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?

happydolphin on 14 August 2013
Mummelmann said:

Writing an unreasonable contract for all to see is not backstabbing, secrectly changing business partners under your current partners nose and making the announcement as a sort of public "f-u" is the  very definition of backstabbing. Why didn't Nintendo simply try to bargain for a better contract from the start? Again, all I'm seeing is that every decision and tactic (even the dirty ones) employed by Nintendo are defended to the last breath (usually, not always). Nintendo did not treat 3rd parties well at all during the NES and SNES era and in regards to the Sony/Nintendo venture, Sony were bitches for making such unreasonable claims, especially since they had no hold in that part of the entertainment industry but Nintendo were even bigger bitches going behind their back like that, like it or not.

For Nintendos backwards ways, betrayal and pride, one can't claim that they didn't deserve to be outsold in the 5th and 6th console generation, much like one cannot claim that it's unfair that the PS3 was outsold in the 7th gen.

Besides, there is great irony in the fact that Nintendo resented losing control over titles yet it is precisely their previous near monopoly on 3rd parties and treating them like crap that got them into all that trouble to begin with regarding publishing on their consoles from the N64 and onwards. This whole mess they're in since two decades back or more, is mostly on them, it's not simply everybody else's fault.

I've admitted many times so far that Nintendo's treatment of third parties was not saintly.

As for Sony injecting a clause like that, it's preposterous at best... this was Nintendo's console they were revamping. You can call one backstabbing and the other not, but it's just a question of how you see it at that point.



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

Then how the fuck did they miss that?  If they are so protective, how do the approve that agreement and then not notice it for years?  How can it be a "fast one" if it was there from the very beginning?  If they DID NOT have a team of lawyers analyze ANY contract then they are morons, plain and simple.  You don't just miss a "hidden clause" that gives away the rights to your property.

This isn't adding up whatsoever.

Actually, the more I look into it, the more this "hidden clause" thing seems like nonsense.

It is a known fact that Sony wanted to own the rights to Nintendo's IPs. Nintendo, it is a fact, holds to its IPs like a hen with its chicks. It is a fact that Nintendo would not take this lightly. A FACT.

So, if Nintendo agreed to the contract, it is either due to negligence (highly unlikely), or due to a very inscrupulous clause in the contract (VERY likely).

I don't want your "known fact" line unless you can prove it.  Right now, give us proof that what you're saying is true, that Sony did something unethical, because I can't find it anywhere online.

In fact, contrary to what has been said in this thread, I can't find anything about Sony owning Nintendo IPs, only that they would have licensing control of the SNES-CD disc format.

"This humiliating turnabout enraged Sony president Norio Ohga, but though it seemed sudden from the outside, problems had been boiling between the two companies for some time. The main issue was an agreement over how revenue would be collected – Sony had proposed to take care of money made from CD sales while Nintendo would collect from cartridge sales, and suggested that royalties would be figured out later. “Nintendo went bananas, frankly, and said that we were stepping on its toll booth and that it was totally unacceptable,” explains Chris Deering, who at the time worked at Sony-owned Columbia Pictures but would go on to head the PlayStation business in Europe. “They just couldn’t agree and it all fell apart.”"  --  http://www.edge-online.com/features/making-playstation/

 

"The day after Sony announced its plans to begin work on the Play Station, Nintendo made an announcement of its own. Instead of confirming its alliance with Sony, as everyone expected, Nintendo announced it was working with Philips, Sony's longtime rivals, on the SNES CD-ROM drive. Sony was understandably furious.

Because of their contract-breaking actions, Nintendo not only faced legal repercussions from Sony, but could also experience a serious backlash from the Japanese business community. Nintendo had broken the unwritten law that a company shouldn't turn against a reigning Japanese company in favor of a foreign one.

 However, Nintendo managed to escape without a penalty. Because of their mutual involvement, it would be in the best interests of both companies to maintain friendly relations. Sony, after all, was planning a port for SNES carts, and Nintendo was still using the Sony audio chip."  --  http://www.ign.com/articles/1998/08/28/history-of-the-playstation

All I can gather from what I find online is that Nintendo went looking for a better deal.  Everything else just sounds like excuses.



DucksUnlimited on 14 August 2013
happydolphin said:
Hynad said:

Hypocrisy = not reading, researching and understanding?

Care to provide me a link to that dictionary you're using?

It's called the dictionary of intelligent people. Sorry but it's a private textbook. making shit up.

I'll give you a sample though. You're a person who researches a topic. You have read countless articles and pages on the matter. One person comes in not knowing much about the topic, but instead comes in calling you a hypocrite for sticking to what you believe really happened on the matter. If he's not a hypocrite, then okay he's a moron.

Fixed.



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

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.

As Pokoko said above. They had a lot of time to analyze the contract it sounds kind of fishy they never stoped the project until te very end.

the point was about him defending sony's contract terms by using nintendo policies for their OWN platforms. and those things are simply not related.

Nitendo and Sony made a contract. They where going to do a joint project and nintendo had a long time to analyze the contract. That is the contract i am talking about and that is the one I was referring to. And that is the one Pokoko was talking about. And that is what we where talking about all along... So everything that was said was related.

What wasn't related was the part where I talked about Nintendo contracts with third parties in the NES era.

"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."

I don't care about contract. he's comparing those two unrelated things. it's the point of my whole quote.



NintendoPie on 14 August 2013
pokoko said:

I think you've reached the core issue.

I can SO see Nintendo yelling, "You little whore!" at Sony, or trying to keep customers by saying, "... I think I'm pregnant."

Pregnant with the baby that is GameCube. A child that would never be fully realized.

Then they had the Wii.



Around the Network
Hynad on 14 August 2013
happydolphin said:
Mummelmann said:

Writing an unreasonable contract for all to see is not backstabbing, secrectly changing business partners under your current partners nose and making the announcement as a sort of public "f-u" is the  very definition of backstabbing. Why didn't Nintendo simply try to bargain for a better contract from the start? Again, all I'm seeing is that every decision and tactic (even the dirty ones) employed by Nintendo are defended to the last breath (usually, not always). Nintendo did not treat 3rd parties well at all during the NES and SNES era and in regards to the Sony/Nintendo venture, Sony were bitches for making such unreasonable claims, especially since they had no hold in that part of the entertainment industry but Nintendo were even bigger bitches going behind their back like that, like it or not.

For Nintendos backwards ways, betrayal and pride, one can't claim that they didn't deserve to be outsold in the 5th and 6th console generation, much like one cannot claim that it's unfair that the PS3 was outsold in the 7th gen.

Besides, there is great irony in the fact that Nintendo resented losing control over titles yet it is precisely their previous near monopoly on 3rd parties and treating them like crap that got them into all that trouble to begin with regarding publishing on their consoles from the N64 and onwards. This whole mess they're in since two decades back or more, is mostly on them, it's not simply everybody else's fault.

I've admitted many times so far that Nintendo's treatment of third parties was not saintly.

As for Sony injecting a clause like that, it's preposterous at best... this was Nintendo's console they were revamping. You can call one backstabbing and the other not, but it's just a question of how you see it at that point.

That's what I said, no? There are the facts. And then there's the interpretation you make of them and "the way you want to see it at that point".

When you get a copy of that contract, I want to see it too. Until then, all of your arguments about Sony being stealthily with that contract are nothing but assumptions. 



Anfebious on 14 August 2013
Zero999 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."

I don't care about contract. he's comparing those two unrelated things. it's the point of my whole quote.


I think you weren't quite following the conversation, it was me who said that! And happydolphin already pointed that it had nothing to do. I told him I just wanted to point that out.

Okay then you pointed that out now what?

That has nothing to do with the contract or the conversation we where having.



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

PigPen on 14 August 2013

Japan was never going to leave the DS for the PSP.



NoirSon on 14 August 2013

Technically, Nintendo screwed themselves sticking with cartridges when all signs in Japan and else where wanted to move toward a more cheaper medium with more space.

It is one of Nintendo persistent flaws, the management really could give a flying love making session about what the rest of industry is doing or what they are hearing from fellow publishers and hardware manufacturers. Also former CEO Yamamuchi was known around the time of the N64 release and Square Soft bouncing to the Playstation to have insulted those that played RPGs.



Zero999 on 14 August 2013
NoirSon said:
Technically, Nintendo screwed themselves sticking with cartridges when all signs in Japan and else where wanted to move toward a more cheaper medium with more space.

It is one of Nintendo persistent flaws, the management really could give a flying love making session about what the rest of industry is doing or what they are hearing from fellow publishers and hardware manufacturers. Also former CEO Yamamuchi was known around the time of the N64 release and Square Soft bouncing to the Playstation to have insulted those that played RPGs.

but they DID tried to go the cd route early on. but the circunstances made them stick with cartridges for another gen.