As far as I know Square wasn't leaving Nintendo completely, at least not at first. They announced they were taking FFVII to the PS1. Maybe it was Nintendo's reaction to this that made Square never to throw a bone to any Nintendo console from 1997 to 2003.To be fair, Square not only dumped Nintendo for PlayStation when they could have at least thrown the N64 a bone (who wouldn't be curious what Square would have cooked up on that console?), but then when the Wonderswan came out they gave it a huge boost by releasing Final Fantasy 1 and 2 on it (among several other exclusives), threatening Nintendo's stranglehold of the portable market. So when Nintendo released the GBA and crushed the Wonderswan (and Neo Geo Pocket Color) he was having none of Square trying to profit off the GBA... at least at first. As we all know it didn't take long for Square to start publishing games on the GBA.
I really hate this myth and wish it would die. Microsoft lost a billion dollars every year the OG Xbox was sold. Even if the OG Xbox technically outsold the Gamecube (which was by a slim margin, in any case), Nintendo was making mad bank with the GBA. It was by far the more profitable manufacturer during that period. Furthermore we don't know if Microsoft included system refurbs in their sales numbers, which could be a factor as the OG Xbox was much more prone to failures than the Gamecube. I worked in game retail during those years, and we sent off dozens of broken PS2s (and to a lesser extent Xboxes) during that time, but fewer Gamecubes than I can count on one hand.
That last part is anecdotal evidence that counts for nothing.
I do agree on that MS lost billions with the OG Xbox, that's why it lasted less than 5 years before it was euthanized. Just don't get the GBA mixed here. I am talking only about home consoles.
The fact of the matter still stands: Nintendo, in its infinite wisdom and cockiness, managed to loose in overall units sold to the new american competitor they so much spoke down about. And just before finishing third they finished a distant second from another new kid on the block: Sony.
Nintendo clearly did many a bad decision here.
Can companies even include refurbs in shipment data?
Also it's not a myth that Nintendo finished third in the 6th gen of home consoles. It got outsold by the Xbox by more than 2 million units.
You liar!!!Paper Mario is way better than SMRPG. Good riddance.
lol yes"What made Squaresoft get so angry at Nintendo?"
Hiroshi Yamauchi
Might have something to do with parts of Super Mario RPG belonging to Square. For instance, Superstar Saga, Geno: "Regardless of the above-mentioned, the copyright of Geno, reserved by Square Enix, Co. Ltd.".This still doesn't explain how the hell Square had the power to deny Nintendo of using the name SMRPG2!
You like to bring it up, right? Might as well do it here because I don't know what you're talking about.And of course there's the story I always like to bring up about Nintendo screwing over Capcom with Super Street Fighter 2 on the SNES as an example of them screwing over anybody. (Which is surprising since SF2 was one of the titles that really sold the system early in its life, you'd think Nintendo would cut Capcom a few breaks.)
Holy mother of crap!!! How can a company president say this and keep his job!?!?
It's a myth that Nintendo finished third because the sales data doesn't actually tell you the profits. If losing 4 billion dollars doesn't put MS in last place when Nintendo was killing it, I think your precious podium is worthless.
My precious podium? Ha.
Fact - Nintendo sold 21.74m Gamecubes
Fact - Microsoft sold 24m Xbox's
In terms of home consoles, Nintendo failed to outsell Microsoft's first outing in the home console market.
Profits are a different matter, because the Xbox was a huge money sink because of it's specs. And Nintendo was killing it with the Gameboy, not the Gamecube.
If selling less than your competitors and hiding behind your handheld for profit doesn't put Nintendo in last place when MS was setting an establishment for the Xbox platform, I think your precious soap box is worthless.
Holy mother of crap!!! How can a company president say this and keep his job!?!?
I think I'm beginning to understand what happened. It seemes Square left in a peaceful way by just having pragmatic reasons but Nintendo was the one that got saltier than an obsessive exgirlfriend who just got dumped.
Nintendo was the one that got pissed, and very vocally so! And after years of bad mouthing from Nintendo and red tape they put on Square they retaliated where they could, and that might've been them not letting Nintendo use the name Super Mario RPG.
You think this might be it? This still doesn't explain how the hell could Square have any say on Nintendo naming a new Mario game. After all, Nintendo owns SMRPG, not Square.
Yamauchi should've stepped down at least ten years earlier.
IIRC the Thomson DVD drives were very prone to failure in the original Xbox (I had one, I believe it was the consoles that came with JSRF and Sega GT), but I doubt that there was 2 million returns and that's assuming that MS included those refurbs as shipped consoles, which is doubtful.I really hate this myth and wish it would die. Microsoft lost a billion dollars every year the OG Xbox was sold. Even if the OG Xbox technically outsold the Gamecube (which was by a slim margin, in any case), Nintendo was making mad bank with the GBA. It was by far the more profitable manufacturer during that period. Furthermore we don't know if Microsoft included system refurbs in their sales numbers, which could be a factor as the OG Xbox was much more prone to failures than the Gamecube. I worked in game retail during those years, and we sent off dozens of broken PS2s (and to a lesser extent Xboxes) during that time, but fewer Gamecubes than I can count on one hand.
IIRC the Thomson DVD drives were very prone to failure in the original Xbox (I had one, I believe it was the consoles that came with JSRF and Sega GT), but I doubt that there was 2 million returns and that's assuming that MS included those refurbs as shipped consoles, which is doubtful.
I assume that Nintendo did make more money than MS off home consoles during that period, but there's no way they made more money from GC and GBA than Sony made with the PS2 and PS1.
Was it this: http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img27/4139/finacial.jpgAre you talking collectively? Or during the 2000 era? I could have sworn someone has shown data that backs up Nintendo operated with the most profits during that time, but I'm not positive. PS2 was a big money sink too I believe.
Edit... Now that I think about it, it's possible what I'm thinking of is thst all the profits of the Ps2 era were essentially whiped out by the PS3 era.
This still doesn't explain how the hell Square had the power to deny Nintendo of using the name SMRPG2!
Here's a simple thought experiment to prove how stupid your stance is: let's imagine for a moment a company that has banked billions thanks to a near total monopoly on operating systems for decades. Now let's imagine that company makes a game console that it then sells for $1, losing hundreds of dollars per console. It quickly sells millions of consoles more than even its most successful competitors that make a small profit on every console sold. Our fictitious company can proudly state it is in "first place" for number of consoles sold, but is this a victory, or is it an illusory success that hides some rather embarrassing figures?
Here's a simple thought experiment to prove how stupid your stance is: let's imagine for a moment a company that has banked billions thanks to a near total monopoly on operating systems for decades. Now let's imagine that company makes a game console that it then sells for $1, losing hundreds of dollars per console. It quickly sells millions of consoles more than even its most successful competitors that make a small profit on every console sold. Our fictitious company can proudly state it is in "first place" for number of consoles sold, but is this a victory, or is it an illusory success that hides some rather embarrassing figures?
Nintendo's tyrannical policies didn't exactly endear themselves to people.
Nintendo just pissed third parties off in general. There are lots of reasons, royalties, limited runs on games, using carts instead of CDs, etc.
The same reason why every third party was so quick to jump ship from Nintendo as soon as Sony arrived. Nintendo treated them like shit. This is the same company that said things like this:
Yamauchi gave zero fucks.
He started the "Fuck third parties, we can handle it on our own. They'll come to us." mentality that Nintendo still maintains to this very day.
He is wrong. I know because i'm depressed and play slow games in a dark room but i don't like Jrpgs at all : /Yamauchi said something like rpgs are for depressed gamers who sit in dark rooms and play slow games. Looked it up.
These threads always make me miss Yamauchi so much. He truly was the end boss of gaming.
Nintendo just pissed third parties off in general. There are lots of reasons, royalties, limited runs on games, using carts instead of CDs, etc.
Nintendo has never been able to fully recover from Yamauchi tenure as far as 3rd party relations go. Nintendo still kind of operates under this Gung-ho samurai business where they are going to do their thing their way and not care what business trends are.
Except anyone who was around during that time knew that PS2s were breaking down quite a lot, and that Xboxs were also prone to failure while the Gamecube was practically indestructible. It's not just my own experience, but what was common knowledge.
Even if you threw the GBA out, which doesn't make a lick of sense imo as it's still the game industry, Nintendo's bottom line was more profitable than the Xbox division since Microsoft had it hooked up to a money-fueled life support system. If I was a company the size of Microsoft I could produce a Spruce Goose too, and could probably sell a few at great cost to myself, but that wouldn't make me a success now would it?
It's a myth that Nintendo finished third because the sales data doesn't actually tell you the profits. If losing 4 billion dollars doesn't put MS in last place when Nintendo was killing it, I think your precious podium is worthless.
I remember reading the GAF thread when Square came back to Nintendo. The original megaton.
To be fair, Nintendo saw this as being something they had to do to bring back the game industry in the US, and protect the industry in Japan. Atari killed the industry because third party developers were releasing so much crap, and even Atari released a couple well-known stinkers, that any game bought was almost guaranteed to be shit. So people stopped buying games. Nintendo's solution was to lock the system down hard - at first they didn't want third parties at all, then they relented but controlled third parties with an iron fist. They controlled manufacturing, so only let each company release a few games each year, at a schedule set by Nintendo, designed to favor their own games and close partners (this was eventually ruled anticompetitive/monopolistic behavior in the US). They also had a VERY strict set of standards that developers had to adhere to with their games (marketed as the Seal of Quality).This is a bigger part of it than people realize. If you lived through it, it's not hard to remember that third-parties hated Nintendo. It was a much different world, and when Nintendo was the only game in town they effectively in large part dictated how the market worked.
These threads always make me miss Yamauchi so much. He truly was the end boss of gaming.
To be fair, Nintendo saw this as being something they had to do to bring back the game industry in the US, and protect the industry in Japan. Atari killed the industry because third party developers were releasing so much crap, and even Atari released a couple well-known stinkers, that any game bought was almost guaranteed to be shit. So people stopped buying games. Nintendo's solution was to lock the system down hard - at first they didn't want third parties at all, then they relented but controlled third parties with an iron fist. They controlled manufacturing, so only let each company release a few games each year, at a schedule set by Nintendo, designed to favor their own games and close partners (this was eventually ruled anticompetitive/monopolistic behavior in the US). They also had a VERY strict set of standards that developers had to adhere to with their games (marketed as the Seal of Quality).
I remember reading the GAF thread when Square came back to Nintendo. The original megaton.
But it is. Cartridges back then were expensive in comparasion of CDs, and disk space was a big deal for Square.
By Square's own admission, the bridge between Square and Nintendo was not, as many speculated, burned because Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi felt like a jilted bride. In a 2001 interview with the Nikkei business newspaper, Square president Nao Suzuki took all the blame, not merely for leaving Nintendo but for convincing other publishers to go with them:
"Our true enemy," he admitted, "was our pride". This was pride that resulted from the heady years of the original PlayStation. When Square originally announced back in 1997 that the Final Fantasy series would be PlayStation exclusive from now on, Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi treated the affront lightly, saying that the console selection "couldn't be helped." Suzuki responded by publicly bashing the N64 and convincing Enix to join the PS camp along with them, which, looking back at it now, he realizes wasn't an incredibly smart move. The little grudge match between them that resulted was the main reason Square failed in their bid for a Nintendo license earlier this year.
1) WonderSwan is great.They hated Nintendo so much the supported the Wonderswan. The fucking Wonderswan.
Iwata wooed them back however by basically funding Crystal Chronicals and the GBA remakes.