Slashdot Mirror
Atari Drops GameCube Support For Two Titles
dade writes "Atari has dumped on Nintendo, making it the third company to do so in recent weeks. However, because the GameCube is a vehicle for first-party games, Nintendo's bottom line isn't affected. This article at switchbox asks if such a situation can last." Some good points are raised. While Nintendo is ostensibly content to hide in its niche market, it would seem to make sense that it would want to corner more of the gaming market if possible, especially given their history.
Why would Nintendo's market be eroded? If they continue to satisfy the people who buy in that "niche", why would their performance not continue as it has been? I don't know what the author means by a strong showing (similar sales to the GC or NES?) but I think that Nintendo's got a fairly good grasp of how they want their business to run. Sure, they'd probably like a larger share of the market but I believe that the executives at Nintendo aren't going to sacrifice their business model in an attempt to achieve that larger market share. Ultimately, I don't see how sticking to that business model will lead to Nintendo's market share being eroded.
I suppose that one could argue that if Nintendo continues to go after the Mario crowd and Sony and MS both come out with consoles that have games with the Mario crowd in mind and the various other gamers in mind, then Sony and MS would be a more attractive option because their systems might satisfy more than one demographic. But really, that's a stretch. Nintendo is a lot like Apple - there's a devoted following and Nintendo doesn't want to alienate that following, a good move for maintaining market share, in my opinion.
End rant?
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Also, the following quote gives us some insight into the types of company's that drop Cube support: Atari says that it cancelled Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines on the platform because "there simply wasn't enough time to develop the game on all three platforms".
These aren't companies that are interested in putting out quality games. These are companies interested in pushing out games that will sell as fast as possible. But we've had this discussion many times here, right?
As long as Nintendo has Shigeru Myamoto (sp?) they are perfectly fine.
I was totally looking forward to Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines on my GameCube, especially considering how well movie franchises translate to good games, as well as Atari's sterling reputation as a top-notch game developer. Who can forget Basketball or Outlaw on the 2600? And although I've never played Driver 1 or 2, the title alone is enough to send me into aploptic fits of anticipation. I guess I'll have to play it on my PS2, as long as it makes it to that console.
I think this was one of the most insightful parts of the gameindustry.biz article:
Many commentators take it to indicate that the console's market share is in serious trouble, but yet recent figures have proved that it is neck and neck - and indeed possibly leading - the Xbox in terms of global installed base.
However, much of that installed base is in Japan, where companies such as Eidos, Acclaim and Atari simply don't sell very many games, while others such as Namco and Capcom, both strong supporters of the GameCube, are on their home ground.
Insight aside, though, Namco's also shown with Soul Calibur 2 that the GameCube can do very well in the US as a platform, as the game is selling more titles on the Cube than on either of the other platforms (and 3 to 1 vs. the PS2 version).
I hate to say it again, because it's never good to lose publishers, but as with Acclaim and Eidos before them, Atari's another publisher I'm not sorry to see leave the platform, especially given the titles that were cancelled.
-PainKilleR-[CE]
From my cold lifeless hands before I'd ever give up on Nintendo.
Nintendo is the pinnacle of the console triangle, regardless of what "sales charts" may say. I can name more nintendo games that I wouldnt trade for anything than I can on PS2 or Xbox. They might not always be truly innovative (Mario Sunshine is more or less Mario 64) but in my humble opinion, FUN is the deciding factor.
I have "wasted" more hours in front of Mario Kart (both of them) than I care to admit, and you bet your sweet mushroom butt that I will have DD when it comes out... I cant name ONE game on either the PS2 or the Xbox that is so good I'd HAVE to have the system just for it (note, there ARE good games, but MOST of them ARENT exclusive... halo, KoToR, GTA, etc)...
You'll never see Mario on another system.
To hell with the 3rd party developers. 90% of the time, their games sucked anyway. (there were exceptions, Capcom, Konami, Rare...)
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
Atari 2003 is Atari in name only. In the mid-90s when Atari went bankrupt all of it's assets were sold off, including the right to the corporate name. Atari today and Atari in 1978 have nothing in common but their name.
"Our shitty titles don't sell well enough to a more discriminating user base."
I don't really mind double posts on
Basically Nintendo is becoming like the Mac OS X of gaming platforms. Smaller market share, not much support from other companies, but very well put together.
1. Drop GameCube support
2. ???
3. Post quarterly loss!!
If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
Gee, thanks for your insight, Mr. Video Game Market Analyst Expert.
I hear this tired straw man argument so often that I wonder if people actually believe it's true. Can you offer one piece of evidence other than the anecdotal "Dreamcast had many 1st party games, Gamecube has many 1st party games, therefore they're the same thing!" Can you give *any* supported arguments that back up your implication that the Gamecube is going the way of the Dreamcast?
Here -- I'll offer some other bullet points to consider: Sega of America was horribly mismanaged during the Dreamcast's demise. The Dreamcast had to compete with the Sony marketing juggernaut/hype machine far more than the Gamecube did/does. Sega has far fewer huge franchises than Nintendo does. I'd even go so far as to say that a larger part of Sega's fanbase was the more casual "I play X because it's cooler" segment of the market, whose loyalty stayed with Sega as long as they stayed in fashion.
Maybe there was more to the Dreamcast's failure than just lack of 3rd party support.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I think it was called 'Dreamcast'. At least check they were being sold out of stock at fifty bucks a pop to folks who wanted to use them as cheap Linux routers.
Except that Sega was (and still is) in finacial trouble when they released the Dreamcast. Nintendo is not.
Sega was reeling from past faliures like the Sega CD and 32X add ons for the Genesis/Mega Drive, and from the poor showing of the Sega Saturn when they released the Dreamcast.
Nintendo, even though they lost a lot of marketshare to Sony during the PSOne/N64 times, was still very profitable with the N64.
Sega was losing money (and is only just now starting to make money again). Nintendo was, and still is not losing money, but is making money.
I love my Dreamcast, and wouldn't get rid of it for anything, but the fact remains that Nintendo and Sega were, and are in two different worlds when it comes to hardware buisness.
The Dreamcast was a wonderful system that was killed by Sony's PS2 hype (even though in many ways the DC was superior to the PS2), and Sega's own blunders in the past. The only thing hurting the GameCube, really, is the supposed stigma that they are the 'kiddy console', mostly said by hormonal teenage boys (read: kids themselves).
So, no, it doesn't sound fammiliar at all, really.
Thursdae
Example: Nintendo refuses to recognize the need for an advanced storage format (CD-ROM: 650MB) and opts instead to release a "next-gen" system with a storage format that held 20x less and cost more. Texture artists the world over screamed bloody murder. SquareSoft, creator of many of the Super NES's classic hits, thumbed their nose and walked away.
Current example: Nintendo refuses to recognize the demand for online gaming. Repeatedly, they have made statements about how they don't see a sustainable business model in it. Meanwhile, Xbox Live and the PS2 Network Adapter each have shattered all sales expectations, and each system has surged mightily on the strength of online titles like SOCOM, MechAssault, and a dozen sports games. Each will also explode with the pending releases of SOCOM 2, Halo 2, Counterstrike, and other AAA online titles. Meanwhile, Nintendo sits on a gold mine - a game that, if taken online, would shake things up incredibly and even possibly could single-handedly spark a GameCube resurgence. Yet, Mario Kart will release with no online support. Likewise, other possible beneficiaries like F-Zero go without online play too.
Apple is an innovator. If Nintendo were Apple, they would have been at the forefront of online console gaming. Instead, they continue to drag their heels, even after both of their competitors have been wildly successful, and will only continue to be more successful in that realm. Apple, while not perfect, are forward-looking and try to bring the future to the present consumer. If Nintendo is Apple, they are the worst of Apple. They're not the Powerbook, they're not the iPod. They're the one-button mouse.
Nintendo CAN survive on a small market, but they have to serve that market in good faith. As a GameCube owner, I am part of that market - though I am also part of the PS2 and Xbox markets as well. I grow tired of Nintendo's stubbornness, and the failures it creates. My credit card does my complaining - I own far more Xbox and PS2 titles than GameCube. Next time, I may forego a Nintendo console entirely. Nintendo simply does not serve their customers the way Apple does.