Xbox acquires Bethesda

[hunter_alien]

RolStoppable said:

hunter_alien said:

Yes, so all that you proved me is the fact that Sony actually worked on maintaining a good relationship with 3rd parties while Nintendo decided not to, hence the result that stilkl can be felt a quarter century later. Nintendo was taking massive chunks as royalties, and Sony decided not to do this. Nintendoi taught that they were the only 800 pund gorilla in the ring (let me see if this rings a bell) and they failed misserably.

Nintendo was also notorios about signing only exclusive deals with 3rd parties during the SNES era. This is also a very well documented fact, reason why Sega often got tthe shitty versions of games or no games at all.

The fact was that Sony managed to cut the price of the PS2 for one simple reason: they were selling shitloads and they could afford it. Also, because of their gaming library, even at a higher price/lower specs they destroyed the competition. I would simply say bravo to that.

All in all, I could agree that your memory is fairly intact, though the way you analize them leaves a whole lot to be desired.

If I use your logic of maintaining a good relationship with third parties, then Nintendo making a deal with Capcom to prevent Monster Hunter coming to PS Vita wasn't a moneyhat. Nintendo merely worked on having a good relationship with Capcom while Sony couldn't care less, hence why Sony's handheld business came to an end. But the truth is, once such a moneyhat has gone through, there's nothing that a competing console manufacturer can do about it.

You'll have to give some examples of this well documented fact that Sega got shitty versions of games and which third party games Nintendo had actual deals with.

To this day people are amazed/perplexed that Nintendo made more profits from console gaming during the PS2 era than Sony. You say bravo to that, but Sony's takeaway was a different one, hence why they didn't repeat it with the PS4. They realized that they'd be throwing a lot of money away for no appreciable reason.

Who is perplexed, the GBA pretty much guaranteed that Nintendo will remain highly profitable as the only relevant handheld manufacturer on a global scale.

Also, I hate doing research for others, but just for the argument's sake here you go:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27373587

Quote: "The idea is that the firm was obsessed by the quality of the titles released for its platform, leading it to impose restrictions on how many games other third-party publishers could release each year and reserving the right to reject their work if it felt it didn't meet Nintendo's standards. Sega deliberately took the opposite tack, resulting in it being able to boast a larger games library, even if it had more duds."

Nintendo almost literary severed its relationship with 3rd parties during that gen, hiding behind the "quality" mantra, yet notable real stinkers prove that it was mostly a tool to keep devs firmly in their ecosystem.

There is also a decent book about it, detailing how :

The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World

Most of the relevant parts are on the SNES wikipedia page, under the Console wars and Changes section, so feel free to check them out.

This is also a topic that was widely covered by several online personalities including the AVGN and even Digital Foundry, so it's pretty hard to imagine that you never came upon this info.