pokoko said:
Forcing third party developers to sign contracts that keep them from developing for your competitors is fair and square? That's not even questionable, that's actually illegal. It doesn't matter if Sega and NEC had not entered the North American market yet; Nintendo knew they were coming and was actively trying to stop competition from having a chance, thereby establishing a monopoly. That is not fair and square.
As for relevance, as I've already said, that's how they aquired a strange-hold on the market in the first place, so it certainly matters. In that respect, it's no different than anything Sony or Microsoft have done--well, again, except for being illegal. Glass houses, stones, etc.
Moving on to the SNES era and beyond, it's true that Nintendo was no longer allowed by law to use certain tactics but that doesn't mean that the overriding philosophy of squeezing and using third-parties was gone. In fact, that's very relevant, as this mentality gave first Sega and then Sony a foothold into the market.
Developers like EA were ready to ignore the console market and focus on the PC as the next gaming platform: "Like many third party publishers, EA was leery of the console business. "Nobody liked paying high royalties under restrictive licenses, and what made it even worse was having to build ROM cartridges at great cost and inventory risk," Hawkins explained. However, with the arrival of the Genesis, he saw an opportunity to once again rewrite the rules of publishing."
---
"The Nintendo 64 saw only a handful of titles from Electronic Arts. Its popularity lagged far behind Sony’s PlayStation, and Nintendo’s reliance on expensive ROM cartridges made EA unwilling to take inventory risks on anything but the most surefire hits."
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130129/we_see_farther__a_history_of_.php?print=1
That is why they lost ground, not because Sony bought more ads. It's just like the original Xbox One failing despite all of Microsoft's money. People just liked what the other guys were doing more. Relative to that $100 million, it looks like both Nintendo and Sony spent the same amount in one year. Money wasn't the separating factor.
And your question, I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. Whose money would Nintendo invest in thier business if not their own? Sony is spending their own money, even if they had to sell a building to get it. I'm pretty sure they have far less fluid capital than Nintendo. Why shouldn't Nintendo spend their own money for the sake of their own business? When I sold my first business, I rolled every bit of it into my next business. That's how it works. Amazon has become a monster by reinvesting almost everything back into the company. Fear of spending is not an excuse.
|
