So why did GameCube lose the console war back then?

[eriol33]

I didn't have any chance to play GameCube back then, the only easily available console in Indonesia was Playstation 2. None of my friends played GameCube at all. Fast forward a decade, I finally bought a Wii to taste gamecube games... and I am blown. GameCube games are amazing. I use my wii most of the time to play GC games. and twilight princess is just amazing. this is coming from someone who couldn't continue OoT.

 

[dimmidice]

because the PS2 blew it away. the PS2 had a huge catalogue of games, and a lot of truly great games. now sure gamecube also has a lot of great games. but PS2 still has it beat.

plus its as you say. nobody owned a gamecube (not literally of course) but everyone had a PS2.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Because it used mini DVDs. As far as I'm aware, that's the only reason. The hardware was more than capable of annihilating the competition but for some reason Nintendo decided to release a media format that very much limited what developers could fit onto it

That, and, if the Wii U is any indication, a lack of advertising, but I didn't really pay attention to that while it was a thing

 

[eriol33]

Because it used mini DVDs. As far as I'm aware, that's the only reason. The hardware was more than capable of annihilating the competition but for some reason Nintendo decided to release a media format that very much limited what developers could fit onto it

That, and, if the Wii U is any indication, a lack of advertising, but I didn't really pay attention to that while it was a thing

gamecube was more powerful than PS2? *gasp*

 

[TotalInsanity4]

gamecube was more powerful than PS2? *gasp*

Don't quote me on that, but I'm fairly certain it was. I know for a fact it was more powerful than the original XBox

Other way around, it appears that it was toe-to-toe in many ways (spec-wise) with both consoles. However, because the native coding format of the hardware allowed for things to be rendered more efficiently, it gave it a significant edge where in real-world performance games looked a lot better without using as much horsepower

 

[dimmidice]

gamecube was more powerful than PS2? *gasp*

I very much doubt that. nintendo consoles are usually slightly underpowered compared to their competitors. nintendo relies more on "gimmick" and their family friendly appeal.

 

[Shadowfied]

gamecube was more powerful than PS2? *gasp*

Most games both look and play better. I know, it can't be truly compared because we can't assume all games that were available for both systems were perfectly optimized, obviously, but take Nightfire for example, 30 fps with SEVERE frame drops when multiple NPCs on screen, whereas the GameCube version ran in 60 fps with fewer drops AND less aliasing. Same thing with Turok Evolution. I don't think it's a coincidence
I still think many GC games look amazing. Both Luigi's Mansion and Super Mario Sunshine still look and play extremely well IMO.

 

[SomecallmeBerto]

I very much doubt that. nintendo consoles are usually slightly underpowered compared to their competitors. nintendo relies more on "gimmick" and their family friendly appeal.

Not during that gen it went xbox gcn ps2.

Yeah I was shocked when I learned this too.

Mostly the games is why it lost. PS2 had that 3rd party support which were amazing; had games for everyone.

 

[eriol33]

I guess because their loss during that gen, nintendo thought investing in a powerful hardware was not worth it, so they went gimmicky huh?

 

[dimmidice]

Not during that gen it went xbox gcn ps2.

Yeah I was shocked when I learned this too.

Mostly the games is why it lost. PS2 had that 3rd party support which were amazing; had games for everyone.

that is very surprising since PS2 had some really great looking games. FF12 for example. while gamecube games always looked quite simple by comparison.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

See my edit

It's based on this article

Also I should mention that the GameCube was their last effort to appeal to hardcore gamers. I'm hoping the NX does the same thing (but better, obviously). They tried so hard to do that with the Wii U at launch, but it fell on its face because the borked the marketing

 

[VinsCool]

The Nintendo Gamecube did lose against the PS2, but it was successful nonetheless. Great console, great games, absolutely worth a buy.

 

[Kioku]

because the PS2 blew it away. the PS2 had a huge catalogue of games, and a lot of truly great games. now sure gamecube also has a lot of great games. but PS2 still has it beat.

plus its as you say. nobody owned a gamecube (not literally of course) but everyone had a PS2.

Everyone I knew either had a GameCube or Xbox...

 

[raulpica]

I very much doubt that. nintendo consoles are usually slightly underpowered compared to their competitors. nintendo relies more on "gimmick" and their family friendly appeal.

Yep, the GC was more powerful than the PS2. Not sure how it compares to the XBOX.

Nintendo had pretty good hardware both with the SNES and the GC.

The fact that the GC was beaten by the PS2 was a concurrence of factors:

1) The PlayStation brand had MUCH more mindshare than Nintendo's back then. Whenever people thought "videogames" they thought of "playstation". The PS1 was a smashing hit and it blew the N64 out the water. The PS2 costed more than the GC, but everyone wanted a PS2 since the PS1 was so freaking awesome and the PS2 was one number bigger so automatically better.
2) The GC didn't have as much third party support as the PS2 did as Nintendo lost most of it with the N64. Most of them didn't want to develop for the weird-ass N64 hardware (seriously it was a nightmare to program it for) nor did want to pay the huge royalties and production costs for a cartridge-based system back when optical supports were all the rage. When the GC came out, they were still burned by Nintendo's last console and didn't risk much in the new one.
3) The PS2 was also a DVD player, the GC was not. It was a big thing for many people back then to get a game console AND a DVD player in the same package for the price of a standalone DVD player (those things were expensive back then!). Sony repeated this with the PS3 and it was pretty much the only thing which moved PS3s for the first 3-4 years, since it didn't have any GAEMS.

So yeah, Nintendo did it totally wrong with the N64 and they paid for it with the GC.

The GC's failure also lead to the "gimmicky" Nintendo which we're seeing nowadays. Since the GC was more powerful than the rest, but it didn't make any difference to sales, they just thought that it wasn't worth spending money and time in having the most powerful platform around.

The Wii, DS and 3DS proved them "right". People bought the Wii because of the gimmick craze, the DS had an epic headstart on the PSP thanks to the success of the GBA which made Nintendo the point of reference for people when it came for handhelds. The PSP never recovered and as such the 3DS surfed on the DS' success - PS Vita was destroyed thanks to the fact that when people think "portable console" they now think either DS or 3DS.

The WiiU tanked because, well: at first everyone thought that it was the same thing as the Wii. Then as soon as people started realising that the WiiU was a different console, third parties quickly abandoned it because ports were expensive (different architecture, less powerful than the rest meant downgraded ports, etc) and the few games that were released didn't sell well (as opposed to the Wii, where every shit game would sell at least a few hundred thousand copies) and we know the rest.

 

[DinohScene]

Yep, the GC was more powerful than the PS2. Not sure how it compares to the XBOX.

Nintendo had pretty good hardware both with the SNES and the GC.

The fact that the GC was beaten by the PS2 was a concurrence of factors:

1) The PlayStation brand had MUCH more mindshare than Nintendo's back then. Whenever people thought "videogames" they thought of "playstation". The PS1 was a smashing it and it blew the N64 out the water. The PS2 costed more than the GC, but everyone wanted a PS2 since the PS1 was so freaking awesome and the PS2 was one number bigger so automatically better.
2) The GC didn't have as much third party support as the PS2 did as Nintendo lost most of it with the N64. Most of them didn't want to develop for the weird-ass N64 hardware (seriously it was a nightmare to program it for) nor did want to pay the huge royalties and production costs for a cartridge-based system back when optical supports were all the rage. When the GC came out, they were still burned by Nintendo's last console and didn't risk much in the new one.
3) The PS2 was also a DVD player, the GC was not. It was a big thing for many people back then to get a game console AND a DVD player in the same package for the price of a standalone DVD player (those things were expensive back then!). Sony repeated this with the PS3 and it was pretty much the only thing which moved PS3s for the first 3-4 years, since it didn't have any GAEMS.

So yeah, Nintendo did it totally wrong with the N64 and they paid for it with the GC.

PS2 has the shittiest hardware out of the three.
Xbox reigned supreme with it's 733 Mhz CPU, GeForce 4 based GPU and 64 MB of RAM along with a 10 or 8 GB (formatted to 8 GB) HDD and build in LAN.
Gamecube had a 300 something Mhz CPU and the PS2 had a 200 something Mhz one I believe.

Hardware wise, Xbox came in first then GCN then PS2.

1. True, everyone associated videogames with Playstation back then.
2. N64 was, despite its games, a flop.
Weird controller, expensive cartridges and horrible to develop on.
I'm amazed that it actually gained popularity at all ;')
3. Don't forget, Xbox also had a build in DVD player, the 360 had an add on which allowed you to play the failed HD-DVD format.

 

[raulpica]

3. Don't forget, Xbox also had a build in DVD player, the 360 had an add on which allowed you to play the failed HD-DVD format.

True. Totally forgot about it as except a few hardcore gamers, the XBOX was never really in the race - everyone either wanted a PS2 or a GC

 

[DinohScene]

True. Totally forgot about it as except a few hardcore gamers, the XBOX was never really in the race - everyone either wanted a PS2 or a GC

It was MS their first home console so they did pretty well.
Xbox even outsold the GCN by a few million I believe.
The one that wasn't really never in the race was the Dreamcast with.. 5 million max sold?

Edit: 9.13 million.

 

[the_randomizer]

Don't quote me on that, but I'm fairly certain it was. I know for a fact it was more powerful than the original XBox

Other way around, it appears that it was toe-to-toe in many ways (spec-wise) with both consoles. However, because the native coding format of the hardware allowed for things to be rendered more efficiently, it gave it a significant edge where in real-world performance games looked a lot better without using as much horsepower

The Flipper GPU outperformed the PS2's GPU and was capable of more in-game polygons with shading, textures; anti-aliasing, bilinear filtering, etc. A lot of PS2 games suffered from horrible "jaggies" like Soul Calibur 2, the GCN version looked cleaner and ran smoother than the PS2 port, just saying CPU was more powerful too, the PS2 was arguably the weakest of the three, but DVD playback was a huge selling point for the PS2 console. Had the Gamecube used DVDs, it would have outsold the PS2, but of course, Nintendo had to use stupid proprietary formats lol.

One little tidbit, Factor 5 utilized pretty much the entire GCN hardware from the get go, they managed to push 20,000,000 polygons/sec with shading, lights, anti-aliasing all in one go, somehow. No idea how they did that.

 

[The Catboy]

Mini-DVD's did not help the system, if anything they hurt the system. Two things were bad with those, first the smaller space, mini-DVDs are 1.2GB, compared 4.1GB/8/1GB. Other reason is because Nintendo thought of an interesting "protection" method, which was to burn the games from the center to the outside. Which seemed like a good idea, but it meant every game had to be 1.2GB of they wouldn't work. They couldn't be over or under that size limit, so games either have to be heavily compressed or filled with junk data.
If Nintendo had just gone with a normal DVD without some stupid "protection" method, the system would have had a better chance.

 

[DKB]

...Another selling point for the ps2 was the controller. Because, the gamecube didn't have a good controller. Everyone copies the playstation controller now these days. The only thing about other companies is that they have better triggers but..that's about it.

Another issue was that the gamecube looks like it was made for babies. All the games were pretty much baby games too. The PS2 just had flat out a lot more better games for it.