By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DevilRising on 13 March 2013
Edit Thread
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Actually you have it backwards. Nintendo had third parties in bondage from the NES to the SNES period and had almost complete third party exclusivity dominance over Sega until Sony came into the industry and gave the third parties what they wanted. They wanted tech to push their ideas and games and Nintendo has never given that to them. Nintendo negotiates with no one if they cannot win the argument, plain and simple. Nintendo was very pushy with Rare as well if I recollect the documentary I saw about them their fall and rise to the top.


Ah yes. The old "Sony rode in and saved the games industry" arguement, yes?

Sorry, but you do realize that Nintendo had good reason for implementing their strict release rules for 3rd parties during the NES era, right? It's because the western games market crashed for the very reason that on consoles like Atari etc., any company could release any game they felt like, and AS MANY games as they felt like per year. It flooded the market, people lost intrest drowing in seas of crap, and the market tanked. It was in part due to Nintendo's policies that the NES was a success and the western games market revived. It is too bad that the Master System didn't receive more ports, etc. But I don't think most third parties were complaining when they were making money hand over fist back then. And those policies were not really in place once the SNES came in. Yes, Nintendo, and it's President Yamauchi, had some harsh business policies, and yes they did clash some with 3rd parties. But the Genesis got quite a lot of multi-console ports, to be honest, not to mention it's own share of 3rd party exclusives.

And as far as Rare goes, quite frankly, they wouldn't have ever become a big name in the business had it not been for Nintendo approaching them with the creation of games like DKC and Killer Instinct. It was those franchises, and later games they made for N64, that made them a "top name" in the industry. Before that, they were just another good British developer like Codemasters who made quirky sleeper hits like Battletoads and RC Pro Am. Their "fall" came when they were sold to Microsoft, and all the good talent jumped ship. Their "fall" came after they left Nintendo, and went from making high quality games to "meh" releases almost immediately. Rare's current woes are honestly entirely their own fault.

And as far as Nintendo of TODAY goes, they're nothing like what you just described. They've been working with 3rd parties more and more, otherwise they wouldn't be getting games like Dragon Quest, and Monster Hunter, and Shin Megami Tensai x Fire Emblem, as a few examples. Or they wouldn't be having Namco co-develop Smash Bros., one of their biggest franchises. And while there is certainly a lul for the last two months in releases, I would certainly say that the early 3rd party support Wii U saw, regardless of the fact that many of them were ports, was a positive sign of things to come for Wii U. People seem to forget that. The mere fact that games like Assassin's Creed, Batman, Darksiders, Ninja Gaiden, and Mass Effect came out on a Nintendo console is a good sign. So I'm sorry, but I hardly think you have much of a point in anything you just said, as it concerns "The Big N" of today.