On Stemming Nintendo's Exclusive Game Drought

Thanks to Nintendojo for its editorial discussing ways to help Nintendo increase the amount of GameCube-only titles it releases. The writer notes that "...it is all too apparent that Nintendo's exclusive games lineup is very thin at the moment", and suggests one of many possible solutions: "Nintendo must figure out a way to increase the [development] capacity of Retro Studios and/or Silicon Knights. These companies must have as much depth [in amount of releases] as Rare had at the latter part of its life." How would you like to see Nintendo partnering to release more high-quality GameCube-only games?

Comments

Nintendo seems to be ok for this year

[Naffer]

I bought a Gamecube last December, and now own quite of few of the "must have" games. The problem that I see for 2004 is that the big first party games that everyone was anticipating are out now, and their sequals are too far off in the distance to see. For most of thise year, Nintendo is going to have to count on 3rd party developers to maintain the slow influx of quality games.

Now I'm going to go against my bettter judgement and link to an article on IGN titled "Most anticipated games of 2004." I don't care much for IGN, but the list does include some potentially good games.

It's sad because it's true.

[Black Mage Balthazar]

I have been a long time Nintendo fan, owning every major console, and now a GBA. I have always stuck by Nintendo because of the high quality of their games, and because I couldn't really afford to have more than one system.

Now don't get me wrong, I've played other systems. I've finished FFVII and FFX on the PS and PS2, as well as playing a great deal of Tekken and the Gran Turismo series, but I could never justify buying a PS for just these games.

But now I realize, that I have done the same thing for a Gamecube. I have less than ten games (due partially to budget constraints), a GBA, and 1 GBA game (FF Tactics Advance). The problem I have is variety. It turns out, I have a game in almost every genre, and it's hard to play multiple games in a genre. If I want to fight, I have SCII, racing is Mario Kart:DD or F-Zero GX. Team sports is NHL 2004, while extreme sports is Tony Hawk 4. RPG is Zelda, etc. The problem is Nintendo fills a genre niche, and then moves on! Which means that if I want to play a different fighting game, well, I can't. So I get bored with the games, despite their excellent quality.

Nintendo needs to tighten their release dates, and find developers to compete against themselves. Who can make the best action/fighting/RPG game? Nintendo wins in the end because no matter which game of two or three wins the sales wars, it's still money into Nintendo's pockets.

I just don't want my favourite company to die.

Re:It's sad because it's true.

[Ondo]

Which means that if I want to play a different fighting game, well, I can't.

While I get your point, I think that's a terrible example. The GameCube has Soul Calibur 2 and Super Smash Brothers Melee, probably the two most popular fighting games for any current console.

Re:It's sad because it's true.

[Black Mage Balthazar]

Well, SSBM isn't your traditional fighting game (which is part of its appeal). But even switching between two gets boring. There were probably a dozen fighters for the SNES, and at least half a dozen for the 64.

Re:It's sad because it's true.

[-kertrats-]

Theres also Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance and the Bloody Roar series.

Re:It's sad because it's true.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...and find developers to compete against themselves."

You pretty much hit it on the head right there. If they had a dozen or so developers releasing high-quality titles that gave nintendo a run for their money, on their own system, it would drastically increase the GC library and quality of the system overall.

Would be nice to see.

Re:It's sad because it's true.

[edwdig]

If I want to fight, I have SCII

There's also Super Smash Bros Melee, Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance, Capcom vs SNK, and a few other lesser known games.

racing is Mario Kart:DD or F-Zero GX.

There's also Wave Race Blue Storm, Need for Speed Underground, Burnout, and at least a few others.

Team sports is NHL 2004, while extreme sports is Tony Hawk 4.

Granted Sega dropped their sports line from GameCube after the first year, but EA releases all their sports titles for it. Acclaim releases All Star Baseball. Midway has NFL Blitz and NHL Hitz for the extreme stuff. And there's Mario Golf and soon Mario Tennis if you want more party type sports games.

RPG is Zelda, etc.

Well, Zelda isn't an RPG. If you want RPGs, the Cube is a pretty bad choice as their are very few, although Namco has several coming out later this year. If you want Zelda type games, there's also Star Fox Adventures and Beyond Good and Evil for starters. Both of which are really cheap.

Nintendo's problem isn't so much a lack of games, but rather everyone just buys all the Nintendo first party games and ignores the 3rd party games. I've mostly just bought Nintendo's 1st and 2nd party games since the N64 days. Mainly because after getting the 1st and 2nd party must haves, I didn't have the time or money for many other games. So on Nintendo systems, 3rd parties get less attention and sales. Particuarlly the companies that just make crappy ports.

Re:It's sad because it's true.

[Black Mage Balthazar]

Unfortunately, all comments I make are made on my personal bias. ie, I don't like Mortal Kombat, and I never have. Perhaps I should say: I want a large selection of excellent games, but then, I would have my cake and eat it too, and that's not allowed.

Re:It's sad because it's true.

[Ondo]

Well, SSBM isn't your traditional fighting game (which is part of its appeal). But even switching between two gets boring. There were probably a dozen fighters for the SNES, and at least half a dozen for the 64.

There's at least half a dozen for the GC as well: SSBM, Soul Calibur II, Bloody Roar: Primal Fury, Capcom vs. SNK 2: EO, Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance, and X-Men: Next Dimenision.

Re:It's sad because it's true.

[Baby_with_a_nailgun]

RPG is Zelda, etc.

Well, Zelda isn't an RPG. If you want RPGs, the Cube is a pretty bad choice as their are very few, although Namco has several coming out later this year.

If you are looking for a FinalFantasy-style RPG, try Skies Of Arcadia: Legends.

Re:It's sad because it's true.

[johndoejersey]

Wave Race Blue Storm

Yes!
This is one of the most under rated games on the gamecube - I picked this up for under 20 a year ago and its shelf life has outlasted Mario Kart Double Dash already!

I dont believe in Exclusive Titles

[Bruha]

Exclusivity = I dont buy them unless it's for the one I own.. I'm not going to bounce around and buy 3 or 4 consoles just to play the latest and greatest games out there. I bought a Xbox and it ticks me off that the Kirby game is Nintendo only. All it serves to do is decrease the games sales potential.

I would however appreciate limited exclusivity where the game would be ported after a fixed amount of time.

Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles

[Gr33nNight]

Decrease game sales potential, and increases console sales potential. If you want to play Nintendo created games, you *must* buy a GameCube, and thats Nintendos ace in the hole.

Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles

[Prien715]

Exclusivity = I dont buy them unless it's for the one I own...I bought a Xbox and it ticks me off that the Kirby game is Nintendo only.

Ports cost money. Most of the time, they use completely different hardware archetectures, but then there's the X-box. Most of the games use the same API as a modern PC (DirectX), the console is a modern PC, and MS buys out companies and/or pays them to release exclusive games when a port would have been easy. If you were so concerned about exclusivity, you'd either own a PS2 (doesn't pay nearly as much to people for exclusive games) or just use your PC (no money is paid for exclusive rights).

Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles

[DaveCBio]

Ports are a releatively easy way to spread the risk. The big problem is that often the ports are done at a lowest common denominator level. Exceptions being Splinter Cell and Rainbow 6 Xbox. Ubi seems to put the time into taking advantage of teh Xbox at least.

Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles

[geminidomino]

Unfortunately, Nintendo doesn't have the same juice in the industry as it used to back in the day. It seems that a large minority (if not majority) respond to "If you want to play Nintendo-created games, you *must* buy a gamecube" with "Well, I guess I don't want to play them *THAT* badly." I just got a gamecube last November (on the first day of the $99 w/Zelda Special deal), and I'm not the only one, judging by the sales surge that the price dropped seemed to line up with. The main game I am looking forward for GCN isn't even Nintendo Created (MG:Twin Snakes)!

I've been gaming a LONG time (since before I got the Gyromyte/Duckhunt Deluxe NES set), but Nintendo just doesn't do it for me like it used to. They've even killed Zelda for me (Besides WW, AoA and AoS just annoyed me.) If things don't turn around with the new console (GC2 or whatever they're calling it) and they focus on exlcusive games, they're gonna dig themselves deep. I agree with the poster above who said they needed more variety, and better 3rd party games.

Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles

[Snowmit]

Exclusivity = I dont buy them unless it's for the one I own.

I take it from this comment that you somehow think that there are people do do buy games for systems the don't own? Of course you don't buy it if you can't play it.

The thing is that exclusives sell consoles. When I picked my console for this generation, I picked a Game Cube first because I wanted the exclusives on the Game Cube more than the exclusives on the other two systems. Every great exclusive that Nintendo puts out or that it gets company C to put out means Y more people buy a Game Cube. Then, once they have a Game Cube, they buy Z number of games, each of which gives Nintendo cash.

Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles

[Muramasa]

Of course the Kirby game is Nintendo only, it was developed by Nintendo (HAL Labs). Why did you buy a X-Box if you wanted to play Nintendo games?

Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles

[Anonymous Coward]

If you bought an Xbox with hopes to play games like Kirby's Air Ride, then you are a marketer's worst nightmare.

The Xbox is all about "extreme" gaming and such, and Kirby's Air Ride is lighthearted, simplistic, and not bleeding-edge-fast-paced like many of the games Xbox's customers enjoy.

Re:I dont believe in Exclusive Titles

[PainKilleR-CE]

If you bought an Xbox with hopes to play games like Kirby's Air Ride, then you are a marketer's worst nightmare.

Especially because Kirby is owned by Nintendo, the games are made by Nintendo, so every marketer would hope that someone wanting the game would know, because of their marketing efforts, that it's a Nintendo game. As a Nintendo game, like every other Nintendo game since the NES was released, it's on a Nintendo console.

XBox owners only have a reason to complain about exclusive titles because there's a much lower percentage of exclusive titles than either of the other systems. This is exactly why the XBox was the third of the current-generation consoles I purchased (it simply didn't have enough titles I couldn't play on my PS2; the first was the DreamCast). I bought my first Cube because $150 wasn't bad and I wanted to play a half dozen or so games that had already been released (interestingly, the half dozen mark seems to be where I buy most consoles, but at $150 I really don't care as long as it has something really good). I bought the second Cube at the $99 mark w/ Zelda bundle because it allowed me to put it in the bedroom, where my gf can play Animal Crossing without tying up the TV with the rest of the consoles attached to it.

Do you remember Rare's output?

[dancingmad]

I read this article on Nintendojo yesterday and while I respect the dojo, they seem to forget Rare's output at the later half its life. They had very few good games after the Nintendo 64's cult hit Goldeneye. None of their games could equal Donkey Kong Country or Goldeneye in terms of brilliance or success. I'd rather have Retro working on making Metroid Prime 2 as good as Prime 1, instead of Prime 2 plus Samus Party 3, Metroid Kart, and Ridley's Hide and Seek or Kraid's Bad Scales Day.

Re:Do you remember Rare's output?

[Bagels]

... which is *precisely* why they've added [in amount of releases]. Nobody's claiming that Rare made *good* games during their last years with Nintendo, they just pumped them out at a respectable rate compared to that of, say, Silicon Knights (the only game they've published in the last several years is Eternal Darkness). The trick is to keep them coming that fast, and have them be good, too.

Re:Do you remember Rare's output?

[Rallion]

Perfect Dark was a great game, among my friends and I it totally replaced Goldeneye for console FPS fun. It just tweaked Goldeneye, really, sure...in the same way that Starcraft just tweaked Warcraft 2.

Re:Do you remember Rare's output?

[PainKilleR-CE]

Nobody's claiming that Rare made *good* games during their last years with Nintendo, they just pumped them out at a respectable rate compared to that of, say, Silicon Knights (the only game they've published in the last several years is Eternal Darkness). The trick is to keep them coming that fast, and have them be good, too.

And the point is that unless you severely inflate the size of the company and maintain seperate development studios within the company (ie like Nintendo's several development divisions), you get crap when you increase the output. It's very easy to make games quickly when quality is less important.

In any case, regardless of what Nintendo does right now, any game that goes into development today isn't likely to be on a shelf before the middle of next year, unless it's crap. Almost everything Nintendo could possibly do to help the Cube that involves game development has to have already been done. Anything else involving game development will probably be focused on the next console.

Where does the "DS" fit in?

[Babbster]

I have to wonder if Nintendo is too busy supporting the Gameboy Advance (understandably with its monstrous installed base) and the upcoming "DS" system. Nintendo has said that the DS system will be an addition to their line as opposed to a GBA replacement. That means that Nintendo will be supporting [at least] three different consoles. This seems like an odd choice to me given the dearth of interesting Gamecube titles alluded to in this story, and it can only suck even more resources away from the Gamecube and, presumably, its eventual successor.

Re:Where does the "DS" fit in?

[Black Mage Balthazar]

Well, depending on how well they market it, and developer interest, I'm afraid that the DS may go the way of the Virtual Boy, and then we won't have to worry about it.

Possible Solution

[Black Mage Balthazar]

Well maybe more companies could do what Namco did with Soul Calibur II. You basically get the same game, but each console got its own character.

Gamecube: Link
XBOX: Spawn
PS2: Heihachi

That way, the game sells well in all three markets, and each console owner can brag to the other about the exclusive content that they got.

(btw Link is the best ;) )

Re:Possible Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

(btw Link is the best ;) )

Nah, Spawn is the best out of the three when you take out all the fanboy drooling. Spawn is actually a more rounded and better fighter than Link. Link is a male version of Cassandra with a mangina.

Namco

[Ondo]

From the article:

"Namco is also another third party that Nintendo should try working with more. If Nintendo springs the cash, Namco could possibly give the Cube an exclusive Soul Calibur."

Or maybe they should do what they did with Sega on F-Zero GX, and get Namco to develop a game for an already established Nintendo brand. Like, for example, Star Fox. And, while there at it, they should announce it at E3. But not this year's E3, because they'll be talking about the DS. Do it at last year's E3. That'll get the fanboys excited.

Unless they totally forget about it, of course.

Re:Namco

[PyroMosh]

I realize that you couldn't have just Guessed that and that this is sarcasm, but still, I think most people don't know, here's the link to IGN's coverage of E3 last year where they revealed that Namco is developing Star Fox 2.

Re:Namco

[DeadScreenSky]

Unless they totally forget about it, of course.
After seeing the trailer at E3, I think most of us decided forgetting about it is really the best option available. :D

Re:Namco

[Anonymous Coward]

they revealed that Namco is developing Star Fox 2.

Bit late, aren't they?

Re:Namco

[PyroMosh]

That was never finished, much less released. Also, Star Fox 2 is a tennative title for what Namco is developing.

Re:Namco

[cableshaft]

Re: article excerpt
It took Namco 4 years to come out with the sequel to Soul Calibur (and if you ask me, it doesn't look like it gained a whole lot from those four years, but that's another story). At that rate, if they got Namco to make an exclusive Soul Calibur, we wouldn't see it until well into the next generation of consoles anyway, so it wouldn't do a whole lot of good for Nintendo anyway.

Times have changed, games have changed

[Anonymous Coward]

The SNES, regarded by some as the greatest Nintendo system of all time, delivered what the Cube could not--plenty of games. But it doesn't stop there. Nintendo didn't just bust a Sony and release a bunch of games uglier than the hunchback of Notre Dame himself. No. There was quality too. Quality and quantity--a combination that couldn't be stopped. How did Nintendo manage to get so many exclusive games on the SNES that were filled with quality?

If modern consoles were still 16 bit we would have plenty of games!

The problem today is that with technology being as advanced as it is, game development takes longer. Not to mention games are getting more complicated and A LOT of emphasis is placed on the graphics of a game (and cinema scenes), adding to developement time. Despite all of this, consumers expect games to be churned out in the same amount of time as they were 10 years ago.

Though Nintendo may not be putting out as many first party titles each year as it did in the past, they've all been top notch in my opinion, like they always have.

Re:Times have changed, games have changed

[Black Mage Balthazar]

Times have changed, and games are now seen as a major production, along the lines of music, television, and movies. As such, budgets have increased in size, as well the number of staff that can be put into a project. With a comparable amount of staff added, I could see games taking about two to three months longer (a quarter at most).

Open the platform

[TheRealMindChild]

Open up the platform. Sell programming hardware and tools. I, for one, would line up to purchase such a thing. Then they could even still charge for publishing licenses, but here, small groups of hobbiest programmers could come up with an entire game, and use it to get finacial backing to purchase a publishing license.

It would have more potential then the Amiga

Re:Open the platform

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have more potential then the Amiga

Ouch.

Re:Open the platform

[DaveCBio]

Not to be overly cynical here, but can you name one AAA top selling title that started as a hobbyist original IP in the last 5 years?

Re:Open the platform

[Anonymous Coward]

CounterStrike.

Re:Open the platform

[Anonymous Coward]

The downfall of Atari came when everybody and his brother could create crappy games for the platform. And this would probably open up the door to piracy.

OS isn't the panacea.

How very odd

[Snowspinner]

The article mentions Namco... but Namco is doing an exclusive for Nintendo already - Donkey Konga. And they put out Pac-Man Vs. as well - a small thing, but a very, very good game all the same.

They also mention how Squaresoft's exclusives are all on the PS2 now... which is odd, what with Crystal Chronicles out in only a few weeks.

I really wish commentators on Nintendo would bother to at least pretend to have done any research on their articles.

"DS": Nintendo to follow Sega? Trouble ahead!

[Stormwatch]

Once, Sega had a very successful console, the Genesis. Then, they released two expansions: the SegaCD, and later the 32X; neither was very successful. Sega could not support them properly, so most of their games were released for the Genesis anyway. People who believed these expansions would actually be the "next level" were obviously pissed off.

When the Saturn - the real "next level" - arrived, people no longer trusted Sega. They were known for not supporting their systems properly. But the problem was... they had too many systems to support.

Sega's damnation began when they decided to release those new systems without phasing out the previous one. They had too many systems at the same time. And this might happen to Nintendo as well.

If this "DS" portable is not to replace the GBA, it will ultimately be its rival. Keep in mind that developement resources are not infinite. Can Nintendo afford to develop for two portables and a home console? Three systems to support at the same time?

People will buy the one that has more games; developers will see a bigger installed base and make more games for that; again, people will buy that because it has more games. If Nintendo releases a new portable without phasing out the previous one, they will be shooting themselves in the foot, with a bazooka.

Hello, Virtual Boy 2... -_-''

Re:"DS": Nintendo to follow Sega? Trouble ahead!

[Qzukk]

If this "DS" portable is not to replace the GBA, it will ultimately be its rival.

Given that the DS's specs *seem* (is there any official word on this?) to indicate that backwards compatibility should be possible, it looks like it will replace the GBA.

In terms of game support though, what if they arranged it so that people kept developing gba games, and some games could be made to work in a gba, but in a DS, it would use the second screen? Nintendo did this with some of the original gameboy games when the gbc came out. The GB games would still be for the GB, but they could also have a 4 color palette programmed in for the GBC to use. (granted, a second display would be somewhat more complex "optional addon" to code for, especially with mismatched processors, so this is quite unlikely to happen.)

Re:"DS": Nintendo to follow Sega? Trouble ahead!

[dancingmad]

Actually, the specs tend to indicate that the machine won't be backward compatible with anything - my best bet (and it's just a guess) is that the machine is going to be some kind of "flashable" machine, where a game is stored in it's memeory, thus working like Game and Watch and making good on Nintendo's promise that the machine doesn't replace either machine.

Re:"DS": Nintendo to follow Sega? Trouble ahead!

[Zeromous]

Your take on Sega's downfall is as convoluted as it is wrong.

The Saturn did not succeed, because it lacked games- stemming from their choice of graphics hardware (based on PowerVR) that did not use traditional triangles as its primitive. This made things very annoying for developers.

Your point that people by this time no longer trusted Sega is simply misguided, as the Dreamcast easily outperformed the Saturn on all fronts.

The DS is also not an add on, so even bringing up the 32X and Sega CD is moot.

Personally I'm interested in what the DS might have to bring to the table, however I for one would have preferred a horizontal screen orientation as opposed to vertical.

Re:"DS": Nintendo to follow Sega? Trouble ahead!

[Ian_Bailey]

There are a couple of reasons why the DS appears as if it would be backwards compatible with the GBA:

1) Processor. The DS will have a dual-processor configuration, with an ARM 7 and ARM 9 processor. It seems strange that they would have two different processors for this machine. It may indicate that the more powerful ARM 9 will run the CPU, while the ARM 7 will run the graphics. However, why not use two ARM 9 processors in order to buy them in bulk? It's not like either is a custom 'graphics' or 'CPU' chip, as is the case in this generation of home consoles. However, the ARM 7 is the processor used in the current GBAs. This would make the possibility of a "backwards-compaitble" mode more likely.

2) Semi-conductor memory. While not explicitly stating it would use cartridges, Nintendo has stuck with the Semi-conductor technology, which certainly enables the possiblity of backwards-compatibility.

3) Screen size. The fact that each screen on the DS is 'about' the same size as the GBA screen makes this a possibility.

4) No denials. In the interview with Billy,, Beth explicitly states that GameCube games will not be playable on the DS, but it quite evasive when it comes to GBA. "We haven't announced anything about that, yet".

Of course, everything's speculation, and no one will know for sure untill E3, but it's still a possibility that this could be backwards compatible.

cube lineup

[Anonymous Coward]

Quality over quanity. The battlecry of the '64 lives on. i'm a longtime nintendo fan and i personally am not concerned. i would rather have a few excelent titles than a bunch of mediocre ones. Not all games for other systems are mediocre, but the few decent ones get lost in the glut of other games (esp. ps2) i would rather have a focused effort on titles than a shotgun effect with the attitude of "let's see what sticks"

Re:cube lineup

[BTWR]

If this "DS" portable is not to replace the GBA, it will ultimately be its rival

I wouldn't be surprised it it turns out that the DS's release date is 1 week before the PSP. Maybe Nintendo is willing to cut a little of GBA's market in order to get into a LOT of PSP's market share. Consider this:

Today:
GBA = 95% of the portable market
Others (Swan, NGPC) = 5%

In a GBA vs. PSP war (after say one year):
GBA = 80%
PSP = 18%
Others = 2%

But with THREE systems (2 of which are nintendo) then with the $150 people have to spend on a new console, very few will buy both, and at least some will buy a DS over a PSP):
GBA = 80%
PSP = 11%
DS = 7%
Other = 2%

So is it possible that DS is perhaps sort of like a "kamakaze machine," in that maybe it isn't meant to do well itself (although that would be nice), but it's real goal is to hurt the PSP, even if it causes its own demise? Hell, if PSP only has 10% of the game market then that's NOTHING! I mean, the Turbo Grafx 16 and Saturn probably had that much at one point!
And let's not forget, if DS is a sucess, great. If it isn't and the PSP gets a foothold, then there's still the GBA2 coming out in a few years to hurt the PSP, since the DS has been said (over and over) to NOT be a sequel to the GBA.

Re:Hey Taco

[Lemental]

It doesnt matter who predicts the death of Nintendo. You arent going to take the news like a man. There have already been a few articles this year from reputable sources saying Nintendo isnt on solid ground and needs to watch its step.

And, no, I am not going to go dig them up. If you want to sit there happily with blinders on instead of finding them yourself and actually applying some critical thinking to the company you love, and, how to save it, I will let you.

(Man that was a run on sentence)

Re:Clock is Ticking

[BTWR]

Nintendo is, at best, a HUGELY profitable company, and at worst a company like Apple - it will ALWAYS have it's loyal followers who will buy the Nintendo 256, 512, 1024 etc.

It doesn't matter how good playstation 5 is, there will still be millions who will want to play Zelda 12. True, they may (or may not!) ever have another 50-million selling title like Super Mario Bros 3 (not sure of that exact number).

So they're not going anywhere (despite what slashdot says every other week)...

Nintendo's Plan

[pwbeninate]

Nintendo seems to have a strategy to target "entry-level" gamers. With N64 and GameCube they made consoles that are strictly game machines (as opposed to CD/DVD/Media Centers). It's kinda like plug-and-play. I like how they keep it simple, because it keeps the price down. It seems like developers think Nintendo is targeting too small of an audience, which may be true. Nintendo themselves mostly make games for kids, and market toward that audience (Mario, Pokemon, etc.) But now with the addition on Retro Studios they may have a chance to change that reputation. I don't know if any of you have played Metroid Prime, but it is awesome! It's just as good/challenging as the SNES version. That's the kind of game I'm looking for. I'm expecting great things from RS. One thing that Nintendo seriously lacks is good RPGs. They really need to get Square doing more for them. Crystal Chronicals is a start, but it was be nice if they do a GCN version of all of the future games. That would greatly increase their audience.

Re:Nintendo's Plan

[herulach]

Wtf is it with people saying the mario games are for kids? Mario games are fun, just because they arent full of sex and violence doesnt make thm for kids. I have all 3 consoles, and the GC gets far more play than any of the others, and will for the foreseeable future, at least until Halo 2 is released.

And for the record GC does have one other fantastic RPG, Eternal Darkness, which is one of the best games ive played in a long while. Theres also Zelda, which i never really liked on the snes, so havent played. But most people seem to think its pretty good.

Re:Nintendo's Plan

[Troed]

I have all 3 consoles, and the GC gets far more play than any of the others

Seconded, same here. The Xbox is used strictly for emulation and movie-watching, and the PS2 was bought for one game only - Silent Hill 3 ...

Re:Nintendo's Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The first Silent Hill on the ps is the only game that has actually frightened me, and not just with the cheap shit jumpin out of the walls fright.

The stage designs and atmosphere would scare you by themselves.

It was the only game of that type that I couldn't play in the dark by myself for more than 10 minutes.

Wha...?

[silentbobdp]

What on earth is going wrong here? Why does every Nintendo story bring thousands of impending doom messages? The facts are these: Gamecube is whomping on XBox in Japan, just overtook them over here, and Nintendo - the company - has lots and lots and lots of __cash__ the likes of which Sega et al have never even laid eyes on. As a platform company, they aren't going anywhere.

Re:Wha...?

[Anonymous Coward]

What on earth is going wrong here? Why does every Nintendo story bring thousands of impending doom messages?

You can't be new here, your UID is lower than mine. So I can only conclude that you've never read a BSD story here. It's called "trolling", and you just bit. YHL. HAND.

No need - it's not the barrier

[grahamwest]

Hobbyist programmers can make their game or more realistically a game prototype on PC or Mac and demonstrate that to potential publishers. It's not hard to move a game's technology from one platform to another for most cases. Making a sufficiently compelling and graphically appealing game is pretty hard these days no matter what platform you're on. I would say that supporting this platform or that platform is only 10% of the programming effort at most. If your game is good enough you'll get funding and access to hardware. If it's not you won't get the backing anyway.

Re:No need - it's not the barrier

[Aelfy]

What about if you don't want to publish it through traditional channels?

I was thinking Nintendo would do well to embrace the homebrew scene (especially with the GBA), sharing official development kits, and cheap hardware available to all. i.e. a Nintendo brand flash-cart with some hardware restriction that only allows it to store/run games made using the homebrew kit.
If the flash-cart were reasonably cheap, ordinary people could download the little games from a Nintendo community site for a nominal fee ($1-$3 straight to Nintendo) and treat them like little cheap game-nuggets. Everyones a winner

parallel?

[akejay]

How would you like to see Microsoft partnering to release more Microsoft-only software?

I vote for all the cross-platform goodness we can get.

Fanboy?

[sjb2016]

I'll always buy Nintendo, Zelda, plain and simple. Truth be told, liked Sonic as a mascot more than Mario, but now I've got the best of both worlds. The day Nintendo stops making hardware is the day I stop playing video games. Kind of like the day that Apple stops making computers is the day I stop using computers (granted, I've been slowly learning Linux, just in case ;-) )

Re:Hey Taco

[prockcore]

There have already been a few articles this year from reputable sources saying Nintendo isnt on solid ground and needs to watch its step.

I haven't seen any reputable sources say this.. but what I have seen is reputable sources say Nintendo has over 6 billion dollars in the bank and they aren't going anywhere.

Lack of exclusives?

[GaimeGuy]

List of some exclusives for the Cube (some released already, some aren't released, yet.) 1080 Avalanche
Animal Crossing
Baten Kaitos
Beach Spikers
Billy Hatcher & The Giant Egg
Cubivore
Custom Robo
Donkey Konga
Doshin the Giant
Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem
F-Zero GX
Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles
Geist
Giftpia
Gotcha Force
Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life
Ikaruga (Not on the other two competing consoles)
Kaijuu no Shima: Amazing Island, a Sega Monster training game that is in the works, is a GC exclusive
Killer 7
Kirby Air Ride
The Legend of Zelda: Collector's Edition.
The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Plus
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time/Master Quest
The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker
Lost Kingdoms
Lost Kingdoms II
Luigi's Mansion
Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour
Mario Kart: Double Dash!!
Mario Party 4
Mario Party 5
Mario Tennis is coming up.
Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes
Metroid Prime
Nintendo Puzzle Collection
P.N. 03
Pac Man Vs.
PSO Episode III
Pikmin
Pikmin II
Pokemon Colosseum
Resident Evil
Resident Evil 0
Resident Evil 4
You can throw in RE 2, 3, and Code Veronica, if you want, too.
Skies of Arcadia Legends (not on Ps2 or X-box, the other two competing consoles)
Sonic Adventure 2: Battle (not on Ps2 or X-box)
Sonic Adventure DX Director's Cut (Again, not on Ps2 or X-box)
Sonic Mega Collection
Star Fox (from Namco)
Star Fox Adventures
Star Wars Rogue Leader: Rogue Squadron II.
Star Wars Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike.
Super Mario Sunshine
Super Monkey Ball
Super Monkey Ball 2
Super Smash Bros. Melee
Tales of Symphonia
Viewtiful Joe
Wario Ware for GC
Wario World
Wave Race: Blue Storm
These are just the more well-known exclusives. There's more than the ones I listed.
Yeah, I'd say that the GameCube has very few exclusive games. *rolls eyes*

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[TechniMyoko]

I think he meant lack of exclusives due to be release soon, in fact, im pretty sure he said it No need to get all hypersensitive and list EVERY game

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[DeadScreenSky]

The article is about exclusive games FROM NINTENDO. Roughly two thirds of your list is published by third parties.

And I am pretty sure the argument was for quality exclusives, too. (Your list has a lot of B-quality and niche titles.) And I can't believe you are counting games that were released on other domestic console systems not four years ago. I personally wouldn't count compilations of games I already have owned for 5+ years, either.

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[bjb]

Wasn't Resident Evil ported to (at least) the PlayStation? I never owned a PSone or PS2, but I could have sworn that I saw R.E. on a PSone a few years back.

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[Ondo]

The article is about exclusive games FROM NINTENDO.

No, it's not. It specifically mentions F-Zero GX from Sega and says they should try and get more exclusive games from them and Namco.

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[ElleyKitten]

The article is about exclusive games FROM NINTENDO.

Saying a game is exclusive FROM NINTENDO is kinda redundant. I mean, is Nintendo really going to make the next Kirby game multiplatform? Obviously, if it's from Nintendo, it's exclusive.

Second of all, I think first party games is the least of Nintendo's problems. Ask anyone who knows anything about games, and they could probaly list a half-dozen games first party Nintendo games. Now ask the same person about first-party Sony games. I know a bit about games, and all I'm coming up with off the top of my head is The Getaway and EyeToy. It's pretty clear that Nintendo has plenty of unique and well-known first party games, and it's also pretty clear that that's not good enough to put them back at number one.

Also, I think it's ok he put Sonic on his list. Sonic was one of my reasons for buying a Cube, and Dreamcast is dead anyways.

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[LineNoiz]

Nope. RE was never ported to playstation. It was in fact released as a PS exclusive. It was (much much later) ported to the GC (which has a couple of RE exclusives itself).

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[tekneek2k1]

RE1 was also released for Sega Saturn. So it wasn't a PSX exclusive.

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[GaimeGuy]

Actually, out of the 64 games I listed, 36 are published by Nintendo, and 29 are published by 3rd parties (I'm including Cubivore under both: It was made and published by Nintendo in Japan, but Atlus brought it to the U.S.) And A lot of the titles I listed are highly acclaimed, even if 5 or 10 of them are niche titles. I included Resident Evil,because it was ONLY remade for the GC. You can't find the remake on the X-box or Ps2. Nor can you find Skies of Arcadia, Sonic Adventure, Sonic Adventure 2, Ikaruga, RE 2, 3 or code veronica, Zelda CE, or Zelda OoT/MQ. If you want to take out those titles, fine. That leaves us with a total of 54 exclusives, 21 published by 3rd parties, and 34 by Nintendo (again, Cubivore is included in both categories). My point is, this article is about the lack of exclusives, and/or quality exclusives, in terms of overall, and from Nintendo. 90% of gamers will see the list of games I posted, and, probably, come to the conclusion that the GC is NOT lacking in exclusives from Nintendo, is NOT lacking exclusives from 3rd parties, and is NOT lacking quality exclusives. My point wasn't to put out every single exclusive title on the GC (I'm only including the well-known ones. Most of the ones I listed, except for Lost Kingdoms I and II, are generally regarded as quality titles) My point was to disregard the statements made in this article.

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[GaimeGuy]

You are correct when you say that Resident Evil is on the playstation. However, the remake isn't, and it isn't on the Ps2 or X-box, now is it?

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

You can play the original Playstation version on the PS2, so a remake would be a little redundant, wouldn't it?

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[GaimeGuy]

It actually feels like a whole new game. The things that remain the same are the mansion layout and the overall plot. Everything else is redone, revamped, and improved upon overall (save the clunky controls, of course) It just has a whole new feel to it. That's why I included it: It isn't simply the same game with better graphics.

Re:Lack of exclusives?

[metroid composite]

The article is about exclusive games FROM NINTENDO. Roughly two thirds of your list is published by third parties.

And? Viewtiful Joe nearly made me buy a GameCube. Furthermore, to complain that Pikmin 2 and Metroid Prime 2, say, aren't comming out within the next three months is kind of silly. I mean when's FFXII comming out on the PS2? Clearly Squaresoft isn't supporting them well-enough (to say nothing of Sony's internal development studios which are off the radar, and the fact that FFCC is coming out for the GameCube soon).

Re:Clock is Ticking

[orthancstone]

I wish people would stop with the Apple analogy. Apple makes over a grand on a computer while Nintendo sells a console for less than the price of an outdated iPod. Trying to compare the financial depth both companies have is practically absurd.

Let me think...

[scot4875]

Let me think back over this last fall/summer...

Mario Golf
P.N. 03 (better than people gave it credit for)
F-Zero
Viewtiful Joe
Rogue Squadron 3
Kirby's Air Ride
Mario Party 5
Mario Kart

And that's just off the top of my head. Every one of these games (except maybe PN03, depending on your taste) is worth owning. That's 8 exclusives, 5 of which I'd classify as AAA titles.

On top of those are all the multi-platform games (damn, Prince of Persia was good. So was Beyond Good & Evil).

Honestly, I haven't followed the release schedules of the PS2 or XBox very closely, since I have more than enough games to keep me very well occupied on my 'Cube and PC, so what am I supposedly missing? Grabbed by the Ghoulies? Final Fantasy: Teen-pop Edition?

--Jeremy

Re:Let me think...

[cableshaft]

I wouldn't know for the PS2, but you've missed out on Project Gotham 2, Crimson Skies, Top Spin Tennis, Rainbow Six 3, and who knows what else because I've been way too busy playing those (and that's only what came out last November, even). The replay value on those is astronomical thanks to perfectly balanced with tons of options online gameplay. Of your list, the only games that have come anywhere close to the addictiveness of the above games (for me, at least) are F-Zero and Viewtiful Joe.

Also, if you like turn based strategy, at all, you should pick up Gladius immediately. It starts off a little slow, but once you pick up a peltast and buying abilities with job points it picks up, and once you get channelers and summoners and start going up against class restrictions, statues that attack anything in radius, etc. I've got it for Xbox, but it's out for Gamecube also.

Huh?

[orthancstone]

When the Saturn - the real "next level" - arrived, people no longer trusted Sega. They were known for not supporting their systems properly. But the problem was... they had too many systems to support.

What? Sega was one of the top companies in terms of arcades at the time (still is big) and the fact that they were porting several games to the Saturn made it extremely popular. The problem with the Saturn was an extremely difficult development platform and the utter failure of some of those ports.

Oh please...

[orthancstone]

Beating the Xbox is hardly brag worthy, especially since MS has more money for surviving the long haul. Seriously, people need to drop arguments like that and the whole Apple analogy. Get some serious material already :|. Considering the beatdown Sony is putting on both Nintendo and MS, beating one another doesn't mean anything.

Face it, Nintendo keeps making really bad decisions. Even hardcore fans should be able to see that (I have). Nintendo needs to stop with gimmicks, get serious with the fact that Sony completely ripped the market right out of their hands, and come back swinging with stuff that'll convince the gaming industry that Sony and MS is a bunch of n00bs compared to a company that revived and led gaming to the golden age.

Re:Hey Taco

[TechniMyoko]

re: I haven't seen any reputable sources say this.. but what I have seen is reputable sources say Nintendo has over 6 billion dollars in the bank and they aren't going anywhere. Ive seen many reputable source say this. If you havent, your either blind, havent been looking, or have been ignoring them. Keep in mind Bill Gates alone (not Microsoft) has 40 billion dollars.

Ignorant fanboys

[Anonymous Coward]

Nintendo is on shaky ground. Deal with it. Microsoft and Sony (less Sony) have other ways of making money, this is it for Nintendo. It's like some unemployed executive living it up in his penthouse apartment. If there ain't no income, even a shitload of money dries up eventually.

idiot

[standsolid]

Four Words, moron:

Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles

lack of exclusive title my ass. Not only that, but they'll sell a crapload of GBAs and link-cables for it too.

Re:Clock is Ticking

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Apple has 3% of the global home PC market while Nintendo has close to 20% of the global console market and 95% of the global handheld console market. Also, "over a grand"? You must be dreaming. Actually, if it were not for the iPod, Apple would have posted a loss last quarter.

Thin? The moron who wrote the article is on drugs

[xQuarkDS9x]

Funny - last I looked the selection of Gamecube titles was VERY FAT (as in hundreds of titles) to say the least, especially with all the titles coming out this year.

Need For Speed: Undergound fucking sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

What a turd.

I am so glad I didn't pay money for that pile of poo.

Re:Hey Taco

[Lemental]

6 Billion isnt going to last them in this war if they pursue the DS. I have heard a Die-Hard Nintendo fan whom I know personally, someone who fought tooth and nail if you insulted Nintendo, curse them for thinking of coming out with this machine. I had to be the voice of reason and tell him to wait and see, it might be the thing that saves them.

He still isnt convinced. Nor are a lot of other people, especially on the Internet.

Your statement is correct though, Nintendo isnt going anywhere--anywhere but up.

The problem is 3D

[Anonymous Coward]

So many games would be great in 2D, and still look great by taking advantage of modern hardware. There is no need to return to 16 bit systems to get good games. Just a need to realise that not every game needs to be 3D.

Re:The problem is 3D

[Rallion]

Case in point: Viewtiful Joe. It's modern hardware, it's effectively 2D (though a bit cooler than true 3D, to be sure) and it's just an absolutely fantastic game.

For the unfamiliar, it's a cel-shaded (but there's something wacky about the shading, like intentional depth problems, that make it look unique) side-scrolling beat-em-up platformer. You don't move along a flat 2D plane, the levels curve. And the gameplay is just amazing, really, and would never have worked in a fully 3D world. Note that it's even less '3D' than the old Double Dragon games, there is no moving forward or back, even. Just jump, crouch, left, right.

I wish I had that game with me right now. I really do.

Re:The problem is 3D

[ElleyKitten]

I personally love 2d platformers on 3d systems because they are really creative. Unfortunetly, there's not that many of them. Viewtiful Joe, Kirby 64, and Tomba (PS1) are the only ones I've seen. I would love to see Nintendo make a 2d Mario game for the Cube, though they're probably not going to, since they can't even be bothered to make a new Mario for the Gameboy. Would be nice though, and it would probably beat the hell out of Mario Sunshine.

Personally...

[Guppy06]

I would rather have fewer, better games than more games of average quality.

Re:Clock is Ticking

[orthancstone]

Apple has been riding a small percentage for years and has been doing fine. How much do you think Nintendo makes off a Gamecube selling it for 99 bucks? I'm willing to bet that, like MS, they are taking a loss for each console.

Financially, Nintendo does NOT have the advantage Apple does, which is the luxury of charging more than its competitors and still surviving nicely.

Nintendo needs to focus on RPG development.

[pecosdave]

I am not the biggest RPG fan, but I do occasionally enjoy them. The reason I say Nintendo needs to lead focus towards RPGs is their controller. The Gamecube controller just seems like it was made with RPGs in mind. The layout of the X and Y buttons are occasionally annoying in action titles, but when it's for bringing up menus it just seems natural.

The GameCube control is NOT meant for fighting games (at least not far advanced ones). I couldn't imagine playing a Street Fighter 2 port on a GameCube control, it would drive me bat shit. But Skies of Arcadia legends, Lost Kingdoms, Zelda and the other RPGs I played on it seem perfect for this layout. The Zelda games I've played on it HAVE been played on other control layouts. The GameCube one just seems natural.

Whats more on the marketing end, RPGs sell. Unless you count Secret of Mana (developed by Square) I've never really been a big fan of the Final Fantasy games. Granted I haven't given them much of a chance in recent years but I know the selling power of those games. They really need to go for a GameCube version of every RPG out there. It would also help by disbanding the currently unfounded "kiddie" image Nintendo has aquired.

Add the fact that the Wavebird Wireless control kicks all kind of butt you would have a hard time convincing me the cube wasn't good enough for RPGs.

Off to the Gameboy connectivity angle. I want to chastise Nintendo for pushing sales down our throats with this. I want to, but I've messed with it, and I can't chastise them to much, the Gameboy connectivity angle works to well. On the average RPG you really don't need a second device to display maps but I started thinking about games like the old Secret of Mana for the SNES. On that game you could have three simultanious players. Every time a player cast a spell the action stopped for the menu process and resumed when the spell was cast. A game like that could definately justify GBA connectivity. If you don't agree be the guy holding the sword while the other two are casting spells all over the place. It can get old, especially when you're playing with less advanced players.

So, do you hear me Nintendo? More RPGs! Offer incentives to your developers, whatever. It's for the good of your console.

Speaking of incentives and Gameboys, it might be a good idea to make some sort of a deal on your Gameboy player. I like playing old school stuff on my cube. I've got the Zelda collectors disk, and I load up old games from Animal Crossing, since you like putting SNES games on the Gameboy make the Gameboy player cheaper or bundled with something.

Re:Nintendo needs to focus on RPG development.

[sindarin2001]

The GameCube control is NOT meant for fighting games (at least not far advanced ones)

Maybe it's just me, but I LOVE the GC controller, even for fighting games. Soul Caliber 2 plays like a dream with it (okay...maybe that's not what you meant by far advanced ones). I like how the GC controller is not horribly symmetric, if you know what I mean...not rows of buttons placed neatly one above the other. I always have had problem with consoles putting more than 2 buttons in a single row (my thumb just isn't long enough to reach the third set!!), but the GC puts all of the buttons just in reach, with the most important button the largest, unlike the XBox Controllers (even the S) who's black and clear (or is it white??) buttons I can never reach without some serious grip manipulation (seriously detremental in Halo I might add).

Oh...and MORE RPGS!!

Cheers, Chris

Re:Nintendo needs to focus on RPG development.

[pecosdave]

Unfortunately now that I have kids most of my fighting game days are behind me. For fighting games I still like the three in a row setup, of course I pretty much stopped playing fighting games with the SNES. I've got a couple on the N64, it's layout wasn't to bad for those kinds of games. The only 3D fighter I ever really played extensively was Mace the Dark Age on the 64, and that was just barely 3D based on the way it played.

Nope, I'm still stuck on Capcam 2D fighters in my mind for the most part. I've considered picking up Super Smash Brothers Melee for the cube though, and possibly Soul Caliber 2, but if I do I'll probably be buying joysticks, just like I did for the SNES. Still wouldn't mind some decent N64 ones for Killer Instinct Gold. Of course I would rarely get a chance to use them anyways.

My six year old daughter is like a fly on poop when it comes to any video game being played. I don't consider most older fighting games to violent for her, SFII isn't really bloody or anything, Mortal Kombat anyversion is, the problem with playing ANY game with her around is you have to become a narrator. I've up and stopped playing Zelda, I can't exactly immerse myself in the game when I'm having to read everything aloud, explain what I'm doing or just saying "shut up!" the entire time. Just another year or two then she should be able to pretty much keep up on reading it herself, and maybe comprehending whats going on better. Then her little sister will take her place.

Re:Nintendo needs to focus on RPG development.

[AvitarX]

The big problem with the GC controller for fighting games is the location of the control pad.

The typical 2-D fighter does not want big swing from left to right, it just slows down response time. And the control pad is too low to be comfortable.

Mortal combat wouldn't even support the control stick, so as soon as I got sore from the pad I was done. But that was just crappy on their part.

A move like towards, down, diagonal towards is a real bitch on a stick though.

Also, this is a game issue, but most games require a full depression (till the click) for L and R. This leads to some serious cramping too, but I can't really blame that on Nintendo.

Re:Nintendo needs to focus on RPG development.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eternal Arcadia's controller layout on Dreamcast was just as "perfect".

Re:Nintendo needs to focus on RPG development.

[cableshaft]

You don't really need a joystick for Melee. Almost all the moves are pulled off by pressing a direction along with either the A or B button. The rest of the buttons are used for jumping and blocking, mostly. The standard controller works fine for it.

Re:Nintendo needs to focus on RPG development.

[Shrubber]

I can't agree more about the Gamecube controller. It's fine for RPG type games, but any sort of action game has my hands crying for relief. It's the sole deciding factor for me now as to what system I buy a game for if it's available for multiple.

I bought SC2 for the GC, and I thought it was ok. Then I played it on both the PS2 and the XBox and I couldn't go back to playing on the GC, the controller was just unusable.

From now on I'll only buy a Gamecube game if it's a GC exclusive, If it's available for the XBox or PS2 I'm giving my hands some relief. If it's something a little less action oriented I may consider it, but I just don't see it happening. The controller is a major part of my decision making now.

exclusives

[chrish]

Hey, if Nintendo or anyone else wants to fund me and a small team for 2-3 years, I'd be more than happy to produce an exclusive GameCube title.

Re:Clock is Ticking

[(54)T-Dub]

The consoles are a loss leader (much like iTunes). It takes years for them to make money of the console. Where they make their money is in the games. I think nintendo gets like 55% of the revenue from any 3rd party game and obviosly 100% of the 1st party games. The reason nintendo is more profitable than X-Box is because of their incredible 1st party game lineup.

Do it Like Microsoft

[randomizer9]

Use some of that cash that's just lying around and buy some developers. IMO they should go after Sega, they are like-minded companies, and it would help fill a BIG gap in the Cube's lineup (sports). Some kind of online strategy would be nice too, but we all know that's not gonna happen.

Re:Clock is Ticking

[orthancstone]

While Nintendo has a better first party lineup, they don't have nearly the number of games MS does first party. I'd be willing to bet MS takes in more on first party games than Nintendo does...

SK is too cheap...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nintendo must figure out a way to increase the [development] capacity of Retro Studios and/or Silicon Knights."

Unfortunately that won't happen at SK. They pay too little, and are located in a little kick-town that most young people clamor to LEAVE once they turn 18. Trying to get high-calibur talent IN is just too difficult. (Only family types could be happy moving to such a little sleepy town, but even then, the low salaries don't make it worth it).

Uh... isn't it a market share question?

[GrnArmadillo]

The reason why Nintendo "lost" Square back in the N64 days is because they made the dumb decision to market another cartridge-based console when that way meant higher production costs per game, ergo lower profits per game sold at the same price, and greatly limited the storage capacity available for games. That and their attempt to strong arm Square into exclusivity agreements. For that matter, Sony wouldn't BE in the business if Nintendo hadn't thought they could bully around Sony on their own terms over the SNES CD-ROM drive - when they said "our way or the highway" to the giant, Sony shrugged and set up the failed product as the PS1.

Bottom line is that when you make a title exclusive to a console, you narrow your potential market considerably. You're not going to do that unless they're either cutting you a REALLY good deal, or you're the market leader anyways. ("Why yes, I'd like to sink three years and who knows how much money into developing an exclusive title for the last place console that may or may not have been replaced by the time the game comes out. Where do I sign up?")

I recognize that exclusive titles are an important part of building your console's identity, and that their quality will be better than that of a port cause they'll be optimized for your system, but people like the article writers also need to recognize that there's only so much Nintendo can do to convince developers they WANT to go exclusive. At the moment, IMO, Nintendo is defined by the lowest price point amongst the consoles, and some of the best first party games in the business. Once they manage to build on that and convert it to market share, THEN they might try to get more exclusives.

Re:Nintendo = perfect controller

[aceadean]

There is no convincing me the 'Cube controller is anything short of a miracle. They may or may not have made other mistakes, but this is something the got RIGHT! First of all, Sony's controller has the analog stick in the wrong place. It was an ad-on for PS1 and never migrated to the right place on PS2. I feel like a contortionist just trying to go forward. And as for X-box... sure the controller is ok... EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S ONLY SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN THE STATE OF RHOADE ISLAND! These other systems could learn a lot from Nintendo's controller.

Re:Clock is Ticking

[Anonymous Coward]

Ehm, you don't know what first party means...

First party games means games that are developped BY THE CONSOLE MAKER.

Microsoft develops next to no games, while Nintendo has and will still develop a truckload of them...