By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Grey Acumen said:
From what I recall, the reason why Nintendo backed out on the deal was because it would have given Sony complete rights over the CD games produced for that system, and that they would have even had access to use the Nintendo icons like Mario and Zelda without any input from Nintendo.

While admittedly, it was a bit of a slap. It was a necessary slap for Nintendo to survive as a company. While Nintendo may have lost ground since the Playstation came out, they might not even exist at all right now if they had stuck with the original deal.

Either way, I think the competition is good. I was dissapointed with how the N64 and Gamecube were handled, but I don't think there would have ben as much advancement as there has been without the competition spurning them to make the attempts. I'd be incredibly sad to think of what things might have been, if DDR or Smash Bros. had never been created. Without Nintendo as a competitor, Sony might not have bothered to come out with DDR, and without Sony to compete against, Nintendo might not have been willing to try for a game like Smash Bros.

Also, I don't think we would have EVER gotten a system like the Wii if Nintendo hadn't been completely backed up against the wall like this. Nintendo is also perhaps the only company that could have risked the type of innovation they introduced with the Wii. The Playstation's success has all been from 3rd party games and the like. Sony never would have been able to risk the chance that the 3rd party companies wouldn't support the new technology. Nintendo on the other hand has managed to survive almost completely on their own 1st party titles, and so the risk wasn't nearly as huge for them.

DDR? Do you mean Konami's Dance Dance Revolution, or another thing that DDR stands for?



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs