Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo banned Square from their offices for 10 years after FFVII went to PlayStation. EDIT: japanese business model is akin to Yakuza

Tagged games:

What do you think

Nintendo is God they never make a mistake 7 26.92%
 
Square the ones who to be blame 8 30.77%
 
I dont why i just hate Sony 2 7.69%
 
I 9 34.62%
 
Total:26
DonFerrari said:

So will you concede that Nintendo broke that honor more and before when they broke a signed contract for the development of the CD? Or imaginary contracts have more value on your head?

How is Nintendo breaking that honor code by sticking with what works for them at the time? Just because others went CD doesnt mean they needed to change, i for one am glad they stuck with cartridges. Nintendo of course were experimenting with CDs but decided cartridges were better for there buisness model.

Remember Nintendo before CD gaming was king and companies like Square made there success off Nintendo. Lets not pretend the NES and SNES existed.



Around the Network

The poll option is trolling AF, that's epic LMAO



Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

So will you concede that Nintendo broke that honor more and before when they broke a signed contract for the development of the CD? Or imaginary contracts have more value on your head?

How is Nintendo breaking that honor code by sticking with what works for them at the time? Just because others went CD doesnt mean they needed to change, i for one am glad they stuck with cartridges. Nintendo of course were experimenting with CDs but decided cartridges were better for there buisness model.

Remember Nintendo before CD gaming was king and companies like Square made there success off Nintendo. Lets not pretend the NES and SNES existed.

They signed a contract with Sony to develop the CD, backstabbed Sony and that created PS1, then they signed with Phillips, backstabbed them and thus the bad Phillips CD-i.

So yes it seems like you are more lenient with companies breaking contracts than with companies that without contract gone for a better deal. Don't remember you calling Insomniac traitors when they made Sunset Overdrive.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:

They signed a contract with Sony to develop the CD, backstabbed Sony and that created PS1, then they signed with Phillips, backstabbed them and thus the bad Phillips CD-i.

So yes it seems like you are more lenient with companies breaking contracts than with companies that without contract gone for a better deal. Don't remember you calling Insomniac traitors when they made Sunset Overdrive.

I dont know the full story between what happened with Nintendo and Sony, but i do know that Nintendo werent the only ones saying no to Sony, Sega said no to them as well. Clearly there is more to it than Nintendo just packing up and leaving, there is speculation Sony wanted more and both Nintendo and Sega forseen Sonys plans. Who knows and this is not the topic.

However if what you say is true than sure Nintendo broke that code but we dont know the full backstory, we only know from the outside. Now this is about Square moving one of the most established IPs and locking it exclusivity to a rival conpetitors platform. Thats why Nintendo was pissed.

I dont understand how Sunset Overdrive is even comparable to this type of move. If Ratchet and Clank crossed to Xbox than id see your point, but your point on a new IP that Sony didnt want is not the same as Final Fantasy.



Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

They signed a contract with Sony to develop the CD, backstabbed Sony and that created PS1, then they signed with Phillips, backstabbed them and thus the bad Phillips CD-i.

So yes it seems like you are more lenient with companies breaking contracts than with companies that without contract gone for a better deal. Don't remember you calling Insomniac traitors when they made Sunset Overdrive.

I dont know the full story between what happened with Nintendo and Sony, but i do know that Nintendo werent the only ones saying no to Sony, Sega said no to them as well. Clearly there is more to it than Nintendo just packing up and leaving, there is speculation Sony wanted more and both Nintendo and Sega forseen Sonys plans. Who knows and this is not the topic.

However if what you say is true than sure Nintendo broke that code but we dont know the full backstory, we only know from the outside. Now this is about Square moving one of the most established IPs and locking it exclusivity to a rival conpetitors platform. Thats why Nintendo was pissed.

I dont understand how Sunset Overdrive is even comparable to this type of move. If Ratchet and Clank crossed to Xbox than id see your point, but your point on a new IP that Sony didnt want is not the same as Final Fantasy.

I recall Sony wanted more control than Nintendo was comfortable with. I don't think Phillips felt wronged. They made a deal with Nintendo for Hotel Mario. 3 Zelda games and Super Mario World 2: Wacky Worlds. The last one was canned mid-development. Lol seeing how bad those games were. I'd say Phillips was the one in the wrong.

As for SEGA. Don't put much faith in that being on Sony. SEGA of Japan constantly made awful decisions and was very stubborn. SEGA of America often had better ideas to do things but SOJ always overruled them and made things worse.



Bite my shiny metal Cockpit!

Around the Network
Leynos said:

I recall Sony wanted more control than Nintendo was comfortable with. I don't think Phillips felt wronged. They made a deal with Nintendo for Hotel Mario. 3 Zelda games and Super Mario World 2: Wacky Worlds. The last one was canned mid-development. Lol seeing how bad those games were. I'd say Phillips was the one in the wrong.

As for SEGA. Don't put much faith in that being on Sony. SEGA of Japan constantly made awful decisions and was very stubborn. SEGA of America often had better ideas to do things but SOJ always overruled them and made things worse.

That's exactly what I heard as well. If that is true than it was Sony that ruined their contract with Nintendo. I believe many are blinded by the success of the PS1's success that they will possibly believe they earnt every right to ask for more. Forgetting Nintendo at that time, were the market leaders, they revived and recreated the console market. If Sony wanted to be part of it than they could have clearly got in with asking for less, but judging Sony at the time who were one of the biggest electronical brands in the 90s probably wouldn't accept less. 

The reason I brought up Sega adds to the fact that 2 of the biggest console platforms at the time said no to Sony makes you wonder, why.

Anyway its all speculation, weather Sony wanted more or Nintendo just wanted to be evil is all we will ever know. 



LOL, Ninty's giant crow ended up pecking at Ninty's arse itself.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

They signed a contract with Sony to develop the CD, backstabbed Sony and that created PS1, then they signed with Phillips, backstabbed them and thus the bad Phillips CD-i.

So yes it seems like you are more lenient with companies breaking contracts than with companies that without contract gone for a better deal. Don't remember you calling Insomniac traitors when they made Sunset Overdrive.

I dont know the full story between what happened with Nintendo and Sony, but i do know that Nintendo werent the only ones saying no to Sony, Sega said no to them as well. Clearly there is more to it than Nintendo just packing up and leaving, there is speculation Sony wanted more and both Nintendo and Sega forseen Sonys plans. Who knows and this is not the topic.

However if what you say is true than sure Nintendo broke that code but we dont know the full backstory, we only know from the outside. Now this is about Square moving one of the most established IPs and locking it exclusivity to a rival conpetitors platform. Thats why Nintendo was pissed.

I dont understand how Sunset Overdrive is even comparable to this type of move. If Ratchet and Clank crossed to Xbox than id see your point, but your point on a new IP that Sony didnt want is not the same as Final Fantasy.

Eeeeerrrr let's say again so you get it. Sony and Nintendo already had a contract, or do you really think they developed the prototype for SNES without a contract? And that prototype is what them got them started on Playstation.

From what is told Nintendo later thought the contract was of to much benefit to Sony and left. Still that is Nintendo breaking a contract they signed because another party were going to receive more money than them. Funny enough is someone thinking Nintendo would be naive to have signed the contract without reading. So it is much more probable that they were fine with the terms of the contract, but later thought they would review and think Sony was getting to much out of it, and you may disagree but that is where greed would come in place.

Nintendo didn't broke a code, they broke a contract.

There would be no way of R&C crossing to Xbox simply because the IP is OWNED by Sony, FF was never owned by Nintendo it was just released over there. Is Sony pissed at Universal or Activision because they lost Crash and Spyro IPs even when buying the studio just because those IPs belonged to another party instead of the studio? Hint, nope.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:

Eeeeerrrr let's say again so you get it. Sony and Nintendo already had a contract, or do you really think they developed the prototype for SNES without a contract? And that prototype is what them got them started on Playstation.

From what is told Nintendo later thought the contract was of to much benefit to Sony and left. Still that is Nintendo breaking a contract they signed because another party were going to receive more money than them. Funny enough is someone thinking Nintendo would be naive to have signed the contract without reading. So it is much more probable that they were fine with the terms of the contract, but later thought they would review and think Sony was getting to much out of it, and you may disagree but that is where greed would come in place.

Nintendo didn't broke a code, they broke a contract.

There would be no way of R&C crossing to Xbox simply because the IP is OWNED by Sony, FF was never owned by Nintendo it was just released over there. Is Sony pissed at Universal or Activision because they lost Crash and Spyro IPs even when buying the studio just because those IPs belonged to another party instead of the studio? Hint, nope.

If that was the actual case than sure Nintendo broke the code and I will say the same for them, however I believe their was more to it than them breaking the contract, and unless we have actual proof of what happened, it is just a guessing game and feels to me more like it was both for greed. Anyway let me say this again so you understand, that is NOT the topic we are talking about, this is about Square leaving Nintendo, what ever Sony's and Nintendo's business was is another topic altogether. Also Sunset Overdrive was not a Sony IP nor was it even a game, if Square went off to make another IP for Sony than no one would  have cared, but the fact it was a well established IP that was made famous on Nintendo platforms. Square dropping everything and left is why Nintendo was pissed. Like I said, very different circumstances for two very different scenarios.

I wont debate who's right or who's wrong but if people wonder why Nintendo would take this type of action is becasue of the obvious.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 24 April 2020

Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

Eeeeerrrr let's say again so you get it. Sony and Nintendo already had a contract, or do you really think they developed the prototype for SNES without a contract? And that prototype is what them got them started on Playstation.

From what is told Nintendo later thought the contract was of to much benefit to Sony and left. Still that is Nintendo breaking a contract they signed because another party were going to receive more money than them. Funny enough is someone thinking Nintendo would be naive to have signed the contract without reading. So it is much more probable that they were fine with the terms of the contract, but later thought they would review and think Sony was getting to much out of it, and you may disagree but that is where greed would come in place.

Nintendo didn't broke a code, they broke a contract.

There would be no way of R&C crossing to Xbox simply because the IP is OWNED by Sony, FF was never owned by Nintendo it was just released over there. Is Sony pissed at Universal or Activision because they lost Crash and Spyro IPs even when buying the studio just because those IPs belonged to another party instead of the studio? Hint, nope.

If that was the actual case than sure Nintendo broke the code and I will say the same for them, however I believe their was more to it than them breaking the code, and unless we have actual proof of what happened it is just a guessing game and feels like it was both greed. Anyway let me say this again so you understand, that is NOT the topic we are talking about, this is about Square leaving Nintendo, what ever Sony's and Nintendo business was is another topic altogether. Also Sunset Overdrive was not a Sony IP nor was it even a game, if Square went off to make another IP for Sony than no one would  have cared but the fact it was a well established IP that was made famous on Nintendo platforms and Square dropped everything and left is why Nintendo was pissed. Like I said, very different circumstances for two very different scenarios. 

Yes, Nintendo wouldn't care, so much that for NES they forbade any company that developed to their system to develop to other system. And during SNES if a game launched on it them it couldn't launch anywhere else. Those evil SE and Sony backstabbing angel Nintendo.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994