| AbbathTheGrim said:
Could you please provide links that confirm the following information: - Trip doing whatever he did in response to the "power" of Nintendo. You bring the EA example, what else can you mention that could make the industry biased against Nintendo? EA is not the whole industry. Please, things that show that they are purposely biased, not just expresing their feelings on Nintendo. Sony is reliant in third parties for what in specific? They have many exclusives and they sell very well, not comparable to the ones from Nintendo for the Wii but that is an exception Nintendo themselves will have difficulty to repeat. Even Micro seems to be stepping up their game, we will see. Third parties are an advantage, everyone wants them including Nintendo. I didn't get the last paragraph, the things in quotes. I recall reading comments about people wanting Nintendo to expand development in order to provide more games due to the drought in games currently in the WIiU. |
1) "Electronic Arts's relationship with Sega produced significant rewards for both companies. Genesis quickly became a lucrative new outlet for Electronic Arts, and Sega benefited from having a line of sophisticated games that appealed to and older audience more than most games on the NES.
Nintendo approached Electronic Arts about making games for NES in the mid-1980s, long before Sega announced Genesis. But Hawkins did not want to make games for the eight-bit console. He and many other Electronic Arts board members felt that NES was not powerful enough to run their computer games and they did not want to downgrade their games to run on it. Like many people at the time, Hawkins was openly disdainful of console games and critical of Nintendo's chances of success", -- The Ultimate History of Video Games by Steven L. Kent, p. 409.
Familiar rhetorics, isn't it? "Older audience", "not powerful enough", "do not want to downgrade" etc. He never really changed his stance on Nintendo and console in general to a lesser extent despite being proven wrong. For the record if you think Steven Kent is some sort of Nintendo-worshipper, he really isn't. He was openly critical about the Wii, thought it'd fail (many thought that way though), when was proven wrong was quoted to say smth like "I pity that people weren't smart enough not to buy this piece of shit", -- or smth along those lines.
2) When I was more interested in the subject VGC is dealing with, I did this chart. These are revenues from video game publishing on all relevant consoles at the time:
I still have methodology for this and links on the sources (though links might be broken by now). I went over trouble to check every fiscal report of major publishers back then and make them consistent (different fiscal periods, GAAP vs. Non-GAAP, currency conversion etc., no inflation depreciation though). The most questionable numbers are "Others" as I took them from VGC directly.
So to put this chart into words, Nintendo used to be HUGE, every fourth buck made in the biz was made by Nintendo just on two consoles versus sixth of them for the rest of the publishers, or two put it differently in 2009 Nintendo was as big as four it's biggest contenders put together. Nintendo potentionally could be literally not-reliant on third parties at all, the only way to convience third parties to make a consistent publishing business on Nintendo hardware is to make Nintendo hardware dominant by Nintendo software. Sony cannot do that, not even close, while Nintendo theoretically still could that.
