why didn't gamecube get the original gta trilogy if it was more powerful than the ps2?

[VirusDumb]

I remember somewhere that the gamecube was actually more powerful than the PS2, I didn't believe it until I saw side by side comparison of some games, so while sitting on the toilet it just came to my mind, why didn't the original gta 3, vice city and san andreas come to the gamecube?

[TheLazurus24]

My guess is Nintendo probably had something to do with it. 

[thevictor390]

Well despite its power, Gamecube disks were smaller and thus the cap on game size was lower. That said I don't think there is any technical reason here. Lots of games were only one system or the other.

[VirusDumb]

4 minutes ago, TheLazurus24 said:

My guess is Nintendo probably had something to do with it. 

they already had gta games on gameboy, gta advance came out for the gba on the same day as san andreas, china town wars was originally a ds exclusive too

[will0hlep]

21 minutes ago, VirusDumb said:

why didn't the original gta 3, vice city and san andreas come to the gamecube?

The answer appears in this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_generation_of_video_game_consoles

 

In short, they paid the devs to make the games exclusive to the PS2.

[TheLazurus24]

1 minute ago, will0hlep said:

The answer appears in this wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_generation_of_video_game_consoles

 

In short, they paid the devs to make the games exclusive to the PS2.

I mean, the games did later come to Xbox, they could've just as easily brought them to GameCube.

[will0hlep]

21 minutes ago, TheLazurus24 said:

I mean, the games did later come to Xbox, they could've just as easily brought them to GameCube.

Yes, but It didn't go to xbox until 2.5-3.5 years later (depending on the region).

 

My best guess: given the success of the PS2 by that time, and that anyone who wanted to play it probably already had (on PS2 or Windows), it might have been a questionable investment for rockstar and nintendo to port the game at that point.

Also, keep in mind that the orginal xboxs ran a customised version of windows, so porting it to xbox probably was probably alot less expensive for microsoft (than it would have been for nintendo to port the game to gamecube) as it had already been ported to windows a year or 2 earlier.

[Agall]

52 minutes ago, VirusDumb said:

I remember somewhere that the gamecube was actually more powerful than the PS2, I didn't believe it until I saw side by side comparison of some games, so while sitting on the toilet it just came to my mind, why didn't the original gta 3, vice city and san andreas come to the gamecube?

 

43 minutes ago, TheLazurus24 said:

My guess is Nintendo probably had something to do with it. 

^^^

 

Most of the questions with Nintendo products along the lines of, "why is it this dumb way?" are almost always easily answered with, "because Nintendo made a conscious choice to". 

[Alex Atkin UK]

I still think its the simplest answer, Gamecube never sold that well so it made zero financial sense to do so.

2 minutes ago, Agall said:

Most of the questions with Nintendo products along the lines of, "why is it this dumb way?" are almost always easily answered with, "because Nintendo made a conscious choice to". 

I think the simple answer is Nintendo just didn't care.  They could have paid to get more games moved over to try to increase their market share, but they were still profitable without and so didn't see the point.

 

Considering both Playstation and Xbox struggle at times to remain profitable, you can kinda see why this makes a lot of sense for Nintendo.  Why throw money away at something that while it might have gained them market share, may still have resulted in lower profits than just coasting along in a distant third.

 

Ultimately they had the last laugh with Switch, although its going to be interesting if Sony do indeed release a portable PS4, possibly even compatible with PS5 games in a cut-down mode.

[VirusDumb]

3 hours ago, will0hlep said:

Also, keep in mind that the orginal xboxs ran a customised version of windows, so porting it to xbox probably was probably alot less expensive for microsoft (than it would have been for nintendo to port the game to gamecube) as it had already been ported to windows a year or 2 earlier.

I heard quite a few people actually picked up the old xbox when the 360 was soon to be released, just to play the gta trilogy as the console was getting cheaper, this could've added some numbers to it's sales which was higher than the gamecube

[VirusDumb]

2 hours ago, Alex Atkin UK said:

I still think its the simplest answer, Gamecube never sold that well so it made zero financial sense to do so.

I think the simple answer is Nintendo just didn't care.  They could have paid to get more games moved over to try to increase their market share, but they were still profitable without and so didn't see the point.

 

Considering both Playstation and Xbox struggle at times to remain profitable, you can kinda see why this makes a lot of sense for Nintendo.  Why throw money away at something that while it might have gained them market share, may still have resulted in lower profits than just coasting along in a distant third.

 

Ultimately they had the last laugh with Switch, although its going to be interesting if Sony do indeed release a portable PS4, possibly even compatible with PS5 games in a cut-down mode.

ya but if you talk about only 6th generation, it's still a no brainer like Nintendo already had already gotten the gba gta, also the gta series were the biggest thing of that gaming generation, I don't see how it'd affect their popularity, also if you're talking about the switch, that just is a diferent thing like it opened a new thing differently, which probably inspired the GPDs and AYAs and ultimately led to Steam deck, asus rog, legion go and whatever handheld gaming PCs that the other companies are coming out with, if sony releases that thing then it's main competitor is gonna be those not the switch

[VirusDumb]

2 hours ago, Agall said:

 

^^^

 

Most of the questions with Nintendo products along the lines of, "why is it this dumb way?" are almost always easily answered with, "because Nintendo made a conscious choice to". 

makes no sense, cuz they had nothing to lose if they did

[Alex Atkin UK]

11 minutes ago, VirusDumb said:

makes no sense, cuz they had nothing to lose if they did

Sure they did like I said.  Rockstar didn't want to throw money at platform that would take effort to port to and Nintendo were making profit regardless.  It just didn't make financial sense for either party.

 

Portable was different as those were bespoke games for a platform where Nintendo dominated (and still does, for now) the market.

 

15 minutes ago, VirusDumb said:

 probably inspired the GPDs and AYAs

Not at all, they were making handheld PCs long before Switch, they just weren't that good for gaming.  It was only with Ryzen where x86 based SoCs finally started to become useful for gaming.  This was also partly down to last-gen consoles having very weak CPUs based on portable tech, poor IO and not much RAM, so it didn't take much to beat them on most metrics.

[will0hlep]

43 minutes ago, VirusDumb said:

makes no sense, cuz they had nothing to lose if they did

48 minutes ago, VirusDumb said:

ya but if you talk about only 6th generation, it's still a no brainer like Nintendo already had already gotten the gba gta, also the gta series were the biggest thing of that gaming generation, I don't see how it'd affect their popularity, also if you're talking about the switch, that just is a diferent thing like it opened a new thing differently, which probably inspired the GPDs and AYAs and ultimately led to Steam deck, asus rog, legion go and whatever handheld gaming PCs that the other companies are coming out with, if sony releases that thing then it's main competitor is gonna be those not the switch

 

Actually, I'm not sure Nintendo had nothing to lose. They had built a rep for being child and family friendly. You could point to the old GBA and GBC GTA games and say "why did nintendo allow those then?" and while I can point to the GBC games getting lower age ratings (in the US), I'll admit, I don't know how the GBA game got through the net. But either way at a time when parents all believed that "video games caused violence", not having GTA on your console could be a good selling point of the console.

 

Also, as mentioned above, clearly Rockstar didn't think the port was worth making (likely cause everyone had already played it on PS2 or Windows), so it probably would have cost nintendo a decent amount to get rockstar to make the port.

[Agall]

1 hour ago, VirusDumb said:

makes no sense, cuz they had nothing to lose if they did

A perfect example of Nintendo being dumb is Warframe's recent full crossplay and cross save integration between consoles and PC, which included the Switch. The only platform where the in game currency, Platinum, couldn't be merged into another account and isn't even tradeable cross platform is the Switch. Digital Extremes, the developers, loosely talked about how this is only because of Nintendo being d*cks about purchases made through their store.

 

In this case, Nintendo stands to lose customers using their platform who simply won't buy currency from their store anymore since its practically worthless now except for store purchases, which are a vast minority of situations that people use Platinum for since its tradeable.

[VirusDumb]

1 hour ago, will0hlep said:

They had built a rep for being child and family friendly

From what I heard, didn't they get that reputation until the Wii, and were trying to do the complete reverse to not be seen as a kiddy console with games like Resident evil and MGS