By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pizzahut451 on 31 May 2010
Edit Thread
dunno001 said:
pizzahut451 said:

they hand over their buisnes to Phlips, so why not to Sony instead??? What is so horrible about Sony using their IPs??? They werent even in a gaming industry back than

And no they didnt, the only reason Nintendo made more money is becuase of their HANDHELD hardware and software sales COMBINED with their gamecube sales, PS2 alone made much more money than GC alone, thats for sure at least. Same with PS1 and N64.

Try reading what others have said- the deal with Philips was to license the properties for a few titles, while Nintendo still retained ownership. Whereas the deal with Sony, with Sony's hand in the CD format, would have given ownership TO SONY of any property put on a CD format. So Mario 64 would be on a CD? Guess what? Sony now owns it, despite having done nothing in the making of it! Nintendo saw this, and obviously, did not agree to this term, hence why Philips was even brought into the picture. I would imagine that Nintendo had disclosure to Philips as to why they were being asked to do what was already publically known to be happening with Sony. Philips, making the deal sweeter for Nintendo, only asked to be able to use some of their IPs in their own games. Nintendo would keep intellectual rights to Mario, Link, etc, but they would show up on a few CD-i games, made by Philips. And yes, I do think that history shows that Nintendo cutting from Sony was correct. Had they not, I'd not be surprised if Nintendo we relegated to developing games for Sony systems by this point, with all the rights being owned by them.

As for your second paragraph, you don't know that for certain. We don't have breakdowns by system, so do not try to pass off your guess as fact. All that is known, is that Nintendo has always made a profit on their systems; the exact amount however, is not known. Likewise, it is also known that when Sony launched a system, it was sold at a loss initially. You might be able to find a point when the PS1 or PS2 went to profit per unit, but can you find the exact profit/loss prices based on all the retail points, cost decreases, etc? Probably not, so we don't know Sony's exact system margin either. If you can find ALL of the information I asked for, then maybe I'll believe it. Until then, I don't know which system did make more money, and I'll assume, neither do you.

i did not know about the bolded part. oh well, i know when im wrong. but still, nintendo shouldnt have made the contract in the first place. Didnt they read the contract at all? Its like ''hey how about  guys make some CD drives for our next consoles?''  ''OK, but you have to sign this contract here''   ''Ok, fine''  *after the CD drive is done*   ''You know what, screw you, we dont need your CD drive, we actually read the contract and we dont accept it. Bye''   Nintendo should actually read the contract before screwing Sony over. Thats why Sony got pissed and made their own console. If NIntendo said NO in the first place, Sony probably wouldnt care

 

Your other bolded part doesnt make any sense, if nintendo didnt ditch sony they wouldnt have made PS1, their original console. so nintendo wouldnt have to make their games for sony consoles.

 

And i know that for certain because i used some logic. How can a system that sold 22 million consoles and had averige/poor software sales and reached 99$ price faster than any other system out there make more money than the system who sold 145+ million consoles and sold over 2 billion software (and its still selling today)??? And FYI, Nintendo also sold GameCube at lost on its first year.