Talk:GameCube/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between December 12, 2002 and December 7, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Nintendo GameCube/Archive 2. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Jedi6 20:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Screenshots

Can anyone tell me the difference between a pre-released screenshot and an actual game screen? Some of the games screens under consoles on wikipedia look like they have a really high resolution, and super clean lines (see God of War). That would exagerate the specs of a system. marvelvsdc

I think you mean pre-rendered. Pre-rendered are like movies you would find in Final Fantasy games versus in game shots which usually look worse. These shots probably have high resolutions because they pics. of the game running on a HD set.--User:Jedi6 11-21-2005

Removed Phrase

I removed the phrase "AKA Lamecube, Dolphin, Gaycube." If anyone disagrees that this is a pretty biased paragraph, they can put it back in.

System Specs

Also, is it necessary to have the huge table on its specs? That information is easily avaialble on a Ninetendo website. I don't think most non-nerds care about the technical nitty-gritty. Couldn't we just include a link to the page with the specs? -Frecklefoot

Perhaps it could be cut down into a smaller summary of the most salient specs, but I think just linking to an external source is dubious - after all, most of the content of Wikipedia could be found elsewhere, so why not just make it into one big link-farm, with each article saying "For a definition, see [1]; for history, see [2]..." And of course, if the external page then gets deleted, or even moved, the WP page becomes completely pointless! - IMSoP 05:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Solution: create a "Nintendo Gamecube specifications" page on the Wiki. Sockatume 17:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Caps

(Nintendo prefer that NINTENDO GAMECUBE be written in all capitals, as described in http://www.nintendo.com.au/gamecube/faqs/index.php (F.A.Q. 10). This convention is followed by next to nobody.)

...including Nintendo themselves, on their American and European websites. Is this an Australian peculiarity? --rbrwr

It doesn't matter, because it is on the Australian NINTENDO WEBSITE. It was made by Nintendo. I think it is a stupid idea to have it in capitals, but as the Nintendo Website says, it is NINTENDO GAMECUBE. I won't bother changing it, because you will probably change it back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.88.138 (talk • contribs) .

Definately never heard of that usage in the US or Europe, so it's hardly a "convention". Nintendo are rather particular about including trademark notices and descriptions in press coverage though; really it should be the Nintendo(R) Gamecube(TM) video game console. This eventually spawned a couple of forum in-jokes it happens, with people referring to, say, Metroid (R) Prime (TM) 2: Echoes (TM) First Hunt (TM) for the Nintendo (R) DS (TM) dual-screen touchscreen-and-voice activated handheld videogames system, every time they wanted to talk about the Metroid Hunters demo. Sockatume 17:56, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kiddy Image

It seems that an anonymous editor has added a paragraph, only to have it removed by another anonymous editor as "puppy cock" (what it has to do with small dogs and male chickens, I'm not sure). The paragraph in question is:

The Nintendo GameCube also has a black carrying handle on the back, which has led many to refer to it as a "lunchbox" (thus perpetuating Nintendo's seemingly eternal "kiddy" image).

I have no idea whether this is true or not - does anyone have an opinion of whether it should be in or out? - IMSoP 15:43, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added that paragraph, before I made an account. I thought it was an interesting thing to note, and it is true - I have both heard and read many people refer to it as a lunchbox, including for reviews of the system. I even looked it up on Google to make sure it wasn't just me blowing it out of proportion. I think the person who removed it figured I was trolling, which I wasn't (though I suppose I could have worded that better). I own a GameCube and think it's great (despite its lunchboxy appearance, ha ha). If this were go back up, it should probably be worded like this:

The Nintendo GameCube also has a black carrying handle on the back, which, coupled with its small size, has led many to refer to it - usually disparagingly - as a "lunchbox" (thus indirectly perpetuating Nintendo's seemingly eternal "kiddy" image).

Or something like that.

--DoubleCross 01:29, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

It's an accurate statement. In addition, the Indigo launch color contributed to the console's unfortunate kiddy image. However, I don't know that it really belongs in or is a necessary addition to the article. It would be like mentioning that the Xbox hardware is absolutely massive, completely bombed in Japan, and is sometimes called a "brick". It's just editorializing that's probably not needed.

--RickSlate March 8, 2005

I agree. I know the debate is over, but imagine if "lunchbox" was replaced with "purse". Might as well put "also referred disparagingly to as the Gaycube, or Homosexualbox". Just doesn't belong. --ZombieBite June 28, 2005 21:27 (UTC)

I think you're off the mark there. Theres a difference between noting frequently commented similarity to G rated items which are not necessarily to be offensive, and making stuff up from the point of someone topic hostile and inserting it for kicks. The latter obviously doesn't belong, the former could easily have a place. -- Oct 18, 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.81.58.56 (talk • contribs) .

Graphics Power

"Despite it's smaller size, it is more powerful than the PlayStation 2." I disagree. Compare, for example, Metal Gear Solid 2 and Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes. MGS2's (for PS2/Xbox) graphics are superior to MGS:TTS's (for Cube). I think this passage should be removed altogether, it's pretty subjective. Yes, games designed specifically for the Cube will look better than most PS2 games - but games designed specifically for the PS2, and with the low-level programming skill seen in MGS2, will probably look better than most Cube games. --Golbez 22:52, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it's endlessly debatable, and adds little - and after all, it's a long time since outward size could be considered an indicator of compuational power. - IMSoP 23:04, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The GameCube is not lame! I have a GameCube in my house and other people say it's cool! I have a friend who owns one. WikiPediaAid

Gamecube has really good games, but PS2's are probably "more powerful". 203.208.88.138 29 June 2005 07:06 (UTC)

The GameCube is more powerful than the PS2. Compare the technical specifications listed on each system's appropriate page. The GameCube, for example, has a 485 MHz processor, whereas the PS2 has a 294 MHz processor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xizer (talk • contribs) .

There is no doubt that the GameCube is more powerful than the PS2. However, it depends upon whether a developer is willing to take advantage of the GameCube's capabilities, or just do a simpler PS2-to-GameCube port. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.130.165 (talk • contribs) .

---

In addition to the removal of the digital video output, the second serial port has been eliminated. The door is no longer labeled as such and no connector exists in the compartment.

Warning: incoming game.

Is it true that the system was named after a plot element of the CG animated TV series ReBoot? --Damian Yerrick 03:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. Probably because after they designed it someone said it looked like a Cube and they decided to work it in to the title. K1Bond007 05:32, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

I only saw a couple episodes of Reboot, so I only have a vague idea of wht you guys are talking about, but the original patent mentioned the name "Starcube" so most likely they just replaced "Star" with "Game". Deathawk 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Eternal Darkness as a Third Party Title

Silicon Knights was under a second-party license at the time, so it's inaccurate to call ED "third party"

Fixed. I made the title 2nd and 3rd party then made a few other changes. K1Bond007 15:52, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Star Fox as a third-party title.

From the article:

"The Nintendo GameCube software library contains such traditional Nintendo series as Super Mario, Star Fox, The Legend of Zelda, and Metroid."

Why is Star Fox listed as a third-party title then? --A.J. 15:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Star Fox is hardly as traditional a series as the others, and was made by a 2nd party company, so it probably should not be mentioned there. --Golbez 16:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess it's there because it was originally developed by Miyamoto, but it's no longer a flagship first-party series. Rare was still second party when Adventures came out though, no? --Tothebarricades.tk 16:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's not fair to present some of these titles (the two Starfox, Donkey Konga, F-Zero GX, Wario World and even perhaps Eternal Dakrness) as third-party or even second-party. Nintendo still fully own the rights to these games and they publish them, it's their intellectual property, they are just developed by others, plus, Nintendo often have a strong creative input in the process, with team members of the original game overseeing the development. I think the distinction should be made more clearly. Perhaps by spliting the first-party titles into two groups, the ones developed by Nintendo's own teams and the ones from outside teams. -- sanjuro

Star Fox Adventures was the last game developed by Rareware before becoming part of Microsoft. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.216.231.214 (talk • contribs) .

Plus, Star Fox Armada was made by Namco, a third-party. 82.35.69.110 20:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Some sales balance please.

Its a very Anglo-American view that the gamecube was a failure in terms of overall sales. While it did not sell as well as the Xbox in the US and the UK, the Xbox utterly failed in Japan and was not quite as successful as the cube in other parts of the world.

I've not had the recent stats of it, but for most of the cube and xbox's shelf life, the overall world sales placed the cube as the second biggest selling console and xbox third. Of course, these are both dwarfed in sales by the PS2, but still it is against the common belief, possibly sourced by Microsoft fans, that the cube has had dismal sales. Of course, this does not apply to other software sales, I believe the Xbox owner is more likely to pick up FIFA 2006 than a cube owner, if indeed they don't own both consoles and pick one format because of network support.

So this might be worth mentioning as part of the balance of views... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.112.172.10 (talk • contribs) .

On the other hand, considering that the GameCube debuted at a significantly cheaper price than both the PS2 and Xbox, coming in third in the US-EU market did not make it a success. In addition, it was well known that Nintendo had to cut production to sell off console surpluses, and that several third publishers dropped support for the GameCube due to poor sales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.130.165 (talk • contribs) .

Very Subjective view on UMD

"The GameCube proprietary disc is very similar to the PSP's UMD disc format, although it precedes it by several years, another idea of Nintendo's stolen by Sony." Is this really necessary, a simple comparision between the two formats possibly, but to say that the idea was stolen is stretching the imagination a little I feel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.217.190.71 (talk • contribs) .

I thought that the GameCube's disc is a mini DVD, the small size making it proprietary enough to discourage pirates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.130.165 (talk • contribs) .

Further support that the Cube disc is a mini DVD; the Qube (the limited Panasonic GameCube that can play DVDs). At the time in 2001, there were *no* other major DVD formats on the market yet and the UMD, Blu-ray, and HD-DVD were light years away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.130.165 (talk • contribs) .

Spelling?

I don't know about anyone else, but I've always seen it spelled "Gamecube" on websites, magazines, and forums. If anyone has a problem with this, just revert it back, but "GameCube" just looks strange to me (because I've seen it spelled differently so often)... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.125.142 (talk • contribs) .

I did revert it back. Twice now. Also, go to www.nintendo.com, and you'll see that they refer to it as "GameCube". From the "Don't Miss Out" section in the lower central area of the front page: "Reserve Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness Get a custom Nintendo GameCube skin!" --Golbez 18:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know now. I apologize for being stupid and editing the page without checking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.125.142 (talk • contribs) .

Pressure sensitive joystick?

"The left stick is pressure sensitive, and games such as Super Mario Sunshine exploit this to good effect."

Is this true? I've owned a Gamecube since launch day, I've completed Super Mario Sunshine, and this is the first I've heard of it. Foolish Mortal 20:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe by "pressure sensitive", it simply means "analog"? --Golbez 00:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"pressure sensitive" is what makes the gamecube controller seem tighter than the PS2's. If you press the controller harder/faster in one direction the game can take note of it.--Jedi6 16 October 2005

I've never noticed this effect. --Golbez 00:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I've noticed it either, although this isn't the first place I've heard it mentioned (and I'm not really the kind of person who notices things like these, anyway). To be absolutely fair, however, the Dual Shock 2 also features pressure sensitive analog sticks: every button on the pad is pressure sensitive except for "start" and "select." I'd need to do more digging, but I really would not be surprised if the Xbox controller was setup in a similar fashion. This seems to be a fairly standard feature, these days. – Seancdaug 01:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the stick, you're confusing pressure with analog. Yes, the more you move the stick the faster you go, but what this is saying that the FASTER you move the stick matters too. Like, if I jerk the stick up, it has a distinct effect from slowly moving it up. However, I don't see how this is HARDWARE based, since software could figure that out just the same. So I would say it's not pressure sensitive since that's a software solution, not hardware. --Golbez 02:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Marketing

"In addition, Nintendo does not lose money on each sale of a GameCube, whereas Sony and Microsoft both lose money on every PS2 or Xbox sold" - Is it me or does that sound extremely dubious?? Is there any hard evidence to prove this otherwise I suggest removing it or rewording it at least. How can sony explain their profit margin on playstation sales if this we're the case? Jamie 16:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

They make the money on software. However, I'm not sure if these numbers are accurate; while few consoles make a profit on the console itself, I don't think many are sold at a pure loss. An industry source is required for this fact. --Golbez 17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Microsoft does lose money while Nintendo earns money. Sony used to lose money but they have mass produced the console to a point where they make a little money(not as much as Nintendo though)-Jedi6 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jedi6 (talk • contribs) .

The current trend is to lose money on the console, while more than making it back through software. In fact, before price cuts, it was estimated that each manufacturer could lose at least $100 USD per console sold and even more in the case of the Xbox. In Nintendo's case, given the price of components with equivalent power (considering the Cube has more advanced components over the PS2) and considering that the Cube sells for less than the PS2, this suggests that Nintendo's loss could be greater. On the other hand, what cuts the price of the Cube is the lack of DVD support (no licensing fees) which would reduce manufacturing costs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.130.165 (talk • contribs) .

Uhh, no. Nintendo built the GameCube from the ground-up to be more cost-effective to produce than Sony or Microsoft did with their systems. Lack of DVD support also helps reduce manufacturing costs.

Nintendo might have made their console more efficient but they could not have profited from selling the Cube alone. It didn't matter much, since all 3 were losing money when the price wars happened and those started in 2002, less than 6 months after all 3 consoles were released. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.130.165 (talk • contribs) .

P.S.: Quit adding that POV paragraph to the article. Xizer 04:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

That is not a POV paragraph, it goes into detail why the Cube was less than successful by most standards. Omitting that section would give a false impression that the Cube was a top console alongside the PS2. The Xbox and Dreamcast articles has similar paragraphs that explains their lack of success, although the Xbox and Cube were not failures in the sense that the Dreamcast was. The only truly successful console out of this generation would be the PS2; while the others had their rough share of bumps and thus could not come close to the PS2 in popularity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.130.165 (talk • contribs) .

That paragraph is not fact, it is opinion. It should remain out of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xizer (talk • contribs) .

That paragraph is fact. Looking at the top-ten games sales charts for EA and other cross-platform games, the PS2 and Xbox versions made the list but not the GameCube. Hitman 2: Silent Assasin was planned for the Cube but it was later dropped. If you believe that the GameCube was a big success, the sales figures show otherwise. Finally, the Xbox and Dreamcast articles have similar critical paragraphs about their failings, so what makes the GameCube special enough not to have an equivalent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.25.130.165 (talk • contribs) .

Well, considering the fact it's sold over 20 million systems, and has made Nintendo billions of dollars, the GameCube cannot be equated to a failure. You want a failure of a console? Look at the Jaguar or 3DO. Handheld? Look at the N-Gage. The GameCube is simply not comparable to these systems. I rest my case. Xizer 05:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you look at market share, the N64 managed to capture 40% to the Playstation's 51%. Sony's lead has increased in the next generation with the PS2 selling 90 million while the GameCube and Xbox each sold around 20 million systems (15% each). Xbox and GameCube aren't close in wielding the clout that the N64 could. I would admit that failure is a harsh term to look at each system but we can't exactly consider them successes either since Nintendo was accustomed to being at the top (or second) just before the GameCube launch and since Microsoft spent a lot of money. Perhaps mediocre is the best compromise.

The lack of mature games compared to the PS2 and Xbox was a reason why the GameCube wound up third in the US-British market. The top sellers most holiday seasons were the Grand Theft Auto and Halo series. Although Nintendo might have been trying to present a unique experience with console exclusive games, the US market was moving towards mature and online games and that is where the GameCube fell short.

At the same time, I explain that the growing video game market does allow Nintendo to survive despite its small market share. A 15% share during the Dreamcast's time was not enough to save Sega's hardware business, but a few years later the GameCube's 15% was able to keep Nintendo in the competition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

I count at least 50 titles with a "Mature" rating on the GameCube. Lack of mature titles? Hardly. Look who got RE4 10 months early. Look who got BMX XXX...the uncensored version. Certainly not the PS2. Xizer 06:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Even if there were mature titles and sports games on the GameCube, they didn't sell anywhere as well as their PS2 and Xbox counterparts. Lack of online play for EA Sports and Ghost Recon was perhaps a big problem, but mainstream gamers who planned to play such games went straight for the PS2 or Xbox and without considering the GameCube. Being bypassed by the top-selling Grand Theft Auto series was a sure sign that the GameCube wasn't for mature audiences. Yes there was RE4 but it generated far less attention and sales than GTA and some said that it would have sold far better if it was on PS2. And BMX XXX was a poor game overall and even the controversy didn't lift its low sales. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

Well, I'm over 18, and I enjoy my GameCube. I'm considered a "mature" audience. Therefore, your argument is nullified. Xizer 20:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The majority, and a big majority of the mature gaming audience went straight for the PS2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

I don't care what the majority did. Your statement was that the GameCube wasn't for mature audiences. If even just one individual who is considered a "mature audience" enjoys the GameCube, then that statement instantly becomes wrong. Xizer 23:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Xizer, one major flaw in your argument is that you are considering yourself to be a member of the "mature audience." Just because you claim you are, doesn't make it a fact. Even if you were correct in your assessment, one individual would merely be an exception to the rule. Dionyseus 07:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Intervening in this dispute

I notice that this page was listed on WP:RFPP, and I'd like it if someone could fill me in on what's going on. I understand we have an NPOV dispute over the success or lack thereof of the Gamecube? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There is an arguement over what info. should be in a paragraph. One group(with User:GoldDragon) keep reverting to a paragraph that says the gamecube failed due to it being too kiddie. The other group(with User: Xizer) revert to a paragraph that downgrades the gamecube's failure. Originally this was an arguement between several people but now its just Xixer and GoldDragon. They need to stop constantly reverting each other's edits(an almost daily thing) and let everyone find a group consense or a compromise. --User:Jedi6 31 October 2005

I would appreciate a group compromise. Calling the system a "failure" is completely unneccessary. A system that has sold over 20 million units is hardly a failure. The GameCube has not died early like the Dreamcast, third parties have not dropped support (there are still 50 games scheduled to come out, and probably 50 more in development), and Nintendo has not been losing money on it. In fact, Nintendo has made millions of dollars, possibly even billions, off of the sales of GameCube systems and games. Looking at Nintendo's financial records, they've always made a profit (except one fiscal quarter, I believe).

I would admit that failure is on the harsh side and I am in the works to remove that term since it lumps it into the category of Panasonic 3DO and Atari Jaguar.

On the other hand, it wasn't an issue of whether Nintendo was making money, but whether it was making the money that analysts expected of it. Selling below expectations and issuing profit warnings means that Nintendo was not doing as well their strategy had dictated. Overall, the GameCube is probably below expectations, rather than a failure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2291391.stm

http://it.asia1.com.sg/newsdaily/news004_20031004.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

Stating that the GameCube survived because it is aimed for individuals "10 or under" is pure nonsense. We don't know the age demographics of the GameCube, but it's sold well to children, teenagers, and adults alike.

It also gives the notion that all cross-platform games sell worst on the GameCube, which is also untrue. Soul Calibur II sold the most on the GameCube, even though it was available for the PS2 and Xbox. Most Sega games which are released for the GameCube and other systems sell better on the GameCube.

However, most of the most popular cross-platform games such as EA's many sports franchises sold by far the best on the PS2 and Xbox. A top ten when NCAA football was released showed that the GameCube version was nowhere in the top ten unlike its PS2 and Xbox counterparts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

Well no shit, Sherlock. I was stating that not all cross-platform games sold worst on the GameCube. I'm well aware of the fact that sports games do terribly on the GCN. This is because GameCube owners are likely more intelligent. Sports games suck. Xizer 03:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, another thing incorrect with GoldDragon's edits, he states that Eidos has cancelled support for the GameCube. This is completely untrue. Looking at their list, you can see that Eidos released a game for the GCN just this year, and another one is currently in development for the system. THQ also has GameCube titles in development.

Stating the GameCube was generally unsuccessful in breaking into the mainstream market is complete and utter bullcrap - selling only 2 million units less than the Xbox obviously means it is in the mainstream market, although admittedly a little less than the Xbox and PS2. Xizer 05:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think a significant issue here is that the GameCube's performance outside Japan has been somewhat lackluster, at least when compared to the success of PS2 and Xbox. In Japan, however, GameCube is a major player with sales that far surpass those of Xbox. This article, while not terribly recent, illustrates the trend over there rather nicely. Also, this other article is a clear indication that the GameCube is an uncontested financial overall success. It may not sell as much as the PS2 does, but that certainly doesn't make it a failure; Nintendo is definitely turning a serious profit here. (It's worth noting that the console's sales have declined during the past year, even in Japan, but it's nonetheless clearly not a failure.)

I think that a contributor to this general misconception that the console is a failure is that Microsoft and Sony are both eager to make a lot of noise about their products and successes, whereas Nintendo tends to be, well, more quiet. In any case, an assertion that the GameCube is a failure is simply incorrect, as is the claim that it's a system designed for children. (For example, the hugely successful Resident Evil 4 (rated "M" for "mature" under ESRB originally came out for the GameCube, and was only recently published for PS2. And according to this very article, the system has 45 "M" rated games and 204 "Teen" rated games available for it. Surely that alone is a clear indication that the system is not designed or marketed specifically for children.) -- Captain Disdain 05:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell me if any of these points are controversial. Feel free to add your commentary indented below each of them. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• The GC is primarily, but not exclusively, marketed to a younger audience.

The GameCube is not marketed towards a younger audience, it is marketed toward everyone - kids and adults. Nintendo tries to make available a wide selection of games. This is also reflected when Nintendo offers three console colors to chose from. You can see from games Nintendo produces, such as Metroid Prime, that they don't just produce kid-friendly titles. Super Mario Sunshine is certainly not kid-friendly - that game can be quite difficult. Nintendo even allowed BMX XXX to be uncensored on their system - the PS2 version was censored. Why would a kiddy company allow this? Xizer 18:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

How is this incompatible with the language "primarily, but not exclusively"? This is largely by contrast with the Xbox and PS2, who have largely been characterized by games aimed at a generally older audience. I don't want to score any "The GC is/isn't kiddie" points; this isn't GAF, and I don't have any vested interest, here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops)

Then again, relative to the PS2 and Xbox, the GC is more marketed to a younger audience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

Nintendo has always targetted the family. Not kids, the family. According to the Console wars article, Sony targetted exclusively the teenager audience. So, it was the Sony and the buyers of Sony products that began labeling Nintendo as a kiddy console. Branding the console as targetted towards kids is taking the posture of Sony, which is biased since they are competing. However, stating that the GameCube is targetted towards the family is just a natural statement in order with Nintendo philosophy(sp?). -- ReyBrujo 13:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• The GC has been successful in Japan, but is the least successful of the three consoles in North America.

This is true, but to call it a failure in North America is simply incorrect. It's sold millions in North America, and has a dedicated following. If you want an example of a console failure, see the Atari Jaguar, or for an example of a handheld failure, see the N-Gage. Something is only a failure when it has not made the company any profit - this is not the case with Nintendo. Xizer 18:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't read too much into my comments. I wasn't arguing that it was a failure, and I think "failure" is inappropriate language save in clear-cut cases. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Successis not the issue of whether Nintendo was merely selling millions and making a profit. It is whether Nintendo sold to expectations, which it did not. So see the profit warning Nintendo issued in 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.205.241.145 (talk • contribs) .

• The most successful games have been Nintendo's own games.

Yes indeed, this is true. Nintendo is known for quality games, that's why people buy their systems. Third party games are usually not up to par with Nintendo made games, that is why they don't sell as much. Xizer 18:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Then again, that reinforces the point that Nintendo had to rely upon first party games more heavily than the Xbox and PS2. GameCube owners were less likely to buy third party games (like EA, Ubisoft) unlike Xbox and PS2 owners. So the GameCube was less of a viable platform for third-party developers unlike the PS2 and Xbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

Nintendo is a console hardware and software developer. It is obvious they will make the best games for their own consoles. People wouldn't buy Nintendo consoles that came a year after the competence were not for the first party support. -- ReyBrujo 13:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is not appropriate to call the GC a "failure."

I agree with this statement. Xizer 18:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

That is no longer in dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

Since Xizer keeps repasting his paragraph, he keeps putting failure back in! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.205.241.145 (talk • contribs) .

As for the Eidos and THQ stuff, let's stick to what we can cite. Eidos hasn't cancelled GC support as far as I can recall, they've just sort of stopped making many games at all. I know Acclaim cancelled GC support before they went under. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

In the case of Eidos, dropping GameCube support (at least the 2003 press release) was because Eidos was also putting a half-hearted effort into developing for Nintendo by releasing titles a year after the PS2 and Xbox versions. (Perhaps, Eidos never formally dropped GameCube support completely for lower profile titles.) But whether it was due to poor game sales on the Cube, or Eidos putting a half-hearted effort, both aspects point to the same thing: Eidos didn't consider GameCube support a reliable source of income or a top priority, especially in 2003.

http://www.myxgames.com/news/Eidos-Drops-GameCube-Support/

http://cube.ign.com/articles/436/436915p1.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

Eidos now supports the GameCube, and so does THQ, so those do not belong in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xizer (talk • contribs) .

Eidos is still only half-heartedly supporting the GameCube, so that was the point why GoldDragon included that 2003 announcment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.205.241.145 (talk • contribs) .

Eidos is very half-heartedly making games at this point. I think it's reasonable to mention the public withdrawal of GC support, but with a note that they supported the GC again later. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Some quick notes: I will protect this page if anyone touches the "legacy" section again to do anything but fix typos or grammar. This edit warring is not appropriate, and rest assured that I will protect The Wrong Version.

Also, please sign your comments, by appending ~~~~ to the end of them. This conversation is very hard to follow because people aren't signing their comments. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

At least GoldDragon has made an effort to edit his section in accordance with the discussion, by moderating controversial points. Xixer still keeps throwing "failure" in even though he rejected it. Xixer is acting like a baby with comments such as "I'm well aware of the fact that sports games do terribly on the GCN. This is because GameCube owners are likely more intelligent." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.205.241.145 (talk • contribs) .

Well, I don't know who this Xixer fellow is, but boy howdy what a fascinating couple of sentences you've written there. Xizer 06:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we please can the sarcasm and sign all comments? This is not GAF or IGN, so please stop taking potshots at each other, even if you disagree strongly with another person's actions or comments. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I {{subst:unsigned}} most of the paragraphs I could guess, and realigned some paragraphs. This should make the discussion a bit clearer. -- ReyBrujo 13:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

(Quoted from Xizer) "The GameCube has online support - third parties just don't utilize it. GCN's online support is exactly like the PS2's."

No the gamecube does lack online support. They don't readily sell the broadband adapter or modem at stores. They themselves don't support online games. For the PS2 all games happen at a central place. For the gmaecube every developer would have to make their own online program seperate from everyone else.--User:Jedi6 11-04-2005

Uhh, no. Just no. The PS2's online support is the responsibility of the developer/publisher's. They have to program it, set up servers, and make sure everything is compatible. Sony doesn't help with anything. Microsoft's Xbox Live is what is central, with all online games running in a massive server farm owned by Microsoft. Nintendo's online service is exactly like Sony's. For some reason, third parties don't support Nintendo's online service, though.

The Broadband Adapter IS readily available. Nintendo sells it on their website, I've seen it at Wal-Mart before, and a few months ago I bought one from EB Games. Nintendo hasn't developed any online games themselves, but that doesn't mean third parties can't. Xizer 03:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is true that PlayStation 2 and GameCube are similar technically in their online setup. However, I believe that Sony did not just sit around and wait for developers to make online games; Sony perhaps provided incentives to get third parties to support online. As well, strong sales of multiplayer games on the PS2 and Xbox definitely made online versions viable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs) .

Second and Third Party Titles

We need to keep this list to major titles. Billy Hatcher didn't do well enough commercially nor was it critically enclaimed or a big title. We shouldn't list every major sonic title so I say we only keep the two that sold over 1 million units(Sonic Adventure 2 Battle and Sonic Mega Collection). These two games are in the top ten best selling cube games. Sonic Heroes and Sonic Adventure only sold half as much and Sonic Heroes is multiplatform. If we include these we will have to include fifty other games.--User:Jedi6 11-1-2005

Wow, lots of errors there. Sonic Adventure 2 and Sonic Mega Collection are both multiplatform. EA Sports games is a general statement, but there are no games from them that are exclusive. Eternal Darkness is up there, but it didn't sell well. Soul Calibur 2 is multiplatform. The point is, there is no really specific criteria for that list. Xizer 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Games that sold well, were critically acclaimed or were part of a major decision/support for the cube are major titles. These are some rough guidelines. EA sports is a major support for the Nintendo console since they didn't have them for the 64. Eternal Darkness is highly acclaimed as one of the best cube games. Sonic Adventure 2 and Mega Collections are in the top ten best selling cube games and two of the few cube games to sell over a million in America. Also Sonic Adventure 2 signified sonic on the cube which was a big event since Sonic and Mario had been rivals. These games effected many people's decision to buy the gamecube. While they are good games(I own them all) Gems collection hasn't sold that well(less than 100,000), sonic hereos and Sonic Adventure DX didn't sell as well nor were they as big of releases.--User:Jedi6 11-02-2005

Also Billy Hatcher didn't do well commercially or critically. We don't want the list to go on for ever. Its just suppose to be a little tidbit. So lets keep only the top few in for the Sonic franchise.--User:Jedi6 11-02-2005

Ahh, very well then. I shall settle with these titles being removed. However, there is one thing incorrect with your statement. According to GameFAQs...EA Sports released an assload of games on the Nintendo 64. See this: EA Sports Developed Games Ctrl-F: Nintendo 64. I also own a few EA Sports games for the 64 personally. Xizer 23:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Your right there was EA games on the 64 there just were not many nor were they consistant.--User:Jedi6 11-02-2005

I count 18. Not many? 18 titles isn't too shabby. Also, there was a Madden title yearly. That's consistant. Xizer 02:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This Article Needs A Huge Revamp

It needs a full list, or at least a partial list of launch titles. I seem to remember that there were 18 launch titles, I personally bought Super Smash Brothers: Melee and Star Wars Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron II at launch. It also needs an estimated total sales figures for the three largest gaming markets, the US, the UK, and Japan. The Dreamcast article has their respective sales figures, the Gamecube article needs one too. Dionyseus 12:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Super Smash Bros. Melee was not a launch title. Estimated total sales figures are not available. And launch titles are needed. Xizer 04:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Winning"

Language that refers to "winning" is not acceptable. I will rewrite this myself if necessary, but I wanted to give the people more directly involved a chance to fix it their own way. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sales figures

Xizer, I don't think it was necessary for you to remove VederJuda's revision of the sales figures and calling them "crap," as the source Gamespot.com is as reputable as they come. Anyways, I have found Nintendo's 2005 financial report, and I have included their sales figure for the Gamecube in the article, coincidently they agree with Gamespot.com's numbers too. I just read a bit of the earlier discussions here, and it seems you are way too defensive of the Gamecube, hopefully this does not mean you will continue to remove essential facts from our article. Dionyseus 07:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Launch titles

I changed the titles since they were incorrect. Tarzan got pushed up here [1] and everything else got pushed back.--User:Jedi6 18 November 2005

Selling Price

The article makes it clear that the GameCube was/is cheaper than its main rivals but no where is it mentioned what price it typically retailed/retails at. Some indication would be nice just in case, I don't know, someone happened to be looking at secondhand machines wondering what kind of savings could be made ... Cfailde 17:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The gamecube started at $199, then went to $167, then $149 and finally $99 which it is at now.--User:Jedi6 21 November 2005

Burnout 3

Jedi6, are you sure? I heard differently. Do you have a source for yours? --ChunkyKong12345 23:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I remember Matt saying it from IGN. As for an official source, EA never said why it was cancelled.--User:Jedi6 November 28, 2005

POV issues

I just want to point out a tendency in this article for the authour(s) to make some comment like "Some games use this feture quite well" or "The controler fits quite well in a persons hand" although subtle these are POV issues that probobly should be fixed. Deathawk 19:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well that is debatable. Saying something like "Gamecube controller is the best" would violate POV. But saying "The controler fits quite well in a persons hand" is saying more that the controller works well. That is not really an opinion but a fact that the controller is not bad.-- User:Jedi6 December 3, 2005

These are not POV issues, the GameCube controller was molded to fit your hands. You'll notice when holding it it is curved to fit the average person's hand comfortably. Xizer 02:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

User:GoldDragon and Fanboy POV

Extreme caution with this guy. He is engaged in many other videogames articles inserting distosive Market POV infos like in PlayStation 2 and Xbox. He already is trying to deface Ken Kutaragi article with extensive POV. He owns a very POV-linguistic in their editions and ever try to minimize the competitors of Microsoft Xbox. He loves a same-source RedHerring [2] and to push POV opnions about the market using this link, as to compare Q4 videogames company performances with a Microsoft Corporation profits. I think put this warning here help the Nintendo community to deal with him, because I acquired a lot of experience with this type of Fanboy. --Brazil4Linux 02:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You and GoldDragon seem to have some significant differences. I've looked at your dispute, and I don't see a significant level of bias on his part. I think you two need to seek out some dispute resolution, as your constant edit/revert wars are becoming detrimental to Wikipedia. --Doom127 12-05-2005

Dear "User:Doom127"

1. You are New User with minor edits;
2. You don't have a User Page;
3. You're engaged with GoldDragon in Ken Kutaragi and Talk:Ken Kutaragi to enforce Reverts;

A very, very suspicious Sockpuppet.

I tried to assume good faith with you GoldDragon, but this isn't possible nomore. You're a extreme bad faith Fanboy engaged in POV opnions in Wikipedia. I'm tired to dispute this with you and I'm engaged in Revert in your vandalism editions. --Brazil4Linux 12:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the same junk you posted on the Kutaragi page. Thus, it deserves the same response. "New User"? "Minor Edits"? You have GOT to be kidding me. I've been a user since August, and I've put forth no less than 60 contributions during that period of time on various subjects. I agree with Dragon on various subjects (such as the fact that someone who OPENLY states that everyone should hate Microsoft cannot hold an impartial point of view). Don't drag me into this fight, but don't also expect me just to stand by and let you accuse everyone who doesn't conform to your point of view of being a Sock Puppet. I'm hereby assuming Bad Faith on every edit YOU do, and am going to be watching your contributions very carefully in the future. --Doom127

Doom127 is not a sockpuppet of mine. Doom127 predates me as a registered user and Doom actually removed a segment (Sony profits and price wars) from the PS2 page that I had supported (although I'm not happy about it, I will discuss). What is clear, however, is that Brazil4Linux has some clear anti-American and anti-Microsoft bias as he clearly admited on the Ken Kuturagi talk page. Not only is B4L's "Fanboy" attacks against me lacking in substance, it is used so commonly that it has become irrelevant. --GoldDragon 20:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I will watch the GameCube article since we already had long and nasty edit war, which was resolved to the satisfaction of both sides. --GoldDragon 21:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion

After looking at both versions I have to mostly agree with GoldDragon's version. The problem with Brazil4Linux's version is that it uses statements like "which are all family-friendly" and "which the "hardcore" gaming market was not interested in". These statements are opinion and violate the POV rule. Jedi6 03:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Good job with your "compromise edit", Jedi. Hopefully this could possibly end this ugly situation that's cropped up and bring a little bit of peace back to Wikipedia. Remember everyone, that the spirit of Wiki isn't hostile revert wars and such, but a positive community effort. --Doom127