have worked well at all.

Daniel Bloodworth: From a business standpoint, wouldn't their first party games have sold a lot

better if they had a massive user base? I would like to compare how many

million-sellers Nintendo has had on GameCube, compared to their previous

systems.

Jonathan Metts: Nintendo has far fewer million sellers on GameCube. Most of their first-party N64 releases went platinum by worldwide sales, at least in the early years.

I'm not sure about SNES, but they had tons of million sellers on the NES...actually, there were tons of third-party million sellers on NES too. Even mediocre games would often go platinum, just because the system was so insanely popular and releases were metered out so that they could be pimped in Nintendo Power each month, back when the magazine held tremendous influence.

I don't have the sales data to back it up, except that Magic Box maintains a list of million sellers on each system as reported by Famitsu. Those are just Japan numbers, I guess, and the Magic Box list is only updated annually, if I remember correctly, but it is still quite useful. These conclusions are very logical, though. I mean, there are less than half as many GameCubes on the market right now as there were N64s at the same point in that system's life cycle. It just follows that software sales are also down.

Do you have your own thoughts on the issue? Then share your two cents in the TalkBack thread.