So... Why did the GameCube not do well?

#151P_A_N_D_A_M_A_NPosted 1/11/2013 12:10:48 AM
Newbie00 posted...
HeaderHog posted...
Enigma149 posted...
Because it didn't have a built-in DVD player. Then again, the Panasonic Q had one, and it did even worse...

If I had to guess, it's because it didn't cater to casuals. Look at all the best-selling systems The NES, the PS1, the PS2, and the Wii all catered to casuals. Heck, even the SNES targeted a wider audience than the Genesis. Casuals sell systems.


It's Nintendo.
They ALWAYS cater to casuals.


The gamecube was an awesome system and is one of the systems where Nintendo legitimately tried to get third party support, big name multiplats, and third party exclusives.


FTFY
With the Wii Nintendo assumed third parties would flock to it, not accounting for the power difference that gen. They did recieve support, however, third party efforts were shadowed by Nintendo's own projects which turned away certain developers. With the arrival of the 3DS Nintendo has set their focus on sharing the spotlight with third parties and building strong relationships with said developers and have continued this philosophy with the Wii U; funding projects, assisting development and personally talking with third parties. The Gamecube was a transition for Nintendo where Iwata was handed the torch. The Gamecube was Iwata's beginning with the restructuring of Nintendo. After seeing that a continuation of Nintendo's previous policies (from N64 prior; shunning third parties and focusing on the competition) Iwata turned away from those policies and now Nintendo is as strong as ever.
---
Hello... you lost me at "hello"...
Currently Playing: Zelda2, Trine2
#152Vegeta1000Posted 1/11/2013 12:15:33 AM
It's a lot for reasons why the GC failed.

1. No DVD player. This was the killer. DVDs were fairly new back then and having it on a game system was killing two birds with one stone. This is one of the main reasons why the PS2 was so successful and why the DC had an early death.

2. Lack of 3rd party support. Mostly because of the N64 not having any and the GC's storage capabilities. Japanese devs like Komani, Capcom, Sega, and Namco support the GC enough, but most Western devs didn't give a crap about the system. GC missed out on a lot of good multiplatform games because of this.

3. The system looked like a toy rather than a console. As silly as it sounds, that was one of the system's main complaints. Someone that knows squat about video games would probably mistake the GC for a toy if it didn't have the words "Nintendo Gamecube" up there. The system's design was horrible it scared off some casual gamers.

4. Small storage data for disc. This was a big problem. Nintendo did this mostly to prevent piracy, but it backfired. A few 3rd party games on the GC spanned two disc while they would only span 1 disc on the PS2 or Xbox. It's a big reason why major 3rd party franchises like GTA never appeared on the GC.

5. Lack of online support. 6th Gen is when online support started to take off. It started with the DC and got more popular with the PS2 and Xbox. It never happened with the GC. Nintendo just didn't seem to care for online support which was one of the reasons why GC ended up in last place. Some mutiplatform games released on all systems had online support for the other systems but not the GC.

There's more but those are the main reasons.
---
IT'S ME AUSTIN!!!!!
#153CrystalKing5426Posted 1/11/2013 12:18:49 AM
C+P from myself in another topic.

The original Xbox was arguably in last place 6th gen (not counting Dremacast). It only sold marginally better than the Gamecube, and both were curbstomped by the PS2. MS lost a ton of money that gen while the GC somehow managed to be more profitable than the PS2. As for the games, The GC at least had a strong, unique library. Sans Halo, everything the Xbox had, the PS2 had and more.
---
Other M is the One More Day of Metroid
#154Vegeta1000Posted 1/11/2013 12:29:16 AM
The original Xbox was arguably in last place 6th gen (not counting Dremacast). It only sold marginally better than the Gamecube, and both were curbstomped by the PS2. MS lost a ton of money that gen while the GC somehow managed to be more profitable than the PS2. As for the games, The GC at least had a strong, unique library. Sans Halo, everything the Xbox had, the PS2 had and more.

That's not necessary true. Xbox barely outsold the GC because it sold abysmal in Japan. I don't even believe it surpassed 500,000 units there. Japanese are very closed-minded not liking anything that doesn't come from their country. tehy've recently lighted up a bit, but they were absolutely terrible back then with accepting non-Japanese games.

Also, PS2 didn't have Xbox beat in everything. Xbox had more shooters (not just Halo either). Xbox also helped make Western RPGs on consoles. Games like Star Wars: KOTR, Fable, Morrorwind, and Jade Empire received universal praise. Most multiplatform games were better on the Xbox. PS2 definitely had it beat in exclusives.
---
IT'S ME AUSTIN!!!!!
#155P_A_N_D_A_M_A_NPosted 1/11/2013 12:52:02 AM
I don't think it's "Japanese don't like non-Japanese things" as far as it's "what appeals to western audiences doesn't fully appeal to eastern audiences" and vice-versa.
---
Hello... you lost me at "hello"...
Currently Playing: Zelda2, Trine2
#156excitebike64Posted 1/11/2013 7:47:39 AM
CrystalKing5426 posted...
C+P from myself in another topic.

The original Xbox was arguably in last place 6th gen (not counting Dremacast). It only sold marginally better than the Gamecube, and both were curbstomped by the PS2. MS lost a ton of money that gen while the GC somehow managed to be more profitable than the PS2. As for the games, The GC at least had a strong, unique library. Sans Halo, everything the Xbox had, the PS2 had and more.


Interesting. I would still say GC came up third to Xbox, but the fact that to win the spot MS had to spend so much does speak volumes.

I knew the GC was profitable, but to surpass the PS2 is amazing in terms of profit.