Yep. Nintendo got exclusives and a huge batch of third parties the old fashioned way, through threats and intimidation Yakuza-style courtesy of Yamauchi. Nintendo concluded they were the only game in town since they had the numbers with the NES, and wanted it to stay that way. There's a reason why people remember Nintendo's first party as fondly as they do, because they manipulated the market to bring the most attention to their games. Whether through their own publication (Nintendo Power), to making sure they had more volume than other games on their platforms. 

Nintendo were the original sharks. They tried their damnedest to keep SEGA and NEC at bay. This is why Sony ended gaining much more favor with third-parties because they didn't spite them in favor of their own games. Well, and the format helped too.

I still laugh at people today that pretends that Nintendo have ever been and still is a loveable company with only the purest desire to make good games for gamers...

They will criticize AAA budgets and DLC scheme but will love when Nintendo keep a game forever at 60 USD (to keep its value) and sell 20M units on a budget of a mid tier game. I would be really pissed seeing such large profit margins that doesn't ever get reinvested and only grow Nintendo bank account.

Read Above.

I hadn't seen that interview lol. Everything makes more sense now. Sorry, I misunderstood your post.

Gotta love the revisionist history by Soundwave.  And the poor excuses for Nintendo not being the same thing when called out. 

In their time, Nintendo was probably just as big a dick as MS, maybe worse.  Why do you think so many devs/pubs jumped ship to Sega when it launched the Genesis, basically forcing Nintendo to be more friendly when the SNES finally launched?  And then the next generation, came in masses to Sony?  And no, it wasn't because Sony and Sega were paying them, or even the freedom, which there definitely was more of, it was because of how poorly they were treated by Nintendo.  Nintendo looked at them as 2nd class citizens, instead of partners, like Sega and Sony.  Nintendo had harsh restrictions if you wanted the priviledge to even publish on their system.  Devs and pubs wanted to put Nintendo in their place, so they backed a different giant. 

In the end and fortunately for Nintendo, it worked.  Well, for the most part.  While they are much better to 3rd arties, now, they still are kinda dicks to fans wanting to make fan projects based on their work, or even post vids on Youtube.  I do think they have started backing off of that recently, so hopefully that continues.

And funny how Sony paid for all these exclusives, yet still allowed them to hit PCs.  The fact is, when you sell more than 3x-4x the competition, while also hitting 100M+, you don't really have to pay that much, if at all, for exclusives on your system.  Go figure.

Flash to present time, and we have MS who is really responsible for the modern interation of that.  Not just paying exclusive rights to a game, but if that game does come out to another system, they pay for exclusive DLC.  Timed or real.  But, it really isn't so much the practice that irks people.  It's MS bitching and moaning about when it is done to them.  Either by finding contract-infringing methods to work around those deals, when they would have sued someone who did it to them, or faking the moral ground, only to continue the practice.

Of course, the saddest part is when you have the typical responses from their fans when they are called out on their BS.  "Oh, he just meant DLC.  Sure, MS used to be able to pay for that, too, and we had no problem with it, but now we do."  "Oh, keeping a game off a platform isn't as bad as keeping DLC off of one.  I'd rather not have that game than not be able to dress my character in different hats."

And unless they expected those games to sell gangbusters, they wouldn't be desperate for anything. What metric are you using to say Phantom Dust, a free game, "performed horrible"? lol.

Im shocked that it's totally different when Sony locks down content from third parties. Just good business! Of course. By the way, they had the same DLC crap in Destiny 1, well before it sold whatever you listed. It's just continuing in Destiny 2, must be DESPERAAAAAATE.

Smart move by them.

This is how the industry works. Of course MS wants exclusivity. They'd be doing something wrong if they weren't trying to extend the window.

That's because they don't have the love of the industry that Sony and Nintendo have.  Regardless of the higher ups practices earlier, they still had the drive to get into a market that had crashed recently.  I think they saw it as the next logical step after their success in the arcades.  Miyamoto is also obviously passionate about gaming.  For Sony, you had Ken Kutaragi, and to a lesser extent the CEO who backed him, Norio Ohga.  Kutaragi was so passionate about gaming he worked in secret to develop the sound chip for the SNES.  Even when most of the execs were mad about it, he was able to convince them to allow him to continue the project, as well as the CD-ROM adapter for the SNES.  When the latter fell through, he convinced them to create their own system, something he worked on for nights because he found it interesting.

What was MS's main reason for getting into the console biz?  To stop Sony from taking over the living room and the PS possibly taking over the PC, quite a ridiculous notion.  And while there may have been a few passionate people on the Xbox team, the company itself was just not in it for their love of gaming or the betterment of gaming, which really comes across in their moneyhatting and DRM policies that we have seen throughout the years.

Lol what a waste of a post we have here. It doesn't matter the budget is mid-tier when the game is better than most other AAA games out there.  AAA doesn't always equal a better product, and stuff like the Order 1886 and Mass Effect Andromeda are proof of that. Besides, what Nintendo games would you argue are not AAA? Pokemon is one, but that is $40 anyways.