DonFerrari said:
fordy said:
DonFerrari said:
fordy said:
DonFerrari said:
whatever you think... and about companies having "emotions", that is a language artifice, altough companies have "persona" described by their objectives, phillosophy and the general posture of directive board.
And about ventures, that is not what most senior board members do, that would be more prey bird behavior... like the equity admin that keep complain about sony not selling out some of its part so he can have quick cash.
|
Policies do not equal emotions.Microsoft and Sony don't have policies to be snide, or vengeful to those who have done them wrong elsewhere. If that were the case, Sony's laptop industry would have gone kaput, you wouldn't see many BluRay players supported in Windows, and Nintendo would have released the SNES with limited supply of SPC700 chips. Business finds itself better off unhindered because of other conflicts. Despite what the majority think, Nintendo and Sony DID patch up their relationship between the 1991 CES and the next gen...
As for your second argument, you're not exactly thinking into it too much, are you? I can point you to a LOT of executives that have moved between Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft/Sega as well as other members of the game industry. There's no single handed "devotion" to a business (unless of course you're the owner/creator, but businesses as big as these rarely do..). You could see Kaz working at Nintendo, or Reggie working at Microsoft. The only ones that would have meltdowns over it would be the diehard fans...
|
I know they are in good terms. You still seems to think I ment regret as pissed, I wasn't. But Ninty certainly would preffer not having sony as competitor during PS1 and PS2, and Sony would preffer not having to bleed on PS3 because of X360 fierce competition.
You are talking about hired executives, and without knowing japanese culture to think Kaz would work for Ninty for a bigger paycheck while Sony still breaths... about american staff they have no aliance or loyalty to company. That is why their investors are birds of prey and not the japanese ones...
|
I know what you're thinking, and this does not constitute as regret. Why? Because Sony always had intentions to enter the gaming market. It wasn't a spite thing after the Nintendo move to Philips. In fact, the reason why this occured was because Sony's lawyers shaped the contract so that Sony would be the sole licensor of the SNES CD media (just so you know, game licensing was, and still is, where all the money is for console development). There's no regretting something that somebody else does when they are determined to do it.
It's a different matter for Japanese culture, and the answer isn't one or the other. The reason is because it's looked down upon by Japanese society, so the question is, do Japanese executives not do this because of loyalty, or because they fear their culture shunning them after such an act.
|
Never said it was in spite have I? The reports I saw was more like they already have it done so they decided to launch, not that they had it premeditated... at the time Nintendo were at danger of being bad looked because of the failure of the bussinees not Sony, so I would need to see this suposed document that Sony lawyers were giving Nintendo IP to Sony, and I doubt Nintendo would sign it like that. And It got finished not after initial talks, but after a major part of the project were already done.
Either way, Japanese executives wouldn't be willing to keep changing companies to go after money. And even tough you say companies don't have emotion, their public perceptance is usually reflex of a collection of attitudes of higher ups that aren't any 1 month employee (even in America).
|
False. The "Play Station" was totally reworked into the PlayStation. For starters, the original 2 standalones could accept SNES cartridges, and used a variation of the SNES control pad. Read that link that I posted. The only similarity between the prototypes and the released product is the name, and even that isn't 100% the same...
I didn't say IP, I said licensor access. All games licensed for the SNES CD (particularly 3rd parties, but could include Nintendo games) would have been done by Sony, not Nintendo. There is dispute on whether it was signed and overlooked, or they found it before signing, but there is no dispute that the Nintendo-Philips agreement came solely because of this particular article..Once again, read the link.
Your attitude towards corpporate entities is quite sickening to say the least. You're under the perception that companies WANT you to feel that corporations are living, breathing entities and therefore, become emotionally attached to them. It's once again, Business 101 (maybe a little more advanced). It's not coincidental, either. PR WANT emotional attachment, because it brings in more money. That's it. Nothing more.
Expand your brain a little:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keH4g2IuLnA
