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

Forums - Nintendo - I wonder what it felt like for Japanese to stab Nintendo in the back when the PS came out?

Anfebious on 14 August 2013
happydolphin said:
Anfebious said:

My god! Such an evil corporation!

Nintendo did their things too. In the Nes era they had a very strict licensiing measure and they where accused of anti thrust behaviour. I'm not saying they should have signed i'm just saying they are also not that good

Besides thanks to that we got the Zelda CD-i games...

It has nothing to do with the fact that Nintendo didn't "backstab" Sony at all in that case you mentioned.

And no, Nintendo is not perfect, for what it has to do with anything.

It has nothing to do but I wanted to point that out . Also the contract wasn't benefiting Nintendo and that's why it was a "backstab"? I don't think it was a backstab just a bussiness decision. It had a catch but so do many contracts.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Around the Network
happydolphin on 14 August 2013
Anfebious said:

It has nothing to do but I wanted to point that out . Also the contract wasn't benefiting Nintendo and that's why it was a "backstab"? I don't think it was a backstab just a bussiness decision. It had a catch but so do many contracts.

It was silly of Sony to include that, it's more than a catch that's thievery. It was Nintendo's SNES we're talking about, who the hell was Sony to reserve any rights on Nintendo's games on it?

Ridiculous if you ask me.



Zero999 on 14 August 2013

they just went to the consoles with tho most games. the already started abandoning ps too.



Zero999 on 14 August 2013
happydolphin said:
Anfebious said:
But wasn't Nintendo the one who "backstabbed" Sony by changing their plans at the last minute when they joined forces to make a console? Thanks to that we have te beautiful Philiphs CD-i and the Zelda CD-i games!

No, it's Sony who "backstabbed" Nintendo by trying to slease in complete rights control on all the games on their joint platform. Wikipedia:

The product, dubbed the "Play Station" was to be announced at the May 1991 Consumer Electronics Show (CES). However, when Nintendo's Hiroshi Yamauchi read the original 1988 contract between Sony and Nintendo, he realized that the earlier agreement essentially handed Sony complete control over any and all titles written on the SNES CD-ROM format. Yamauchi decided that the contract was totally unacceptable and he secretly canceled all plans for the joint Nintendo-Sony SNES CD attachment. Instead of announcing a partnership between Sony and Nintendo, at 9 am the day of the CES, Nintendo chairman Howard Lincoln stepped onto the stage and revealed that Nintendo was now allied with Philips, and Nintendo was planning on abandoning all the previous work Nintendo and Sony had accomplished. Lincoln and Minoru Arakawa had, unbeknownst to Sony, flown to Philips headquarters in Europe and formed an alliance of a decidedly different nature—one that would give Nintendo total control over its licenses on Philips machines.

And the funniest bit is that Nintendo would have had a CD-ROM enabled system had this not happened. It left such a sour taste in Yamauchi's mouth that he decided to reject the idea altogether. We know how that turned out... (oh cartriges )

form the description, it wouldn't be exactly a "nintendo" CD-ROM system.



happydolphin on 14 August 2013
Zero999 said:

form the description, it wouldn't be exactly a "nintendo" CD-ROM system.

What I mean is that Nintendo was eager to get into the CD-ROM market. It shows by trying with Sony and with Phillips. The whole Sony thing made them upset about it and just throw the towel (which is their fault sure but I wouldn't blame them for hating Sony for it).



Around the Network
Anfebious on 14 August 2013
happydolphin said:
Anfebious said:

It has nothing to do but I wanted to point that out . Also the contract wasn't benefiting Nintendo and that's why it was a "backstab"? I don't think it was a backstab just a bussiness decision. It had a catch but so do many contracts.

It was silly of Sony to include that, it's more than a catch that's thievery. It was Nintendo's SNES we're talking about, who the hell was Sony to reserve any rights on Nintendo's games on it?

Ridiculous if you ask me.

It's thievery if Sony does it but when Nintendo took control of Cartrdirge manufacturing in the NES era and forced third party to sign a contract full of restrictions to make games on the system it was perfectly fine.

You know I think both of them are ridiculous if you ask me .



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

happydolphin on 14 August 2013
Anfebious said:

It's thievery if Sony does it but when Nintendo took control of Cartrdirge manufacturing in the NES era and forced third party to sign a contract full of restrictions to make games on the system it was perfectly fine.

You know I think both of them are ridiculous if you ask me .

Again, we're talking about the Playstation, and I already admitted that Nintendo isn't perfect



Anfebious on 14 August 2013
happydolphin said:
Anfebious said:

It's thievery if Sony does it but when Nintendo took control of Cartrdirge manufacturing in the NES era and forced third party to sign a contract full of restrictions to make games on the system it was perfectly fine.

You know I think both of them are ridiculous if you ask me .

Again, we're talking about the Playstation, and I already admitted that Nintendo isn't perfect


Then we can agree that both aren't perfect! Personally I wouldn't change a thing of what happened.

Thanks to that we got the Playstation! And later Nintendo released the N64 and it was awesome .



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

pokoko on 14 August 2013
happydolphin said:

No, it's Sony who "backstabbed" Nintendo by trying to slease in complete rights control on all the games on their joint platform. Wikipedia:

The product, dubbed the "Play Station" was to be announced at the May 1991 Consumer Electronics Show (CES). However, when Nintendo's Hiroshi Yamauchi read the original 1988 contract between Sony and Nintendo, he realized that the earlier agreement essentially handed Sony complete control over any and all titles written on the SNES CD-ROM format. Yamauchi decided that the contract was totally unacceptable and he secretly canceled all plans for the joint Nintendo-Sony SNES CD attachment. Instead of announcing a partnership between Sony and Nintendo, at 9 am the day of the CES, Nintendo chairman Howard Lincoln stepped onto the stage and revealed that Nintendo was now allied with Philips, and Nintendo was planning on abandoning all the previous work Nintendo and Sony had accomplished. Lincoln and Minoru Arakawa had, unbeknownst to Sony, flown to Philips headquarters in Europe and formed an alliance of a decidedly different nature—one that would give Nintendo total control over its licenses on Philips machines.

And the funniest bit is that Nintendo would have had a CD-ROM enabled system had this not happened. It left such a sour taste in Yamauchi's mouth that he decided to reject the idea altogether. We know how that turned out... (oh cartriges )

So, wait, Nintendo didn't read the contract they agreed to follow?  They didn't realize what it said until years later?  Then, instead of going to Sony and attempting to work out a new deal, they secretly canceled everything, obviously with the intent to fuck Sony over, and made a deal with someone else, which they revealed to Sony with a surprise announcement?

And people act like Nintendo was some kind of innocent victim in all of that?  Holy cats.

It certainly sounds like they got what they deserved out of the situation.  That was mostly a FUBAR of their own making.  If they didn't agree with what Sony wanted then they should have said so from the start.

Actually, you know, reading that over, it sounds like bullcrap.  How the hell do you just suddenly realize what a contract says years down the line?  How does a large corporation not have legal experts examine every major agreement?  Something is really fishy with this explaination.



Zero999 on 14 August 2013
Anfebious said:
happydolphin said:
Anfebious said:

It has nothing to do but I wanted to point that out . Also the contract wasn't benefiting Nintendo and that's why it was a "backstab"? I don't think it was a backstab just a bussiness decision. It had a catch but so do many contracts.

It was silly of Sony to include that, it's more than a catch that's thievery. It was Nintendo's SNES we're talking about, who the hell was Sony to reserve any rights on Nintendo's games on it?

Ridiculous if you ask me.

It's thievery if Sony does it but when Nintendo took control of Cartrdirge manufacturing in the NES era and forced third party to sign a contract full of restrictions to make games on the system it was perfectly fine.

You know I think both of them are ridiculous if you ask me .

nintendo has the right to do any policies they want on THEIR console, bad as they were. sony making a partnership with another company and stealthly including on the contract that it has full rights for the games released on the pheriferal, that's kinda unethical.