Gamecube 2 bound to Fail

[GamersReality!!]

Nintendo is bound to fail again. A definitely Number 3 in the Next Console War.

1st) Sony will succeed to dominate or co-dominate with Xbox 2 in next console war. Sony has been been branding consumers for last 10 years. PS1 is number one. PS2 is number one. Everything will be backward compatible and People will remember Sony.
Sony has good relationship with 3rd parties, great upcoming and existing 2nd and 1st parties titles. Sony great at marketing and will co-market PS3 with other Sony Entities.
2nd) Microsoft will definitely be a stronger competitor in next generation war. They have the cash to make great deals for exclusives. Xbox brand name is growing especially when it get the 2 prices drops. People will definitely buy it for $99.99. Microsoft hatred is dying and Microsoft will use it creativity to put Xbox into other appliances similar to Sony.
Lastly Microsoft building strong relationships with 3rd parties and building a great 1st and 2nd parties titles.
3rd)Nintendo still disrespect 3rd party developers. 3rd parties are losing confidence with Nintendo. Nintendo will screw 3rd parties for it own interest. Nintendo still depends on it decaying signature titles. Nintendo to dependent on the signature titles without any original idea that will help sell consoles. Nintendo depends on being low-prices to sell the console. Nintendo maybe forever tarnished as being kid/family console without any recourse in improving it image beyond hit and run tactics. Lastly, Nintendo to depended in limiting to 1-3 titles per genre or sub-genres and ignoring other genres or sub-genres.

Conclusion: Either PS3 or Xbox 2 has a chance to be Number 1 and/or 2. Who knows which PS3 or Xbox 2 will be next generation leader. In the current system wars, after the price drops. PS2 and Xbox will see a increase in sales, with definitely xbox.

[no.1gamer]

Nintendo is bound to fail again. A definitely Number 3 in the Next Console War.

1st) Sony will succeed to dominate or co-dominate with Xbox 2 in next console war. Sony has been been branding consumers for last 10 years. PS1 is number one. PS2 is number one. Everything will be backward compatible and People will remember Sony.
Sony has good relationship with 3rd parties, great upcoming and existing 2nd and 1st parties titles. Sony great at marketing and will co-market PS3 with other Sony Entities.
2nd) Microsoft will definitely be a stronger competitor in next generation war. They have the cash to make great deals for exclusives. Xbox brand name is growing especially when it get the 2 prices drops. People will definitely buy it for $99.99. Microsoft hatred is dying and Microsoft will use it creativity to put Xbox into other appliances similar to Sony.
Lastly Microsoft building strong relationships with 3rd parties and building a great 1st and 2nd parties titles.
3rd)Nintendo still disrespect 3rd party developers. 3rd parties are losing confidence with Nintendo. Nintendo will screw 3rd parties for it own interest. Nintendo still depends on it decaying signature titles. Nintendo to dependent on the signature titles without any original idea that will help sell consoles. Nintendo depends on being low-prices to sell the console. Nintendo maybe forever tarnished as being kid/family console without any recourse in improving it image beyond hit and run tactics. Lastly, Nintendo to depended in limiting to 1-3 titles per genre or sub-genres and ignoring other genres or sub-genres.

Conclusion: Either PS3 or Xbox 2 has a chance to be Number 1 and/or 2. Who knows which PS3 or Xbox 2 will be next generation leader. In the current system wars, after the price drops. PS2 and Xbox will see a increase in sales, with definitely xbox.

Oh, where do I begin? Although some of your predictions have some validity to them, most are just your delusional opinions.

I also think the PS3 will probably dominate the next console war. The Playstation name has become synonymous with video gaming.

As for Microsoft, they've had "the cash to make great deals for exclusives" all along. So where are all the exclusives? The Xbox only survives from multiplatform games. And M$ execs have been quoted saying that they aren't going to throw money around manufacturing and developing for the Xbox Next. My guess is that stock holders aren't too happy with the money pit that is Xbox.

"Microsoft hatred is dying and Microsoft will use it creativity to put Xbox into other appliances similar to Sony."

I'm not exactly sure what that statement means, but perhaps you can clarify for me when you're sober. The Microsoft name worked both ways, while some people will avoid it at all costs others ran out and bought it at launch just because it said Microsoft on it.

One good point you made is that the Xbox brand name is indeed growing. That will be a definite plus for M$ the next time around.

"3rd parties are losing confidence with Nintendo. Nintendo will screw 3rd parties for it own interest."

Nintendo takes just as much money from 3rd parties as M$ and $ony do. The problem is that sometimes multiplatform 3rd party games don't sell as well on the console. Go take a look at the Gamecube forum though and you'll see that most highly anticipated games for this year are from 3rd parties.

"Nintendo depends on being low-prices to sell the console."

This was a strategy used with the Gamecube. If you remember though the N64 was quite the opposite. Although I'm assuming that perhaps you're too young to remember going by your illiterate post. But I personally think that (with the current economic recession) another $200 (at launch) console would be a good idea.

"Nintendo maybe forever tarnished as being kid/family console without any recourse in improving it image beyond hit and run tactics."

While this is a stereotype that wouldn't hurt Nintendo to loose, it hasn't exactly "forever tarnished" the company.

"Nintendo still depends on it decaying signature titles."

Take a look at the sales figures from Mario Kart: Double Dash!! and Zelda: Wind Waker smart guy. Those are only 2 Nintendo games released in the calendar year 2003 alone. I would hardly call them "decaying signature titles."

[Gadfly2317]

Nintendo is bound to fail again. A definitely Number 3 in the Next Console War.


Your very first statement kind of makes it hard to even bother reading further. At least attempt to back this bogus statement up. "Fail again?" Please explain how GC has failed this time when it has been a first party software cashcow for its manufacturer and has a slight sales lead on xbox worldwide? (the xbox by the way--aside from Halo--has been a first party software debacle and a cash drain for its manufacturer.)

Neither the GC nor the Xbox has had the success they deserve this generation, and there are serious potential pitfalls facing both of these platforms successers. It should be interesting to watch.

[The Buzz]

Your very first statement kind of makes it hard to even bother reading further. At least attempt to back this bogus statement up. "Fail again?" Please explain how GC has failed this time when it has been a first party software cashcow for its manufacturer and has a slight sales lead on xbox worldwide? (the xbox by the way--aside from Halo--has been a first party software debacle and a cash drain for its manufacturer.)

Neither the GC nor the Xbox has had the success they deserve this generation, and there are serious potential pitfalls facing both of these platforms successers. It should be interesting to watch.

As for Nintendo's current console I find it hard to heap "too" much praise on the GameCube for it's #2 (?) position in the world "hardware" sales wise anyway. If it weren't for the price drop months ago I seriously doubt Nintendo would be able to claim that #2 if indeed they actually can. Defenders of the "Cube" will say I'm full of crap but it was Nintendo that decided they had to drop the price to move units not me. That's fact not fiction. Companies do what they have to do to gain "market share"...I understand that...but when people try and convince me it's all about the "great games" that have come out and sold the additional units I say BULL!
Nintendo's quality first party titles keep the "Cube" afloat but it's the price that makes the GC so appealing and sells the hardware...the first party games are almost the "bonus" owners get to enjoy. I'd love to see the overall software sales "dollars" generated from software for Xbox and GC. I'd really like to see who's making the most money between the two. At least Nintendo doesn't lose money from selling the GC unit for $99.99.

As for MS it knew it wouldn't show profit on the Xbox for the first 4-5 years. They told their stock holders that before the Xbox was released. I'm not sure they knew how competitive the market would turn out to be and now are re-examining their strategy for round two.

I get the feeling both Nintendo and MS are doing the same thing right now.

[GameLegend]

[QUOTE=The Buzz] At least Nintendo doesn't lose money from selling the GC unit for $99.99.

QUOTE]

I dont know...i read an article a while back stating that when GC was $150 it wasnt losing money, but at $99 it is...though i could be wrong. Additionally, its hard to believe that such great hardware could be sold for $99, i highly suspect Nintendo is losing money from selling it that low, not much i guess but still losing money none the less.
(lol my gramatical skills are equivalent to a 5 year old :D )

[Renzatic Gear]

From the looks of it MS is gonna be doing the same thing during the next go-round. Considering what they're (rumored to be) throwing in the Xbox 2 it'd be surprising to see them make a profit on the hardware if they enter the market at a competitive price.

They do have a fanbase, that much is proven..but is their fanbase dedicated enough to buy 10 or so games to offset the money lost on the hardware? MS is taking a huge risk in the console market by doing this, and it'll either be hit or miss with em...no inbetweens.

[Xguy]

Xbox 2...hmm. Wasn't one of the initial highlights of the Xbox was it's "upgradability"? Releaving gamers from having to buy a new console every coupleof years. Hmm.

As far as I'm concerned, what I like about GC is that it allows Nintendo to grow up with me. I played the original titles, and I've enjoyed playing the new versions as the years have progressed. Is there a better game to play with a friend than Mario Kart? Come on! The minute I heard that there was a new Nintendo console coming out my first thought was "Wow! What will Zelda and Mario Kart be like?!"

Plus...why do you people have aproblem with a company dropping the price of a system? So what if they offset that cost by heavily depending on selling their own titles? Wouldn't it be nice if more companies did that with more products? Additionally, their perifferals (I know it's spelled wrong) are also cheaper.

yeah.

[Bob-the-Fish]

As for Nintendo's current console I find it hard to heap "too" much praise on the GameCube for it's #2 (?) position in the world "hardware" sales wise anyway. If it weren't for the price drop months ago I seriously doubt Nintendo would be able to claim that #2 if indeed they actually can. Defenders of the "Cube" will say I'm full of crap but it was Nintendo that decided they had to drop the price to move units not me. That's fact not fiction. Companies do what they have to do to gain "market share"...I understand that...but when people try and convince me it's all about the "great games" that have come out and sold the additional units I say BULL!
Nintendo's quality first party titles keep the "Cube" afloat but it's the price that makes the GC so appealing and sells the hardware...the first party games are almost the "bonus" owners get to enjoy. I'd love to see the overall software sales "dollars" generated from software for Xbox and GC. I'd really like to see who's making the most money between the two. At least Nintendo doesn't lose money from selling the GC unit for $99.99.

As for MS it knew it wouldn't show profit on the Xbox for the first 4-5 years. They told their stock holders that before the Xbox was released. I'm not sure they knew how competitive the market would turn out to be and now are re-examining their strategy for round two.

I get the feeling both Nintendo and MS are doing the same thing right now.

It's the laws of economics folks: Price goes down, demand goes up. I know that's over simplifing things just a bit, but in the GC's case it seems very obvious.

Not long ago, the GC was in last place and showed no signs of moving. Then durning the largests shopping season of the year, the price drops and Target is sold out of GCs. Not a coincidence, me thinks. During the holiday shopping bonanza held in this great capitalist country, I saw more mothers buying GCs then ever before.

See no matter how much people want to deny it, the GC is a parent's console of choice to babysit their young ones. They perceive it as kid friendly because of it's pretty colors and cartoonish mascot characters. And who could blame them? Look at an add for Xbox and your most likely to see a picture of the Master Chief with a rather large, dangerous looking firearm pointed at you. The current PS2 bundle at BB gives you ATV and Ace Combat I think. Fighter jets and dangerous offroad vehicles are not the images parents want their children to watch since the general consensus now is that video games have some huge impact on a child's mind. Why bizzare cartoon characters like Mario are better then shooting aliens, I have no idea.

And then there's that price tag. A whole $70 less then the other two.

That is what sold so many copies of MK: DD. The fact that the console was cheap and you need a game to play on it. People saw Mario and jumped. Not saying DD is a bad game, but I think in this case it was the system that sold the games, not the other way round.

[no.1gamer]

...why do you people have aproblem with a company dropping the price of a system?

There's not a problem with "a company" dropping the price of it's console, only with Nintendo dropping the price of it's console. When Nintendo drops the price of the Gamecube it's a desperate act because of falure. When Microsoft drops the price of it's console it's a great decision because Microsoft is a nice company.

[trebor]

And then there's that price tag. A whole $70 less then the other two.

That is what sold so many copies of MK: DD. The fact that the console was cheap and you need a game to play on it. People saw Mario and jumped. Not saying DD is a bad game, but I think in this case it was the system that sold the games, not the other way round.

I completely disagree with this.

For one thing, I know at least two people who are going to buy Gamecubes simply to play Mario Kart. For another thing, one of the main reasons I got a Gamecube is because I knew that eventually there would be a new Mario Kart for it. Don't doubt it - Mario Kart was a game that sold systems.

Writing the success of MK-DD off because "people needed a game to play on their inexpensive GC" does NOT make any sense whatsoever. Think about it - if the cheap pricetag was truly the reason people bought so many Cubes during the holiday season, wouldn't it make more sense that they bought cheaper games to go along with it? Say in the $20 -$30 range?

If getting away with spending the least amount of money possible was what brought them to the Cube, then they will have spent the least amount possible on games too - it just stands to reason.

So given that, Mario Kart sold so well because it was one of the most anticipated titles for the Cube - ever. So anticipated, that quite a few people bought Cube's just to play this one game.

[Bob-the-Fish]

I completely disagree with this.

For one thing, I know at least two people who are going to buy Gamecubes simply to play Mario Kart. For another thing, one of the main reasons I got a Gamecube is because I knew that eventually there would be a new Mario Kart for it. Don't doubt it - Mario Kart was a game that sold systems.

Writing the success of MK-DD off because "people needed a game to play on their inexpensive GC" does NOT make any sense whatsoever. Think about it - if the cheap pricetag was truly the reason people bought so many Cubes during the holiday season, wouldn't it make more sense that they bought cheaper games to go along with it? Say in the $20 -$30 range?

If getting away with spending the least amount of money possible was what brought them to the Cube, then they will have spent the least amount possible on games too - it just stands to reason.

So given that, Mario Kart sold so well because it was one of the most anticipated titles for the Cube - ever. So anticipated, that quite a few people bought Cube's just to play this one game.

I agree with you: Mario Kart was one of the most anticipated titles ever and it was a brilliant move on Nintendo's part to release the GC version along side the price drop during the holiday frenzy. They were practiacally garenteed to come out ahead.

I have no doubt that many gamers bought a GC this christmas for the purpose of playing MK and that others bought one earlier knowing this game would someday come.

But I think the vast majority of consumers on which the game industry now thrives bought a GC because it was cheaper and had the kid-friendly image (or what parents are told by the media is kid friendly image anyway). But they don't buy games for the same reasons. They buy games because they're new or have big names behind them. Kids don't tell their parents they want last years discount games, they want the new stuff. So since DD was the big Mario game of the season, the average consumer ate it up.

[trebor]

But I think the vast majority of consumers on which the game industry now thrives bought a GC because it was cheaper and had the kid-friendly image (or what parents are told by the media is kid friendly image anyway). But they don't buy games for the same reasons. They buy games because they're new or have big names behind them. Kids don't tell their parents they want last years discount games, they want the new stuff. So since DD was the big Mario game of the season, the average consumer ate it up.

That's quite possibly true, but I'm inclined to believe that parents who have no knowledge of videogames or consoles would be more inclined to look at a pricetag then big names. Although I would agree with you that parents would probably recognize Mario before they would recognize Master Chief or the dude from GTA - VC.

I mean, not that you said this, but if you believe certain Xboyz® around here, they think the only reason the GC sold well was because of the pricetag. But if that was true, then games would sell according to their pricetags, and therefore, a more expensive game like MK wouldn't sell as well.

Since it did obviously sell so well, then it lends weight to the argument that people bought so many Cubes because of not only the inexpensive price, but the games they actually wanted to play.

[Xguy]

It's the laws of economics folks: Price goes down, demand goes up.

Actually, the law of supply and demand is that as demand goes up, the price goes up. As demand goes down, price goes down. Not as you stated above.

That said, I don't think that supply and demand played any part in Nintendo dropping the price of their console. Technology does not appreciate with age, so Nintendo is doing gamers a favor by recognizing the laws of depreciation. Sounds to me like good business. Sounds likes Nintendo is pretty dumb...they identified a good market price for their product, didn't alienate gamers by overpricing, and are now reaping the benefits of successful marketing.

Next.

[Bob-the-Fish]

Actually, the law of supply and demand is that as demand goes up, the price goes up. As demand goes down, price goes down. Not as you stated above.

As demand rises, prices rise and as demand goes down prices fall like you said. That is the law of supply. You are looking at the law of supply and demand from the supplier's point of view in which price and demand have a direct relationship.

From the consumer's point of view (the law of demand), as prices fall demand rises and when prices rise demand falls as I stated above.

Like you said other factors play a large part in the market and the laws of supply and demand are very simple pictures of the whole scene. That doesn't change the fact that demand for Nintendo's GCs increased somewhat when the price was lowered.

So both of us are correct.

[The Buzz]

Actually, the law of supply and demand is that as demand goes up, the price goes up. As demand goes down, price goes down. Not as you stated above.

That said, I don't think that supply and demand played any part in Nintendo dropping the price of their console. Technology does not appreciate with age, so Nintendo is doing gamers a favor by recognizing the laws of depreciation. Sounds to me like good business. Sounds likes Nintendo is pretty dumb...they identified a good market price for their product, didn't alienate gamers by overpricing, and are now reaping the benefits of successful marketing.

Next.

Well you started out on the right track...

Nintendo needed to sell more consoles plain and simple. What's the quickest way to do that? Drop the price. Paint any picture you want but they did gamers a favor not out of choice but because they HAD to. Not selling enough GC's? Lower the price=more hardware units sold=more software units sold and software is where the money is.

MS is no different or better really. They'll drop their "pants" when they feel they have to too. It's not only market share for MS it's also name recognition and much needed gamers acceptance. Nintendo has it already...MS is a work in progress.

[Xguy]

You are forgetting one important factor: product. As a former econ major, I can assure you that demand is not generated by price. Demand is generated by product plus price. If the product is not marketable, price has no effect on demand.

Take for example this bag of fresh steaming crap that I have here on my desk. In the event that I go try to sell this bag o' crap, and someone buys it from me for $5.00 that sets a market price for that product. Now I'm in the crap selling business. Over the next week I project that I will sell 10 bags of crap at $5.00. But at the end of the week I have sold only one bag. By your logic, if I were to drop the price on my bag of human excrement, I would be adding a large amount of fiber to my diet to try to handle all the demand. In fact, I may need to hire a staff of workers to eat Taco bell all day and produce my product for me.

The unfortunate reality for my crap flinging career is that without the initial demand for my product, there is never will be any demand no matter what price tag I attach to it.

[Tappy_Tibbons]

If Nintendo sells out to Sony, you can bet that I will be getting out of console gaming FOREVER. The Gamecube is perhaps the most underrated console of all time. Super Monkey Ball and Mario Kart : DD are MUCH FUNNER than anything on PS2. Not only those 2 but Nintendo 1st party single player games make all PS2 offerings pale in comparison. I'd rather have the GC and Xbox, best gaming combination ever. Xbox gives me my FPS, some decent platformers, top quality multi-plats, and some online fighters. GC gives the best racers MK : DD and FZero, the best platformers (though SMS is a POS), and the rest of all those wonderful 1st party titles.

[Xguy]

I agree completely Tappy...GC/Xbox combo is the way to go. X gives me my sports, while GC gives me MK : DD and other franchise titles, plus the graphics are top notch. Love the controller too.

[trebor]

You are forgetting one important factor: product. As a former econ major, I can assure you that demand is not generated by price. Demand is generated by product plus price. If the product is not marketable, price has no effect on demand.

Take for example this bag of fresh steaming crap that I have here on my desk. In the event that I go try to sell this bag o' crap, and someone buys it from me for $5.00 that sets a market price for that product. Now I'm in the crap selling business. Over the next week I project that I will sell 10 bags of crap at $5.00. But at the end of the week I have sold only one bag. By your logic, if I were to drop the price on my bag of human excrement, I would be adding a large amount of fiber to my diet to try to handle all the demand. In fact, I may need to hire a staff of workers to eat Taco bell all day and produce my product for me.

The unfortunate reality for my crap flinging career is that without the initial demand for my product, there is never will be any demand no matter what price tag I attach to it.

Fresh steaming crap and the flinging of said crap all put aside, there is something familiar about your post and perhaps you. Or maybe I'm imagining things.

[Xguy]

No trebor, you got me...I am in fact the tooth fairy. It's been so long since you lost your last tooth that I thought you wouldn't remember. I didn't want to say anything because I thought you would think I was stalking you. That's why I have cloaked myself with the pseudonym "Xguy".

Foiled again

[Bob-the-Fish]

You are forgetting one important factor: product. As a former econ major, I can assure you that demand is not generated by price. Demand is generated by product plus price. If the product is not marketable, price has no effect on demand.

Take for example this bag of fresh steaming crap that I have here on my desk. In the event that I go try to sell this bag o' crap, and someone buys it from me for $5.00 that sets a market price for that product. Now I'm in the crap selling business. Over the next week I project that I will sell 10 bags of crap at $5.00. But at the end of the week I have sold only one bag. By your logic, if I were to drop the price on my bag of human excrement, I would be adding a large amount of fiber to my diet to try to handle all the demand. In fact, I may need to hire a staff of workers to eat Taco bell all day and produce my product for me.

The unfortunate reality for my crap flinging career is that without the initial demand for my product, there is never will be any demand no matter what price tag I attach to it.

I bow to your superior econ knowledge! I suppose it would make more sense if I said when the price goes down the quantity demanded goes up right? This is not the same thing as the actual "demand" in economist terms correct? So in true econ jargon, the demand did not change but the quantity demanded did because the quantity is a function of price.

Of course if there is no demand for the product if no one actually wants it as per your craptacular business example. That would be a "taste" factor that would cause a shift in the demand. Back to our real-world sitituation though. There are a lot of people who would buy a GC if the price went down, as the past few months show. These people wouldn't pay $150 but they would pay $50 for the same product so the laws of supply and demand would still apply.

Good to have an expert on economics around, people here love their sales figures :)

I agree completely Tappy...GC/Xbox combo is the way to go. X gives me my sports, while GC gives me MK : DD and other franchise titles, plus the graphics are top notch. Love the controller too.

Being primarily an RPG gamer, I don't think the GC/Xbox combo is the best. That's just my opinion though. I can't stand the GC controller anyway.

[Xguy]

Yeah Bob...I know what you were saying, just thought I'd jab you in the ribs a bit since you mistated one of my governing laws. :-)

And please...on your feet, by no means is my knowledge considered superior.

[trebor]

No trebor, you got me...I am in fact the tooth fairy. It's been so long since you lost your last tooth that I thought you wouldn't remember. I didn't want to say anything because I thought you would think I was stalking you. That's why I have cloaked myself with the pseudonym "Xguy".

Foiled again

The gossamer wings and pink tutu gave you away.

[The Buzz]

You are forgetting one important factor: product. As a former econ major, I can assure you that demand is not generated by price. Demand is generated by product plus price. If the product is not marketable, price has no effect on demand.

Take for example this bag of fresh steaming crap that I have here on my desk. In the event that I go try to sell this bag o' crap, and someone buys it from me for $5.00 that sets a market price for that product. Now I'm in the crap selling business. Over the next week I project that I will sell 10 bags of crap at $5.00. But at the end of the week I have sold only one bag. By your logic, if I were to drop the price on my bag of human excrement, I would be adding a large amount of fiber to my diet to try to handle all the demand. In fact, I may need to hire a staff of workers to eat Taco bell all day and produce my product for me.

The unfortunate reality for my crap flinging career is that without the initial demand for my product, there is never will be any demand no matter what price tag I attach to it.


Glad to see that education of yours isn't going to waste...

If the product is "undesirable" or not marketable then of COURSE dropping the price isn't going to make a difference. GC is not "undesirable" nor is it "not marketable"...it was just priced "too high" to trigger the "wow what a deal...I've just gotta have one now!" buying impulse in the consumers that were either "on the fence" or not really considering a GC purchase for whatever the reason in the first place. I myself have been on the fence and have decided to wait for a further price reduction before I pick up a "cube." I'll have to wait and see what triggers the "must buy now" impulse for me. Maybe at $79.99...maybe at $59.99...

GC is a quality product but priced over $99.99 it's not necessarily a "must own" for many video gamers. Same for Xbox. Many waited to purchase it when the price dropped and many more will jump on it after the next reduction.

As for your "bag-o-crap"...good luck!

[Xguy]

Thanks Buzz! Hopefully those bags will start moving soon. The market seems to be a bit saturated right now.

I agree with your post though, but I stand by what I said earlier...not so much a desperate last ditch effort by Nintendo, rather, a well researched marketing plan that is providing the type of returns that I'm sure they expected.

I say Kudos to Nintendo. Hm...is it Nintendo who is behind, or... Hopefully the other manufacturers will follow suite. Oh wait they <i>are</i> following suite now by dropping prices to regain market share. But I digress, everyone here seems to measure taking the lead solely as going to market first. Ask Sega about "speed to market"

["The Game"Evolution]

That's quite possibly true, but I'm inclined to believe that parents who have no knowledge of videogames or consoles would be more inclined to look at a pricetag then big names. Although I would agree with you that parents would probably recognize Mario before they would recognize Master Chief or the dude from GTA - VC.

I mean, not that you said this, but if you believe certain Xboyz® around here, they think the only reason the GC sold well was because of the pricetag. But if that was true, then games would sell according to their pricetags, and therefore, a more expensive game like MK wouldn't sell as well.

Since it did obviously sell so well, then it lends weight to the argument that people bought so many Cubes because of not only the inexpensive price, but the games they actually wanted to play.

A console with a cheap pricetag is appetizing enough to warrant a purchase regardless of what games is available for it.That indeed is the clear definition of why the GC is the current position that its in right now.Its the truth you simply choose not to accept Trebor.

[Bob-the-Fish]

A console with a cheap pricetag is appetizing enough to warrant a purchase regardless of what games is available for it.That indeed is the clear definition of why the GC is the current position that its in right now.Its the truth you simply choose not to accept Trebor.

True, but as Xguy has pointed out, if no one wants the product at all it doesn't matter what the price is. So as Trebor said, the games have to have some kind of impact. It's not like you buy a GC because you want to set it on the mantle. If there were no games people wanted to play then it wouldn't matter how low the price went.

["The Game"Evolution]

Thanks Buzz! Hopefully those bags will start moving soon. The market seems to be a bit saturated right now.

I agree with your post though, but I stand by what I said earlier...not so much a desperate last ditch effort by Nintendo, rather, a well researched marketing plan that is providing the type of returns that I'm sure they expected.

I say Kudos to Nintendo. Hm...is it Nintendo who is behind, or... Hopefully the other manufacturers will follow suite. Oh wait they <i>are</i> following suite now by dropping prices to regain market share. But I digress, everyone here seems to measure taking the lead solely as going to market first. Ask Sega about "speed to market"

Finally somebody that can put economics in its proper perspective.Maybe alot of those so called MS hating,economic talking ass-clowns around here will keep their mouths shut.Because its apparent that "Xguy"knows what the hell hes talking about.

Once again good post gentlemen.

["The Game"Evolution]

True, but as Xguy has pointed out, if no one wants the product at all it doesn't matter what the price is. So as Trebor said, the games have to have some kind of impact. It's not like you buy a GC because you want to set it on the mantle. If there were no games people wanted to play then it wouldn't matter how low the price went.

Games indeed makes or breaks a console.Regardless of the pricetag.