I'm starting to second guess GameCube myself (yes, it's true). In one of the movies at IGN, a developer guy says that over 90% of the console's power can be used instantly due to how easy it is to develop for. But this is a problem.
Using over 90% of its power? This means games in its later generations won't get much more power to use, so games in the later generations might look only as good as first generations. Result? Short life.
And in an interview at Nintendojo, the game All-Star Baseball 2002 will use up to 75% of the CDs total space capacity. This means that unless Nintendo gets it through their head that their games will have to come out on multiple CDs, games won't go much farther in length or graphic quality as what we've already seen. Result? Games not getting much better as time goes on.
But consider this. PS2 is really looking bad for the console wars. It had a terrible launch, it's very difficult to program for since no one knows how to get the most out of the system (the one developer even said developing for Sony was like being handed a chisel, whereas Nintendo was like a pencil, in the aspect of being able to change things as you go along).
Since PS2 is the earliest of these three new consoles, it obviously can't stand up to the other consoles. So now it's like Sony is no longer in the race either (FINALLY!).
As for X-Box, things are looking bad for it too. The machine at E3 actually CRASHED when it was playing, which is simply unacceptable and very embarrassing, especially with hundreds of people seeing the console fail on them.
The X-Box also has a horrible controller, there aren't any games that anyone's interested in as of yet (which means they need to get franchises quick!), and one article said that the graphics were simply not comparable to the other two. Plus, Bill Gates doesn't know how to make games.
But if he knows how PC games are made, then why doesn't he just work from there?
And to make things even tougher to judge, X-Box is actually more powerful than GameCube. No kidding. But GameCube is easier to develop for, and we've seen how this has easily made it better than X-Box. Like the one developer said, while pushing polygons is important, Nintendo has opted for the best video game performance instead.
And also made it easy for developers, which means games will come out a heck of a lot faster, they will remain at a relatively cheap $50, and the console remains and always has remained the lowest-priced console.
So in conclusion, I don't know what console will win the wars. GameCube might slaughter the competition for the first one or two years, but if Nintendo doesn't start getting expansion paks and compression techniques and stuff down by then, the other consoles might pull ahead for the other years. And that ''other console'' will likely be X-Box if it can get its act together. As for PS2, it can only remain a competitor if someone actually masters the console and shows off what the PS2 can really do.
But in my opinion, GameCube's gonna win the wars. And I'm not just saying that to please you Mario fans. GCs developer-friendly feature and the lowest prices around make for one heck of a console. Because none of the other consoles have done that, they're going to pay for that costly mistake.
And as a final note to Sony and X-Box: No console should be over $250. PS2 was, believe it or not, $400. That's RIDICULOUS. And the 3D0 many years before it, which was the worst console in history next to Virtual Boy? SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS. Please, keep it in the $200-$300 range if you want to make sales.
To be a Koopa, you must become a Koopa.
