Support NeoGAF

[nssdigitalchumps]

The SG-1000 was never released in the US though.

I stand corrected. For some reason I thought it was. No matter, it would have failed here during that time period. lol

Just a bad time to release that system, at least for America. Japan was thriving like a mofo during our dead period.

 

[Piccoro]

Yea, I hope that this movie is not a comedy. I would like it to have the same tone of the Social Network.
And Nintendo and Sega's history of the 90's is quite interesting.

 

[Tripon]

Yea, I hope that this movie is not a comedy. I would like it to have the same tone of the Social Network.
And Nintendo and Sega's history of the 90's is quite interesting.

The social network is a comedy.

 

[mantidor]

I would've liked a Tetris movie more, the BBC documentary would have to do for now still.

 

[Timeaisis]

It'll be funny when Nintendo doesn't give them any licensing and they'll just have to refer to Mario as "that Nintendo mascot". I don't see this working on any level.

 

[domlolz]

Seth Rogen
Evan Goldberg

It's going to be a shitty comedy aimed at frat boys and stoners

lmao yeah those are the only people who enjoy their comedies

 

[Version 3.0]

'Revolutionized' is a stretch, but they did give Nintendo their first taste of real competition, which definitely spiced things up. Nintendo thought they were untouchable, the Genesis made them realize that wasn't the case.

True. I still don't like the idea of Nintendo as the "bad guy", if that's the case. Nintendo were arrogant and ruthless, shady businessmen, but Sega (of America) were infantile, trash-talking, unprofessional douchebags. It was thanks to them that we were supposed to "pick a side" instead of just enjoying games. I've always hated that.

The movie should be about the jerks who ran this industry of (at the time) children's products, not about David vs. Goliath. That isn't true, even if both companies thought that way.

 

[h#shdem0n]

They might not even have to pimp out the Playstation in this movie for it to have the desired effect on the market (if we assume that is at least part of their motivation for making this movie). If the PS4 maintains its lead, just getting people interested in/romanticizing the videogame industry more could spur sales, bringing people to the PS4 because its already the console with the most momentum.

 

[prag16]

I don't remember this happening.

.

 

[Version 3.0]

Yes, in 1985. But it was Sega that provided real competition and created the console industry as we know it by introducing the Genesis.

Oh, please. I don't think I've ever seen this level of pro-Sega delusion before.

Various Nintendo employees of the era have stated that Nintendo basically had no intention of introducing a more powerful system while the NES continued to be the juggernaut it was, but the introduction and success of the Genesis began the inter-company race that continues to this day.

Again...please. Of course Nintendo wanted to sit on the NES as long as possible. But it was never a matter of if they'd release a follow-up product, but when. Even Nintendo isn't stupid enough to think that technology lasts forever.

 

[AmyS]

Give respect where respect is due. Nintendo created the video game industry model, as we know it today.

Sega dominated the arcade / amusement industry, and with their 2nd console in the western world, ended the monopoly on the console side

 

[Version 3.0]

Give respect where respect is due. Nintendo created the video game industry model, as we know it today.

Sega dominated the arcade / amusement industry, and with their 2nd console in the western world, ended the monopoly on the console side

Actually, no, they didn't. The 3rd-party license/royalty structure came from Atari's lawsuit against Activision. Activision was founded by Atari employees who left, disgruntled at being paid poorly for making games that raked in millions. They started making 2600 games, and Atari sued. The case was eventually settled with the basic licensing model we still have.

http://www.system16.com/atari_history.php

Atari settles a lawsuit from Activision, and allows the development of third-party video games in return for royalties. Dozens of companies begin making games for the Atari VCS.

Both Nintendo and Sega went to court over unlicensed games (and peripherals), both generally emerging victorious and cementing the business model we still have today, but neither of them invented it.

 

[GillianSeed79]

But why make Nintendo the bad guy? Nintendo saved the video game industry from collapse. And created the very business model that Sega and Sony all used successfully.

They may have saved the industry, but during the NES days they literally had a monopoly on the industry. To prevent another crash, game publishers could only release three games a year for NES, which is why you saw dummy publishers like Ultra Games (Which was just Konami) to get around the loophole. Games had to be personally approved by Nintendo. If Nintendo didn't like you game, well too bad it's not coming out or go back to the drawing board. Competition? There were contracts that prevented third parties from releasing games on other platforms. There also price fixing allegations and allegations that they intentionally manufactured cartridge shortages for certain games to maintain demand. It wasn't until there were some legal cases and litigation that Nintendo's absolute grip on the industry was softened.

 

[Version 3.0]

They may have saved the industry, but during the NES days they literally had a monopoly on the industry. To prevent another crash, game publishers could only release three games a year for NES, which is why you saw dummy publishers like Ultra Games (Which was just Konami) to get around the loophole. Games had to be personally approved by Nintendo. If Nintendo didn't like you game, well too bad it's not coming out or go back to the drawing board. Competition? There were contracts that prevented third parties from releasing games on other platforms. There also price fixing allegations and allegations that they intentionally manufactured cartridge shortages for certain games to maintain demand. It wasn't until there were some legal cases and litigation that Nintendo's absolute grip on the industry was softened.

Nintendo didn't have a monopoly. There were other platforms, just none that were especially successful in the US or Japan - but it wasn't Nintendo's (shady) practices that caused that. Despite being dicks, they never did manage to keep any competitors out of the market. They definitely crossed the line sometimes - and were rebuked for it - but most of what you describe still takes place today. Contracts for exclusivity? Nintendo was not alone in that, and it still happens. Game approval process? Every manufacturer has done that on every console since the NES. Limit on game releases? Not unique, and still in place today. Bullying retailers is 100% normal as well - you missed that, but Nintendo had probably the worst reputation for it.

If you want to attribute anything to Nintendo, they certainly set the mold for being arrogant pricks who think their dominance is untouchable. But Sony did the same thing just last gen, and Microsoft - even while not actually dominant - acted similarly just last year.

As I said in my earlier post, no story about video game companies should be portrayed as the "good guy" vs. the "bad guy". They all fit the mold of the bad guy much better. In the 16-bit era, I've always felt that at least Nintendo's success was based on quality products, not infantile (but very effective) slur campaigning aimed at impressionable teenagers.