By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RolStoppable said:
pokoko said:

Your points about moneyhatting and pushing out smaller competitors seem very strange when you consider that Nintendo locked up North America by forcing third-parties to sign exclusive contracts, a practice that would later be deemed illegal.  You can hardly say Nintendo was the victim of an unfair playing field when they benefited by draconian policies more than anyone.

I mean, you just made a post about how much money Nintendo has made.  They were not a little guy getting bullied; at the time, they were the bully and they had all the advantages.  They had literally crushed retailers who protested their trade practices by refusing to distribute to them, which was doom during the NES days.

No matter how much you want that martyr's shroud, it just doesn't gel with reality.

Nintendo had every chance in the world to compete with the PS1.  There are no excuses in business.

None of those practices from the NES days were valid anymore by the time the PS1 came around. They were gone during the SNES era already. How are they relevant then?

Nintendo had used "tricks", as you call them, to achieve market dominance, which they still held in the SNES era.  They were perfectly willing and able to run over any competitor who could not match them.  They were in the catbird seat and I doubt anyone can dispute that.  They had market influence, they had money, and they had brand exposure and recognition.

Had they made the right decisions, the Playstation probably would have finished second.

Heck, I remember when the N64 was expected to steamroll the PSX.  Instead, cartridges were smaller and very expensive, Nintendo charged higher royalties and controlled production in Japan, and third-parties went elsewhere.  It was less about what Sony did right than about what Nintendo did wrong.  "Tricks" were the least of their problems.