Talk:GameCube

Interesting image

I was browsing and stunbled onto this[1] image, a close up of the gpu, with a dolphin logo. Think it fits the article?--Henke37 (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The copyright holder have cooperated with wikipedia before, see Image:ChipWorksLandShark.jpg, so fixing the licensing should be no issue.--Henke37 (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube Memory Card

Nintendo GameCube Memory Card redirects here, but no information about GameCube Memory Cards is provided.--Hhielscher (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some details: official sizes, block counts, etc; are now provided. Kolano (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

original price?

I don't see it anywhere. Also the $99 dollar price drop Nintendo link is dead. 96.226.112.38 (talk) 05:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Does anyone know why the Nintendo GameCube is abbreviated GCN?209.90.141.186 (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a legal issue of some sort, so it has since become the standard abbreviation. I'm not entirely sure, but it's best to keep to official abbreviations instead of other ones. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also the way Nintendo abbreviates things. Nintendo 64 (N64), and they might just be going with the same pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.224.46.127 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that N64 is meant to be like that, because it's Nintendo 64. I think the OP meant that if it was a normal abbreviation, it'd be NGC, for Nintendo GameCube, not GCN. I found it weird too. However, after some looking into the matter, I think it's due to the Neo-Geo Colour, and the fact that it had already taken the name NGC, so it had to be GCN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.126.219 (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's funny though. If you look up NGC here on Wikipedia, it does suggest the Nintendo Gamecube, but not the Neo Geo Color. 82.73.195.228 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That's probably because there is no "Neo Geo Colour", and therefore the disambiguation page does not cover it. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Handle

Surely the handle on the back of the console (to enable easy transport to a friends house) is unique enough to warrant a mention in this article? JaffaCakeLover (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, except for "to enable easy transport to a friends house", which isn't really verifiable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cause and effects

In April 2008, Nintendo released a white controller exclusively in Japan, possibly as a result of owners of the Wii game Super Smash Bros. Brawl preferring the controller as the primary method of control.

How could it be Nintendo know that Brawl players prefered the GC controller when the white controler is for Japan only AND was beginning to be sold AT THE SAME TIME as the game(and to boot as photos showed there was a huge load of them at the time)? Aren't we getting cause and effects mixed here? I say it was more Nintendo anticipating that Brawl players would prefer playing with the gc controller more than Nintendo REACTING to that fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.239.162 (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Backward compatible with Gameboy & Gameboy Color games?

I seem to remember hearing that the Nintendo GameCube is backward compatible with Gameboy & Gameboy Color games. Is this correct? If so this would be a technical feature to add and would have been a marketting point. 203.219.161.145 (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not "backward compatible" but there is an adapter, called the GameBoy Player, which can plug into the bottom of a GC and allow you to play GB, GBC, and GBA games on your TV.99.155.223.30 (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Details need to be added

The following things should be added:

• In the intro and in the main text as well as the infobox, when was the console discontinued by Nintendo? I believe they stopped production around January 2007, but I could be wrong.
• In the hardware section: When did Nintendo stop manufacturing the Gamecube with the Component Video port? Also, what models did this change affect? I know it was towards the end of the lifespan of the console. This is pertinent info that should be included. Nintendo's website says it was cut out because they felt no-one used it.

--65.31.110.13 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Best system ever--Pikmin fan 101 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.155.206 (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Curved Surface Generation ?

I recall an article about the Flipper having Curved Surface Generation... Would this be HOS, Tessellation or something else? Has this been confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.128.2 (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What? This is really confusing

"In addition, the GameCube also introduced a variety of connectivity options to Nintendo consoles, and was the third Nintendo console, after the Nintendo 64DD, to officially support online play."

If GC is the third console to support online, is 64DD the first or second? And regardless of which, what is the other one that predates the GC?99.155.223.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC).

This is the first. -sesuPRIME 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The Satellaview was a satellite reciever. That's a one way data transfer, it's not online. The Famicom however, did have a modem. That was the first. eyeball226 (talk) 02:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Backwards/Forwards Compatability

Can you play Wii Games on a Gamecube? 209.255.28.227 (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh... Wii discs won't even fit in a Gamecube... BAPACop (converse) 21:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's the stupidest question ever. Of course not! ResMar 14:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Official Abbreviation

The top of the article says: The official abreviation is GCN, which kind of doesn't make any sense. So, what's the source? NGC makes sense since it's called the Nintendo Gamecube. Robin.lemstra (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Discontinued" being removed...

Someone (unregistered IP) keeps removing the "Discontinued" section of the info bar. They have also claimed that it isn't true because Nintendo still has a support page for them. I thought I should probably bring this up here for a consensus to be met, so that we can either correct the information, prevent it from being removed if it is correct, or remove it if it can be show to be inaccurate. As I have no further info, for the time being I vote to keep it with citation needed tags. If any more info turns up, that is subject to change however. Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I have found citation for it. It doesn't give an exact date, but they were at least discontinued by Feb 2007. If anyone has better info (more detailed, like exact date of discontinuation) it is welcome. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd, X-Play says August 14, 2007. @1:06 « ₣M₣ » 23:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is odd. The article only says 2007 anyway (as we had no definite date) so I don't really think it matters at this point. Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo GameCube is NOT DISCONTINUED!

Nintendo GC is not discontinued. In NA, you can find it at GameStop, GamesPlus, more! Beamer103 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are pre-owned units, or possibly (unlikely at this point) old stock. The console is no longer produced, i.e. discontinued. Nintendo themselves have said that it was discontinued as per the ref that you removed. Your edit to the page has been reverted. If you can provide some kind of proof that they are still produced, I for one am all ears. Until then we have a reference from Nintendo themselves which says they are discontinued, so that is to be taken as the official opinion. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dreamcast

The claim that all competitors are notable strikes me as ludicrous. By that argument, the article for John Kerry should make a point of the fact that he came in ahead of the candidates for the Peace and Freedom Party and the Nazi Party in the 2004 election. By specifically pointing out the GameCube's outselling the Dreamcast, you are implying that there was doubt that it would do so. Taking care to mention the short time the Dreamcast was supported makes it even worse, as you're effectively suggesting that if Sega had supported the system for longer, it likely would have outsold the GameCube. This is analogous to adding to the article for Mortal Kombat 2: "Mortal Kombat 2 managed to outsell Ultra Vortek for the Jaguar. It should be noted however that only 250,000 units of Ultra Vortek's supporting console were ever produced, while over 10 million Playstations had already been sold at the time MK2 was released."

In short, making deliberate mention of the GameCube's performance against the Dreamcast is extremely misleading and dangerously akin to WP: Coatrack.--24.60.220.148 (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, those comparisons are useless.

I am not from the US, but as far as I understand it the US Nazi Party and the Peace and Freedom Party are significantly less relevent in American politics than the Republicans or Democrats. By significantly I mean they receive at least a few orders of magnitude fewer votes and have almost zero chance of being elected at even the state level. US polotics is described as two-party system as it has 2 major parties. The 6th gen of consoles could, in the same way, be described as a 4-console generation. I am not aware of any minor consoles of the 6th gen, but there were a few in the 5th gen that I know of - for example the Apple Bandai Pippin, Amiga CD32, Atari Jaguar, PC-FX etc. None of these would be notable in, say, the PS1 article, but may be notable when compared to each other. Heck, in the PS1 article even the Saturn might not be relevant, depending on the context. It would however be relevant in the N64 article. The Dreamcast on the other hand sold about half the GameCube, so is a useful comparison.

As for the the MK2/Ultra Vortek one, well that's just stupid. In this article, the "generation" is a superset of both the Dreamcast and the GameCube. In your example the superset of Ultra Vortek is Atari Jaguar games, while MK2s is Arcade, Amiga, Game Boy, Game Gear, PC, PlayStation, PS3, Master System, Mega Drive/Genesis, Sega 32X, Saturn and SNES games. A rough equivalent of that example would be more along the lines of comparing the GameCube to the PS1 or the SNES, as you are juming up an extra level and comparing between sets (i.e. where the sets in the venn diagram do not intersect). You have to compare like with like.

Second, why is it ludicrous to compare all of a set? Without the Dreamcast, it is implied that the GameCube was the least successful console of the generation, which is at best unbalanced. If it were a "minor" console, like mentioned earlier, then I you might have a point, but by your logic we shouldn't include the PS2 either since it is still being sold. You also seem to have missed the point that the Dreamcasts lifespan was short because of its low sales, not the other way around.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Also the Dreamcast was supported for quite a long time with new arcade ports being released for the Dreamcast in Japan up to 2007, and let's be clear that Sega's last console, which is rated highly and remembered fondly, is a significant one and that the difference in sales numbers between the Gamecube and the Dreamcast pale in comparison to the difference in numbers between the Gamecube and PS2.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, Alphathon, you're taking both sides of the issue here. Your first point is an attempt to counter 24.60.220.148's argument, but with your second one you argue that the Dreamcast's lifespan had nothing to do with its low sales, when it was you who edited in a sentence implying just the contrary and 24.60.220.148 who is clearly arguing against that. Please make up your mind which position you want to argue for before posting or editing this article further. Arguing both positions gives people the impression that you have no real opinion on the issue and are simply here to start a fight.

While I'm here, I'll point out that your first point is simply that the magnitudes in 24.60.220.148's analogies are different, which misses the entire point, not just of his specific analogies, but of analogies in general. The point of an analogy is to look past magnitudes to the true nature of the issue. In this case, what I get out of the analogy(not saying this is what 24.60.220.148 meant) is that just as John Kerry was not personally responsible for the various reasons why minor party candidates stand no chance in a presidential election, the GameCube is not responsible for Sega completely losing consumer confidence, alienating some of their most talented developers into leaving, and pushing the Dreamcast out in hopes of making back some of their investment rather than in hopes of being a contender for most successful console of the generation. Thus, discussions of the Dreamcast's commercial failure are off-topic in a GameCube article. We already have History of Video Game Consoles (sixth generation) and the Dreamcast's own article for that.

Also, I can't help but note that all of you, 24.60.220.148 included, seem to be assuming the Dreamcast and Gamecube were on the market for the same time frame. In fact, the Dreamcast was just a few months shy of being taken off the market in every nation but Japan by the time the GameCube launched. It was a competitor to the Gamecube, but only for a VERY brief time.

By the way, lest anyone reading this thread fall prey to misinformation: Wikiposter 0123's above post is loaded with factual errors. You can find correct information on the Dreamcast and its games on most reliable gaming sites.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"First and foremost, Alphathon, you're taking both sides of the issue here. Your first point is an attempt to counter 24.60.220.148's argument, but with your second one you argue that the Dreamcast's lifespan had nothing to do with its low sales, when it was you who edited in a sentence implying just the contrary and 24.60.220.148 who is clearly arguing against that. Please make up your mind which position you want to argue for before posting or editing this article further. Arguing both positions gives people the impression that you have no real opinion on the issue and are simply here to start a fight."

No, I am not taking both sides; you seem to have misinterpreted my addition within the article. The addition of the line within the article was put there to show that the two were not on sale for the same length of time and are therefore not to be measured against the same scale i.e. on average for every year they were on sale, the GameCube did not sell double the units that the Dreamcast sold in a year. I do not know the figures off hand, but if the Dreamcast was on the market for, say, half as long as the GameCube, it sold at roughly same speed. On the same level, a similar disclaimer about the PS2s lifespan may be in order (possibly while noting the number of sales during the GmaeCube's lifespan if such data is available, but I doubt it is, at least no readily). My reply to 24.60.220.148 was merely to point out that the low sales were not a result of its short lifespan, but rather that it was the other way around.

"While I'm here, I'll point out that your first point is simply that the magnitudes in 24.60.220.148's analogies are different, which misses the entire point, not just of his specific analogies, but of analogies in general."

Again, no it doesn't (and by "it doesn't" I mean "I don't" - it was supposedly me who missed the point, not my post; please use grammar properly). Analogies cannot be drawn for any two things. I see that it was an attempt at an analogy, but the two situations are not analogous so no analogy can be drawn. As I said in my post, the difference between the Dreamcast and the GameCube are in no way the same to the difference between the Apple Bandai Pippin and the N64 say. The Pippin/N64 comparison is roughly analogous to what 24.60.220.148 said due to the huge difference in numbers (42 thousand vs. 32 million) - the Dreamcast/GameCube is not (11 million vs. 22 million). The whole point of that analogy was to show that the Dreamcast was small and insignificant in the same way that those fringe parties are, which simply isn't the case. As far as I can tell, there is no analogy between the Dreamcast/GameCube and US politics that can be logically drawn. Now, if it were compared to UK politics, it could possibly be compared, with the Dreamcast being the Liberal Democrats and the GameCube being Labour, since the Lib Dems are the 3rd party in our system which, while they only got a ~23% vote share and 57 seats in the last election, are considered a major party (compared in this example to Labour's 29%, 258 seats - it is quite a complicated system that is based on the number of seats overall rather than vote share - based on seats Labour ≈ 5× Lib Dems, but the vote share pushes them up in influence etc). It's quite a complicated analogy to make (and not one I would draw if it hadn't been drawn to politics to begin with) but hopefully you see the point - in a 4 console system, which is what the 6th Gen was, the Dreamcast was the 4th console, not a "fringe" or "minor" console like the Pippin was in the 5th Gen.

"The point of an analogy is to look past magnitudes to the true nature of the issue."

Not when the analogy being drawn is based on the magnitudes.

"what I get out of the analogy(not saying this is what 24.60.220.148 meant) is that just as John Kerry was not personally responsible for the various reasons why minor party candidates stand no chance in a presidential election, the GameCube is not responsible for Sega completely losing consumer confidence, alienating some of their most talented developers into leaving, and pushing the Dreamcast out in hopes of making back some of their investment rather than in hopes of being a contender for most successful console of the generation."

Really? That's how you interpret it? To me it seems to simply be saying "The Dreamcast is like a small, 'irrelevant' political party - a comparison with a big, 'major' one like the GameCube should not be drawn". I think this is possibly why you think I have missed the analogy - we have interpreted completely differently. In the article there isn't (and wasn't) any implication that the GameCube caused the Dreamcasts poor sales, only that it performed favourably when compared.

"...discussions of the Dreamcast's commercial failure are off-topic in a GameCube article. We already have History of Video Game Consoles (sixth generation) and the Dreamcast's own article for that"

It is not off topic when the topic is a sales comparison with other consoles. If it is off-topic to compare it to the Dreamcast, it is also off-topic to compare it to the PS2 and the Xbox. It should be noted that nowhere was the Dreamcast's "failure" mentioned, only the number of units sold and its relatively short lifespan, and causation between the GC and the poor results was made.

"Also, I can't help but note that all of you, 24.60.220.148 included, seem to be assuming the Dreamcast and Gamecube were on the market for the same time frame. In fact, the Dreamcast was just a few months shy of being taken off the market in every nation but Japan by the time the GameCube launched. It was a competitor to the Gamecube, but only for a VERY brief time."

This is finally a worthwhile/valid point and one which I hadn't really considered. As a result I am unsure which side to take now (it should or shouldn't be in the article) as you are right - they didn't really compete. I would say that is possibly notable purely on the basis that they were sold at around the same time so were subject to similar market forces (size of the games industry etc) so is possibly a worthwhile comparison.

"By the way, lest anyone reading this thread fall prey to misinformation: Wikiposter 0123's above post is loaded with factual errors."

Well, I wouldn't disagree there. The only reason I didn't bring them up was because I got back here a day or so later and it would seem to have been resolved (24.60.220.148 hadn't reverted it back basically).

Another note, in your edit summary you mention that edit warring does not further your point (or something to that effect). Does your reversion not count in that respect? I don't know. It may be similar to a dispute currently on the Mega Drive article where edits during the discussion could be considered disruptive (as they were imposing the users will on the argument) and reversion of said edits (back to the original form) were simply undoing the disruption to the discussion.

P.S. I am not after a fight here. I think it is simply a case of misinterpretation of arguments (stemming from a misinterpretation of earlier arguments by 24.60.220.148). I really don't want to be part of dispute so I'll probably leave it be, for now at least.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Lest anyone be deceived by someone who doesn't know anything about the Dreamcast. Taken from the lead of the Dreamcast article:

"However, support of the system continued in Europe and Oceania until the end of 2002, as well as in Japan, where consoles were still sold until 2007 and new licensed games continued to be released."Wikiposter0123 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ho boy, now Wikiposter0123's saying we should use a Wikipedia article as a source for a Wikipedia article. Please read WP: Citing Wikipedia. Incidentally, there's a difference between games being released for a system and the system being supported. Also, I can undo your edit warring for as long as you keep it up, so I advise you to stop wasting your time.

Anyway, Alphathon - While I'm speaking of the edit warring issue, Wikiposter0123's reverts were inappropriate for two reasons. First is that the edit in question was already under debate and no resolution had been reached. The second reason is that WP: STATUSQUO says "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives." (So technically, Alpathon, your initial revert of your edit was against Wiki policies; however, it was understandable. You explained your reason for reverting the edit in the edit summary, which shows that you thought 24.60.220.148 didn't fully understand the reason behind your edit, and were not simply trying to force your edit through.) I agree that it seems suspicious when I happen to agree with the status quo, but I think I would have reverted Wikiposter0123's edit even if I agreed with the actual content of the edit. By the way, though it wouldn't qualify as a reason to revert his edit, the taunting mimicry used in his edit summary(and again in his post above) is not in accordance with Wikipedia policies on dispute resolution either.

I apologize if I seemed to be accusing you of looking to start a fight. It's just that I abhor fights, so I got very nervous when I saw more than one self-contradiction in your first post.

Going over your post backwards now... No, I did mean that your post misses the point. Your post doesn't contain all of your thoughts. Besides, I'm fairly sure that picking at irrelevant grammar points is not in the spirit of Wikipedia dispute resolution. Also, you keep assuming that everyone else here is focused on the issue of magnitude, when I see nothing in 24.60.220.148's post to suggest that, and I made pretty clear that I believe discussion of magnitude overlooks the real issue, which is whether or not the Dreamcast has any significance with regard to the Gamecube. In general, it's not a good idea to assume that everyone is coming from the same viewpoint as you.

Yes, your edit says nothing of the Dreamcast's failure explicitly, but talk of the Gamecube outselling the Dreamcast is in essence a statement on the Dreamcast's failure. To use the analogy again, John Kerry got more votes because the third party candidates got fewer votes than a major party candidate could possibly get, not because John Kerry was a relatively successful major party candidate. Likewise, given that the Dreamcast sold only 10.6 million units, it's no surprise that the Gamecube sold more. 10.6 million is less than a console from a major developer like Nintendo was at all likely to get. And since the consoles were only briefly on the market at the same time, it can't be said that the Dreamcast sold so little because it was losing sales to the Gamecube.

Continuing along that line, I think you're a bit too concerned with how many consoles undersold the Gamecube. The fact that the Gamecube was such a close third to the Xbox in sales says a lot more about the GC's success than the fact that there exists a DOA console which undersold the GC. And really, the most meaningful point is its 22 million worldwide sales, which was a respectable figure. I think if we can get a sourced statement that 22 million was a decent amount of sales at the time, or better yet, that Nintendo made a profit on the Gamecube, I'd say that would be MUCH better than citing the Dreamcast's sales.

However, I don't have a source that says that at hand, and it's likely that you don't have such a source, either. And I do agree that though the two consoles didn't really compete with each other, the fact that they had similar capabilities and were sold on a similar market does arguably make a comparison of their sales relevant. So if you're not happy with leaving the article as is, I'd be okay with a more brief mention of the Dreamcast, say "The GameCube finished its generation slightly behind the Xbox, which sold 24 million units before being discontinued, and well ahead of the short-lived Dreamcast, which sold 10.6 million." That way it mentions the DC's sales without seeming to make a point of them. If 24.60.220.148 is still following this discussion, he too should chime in with whether or not he approves of that compromise. Looking at his contributions history, I suspect he hasn't been on Wikipedia since you posted your rebuttal, so we should at least give him a couple more days to voice his opinion. Assuming, of course, that you yourself don't object to my suggestion.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Also, I can undo your edit warring for as long as you keep it up, so I advise you to stop wasting your time."

"Wikiposter0123's reverts were inappropriate for two reasons."

Actually, I never said that they were appropriate (here we go again with the interpretation issues), I was simply pointing out that you are also edit warring and was wondering if your reverts were any more appropriate. Edit warring doesn't necessarily have to be negative, it simply isn't punished (usually) if it isn't. <pedant>Also, technically you cannot undo edit warring; you can only undo edits made during an edit war.</pednat>

"First is that the edit in question was already under debate and no resolution had been reached.

Seems like pretty much what I said isn't it? ("...edits during the discussion could be considered disruptive (as they [are] imposing the users will on the argument) and reversion of said edits (back to the original form) [are] simply undoing the disruption to the discussion.")

"If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives."

Surely this means that my version (i.e. what was originally there) should remain. I don't quite know how status quo is being used here but it seems to me that since the Dreamcast info has been there for a while (AFAIK), it would be the status quo. I did not add the Dreamcast info - it was there already. 24.60.220.148 removed it out of the blue (note I do not mean without reason, only that it wasn't a revert of an addition.

Never mind, I checked and it would seem that the Dreamcast info was added by Wikiposter0123 on July 26th. I was not aware that this was the case and assumed when 24.60.220.148 made his/her edit that the Dreamcast info was the status quo. Also, I wasn't aware of that specific wikipedia rule, although it would seem I do adhere to it anyway (seems logical to me).

"Besides, I'm fairly sure that picking at irrelevant grammar points is not in the spirit of Wikipedia dispute resolution."

Probably not but I didn't mean anything by it. I'm a bit of a grammar nazi and it screws with my head when I have to reply to something like that (I can't stand to be grammatically incorrect like that, but in cases like that I have to be to make sense). It wasn't meant as an insult or anything.

"Also, you keep assuming that everyone else here is focused on the issue of magnitude, when I see nothing in 24.60.220.148's post to suggest that, and I made pretty clear that I believe discussion of magnitude overlooks the real issue, which is whether or not the Dreamcast has any significance with regard to the Gamecube. In general, it's not a good idea to assume that everyone is coming from the same viewpoint as you."

I did not make such an assumption. That is how I interpreted 24.60.220.148's original argument, nothing more; everything I said was a response to that, pointing out that the argument, as I interpret it, is invalid. I was not assuming that anyone other than 24.60.220.148 was taking issue with the magnitude, or even that 24.60.220.148 was, only that it was how the argument appeared to me. I do have a very "it is this way" way of talking (rather than "I think") so it's understandable if it came off like that. It's not something I am proud of but not something I can really help...not without giving every word a serious about of thought anyway (which really isn't worth it).

"To use the analogy again, John Kerry got more votes because the third party candidates got fewer votes than a major party candidate could possibly get, not because John Kerry was a relatively successful major party candidate."

That also seems an invalid analogy, at least up to a point. In an election you can only place one vote, but you can buy more than one console. To be fair most people don't unless their existing one is discontinued, but it does contribute to sales significantly. For example, of my friends, about ⅓ have an Xbox 360, ⅓ a PS3 and ⅓ both.

"Likewise, given that the Dreamcast sold only 10.6 million units, it's no surprise that the Gamecube sold more. 10.6 million is less than a console from a major developer like Nintendo was at all likely to get."

It was also less than a major developer like SEGA was likely to get, but the console flopped. Again, this is not about whether it is surprising once you know the figures, it's about what was to be expected before the event and about what was considered to be viable competition. To be sure the Sega Saturn didn't do very well, but neither did the GameCube compared to the Wii. At that point Sega could still be considered a major developer, which is why I called that console generation a 4 console generation.

"And since the consoles were only briefly on the market at the same time, it can't be said that the Dreamcast sold so little because it was losing sales to the Gamecube."

No, but that is not why the comparison is being drawn; or at least it's not the only reason. I've been over this already (which you acknowledge later on so I'll let it slide).

<Grammar Nazi>Please do not start sentences with "And" (unless the subject of the sentence is the word "And"). "And" is designed to join to things together; If "And" is required at the beginning of a sentence then it should not be a sentence; at least not in it's present form.</Grammar Nazi>

"Continuing along that line, I think you're a bit too concerned with how many consoles undersold the Gamecube. The fact that the Gamecube was such a close third to the Xbox in sales says a lot more about the GC's success than the fact that there exists a DOA console which undersold the GC."

True, the Xbox sales do say more about the GC's success than the DC's. That doesn't mean that the DC's aren't useful, simply that they are not as useful as the Xbox's. It doesn't have to be one or the other you know - we can have both.

"And really, the most meaningful point is its 22 million worldwide sales, which was a respectable figure. I think if we can get a sourced statement that 22 million was a decent amount of sales at the time, or better yet, that Nintendo made a profit on the Gamecube, I'd say that would be MUCH better than citing the Dreamcast's sales."

Again, you seem to think it is one or the other. There is nothing to say both cannot be useful.

<Grammar Nazi>*Rawr* Again, please do not start sentences with "And".</Grammar Nazi>

"However, I don't have a source that says that at hand, and it's likely that you don't have such a source, either."

Not to hand, no. I'll see if I can find one. Anyway, go on...

"And I do agree that though the two consoles didn't really compete with each other, the fact that they had similar capabilities and were sold on a similar market does arguably make a comparison of their sales relevant. So if you're not happy with leaving the article as is, I'd be okay with a more brief mention of the Dreamcast, say "The GameCube finished its generation slightly behind the Xbox, which sold 24 million units before being discontinued, and well ahead of the short-lived Dreamcast, which sold 10.6 million." That way it mentions the DC's sales without seeming to make a point of them."

I'd be more than happy with that. I don't really think that it needs the bit I added (or the bit about them being former rivals) but when I added it I thought that it was the reason for the removal (the lack of clarification about the lifespan), so I tried to clarify it.

<Grammar Nazi>*Rawr* "And I do agree..." *Rawr*</Grammar Nazi>

"If 24.60.220.148 is still following this discussion, he too should chime in with whether or not he approves of that compromise. Looking at his contributions history, I suspect he hasn't been on Wikipedia since you posted your rebuttal, so we should at least give him a couple more days to voice his opinion. Assuming, of course, that you yourself don't object to my suggestion."

Seems fair. I think it's fair to wait until maybe Saturday, or this time next week at most.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

For someone who claims to dislike arguing your actions seem awfully contradictory)

"Incidentally, there's a difference between games being released for a system and the system being supported."

Um, no. Being supported pretty much means games are being released, and if you had even bothered to look at the last Dreamcast games that were released you would've noticed the sheer factual inaccuracies of your claims:

Triggerheart Exelica released in 2007

Last Hope released in 2007

Radium released in 2007

Karous released in 2007

DUX released 2009

Rush Rush Rally Racing released in 2009

As for your self-righteous justification for your reverts. I already explained that a sole IP address had complained, I didn't revert him, someone else did, then that IP reverted them so I reverted him. Hardly "edit warring". After a discussion had continued for 4 days without any response it appeared the IP address had withdrawn and being the only objector I reinserted the material. You seem to like to accuse people of edit warring and breaking the rules and being illogical and factually inaccurate(without even checking the facts for yourself I might add), but all that pales in comparison with how you do that with a self-righteous smug grin on your face and patting yourself on the back for not being argumentative. If you really want to continue arguing go ahead, I may or may not respond.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiposter0123, your lies are really pathetic. Do you not realize that anyone can tell that your claim of "After a discussion had continued for 4 days" is complete bull just by taking a glance at the history for this article? I won't even bother addressing your other lies. Since this matter has started you've done nothing but make disruptive edits, post false information, and otherwise flaunt your open disregard for Wikipedia's rules. I really hope you're not planning to keep working on Wikipedia for long, as behavior like yours tends to lead to getting indefinitely blocked.

Alphathon - Actually, I did understand your question about edit warring, it's just that my answer was poorly worded and insufficient, something that hit me a half hour later. The reason reverting to the status quo is appropriate is, firstly, it prevents there from being a standard where the rules only apply to those who choose to follow them. So in this case, Wikiposter0123 would be able to force his edit through knowing that unless someone with the opposite viewpoint and a similar disregard for the rules decides to edit war with him, his edit is untouchable. Bypassing discussion on edits would thus be rewarded rather than punished. The second reason... Well, if something is status quo, that means its been accepted by the article's editors for some time. So while the status quo may be wrong, it's probably not so disastrously wrong that the article can't be allowed to stay that way until the dispute is resolved. Something that is not status quo doesn't contain any such reassurance. For instance, an editor might change an article to say Winston Churchill was one of Mussolini's top aides, and then dispute the reversion of that edit. So the rules have to go with defense of the status quo to prevent ludicrous edits from remaining in the article for an extended period of time. There is, incidentally, a forum where you can request that the status quo be enforced by temporarily locking the article, preventing it from being edited. I didn't think that necessary in this case since only one editor is causing problems.

I know your grammar comment wasn't meant as an insult, but just as general advice, it's a good idea to avoid mentioning grammar in a debate on Wikipedia. For one thing, someone may either know more about grammar than you, or think they know more, which could start an extended debate over a grammatical point.

Yeah, until Saturday sounds like enough time for 24.60.220.148 to respond. We should check what Wikipedia policy says about that, though - we don't want 24.60.220.148 popping up later to revert the edit and fuming at us for breaking WP rules. Not saying that he would, mind you. I can't find a relevant policy right now, though, and I gotta run...--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, and here I thought this was an open-and-shut case! Yeah, the suggested compromise works for me. To be blunt, I think the Dreamcast shouldn't be mentioned in that section at all, but the compromise edit takes care of the main problem, and I don't want to have a debate over a minor quibble, especially since, if the compromise edit had been used in the first place, I'm not sure I'd have even been bothered by it enough to revert it. Anyway, as a show of no hard feelings, I'll do the job of editing it in as you guys have worded it.--24.60.220.148 (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Glad that we were able to resolve this in a mutually agreeable manner.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)