| DonFerrari said: It never get old "Nintendo invent and Sony rip-off". Then you show it was done 10 or more years before Nintendo and radio silence. |
Except nothing of the sort was even said this post proves you never even read the original post and blindly assumed.
| COKTOE said: Giving a company a more attractive business deal, with more opportunity for success, isn't "money-hatting". That same misconception could be errantly applied to all PS1 third party support, because PS1 introduced lower licensing fees across the board compared to Nintendo. Asking for less of a cut, does not, AT ALL, equate to "money-hatting". To say nothing for the inherent benefits of cost reduction the CD medium provided over carts. There were reasons why so many 3rd parties went to PS in that era, and most of them didn't involve direct payments from Sony. Also, you're saying "Sony gave Squaresoft a vastly reduced licensing fee" on FF VII. Vastly? The fee was already low. I'd appreciate a source on that to see how much it was reduced from the standard percentage. |
Problem is no other third party got the same same deal and at the time the wasn't a clear case of it having more opportunity it was a risk back then PS1 only became a lead platform in the late 90s FFVII released in 96 meaning when it was in development the platform was still in a rocky situation as at that point SEGA were still taking the fight to them and N64 was the hyped platform on the way. No one else was helped with their budget and SEGA already had lower fees than Nintendo nor did anyone else have their marketing paid for them, Square were comfortable asking Sony for money in later years leading to the 18% share purchase to save them something that happened with no other company. Companies don't just jump on new unproven platforms because they offer slightly better deals they need a huge incentive to do so especially when they could go with Sega instead.
