Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo GameCube Clone Out In Japan
Jon F writes: "I saw this picture on Yahoo! today, it looks like Nintendo decided to license out the GameCube to Panasonic to make a clone. It's a hybrid DVD player/GameCube that came out in Toyko today. The only other article I came across about this was on IGN a few months ago. It has a mirrored surface and trippy purple lights on the controller port." Gaming guts (and purple bits) aside, this is one of the nicest-looking DVD players I've seen. Update: 11/01 23:50 GMT by T : As several readers have pointed out, this looks like just a tease for now, but will be out (in Japan) next month.
This is definatly something unique in the Console gaming market. It makes a lot of sense to do it as well. Console manufacturers have been losing money on the consoles themselves in order to gain marketshare, hoping to make bank on the games they play. Setting the cost on a 3rd party makes for good economics. Nintendo still makes money off of licenses and games, but is not responsible for losing money on the consoles!
This seems like a fantastic idea for Nintendo. Rather than placing all their bets on their ability to produce enough hardware, market to a large enough population, get it in front of enough eyeballs, etc., they're spreading the liability of this kind of venture out.
Imagine if Sony had done the same thing with the PS2 last year. They might have been able to meat christmas production demands, rather than creating an artificial shortage.
Nintendo is banking on licensees sharing in the impact of the GameCube's success or failure.
They make money from the other company making the product via licensing and game console makers usually break even or lose money on each console unit sold when they make it themseleves.
I think it's the future for games consoles. I know I'd sure buy one of these, but I'd see it first and foremost as a DVD player rather than a games console.
...this is getting out of hand
Will this version of the GC be available when the regular one is? If it IS available it would probably cause me to buy the GC instead of the XBox (depending on how the consumer version turns out) or PS2. I initially wanted the GC (Nintendo makes quality systems, not to mention quality GAMES) but the lack of a DVD player threw me a little. With the DVD on...
No sig for you.
This isn't the first time Nintendo have licensed their hardware to another company.
Back in the SNES days, there was a TV that had SNES hardware built into it - it looked just like a normal TV, except it had two controller ports at the bottom, and a compartment at the top to put carts in.
There are other non-commercial SNES clones as well, such as the in-flight games on Singapore Airlines and the in-room entertainment at some hotels.
If anything, Nintendo is weary of not being open to partners - after all, the PlayStation only came about after Nintendo shunned Sony from making a CD-Rom addon for the SNES!
For those interested, the Japanese release date is Dec 14th.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
From: http://www.dvdgame.jp:
On-sale 12/14, Retail price 39,800 yen (at 110 yen per dollar, roughly $350)
According to http://www.dvdgame.jp/product/index.html, the main feature is really the DVD player and the new looks... they are listed as:
1) Compatable with the Nintendo Game Cube
2) The timer function helps you keep track of play-time. (laf, more like helps parents keep track of kids)
3) CD, DVD playback
4) A handy remote control for CD, DVD playback
5) "ABCD" (Advanced surround, Bass plus, Cinema mode, Dialogue enhancer) features for DVD playback.
6) Dolby Digital/DTS Fiber Out
Advanced surround = 2-speaker emulation of 5.1 dolby digital
Bass plus = the ability to add a subwoofer from a dedicated subwoofer output
Cinema mode = filters put in place to not make the TV screen appear too jaggedy during DVD playback. (shrug, I never knew this was a problem)
Dialogue Enhancer - enhances the center channel on DVD audio tracks where there is no center channel present. This allows you to hear dialogue clearly, even at night, without upsetting your neighbors. (ha, quite useful in Japan..)
They have a pretty darn big picture here -- enjoy.
To the person who asked about the price... In Japan, the Nintendo Game Cube is 25,000 yen (at 110 yen per dollar, roughly $225)...
The "Q", coming in at $350, is a big jump... While I understand the desire to get the added feature of a DVD player, this only makes sense if you only have one TV. The moment you have/get a 2nd TV, you're far better off with a GameCube and a DVD -- seperately...
(much like the DVD player + computer argument... you can't effectively use both at the same time)
I found it amusing that Nintendo's site has an ad for the "Q"... Yeah, it's in Japanese, but check out the middle of this page...
http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ngc/index.html
This is definatly something unique in the Console gaming market.
The only reason that this is "unique" in the (current) market is that 3DO tried it years ago and failed miserably.
3D0 was a very brilliantly engineered piece of hardware. IIRC, it had ability to play VCDs (not DVDs, but those weren't out yet), along with 32-bit and the new released 64-bit M2 games, at a very high framerate. They just got beat down by the PlayStation, and you never heard much of them when M2 never really took off. It was slightly too "niche" to be mainstream, and relatively expensive, but very high quality.
JKoebel
Can I get the nifty "Desk and Elbow" skin they're using on the demo model?
That looks like it rocks.
--Blair
You apparently missed that whole 4 people having fun with Goldeneye-Mario Party-Mario Kart thing. Too bad. Made a lot of friends with people who aren't excited by cartoon characters that are about pump action shotguns and cleavage.
Oh, and Grand Tourismo sucks. It always will, no matter how many versions. It is never fun obsessing about car decals and shock absorbers when you should be racing with four of your friends AT THE SAME TIME... WITHOUT TWO SEPERATE MACHINES AND TWO SEPERATE TELEVISIONS.
I may be a Nintendo fanboy, but I even thought that the mighty Metal Gear on Playstation had some gameplay issues... mostly not being able to see more than 3 feet without using a "look" button. What a horrible design.
I would suggest Commandos 2 instead of Metal Gear anything.
"Attack of the Cubes"
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
Though I do think it's a great idea and I'd love to see it take off. The gamecube/washing machine should really help take the dull off of doing my laundry.
This won't hurt Nintendo's sales at all. They licensed rights to produce GameCube compatible HARDWARE, not software. All official GameCube games still must be distributed through Nintendo..
And when it comes to hardware, Nintendo LOSES money on every sale of the GameCube, which is completely standard for the console business. They make up the losses (and then some) on the cut of software sales they take from every game (even the 3rd party games).
Actually the more likely reason Nintendo is avoiding DVDs (as they avoided CD-ROMS previously) is to make it more difficult to pirate GameCube games.
History has shown that any console system that uses standard media is easily hacked and pirate games can be distributed. While its true that non-standard formats like Dreamcast's GDROM and Nintendo's own cartridge formats are also piratable, the amount of knowledge and/or effort required to do so is generally much higher.
E3. They had it up front at the NOA booth. The US version does not have lights on it, but hey according to the Nintendo spokesperson it is supposed to have DTS and Dolby 5.1. Here is a picture I took of it:
http://www.dn3dgamer.com/e3/MISC/MVC-002F_3.JPG
Both are similar to the old SGI cube logo. Just as Debian's logo is very similar to the Dreamcast's....
Logos tend to come and go in cyclical fads... One year its cubes, the next swirls, the next triangles....
No big deal.
Everytime a thread on Slashdot takes place about gaming consoles, 5-6 people get scores of 3-5 (insightful) for pointing out that game makes lose money on the hardware to sell the software.
This gets mentioned frequently, and 3DO is mentioned as an example of what happens when they don't do that.
I've always been wondering, do we really know that this is true? Has anyone any financial data to prove this?
If there is some proof, can the Slashdot editors include this information in each posting, so those of us browsing at higher thresholds don't see half the posts with this insightful fact?
I also don't really buy this theory. I mean, how much can the licensing fee be for each $50 game? Also, in an age of video game rentals, how many games does the average console owner own?
I mean, if you figure that the average game now sells for $50, the store pays AT MOST $35 for the game. The distributer probably picks it up for $25 (so the BIG stores get the bigger margins, no separate distributers). This leaves $25 to be split among the maker and the console. I can't imagine that the license is more than $5. Maybe it is $10? That would explain WHY Nintendo and (until recently) Sega made systems, $5-$10/game is a nice margin, plus they get the revenue for the author when they sell their own games.
Let's figure that the average console owner owns 10 games/console (that seems REALLY high BTW, I owned 30-50 NES games, but they were mostly the original $30 games, and their weren't rentals in the early NES days), plus rents enough games to result in the local store stocking an extra 10 games. This is 20 games/console, at $10/game, yielding $200 in licensing.
Now, how much of that licensing is Nintendo or Sony willing to spend subsidizing the hardware?
I had always heard that the stores make little margin on the systems (not a loss, but a trivial profit) and make their money on the games/peripherals. This makes more sense, as they trade a little bit of store space to get the margins on the games. The games are good for toy stores, as the space/product is minimal compared to real toys and the prices are high.
However, the console maker subsidzing the hardware (more than a trivial fee) seems absurd. I mean, MAYBE the launch versions get subsidized, but given the demand (preorders, unavailability for 2-3 months), why would they subsidize sales when they could clearly move the units at cost or above cost. Now, I could see subsidizing post-launch consoles to move sales, but manufacturing costs should go down over time, allowing the prices to drop (which they do) or the profits on consoles to increase.
Now, I COULD buy that the console makers sell the machines at cost. This would result in a subsidy of the "fixed" costs (R&D, setting up manufacturing process), but still, this wouldn't be real. As the costs go down (consoles stay on the market for 5 years, electronics go down tremendously in 5 years, but consoles rarely drop THAT significantly in price... i.e. a $300 console may drop to $200, but the manufacturing costs 2 years out should be half the initial costs), maybe they recover the initial subsidies?
I mean, the common Slashdot belief that the 3DO was $700 because of no subsidies and needing a profit, while the $200-$300 consoles are sold at a loss is ABSURD. That implies a $400-$500/console subsidy (or $200-$300 with an extra $200 in profit for 3DO makes), which would result in assinine losses.
In computers, processors are sold at a premium when new, but moved at lower prices after R&D is recovered and Intel was traditionally trying to move more units. This is simple price discrimination, not a value judgement on valid profits.
I mean, maybe you sell consoles at a loss to create a software market. Then the software market creates a demand for the console which allows profits on the later consoles, but this subsidized hardware "theory" makes no economic sense.
Realize that 3rd generation games are planned AFTER the launch (first generation hit with the product launch or soon after, the second generation normally starts in after the first round are finished before launch, and the third generation don't start planning until 6-12 months of sales are known), so creating a demand by moving consoles allows third generations products to be made.
However, I'd like someone to either provide EVIDENCE of this subsidy, or at a MINIMUM some economic analysis to show WHY companies would do so. This simple assertion ("remember, consoles are sold at a loss") is neither insightful or useful.
Alex
P.S. Apologies for singling out one of the posts, this could apply to any of dozens of Slashdot posts on the subject.
It is only the most powerful game console in the world.
You're right, that's about all it is (and even then only on raw specs).
While I certainly wouldn't rule out a small amount of Slashdot's anti-MS bias regarding X-Box articles, the fact remains that for a lot of people, or rather gamers, the X-Box isn't the next big thing. The hype surrounding it may be huge, but it doesn't take much to start to see through it. It simply isn't that impressive.
- Also Sprach Doktor Merkwurdigliebe
This item has been in the works for some time. It was shown way back in May at E3 in Los Angeles and it hasn't changed at all. My guess it that it was part of Nintendo's original game plan for the GameCube. I just hope it still as the broadband connection for the future.
What I don't understand is if everyone (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft) sells these consoles as "loss leaders" then how can anyone make money selling clones? After all, isn't Nintendo going to be the only one making money on developer licenses for the GameCube?
Uhhh, I just wanna know why my posts get a 2 all the time now, even though I don't have the 'no score +1' box checkmarked...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Yeah yeah, different platforms altogether, but so are iMacs and PC's with iMac *like* cases (some of which were sued for only having an all in one form factor, not any translucent plastic, just looking like a monitor with a build in computer)...
I mean to an opportunistic lawyer, it could appear to look like a G4 Cube, and Apple could use the potential billions won in a lawsuit with Nintendo... Sure it sounds crazy, but it's happened before...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Put a shelf above the game cube in your rack... Since it's front loading, it won't cause a problem (unlike the Nintendo model, which is a top loader), and allows some room for you to stick your games nearby... Unless you have no rack to speak of (even rudimentary), then it should be easy to work around...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
If the XBox truly costs $375 in marginal costs, and they are selling it for $300, they are engaging in dumping. It is illegal to sell products under marginal cost in an attempt to monopolize the marget.
A combination of Microsoft leveraging Windows (the DirectX API), a monopoly, into establishing a new monopoly through market dumping, should make this a no brainer.
MS got away with IE on a technicality. Because software, as we all know, costs 0 to copy, MS was able to give IE away without engaging in dumping because the marginal cost was 0.
They did spend bandwith. However, as bandwith is a fixed cost (you pay $X for Y Mb/s), the marginal cost for the copies remains zero.
I don't know if the idea of selling below marginal cost to make up backend revenues matters, but the entire Microsoft practice smells of dumping.
They are using their cash reserves and selling below cost in an attempt to put Nintendo out of business (Nintendo is a games company!) and cause Sony to bleed red ink.
This seems like a plain approach of market dumping.
The interesting thing is, most publically traded corporations are stereotyped at looking at the quarterly returns. Microsoft Corporation is unique in that it DOES look out for the big picture. The successfully leverage their monopolies and cash reserves to "cut off the air supply" of their competitors.
If Microsoft is selling under marginal costs to establish marketshare and monopolize the market (where they can then jack up the licensing fees, etc.) this should be clear cut.
Are any of the lawyers on Slashdot around? Am I on the right track?
Alex
Okay, here goes. First, my (sort of) credentials: I was assistant manager for nearly 2 years at a mom & pop videogame store. I handled inventory, pricing, and ordering issues. The owner/manager pretty much just paid the taxes (and my paycheck).
First, the issue of profit on the unit:
When the PS1 came out, it cost $299. Sony WAS selling that unit at a loss. No question. My cost (to purchase one to re-sell at my store) was about $297. Unless I was willing to purchase LARGE quantities of units, my store actually lost money on selling the units (after we paid shipping).
Flash forward a few years, and the PS1 prices at, say, $129. Now, it still costs my store about $127. However, by this time, the fact that Sony is using (pretty much) the same equipment means that thier cost has dropped. They are actually turning a mild profit on each unit (maybe $10). Also keep in mind that this is the point in a console's lifetime when the majority of the supporters jump on board. This means that the greater numbers of people purchasing these units is outweighing the people who purchased them when it was a loss-leader.
Now for the game pricing issue.
Take your typical PS2 game, pricing at $50. Some are DVDs, some are CDs (it's up to the developer if they need the additional space). My store would have to pay approximately $42 for one of those games. We would order them from a distributor, who typically made $2/unit. So the total money going back to the publisher is $40/unit. That would allow Sony to charge anywhere from $10 to $15 a unit, and still leave a publisher with a very profitable unit.
Your estimation of ~10/person is a ways off. A not-so-hardcore gamer will purchase 10 games in the lifetime of the system. Assuming $10/game, that means $100 total to console manufacturer for licensing alone. Most gamers will purchase 15-20 games in the life of their console, and many will purchase 30-50. I can't tell you how many people I whom I saw on a nearly weekly basis in my store. There are quite a few folks who purchase the new sports games each year. So we can figure that maybe 20% of Sony's installed base is far-and-away exceeding the ~10 game estimate.
Now consider the issue of add-ons. A Dual Shock 2 PS2 controller retails for $35. That's pretty much the price you'll find everywhere. The markup in those units is about $6 by the retailer. Now consider that Sony only packs the system with 1 controller; 90% of PS2 owners will purchase at least one additional controller. Chalk up another $10 in Sony's pocket.
Oh, wait... you want to save your games?!? Well, you'll need this memory card. It's 8MB of flash RAM, but it retails for $35. Again, 90% of owners will buy at least one of these. Chalk up another $10.
Wait, wait... you're hooking that up to the ancient television in Junior's bedroom?!? Well, unless his TV has composite input, you'll need to purchase this Sony-brand RF convertor: $20.
The bottom line: videogames are designed to make a profit for the manufacturer only. No store that I know of can survive on new game sales alone. EB, Funco, GameStop, and all the Mom & Pop shops depend on the ~$15 margin they make on their used games, and the ~$50 margin they make on extended warranties. Best Buy, Circuit City, Fry's, et. al. use videogames to lure customers into the store for bigger purchases ("say... I could use a new car stereo while I'm here"). So, basically, the lack of margin in the games and such allow maunfacturers to keep a lot of the money.
Um.. until very recently, there *were* no console systems that could be pirated. Even the first cd-rom based systems were fairly safe, as very few folks had burners in the early 1990's. Unless you're counting the several dozen "100-in-1" NES cartridges, pirated games have never been much of an issue until the Playstation. Which makes me wonder about your next point...
While its true that non-standard formats like Dreamcast's GDROM and Nintendo's own cartridge formats are also piratable, the amount of knowledge and/or effort required to do so is generally much higher.
The Dreamcast is one of the EASIEST systems to pirate, at least for the average person. Its GD-ROM format didn't save it in the least. And Nintendo's systems of the past few years have consistently had flashrom/cd-rom hardware available for them, if you order through Hong Kong.
In fact, other than the Playstation and Dreamcast, there really have been no hugely pirated systems. And we all know just how much piracy has hurt the Playstation (still selling for over $100, 6 years -or is it 7 now- after release).
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Anyway, I don't know how you can complain about the size of anything other than the Xbox.
Nintendo and Matsushita have been partners on the Cube since its inception. There's probably not much of a need to license here, kind of how there were the Eagle Talon, Chrysler Laser, and Mitsubishi Eclipse cars there can be multiple flavors of the Cube from its separate developers.
PSX is far easier to pirate for the average person than DC. Any moron can rent a handful of PSX games and burn them. Not all of them are willing to lurk around the necessary newsgroups and IRC channgels to get a significant number of DC game images.
:)
The only thing hard about PSX piracy is the mod chip stuff...and the majority of people still own ones that have the parallel port, so the Action Replay and similar units can be used instead. Besides, anyone who can't find some dude who works at a video game store that sells and installs mod chips just isn't trying.
And I love Hong Kong...should be getting my GBA "backup and development" system any day now
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Good point, but don't mistake "announced" games for released games. There may not be a second or third generation and those games you mentioned, while graphically impressive, are mostly unknowns. If the launch fails, many of those third parties who have claimed to support the X-Box will leave it for what it is, remember there was a lot more third party support for the N64 before developers abandonned it.
Nintendo is not just it's core franchises, though they are very important. There's also plenty to come from Rare, LucasArts, and stuff like the RE move may not be a one-of-a-kind event. Nintendo will always continue to support a console, they proved that with the N64.
Likewise Sony is not going to abandon the PS2 and developers know it. Beside the guaranteed support of Square, there's also a lot riding on it for the company.
Microsoft will leave the X-Box for dead should it fail and everyone knows it. Sure MS is in it for the long haul, but it may very well take the X-Box 2 or 3 before they succeed. Meanwhile, why should a consumer buy a machine that may be obsolete in a short time with nothing but several very pretty games on it? Microsoft still has an unproven record when it comes to consoles or first party games. I'm not saying the X-Box will definitely fail, especially if it's supported by some of MS' strong-arm tactics, but there's absolutely no reason to assume it will either succeed or have a big impact.
- Also Sprach Doktor Merkwurdigliebe