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
Alby_da_Wolf said:
padib said:

Ninty only did good to Square and got utterly shafted. To be honest not something to cheer, esp. that Nintendo's existence was almost jeopardised. The company that allowed console gaming to exist, don't forget that Sony basically stole the market from Nintendo, which mainly Nintendo had built, it paints another picture. You probably wouldn't be a Sony gamer had Nintendo not been a true raven.

You must be really young if you don't remember that there were far more console makers before Ninty conquered a near monopolistic market domination for almost ten years, interrupted just by the first Playstation. Sure, Ninty rose on the ashes of competitors burned by a big crisis, but from then on it actively prevented most of them to rise again and new competitors to rise for years, only Sega could barely compete for long period. Sure Sony just interrupted the monopoly, but it did nothing to increase plurality, MS could enter the market just by the brute force of its money and the force of its brand in PC market, while the new trimurti of console gaming merrily crushed poor Sega, the only survivor left, besides Ninty itself, of console golden age.
BTW, I'm not a Sony gamer, I'm a PC and Android one, the last console I owned was the Intellivision. I was on the brink of buying a PSV, because I tried it and it was the first portable of which I ever felt really comfortable with the form factor and control layout, but its commercial decline and the rise of cheap tablets made me change my mind. OTOH both my sister and some of my ex-gf's had a GameBoy, but I never liked it enough to buy one. Tried DS, I liked it more than GB, but still not enough, then 3DS came and I really didn't like its 3D screen. PSP, I liked some games, but unlike PSV, and despite having a control layout just a little different, it gave me hand cramps after playing for a while, so I didn't buy it either.

Ho 35 anni, quindi non direi che sono particolarmente giovane, ma grazie per il complimento. 

GoOnKid said:
Ka-pi96 said:

It was risky, although difficult to say how risky. I mean, I don't know how much revenue they were getting from their games with Nintendo, but with money coming in from Sony for making games for them in the first place they surely wouldn't have even needed the same level of sales to make the same amount of money. I expect Sony covered a fair bit of the marketing costs too, saving them some money there too.

You've also got to wonder just how negotiable Nintendo were back then too though. That was an era during which they had incredibly arrogant leadership. Entirely possible that they would've refused to negotiate as they thought Sony weren't serious competition and that after the PlayStation failed Square would come crawling back with their tail between their legs anyway.

Although that said, if games being multi-platform was easy to do back then and had been standard practice then I expect they would have went for that approach instead, or at least attempted to.

Yes, I'm pretty sure Sony pushed the marketing of FFVII to unknown hights and took a major part of the costs. This in turn made the game reach a much bigger audience. Square was able to create the game they envisioned, unbound by storage capacities and with a nice cash boost by Sony. Sony happily made this game their flagship title for the Playstation because they knew what kind of big deal it was. Win win.

I think Nintendo was indeed very strict with third parties, and we all already know why they were that way and how that created the gaming market that we know today. I think they were not ready to let third parties go a little loose at that point. They probably should have trusted them more. Or at least some of them. And this distrust may have been a reason why many third parties turned their backs. However, I find it pretty tasteless and salty by Square to actively convince other third parties to stop developing games for Nintendo. I feel like this is kicking your opponent when he's already down.

At the end of the day I think it was a combination of several reasons. Nintendo, Square and Sony all played a part in this story, so putting the blame into one's shoes like some of the people in this thread are trying to is just too simple. But at the end of the day all of this lead to several new developments: Nintendo's relationship with third parties is nowadays better than ever, Square is desperately trying to reignite Final Fantasy's magic and doesn't understand what made it big anymore, Nintendo publishes most of Square's Wii, DS, 3DS and Switch games, and Sony became a major player in the gaming industry.

I want to highlight this post because it's beautiful. While all 3 players hurt each other and themselves by their behaviors, all 3 in the end came out strong and are who they are today due to these bad games they played. What consoles me the most is that Nintendo in the end really proved its pedigree, that, while pretty much the entire industry turned against it, the one who essentially rebuilt the industry, they were strong enough to rebuild and rise strong like a Phoenix. Still, it is important to highlight that Nintendo's existence in the market was truly put in jeopardy. For anyone who cares about the diversity and creativity in the world of gaming, this is a very sobering thought. So anyone cheering what happened and praising it as karma, you might want to give that a second thought. Nintendo was brought low, but they couldn't be kept low and that to me is an inspiring story in self-belief.



Around the Network
padib said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:

You must be really young if you don't remember that there were far more console makers before Ninty conquered a near monopolistic market domination for almost ten years, interrupted just by the first Playstation. Sure, Ninty rose on the ashes of competitors burned by a big crisis, but from then on it actively prevented most of them to rise again and new competitors to rise for years, only Sega could barely compete for long period. Sure Sony just interrupted the monopoly, but it did nothing to increase plurality, MS could enter the market just by the brute force of its money and the force of its brand in PC market, while the new trimurti of console gaming merrily crushed poor Sega, the only survivor left, besides Ninty itself, of console golden age.
BTW, I'm not a Sony gamer, I'm a PC and Android one, the last console I owned was the Intellivision. I was on the brink of buying a PSV, because I tried it and it was the first portable of which I ever felt really comfortable with the form factor and control layout, but its commercial decline and the rise of cheap tablets made me change my mind. OTOH both my sister and some of my ex-gf's had a GameBoy, but I never liked it enough to buy one. Tried DS, I liked it more than GB, but still not enough, then 3DS came and I really didn't like its 3D screen. PSP, I liked some games, but unlike PSV, and despite having a control layout just a little different, it gave me hand cramps after playing for a while, so I didn't buy it either.

Ho 35 anni, quindi non direi che sono particolarmente giovane, ma grazie per il complimento. 

GoOnKid said:

Yes, I'm pretty sure Sony pushed the marketing of FFVII to unknown hights and took a major part of the costs. This in turn made the game reach a much bigger audience. Square was able to create the game they envisioned, unbound by storage capacities and with a nice cash boost by Sony. Sony happily made this game their flagship title for the Playstation because they knew what kind of big deal it was. Win win.

I think Nintendo was indeed very strict with third parties, and we all already know why they were that way and how that created the gaming market that we know today. I think they were not ready to let third parties go a little loose at that point. They probably should have trusted them more. Or at least some of them. And this distrust may have been a reason why many third parties turned their backs. However, I find it pretty tasteless and salty by Square to actively convince other third parties to stop developing games for Nintendo. I feel like this is kicking your opponent when he's already down.

At the end of the day I think it was a combination of several reasons. Nintendo, Square and Sony all played a part in this story, so putting the blame into one's shoes like some of the people in this thread are trying to is just too simple. But at the end of the day all of this lead to several new developments: Nintendo's relationship with third parties is nowadays better than ever, Square is desperately trying to reignite Final Fantasy's magic and doesn't understand what made it big anymore, Nintendo publishes most of Square's Wii, DS, 3DS and Switch games, and Sony became a major player in the gaming industry.

I want to highlight this post because it's beautiful. While all 3 players hurt each other and themselves by their behaviors, all 3 in the end came out strong and are who they are today due to these bad games they played. What consoles me the most is that Nintendo in the end really proved its pedigree, that, while pretty much the entire industry turned against it, the one who essentially rebuilt the industry, they were strong enough to rebuild and rise strong like a Phoenix. Still, it is important to highlight that Nintendo's existence in the market was truly put in jeopardy. For anyone who cares about the diversity and creativity in the world of gaming, this is a very sobering thought. So anyone cheering what happened and praising it as karma, you might want to give that a second thought. Nintendo was brought low, but they couldn't be kept low and that to me is an inspiring story in self-belief.

Do they have some Holy book so I can understand the mindset better?




You know that 3rd party-list Nintendo would put up at E3 and other events to boast they have support. People may remember it from Gamecube, Wii, and Wii U esp, and how each time it ended up being a letdown in what they produced? That began with N64. Gaming mags were praising the N64 3rd party devs signed up. Acclaim was considered a big one and a very strong one in that era. (To be fair Iguana made Turok and many of those people went to form Retro Studios) Switch maybe the only console they produced since SNES where 3rd party support been somewhat strong and people supporting them.



Bite my shiny metal Cockpit!

Hynad said:

Do they have some Holy book so I can understand the mindset better?

I just wrote it for you. Embrace my wisdom and kiss my priestly hands, as I impart on you the blessings of the glory that is Nintendo



Water under the bridge at this point.

I mean ultimately you can't really be that mad. FF7/FF8/FF9 just wouldn't have been possible on the N64 in the way Square wanted to make them, Nintendo should've at least offered Square a CD-ROM drive for N64 (64DD went nowhere anyway).

As for them wanting the PS to win, it's kind of like getting mad at an athlete for wanting to beat his old team on his new team. Should've kept the player happy if you didn't want that.