Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's Boss On Western Partnerships, Online
Matt writes "It seems Nintendo President Satoru Iwata has once again spoken out, in a talk to the Japan Economic Foundation, and GameCube Advanced has the highlights. Iwata downplays online gaming, citing the example of a PS2 golf sim which outsold its online counterpart [is this Minna No Golf Online, aka Hot Shots Golf Fore!, versus its prequel?] Also, Iwata speaks about Nintendo working with other non-Japanese companies (saying 'We are now holding negotiations with major Western game developers and will be able to conclude a deal by the end of the year if things go smoothly'), and about takeover speculation regarding Bandai [vague talk of 'a closer relationship'.] In addition, he warned again that the status quo in videogames is in jeopardy... 'We are facing a critical situation, in which the number of game players will decrease unless we change tack', Iwata said."
Wind Waker was directed by Eiji Aonuma, not Miyamoto.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The PC Engine was never dominant over the Famicom. Not by a long shot. It did very well, but that can be said of the GameCube too, in the same context now, relative to the PS2.
Of course, the Mega Drive fared even poorer, whereas in Europe and (to a lesser degree, the U.S.) it was a darling.
The problem with the game industry isn't that Nintendo is no longer a mover & shaker. It's that the industry finds itself, like a teenage boy, no longer willing to move in the direction in which his father is pointing him. And no, that direction wasn't kiddie games. It was (and is) widespread, non-exclusive appeal.
But surely this is all tangential to the point that you were addressing, and the way that you addressed it. Fact: Nintendo hasn't always been the underdog. Fine.
Though I agree with you (Nintendo was ruthless company that had *very* heavy-handed tactics), I don't think the 3rd party licensing thing is accurate. The standard 3rd party licensing barred you from making the same title on another console, but I don't think that the licensees were able to get out of this -- the larger 3rd parties were able to negotionate less harsh contracts though.
Also, the Atari/Tengen lawsuit was over console licensing of Tetris, which Tengen *lost*.
What I think you're referring to is the lawsuit that the retailers brought against Nintendo. Back in the day, Nintendo wouldn't give you promotional materials, kiosks, and sometimes not even sell you games if you sold a competing console. Imagine coke not letting you sell pepsi at your grocery store.
That small point aside, you're right. Nintendo was every bit as evil as Microsoft. In fact, I think part of the reason that they faltered in the 90's was particarly because of the practices they used to such success in the 80's. Retailers, publishers, and developers were all pissed at Nintendo. As soon as a viable competitor came along, everyone jumped ship. Yeah, the cartridge-only thing was a dumb idea, too.
Is Nintendo still evil? Well, I don't think that they can afford to be (you can be an asshole when you have a monopoly, but not when you are 3rd in the US market). However, I think that Nintendo has always been a strong developer/publisher, and has always pushed gameplay over technology.
A very good book on the subject is Game Over. Definitely sheds a light on the tactics of Nintendo (and atari and sega) during the 2nd video game boom.
First with the lack of backwards compatibility (for the NES) in the SNES
Eighty-five percent of Super NES buyers in the first year or so already had an NES. Would the extra $50 (remember, 1991 dollars, 1991 recession) have justified an NES-compatibility coprocessor? How many Power Base Converters (adapters to let the Sega Genesis read Sega Master System carts using the Genesis's built-in SMS-compatibility hardware) did Sega actually sell?
And yes, the Super NES was back-compatible with Game Boy titles. With an inexpensive adapter, it could play all games for the DMG (Game Boy monochrome) platform, except those requiring a link port device.
What planet are you from? Nintendo monopolized the game industry in the late 80s like Microsoft can't to this day. It took the combined efforts of Atari Corp. and Atari Games Corp/Tengen through the court system to get Nintendo to drop their licensing agreements that stated that if any 3rd party developer made a title on the NES, it could not be ported to any other competing system.
You don't quite have your facts straight on this. Nintendo had exclusivity deals with various third parties just as they (and Sony, and MS) do now. That has not, nor will it ever, change. What Atari sued Nintendo over was their "seal of quality" program, in which Nintendo would not legally allow third parties to develop software for their system without their permission. Atari basically did not want to pay Nintendo's licensing fees and thought this amounted to a monopolistic business practice. The reason for the program from Nintendo's view was obvious, though: it was a direct response to the American game crash of 1984, which was partly caused by a glut of unlicensed, poor quality games on the market. In fact, Atari lost that lawsuit, and Nintendo won the lawsuit they later filed against Tengen. Otherwise the entire video game industry would not exist as it does today - there would be no reason for any company to make game hardware.
Whether or not you agree with the policy, Atari is hardly the good guy you're making them out to be. Remember that it was Atari who first sued Activision for developing games for the 2600 - Atari didn't think third parties even had a right to exist, licensed or not. By the time of the NES, Atari was on the ropes and out of desperation formed Tengen so they could play both sides of the fence - develop for their own systems under the Atari name and for competitors as Tengen.
Remember also that Tengen illegally released their own version of Tetris for the NES, which was subsequently pulled from the market and damages awarded to Nintendo, who owned the copyright for home console systems.
That policy hurt not only the Atari 7800, but the Sega Master System and the NEC TurboGrafx16 (T16). During that era, the Japanese version of the T16 known as the PC Engine, was the dominant system because every title was available on it. NEC brought the system to America only to find out they couldn't release hardly any of the games it enjoyed in Japan to Stateside. The Sega Genesis did not have a large amount of support from 3rd party developers either; Tengen was one of the strongest (and prominent) because they had an axe to grind with "The Other" Beast of Redmond.
This is completely, completely wrong. First of all, the PC Engine was never the "dominant system". It was more popular than it was here, but it was always second to the Famicom/Super Famicom. Second, NEC's problems in this country were of their own making, not Nintendo's - there was nothing preventing them from releasing many of their most popular games here, they just chose not to. Same goes for Sega. It's true that many of the third party games released in Japan were never released here, but that's true now of the PS2 and GameCube as well - we're just not that big into dating sims, hentai games and other genres that are all the rage over there. It's got nothing to do with licensing. And it sure doesn't explain why NEC and Sega didn't bring some of their own most popular first party titles over here - it was simply ineptitude on the parts of these manufacturers.
And lastly, Tengen was never as big as you seem to think they were, and they were only in business for a short time before their legal issues shut them down (the licensing issue went back and forth in the courts for a while before Nintendo prevailed). Some of their games were quality games but they were always a second-tier publisher, similar to a company like THQ today (which Sega uses to release a lot of their games on other systems, similar to how Atari used Tengen).
I'm not saying N
You're talking bullshit.
/. stating that Capcom "isn't interested in developing more" Xbox titles, simply saying: "There are no plans... It's just not profitable enough.".
Yes, most people buy 1st party stuff on Nintendo consoles. But that's because Nintendo often makes the best games.
Splinter Cell did't sell too well on GC because the release date was lagging behind the other releases (XBox, PC, PS2).
It was Ubi Soft's own fault. If SC's release was not that late and more technically advanced, it would've sold more units.
You also gave Capcom as another example. Interesting, because a few days ago there was an article here on