| Zod95 said: Sure it is relevant. Finally I have examples that I can at least half-count. Although they are not made by Nintendo, they are not just educational software but true videogames. Thanks for your input. Given the release dates, we can perceive it was in times when Nintendo was about to start the console business. Any games from the 90s onwards produced by Nintendo and launched on the PC or other consoles? If so, then the OP is wrong and I must correct it. If not, then the OP is just fine since it doesn't say that Nintendo has never launched games on other systems, just that they have engaged into such a strategy (at some point). |
I'm glad you found it to be useful. ^_^ For the record, I do consider the likes of Mario is Missing and Time Machine pointed out before to count as videogames though, regardless of their intent to be educational. The way they operate fits the cathegory in my opinion, and the fact that they appeared on NES/SNES is something to consider here, as it shows at least how Nintendo didn't think of them as being out of place in said platforms.
As for your question, no, I can't think of more examples from the 90s onwards, outside of the CD-I games, the examples S.Peelman mentioned, and Pokédex 3D on iOS (which is arguably more of an app than a game). There's also versions of Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr. and Mario Bros. on the Atari 7800, but those were released on 1988.
| Zod95 said: The logic about criticising Nintendo's exclusivity is not simple but it is explained in the OP. Exclusivity alone would not be that much of a problem but it is part of something bigger. Nintendo has created an integrated and long-term strategy based on exclusivity and elitism to inflate the perceived value of their games |
As others have stated before, these games you allude to keep selling at full price because the demand is there. They are usually refered to as "evergreen" titles, capable of selling for long periods of time, yet having relatively low sales at launch compared to other "AAA" games. Not every game from Nintendo's lineup follows this trajectory though, as other games with less demand like Metroid: Other M, Paper Mario: Sticker Star, Wii Play: Motion, and Sin and Punishment: Star Successor evidence. Basically, only those Nintendo games that find mainstream success in the long run or the rare cases of niche games that get low shipments get to keep their price. The rest drops just as much as your average game or more.
Furthermore, Nintendo has been reprinting many of their most popular games through budget labels like "Player's Choice", "Minna no Susume" and "Nintendo Selects" since the SNES era, and through the E-Shop they have done sales and promotions on 3DS and WiiU, even if most of them are for Virtual Console and download-only games.
And your point about NES cartridges ignores the fact that said media was much more expensive to manufacture than the optical media we use these days, which naturally makes it more of a risk to overship, not to mention the condition of the market at the time. Nowadays, with the current move to digital media, this issue is becoming more and more irrelevant anyway.
| Zod95 said: This doesn't apply to Microsoft or Sony because they haven't followed this strategy at all. It's pointless to talk about Microsoft on this subject since they also have Windows on PC, but Sony has been releasing many titles outside of the PlayStation ecosystem. Also, they drop the price of their games and have never created such policies as the Nintendo's "inventory management". Sony has been very far from this inflation strategy and PlayStation Now is another proof of that. |
The first party lineup of both Sony and Microsoft (Xbox) is largely exclusive, so I don't see how they aren't doing the same here. Sure, Microsoft has allowed a few of their exclusives to be ported to Windows later (part of them being 2nd party games), Rare has developed a few games on Nintendo handhelds, and Sony has SOE for MMOs on PC, but all this is more of the exception than the rule. And since Windows is also a Microsoft platform as you mentioned, it's not much of a counter-point for them here.
As for Playstation Now, that's a service through streaming, so I don't think it's of much relevance in this context. This model is not only dependant on your internet bandwidth, but you're also "renting" the games (as far as I know at least). Personally, I prefer to own my media and physically if possible, and I don't have any confidence in playing games through streaming, so I'm definitely not interested... And I doubt I'm in the minority here...
