pauluzzzz1981 said:
| Viper1 said:
It wasn't a success? How do you even qualify that?
It was a market success - owned more than 50% of the market.
It was a commercial success - revived a dead industry.
It was a financial success - highly profitable.
It also established some of the most beloved IP's in video game history.
It established dozens of fundamental innovations still in use today.
It renewed investor confidence that had black balled the entire video game industry.
It also established the fundamental 3rd party licensing system used even today
The only factor you've stated that negates the 'success' was the fact the licensing prices were rather high and number of allowed liscense per year per publisher was low which I'd hardly call a negation.
I mean this in the kindest sense bu your definition of success could use some revision.
|
discussion ended half an hour ago. Point taken. We think differently. I like it here.
|
Problem is, he makes more sense and justifies his qualification of the NES as a success quite well.
But I still see some validity to your point. The easiest way to go about it is that the NES was mostly a short-lived success due to the bitterness of 3rd parties towards Nintendo, which bit Nintendo in the ass come the N64 generation and even affected them in the SNES generation.
Nevertheless, the statement Nintendo is only very succesfull in the handheldmarket. doesn't hold up in the face of the NES and the SNES, despite the bitterness it caused 3rd parties.
