bdbdbd said:
Actually Nintendo's 80's policies were a result of Atari crash and their own experiences in Japan, where Nintendo had no control over it's own market (similar to Atari in the US).
I think the logic with Playstation getting quickly forgotten was that if Nintendo and Sega had been more friendly for third parties, the gmes had been on Saturn and N64. The game centric microcomputers disappeared in the 90's, and the developers had to go somewhere. Playstation was the easiest to begin with, so that's where they went. Nintendo's problem with the N64 was to focus on the big players of the industry, pretty much the same problem Sony's been having for the last decade. If we put today's things into 90's context, we have Switch that tries to capture the 3rd parties that didn't have a market anymore due to the shift in the market: 90's microcomputers and devs making games for them, today's bankrupted studios that employees are making new ones based on them.
|
I know that the licensing policies were a result of the video game crash, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is letting publishers and developers take the entire cost of releasing and even demanding upfront payment for the cartridges that Nintendo themselves had full production rights over and then letting their own magazine do the reviews to gain complete power over 3rd parties. Paired with the strong-arming and downright threats made to retailers to prevent them from selling competing products, and you're left with tactics that are impossible to defend or attribute to the mere safe guarding against a new crash. It's no wonder why developers fled the moment they could and retailers still have a somewhat wonky relationship with them as well.