RolStoppable said:
pokoko said:
Nintendo had used "tricks", as you call them, to achieve market dominance, which they still held in the SNES era. They were perfectly willing and able to run over any competitor who could not match them. They were in the catbird seat and I doubt anyone can dispute that. They had market influence, they had money, and they had brand exposure and recognition.
Had they made the right decisions, the Playstation probably would have finished second.
Heck, I remember when the N64 was expected to steamroll the PSX. Instead, cartridges were smaller and very expensive, Nintendo charged higher royalties and controlled production in Japan, and third-parties went elsewhere. It was less about what Sony did right than about what Nintendo did wrong. "Tricks" were the least of their problems.
|
I never mentioned the word "tricks" in this thread.
Secondly, you once again show that there are gaping holes in your knowledge of video game history. You make it seem like Nintendo pushed out smaller competitors when they entered the market (you specifically refered to the USA), but the reality is that at the time Nintendo brought the Famicom as the NES to North America, there was no living and breathing video game console market. It was actually challenging for Nintendo to get retailers to stock their video game system. The two scenarios (Nintendo entering the market, Sony entering the market) aren't even comparable. Nintendo re-established a market that was thought to be dead while Sony entered a thriving market.
Thirdly, all of this still ignores the points that I have originally raised, because you decided to focus on retaliation ("no matter how much you want that martyr's shroud") instead of tackling the actual argument. Let me summarize it in one question: How is Nintendo supposed to compete with Sony and Microsoft on the terms of those two companies without burning through their own money?
|
You probably shouldn't be disparaging anyone's knowledge of video game history if you don't know about Nintendo shutting out competitors in the NES era.
"This resulted in a number of lawsuits brought by both the public and private sector, and in 1992 Nintendo was found by the New York state court system to have established an illegal monopoly on the U.S. video game market. Nintendo's first response was a modest relaxing of its licensing restrictions, in which a developer had to wait at least two years before porting an NES title to another system. Unsatisfied, the American and Japanese governments eventually forced Nintendo into abandoing such tightly exclusive contracts altogether. Unfortunately for Sega, this legal intervention came too late to save the SMS, and left it without the library of games it could have had if not for Nintendo's ruthless licensing tactics." Service Games: The Rise and Fall of SEGA: Enhanced Edition
If you don't think that would hurt Sega and NEC then why would you worry about Sony buying exclusives? It's the same thing, except one makes third-parties happy while the other just makes them disgruntled. In the end, most third-parties came to Sony simply because of all the other factors, like programming support, lower fees, and cheaper game production.
As for your last question, if Nintendo doesn't want to spend their money then they don't have to. They can leave it in their war chest all they like. As you've pointed out, they have a lot of it. But, as all business people know, sometimes you have to spend money now to make money later. Sony can't even come close to matching Microsoft but they haven't held back on the PS4.
That's not really the issue, though. Nintendo spent $100 million in marketing for the N64. They didn't lose ground because they spent less money, they lost ground because of bad decisions.