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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo is the only one who has balls

DevilRising said:

Nintendo never lost third party support due to "greed". Anyone who believes that is a fool. Third parties made a TON of money and established still-to-this-day-running franchises on Nintendo consoles, even the SNES, by which time Nintendo had greatly relaxed third party publishing policy. That policy was originally implemented as a risk cutting measure for brining the NES to NA, as they had seen what had happened with the crashed American video games market. It crashed specifically because systems like Atari just allowed anyone at all to put out games for their console, and it flooded store shelves with crap that people got tired of. That isn't to say that Yamauchi's policies weren't still that of a somewhat ruthless businessman. They were. BUT, it's not as if they did it without cause, just because. And again, they relaxed those policies in the 16bit era. If third party companies hated Nintendo for these policies, they would have jumped ship to the popular-in-America Genesis console, and Game Gear. But no, for the large part, they stuck with SNES and Game Boy, or at least developed for both. Companies like Konami and Capcom eventually put out games for Genesis, but only sparingly, and their best stuff still came out on NIntendo consoles. Square and Enix both continued to exclusively put their games on SNES and Game Boy. That does not seem like the actions of companies that held Nintendo in contempt for their stringent NES-era policies.

What DID happen, which has been more than well documented, is that Nintendo decided to stick with catridges for the N64, and several third party companies decided to go more with the Playstation, not because they hated Nintendo, nor because they preferred Sony. But because they wanted to use the cheaper, and more expansive CD format. End-Of-Story. Companies like Midway, Enix, Acclaim, EA, Activision, THQ, Namco, Konami, etc. still made games for the N64. It isn't as if there was some mass exodus. And honestly, if the N64 had used CDs, you could bet your ass that the majority of games like FF7, Symphony of the Night, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, X-Men vs. Street Fighter, the further MMX games, etc. etc. would have appeared on Nintendo's console, either exclusive or at least as multiconsole games. That is literally the entire story to be found there. And quite frankly, I don't think Nintendo sticking with cartidges was really a "Greed" move, because it certainly cost them potential support, and arguably that generation, even though the N64 was still a successful console with some of the highest selling games.

And as for the quip about Nintendo having the "arrogance" to sell the 3DS at it's original price? Please. People were happy to pay similar money for a Vita. The 3DS 3D technology was fairly new and certainly not cheap. The price cut they instigated had them selling at a loss for awhile. And I seem to remember the original DS selling for somewhere around the same price as well, at launch. So I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about there.

Is Nintendo going to do some kind of used-game blocking scheme? I sure hope not. But I honestly kind of doubt they will. There is third party pressure from CERTAIN companies for the industry to go in that direction. But Nintendo understands, I think, that most hardcore Nintendo gamers buy games for keeps, and their games tend to sell well enough on average for them to not really be bothered by the prospect of the used games market. Which makes EA and MS' move more disengenuous, because both EA and MS' big franchises also tend to sell in the millions. So it's not as if the used market is costing THEM anything substantial. It's only smaller developers that might be hurt by used games sales, and people not buying new game copies. But at the same time, smaller developers are also starting to migrate towards digital. So..........really, the entire industry move makes little real sense. It just stinks of corporate greed.

And on a final note, while I have no doubt that Nintendo is a business out to, above all else, make money. If I honestly thought they didn't really care about their fans or "the gamer", they wouldn't still to this day be making "Nintendo" kinds of games. If ALL they wanted was money, they would have long ago abandoned many of their own IPs, for the more recent trends of shooters, ultra-violent games, and "Western Inspired" game design, like many of the other big Japanese publishers have. Nintendo hasn't, and won't, do that. They know what they do well, and they know the long-time, and new kinds of fans they make their games for. And personally, I'm GLAD they haven't changed. Thank God there is still a few companies like Nintendo out there who make games that actually appeal to me, and not just more cookie-cutter, "me too" garbage like most of the rest of the industry shits out there days.

Pretty much nailed it, you're not the only one who kknows this, but you worded better than I ever could...



 And proud member of the Mega Mario Movement!
Around the Network

I would consider this fact!

If their first party portfolio was not just regurgitation. I'm still upset that they've invested very little of that money from the wii's success into new game experiences.



hunter_alien said:
sales2099 said:
Nintendo has balls all right, but it just cost them major 3rd party support.


/Thread.


Are we sure though? Didn't the wii U's 3rd party support die once sale numbers came in for both hardware and software. I remember EA, Activision, Ubisoft.. All the big guns supported Wii U at launch.



teigaga said:
I would consider this fact!

If their first party portfolio was not just regurgitation. I'm still upset that they've invested very little of that money from the wii's success into new game experiences.

I guess, investing $400 millions on an NFL deal is better instead... >.>



 And proud member of the Mega Mario Movement!
TripleMMM said:
teigaga said:
I would consider this fact!

If their first party portfolio was not just regurgitation. I'm still upset that they've invested very little of that money from the wii's success into new game experiences.

I guess, investing $400 millions on an NFL deal is better instead... >.>

Investing in 5 new AAA IPs in one year is. Sony wins.



Around the Network
Mnementh said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

That Nintendo has some special balls. Even if you think they have balls for this you posted, they would only have balls for certain things which makes the whole point just a particular discussion. For example, does Nintendo has the balls to go into this holiday and bundle WiiU with a Mature title like ZombieU? Like both Micro and Sony have done in previous years with their bundles?

Although I tend to agree with your post about the assumptions of the OP, I loled at this bit. Has Nintendo the balls to bundle the WiiU with a mature title like ZombiU, like MS and Sony did ... and like Nintendo did last holiday with the ZombiU-bundle?

Ok, ok. Yu are the third one to point it out. How many more to let the matter die? I think I am gonna put it in my sig.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

TripleMMM said:
DevilRising said:

Nintendo never lost third party support due to "greed". Anyone who believes that is a fool. Third parties made a TON of money and established still-to-this-day-running franchises on Nintendo consoles, even the SNES, by which time Nintendo had greatly relaxed third party publishing policy. That policy was originally implemented as a risk cutting measure for brining the NES to NA, as they had seen what had happened with the crashed American video games market. It crashed specifically because systems like Atari just allowed anyone at all to put out games for their console, and it flooded store shelves with crap that people got tired of. That isn't to say that Yamauchi's policies weren't still that of a somewhat ruthless businessman. They were. BUT, it's not as if they did it without cause, just because. And again, they relaxed those policies in the 16bit era. If third party companies hated Nintendo for these policies, they would have jumped ship to the popular-in-America Genesis console, and Game Gear. But no, for the large part, they stuck with SNES and Game Boy, or at least developed for both. Companies like Konami and Capcom eventually put out games for Genesis, but only sparingly, and their best stuff still came out on NIntendo consoles. Square and Enix both continued to exclusively put their games on SNES and Game Boy. That does not seem like the actions of companies that held Nintendo in contempt for their stringent NES-era policies.

What DID happen, which has been more than well documented, is that Nintendo decided to stick with catridges for the N64, and several third party companies decided to go more with the Playstation, not because they hated Nintendo, nor because they preferred Sony. But because they wanted to use the cheaper, and more expansive CD format. End-Of-Story. Companies like Midway, Enix, Acclaim, EA, Activision, THQ, Namco, Konami, etc. still made games for the N64. It isn't as if there was some mass exodus. And honestly, if the N64 had used CDs, you could bet your ass that the majority of games like FF7, Symphony of the Night, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid, X-Men vs. Street Fighter, the further MMX games, etc. etc. would have appeared on Nintendo's console, either exclusive or at least as multiconsole games. That is literally the entire story to be found there. And quite frankly, I don't think Nintendo sticking with cartidges was really a "Greed" move, because it certainly cost them potential support, and arguably that generation, even though the N64 was still a successful console with some of the highest selling games.

And as for the quip about Nintendo having the "arrogance" to sell the 3DS at it's original price? Please. People were happy to pay similar money for a Vita. The 3DS 3D technology was fairly new and certainly not cheap. The price cut they instigated had them selling at a loss for awhile. And I seem to remember the original DS selling for somewhere around the same price as well, at launch. So I honestly don't know what the hell you're talking about there.

Is Nintendo going to do some kind of used-game blocking scheme? I sure hope not. But I honestly kind of doubt they will. There is third party pressure from CERTAIN companies for the industry to go in that direction. But Nintendo understands, I think, that most hardcore Nintendo gamers buy games for keeps, and their games tend to sell well enough on average for them to not really be bothered by the prospect of the used games market. Which makes EA and MS' move more disengenuous, because both EA and MS' big franchises also tend to sell in the millions. So it's not as if the used market is costing THEM anything substantial. It's only smaller developers that might be hurt by used games sales, and people not buying new game copies. But at the same time, smaller developers are also starting to migrate towards digital. So..........really, the entire industry move makes little real sense. It just stinks of corporate greed.

And on a final note, while I have no doubt that Nintendo is a business out to, above all else, make money. If I honestly thought they didn't really care about their fans or "the gamer", they wouldn't still to this day be making "Nintendo" kinds of games. If ALL they wanted was money, they would have long ago abandoned many of their own IPs, for the more recent trends of shooters, ultra-violent games, and "Western Inspired" game design, like many of the other big Japanese publishers have. Nintendo hasn't, and won't, do that. They know what they do well, and they know the long-time, and new kinds of fans they make their games for. And personally, I'm GLAD they haven't changed. Thank God there is still a few companies like Nintendo out there who make games that actually appeal to me, and not just more cookie-cutter, "me too" garbage like most of the rest of the industry shits out there days.

Pretty much nailed it, you're not the only one who kknows this, but you worded better than I ever could...

Not true in case of Japanese developers they left Nintendo because they lived under shadow of giant, and their only wish was to become giants under powerfull platformholder, in the end they become nothing and their only relevant output today is handheld market, market that Nintendo always dominated. The CD excuse, was just -excuse nothing more. 



I haven't read anything in this thread but my fanboy head tells me that it went like this:

EA threatened to not support any console that would allow used games without any sort of compensation. Microsoft and Sony agreed to it and Nintendo didn't so EA said fuck you, 2 out of 3 is good enough for us, Nintendo you're out.

Sony successfully managed to tiptoe around this topic at their conference but Microsoft didn't and the internet blew up about it.
Sony sees this, gets cold feet because their next console is basically do or die for them (in the video game industry) and bails out.
EA will probably be like "Shit, we can't live with only one console, so yeah, I guess we still bring games to you Sony".
Microsoft will be like "Hey, wtf, wait a minute, we took this blow for you and now you fuck us over? We'll bail out, too. No used games policy on Xbone either!".
EA: "Well, ok, we tried to enforce this, can't do anything about it when all of you are pussies and bail out."

MS & Sony: "So what about Nintendo?"

All: "Loooool fuck theeeem"

And this is how I justify boycotting EA in my head. This and the fact that they can't produce good games anymore.



Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.

teigaga said:
TripleMMM said:
teigaga said:
I would consider this fact!

If their first party portfolio was not just regurgitation. I'm still upset that they've invested very little of that money from the wii's success into new game experiences.

I guess, investing $400 millions on an NFL deal is better instead... >.>

Investing in 5 new AAA IPs in one year is. Sony wins.

 

Care to elaborate? Don't know anything about new IP besides Knack.



Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.

Chandler said:
teigaga said:
TripleMMM said:
teigaga said:
I would consider this fact!

If their first party portfolio was not just regurgitation. I'm still upset that they've invested very little of that money from the wii's success into new game experiences.

I guess, investing $400 millions on an NFL deal is better instead... >.>

Investing in 5 new AAA IPs in one year is. Sony wins.

 

Care to elaborate? Don't know anything about new IP besides Knack.

I want to know that myself, at least it's better than what I said about the Microsoft/NFL deal... ;)



 And proud member of the Mega Mario Movement!