third party's hate nintendo because of how they treated them in the past .

#1private400Posted 2/9/2013 1:57:12 PM
taken from Neogaf

I touched on this early on, but Nintendo during the NES and SNES era worked this way:

1.) Third parties were limited to the amount of games they could publish per year. Nintendo would not approve over a certain amount- though large studios like Konami created sister studios like "ultra games" to get around this restriction.

2.) Nintendo had fairly draconian policies re: censorship. language, art, themes would all be subject to a fairly arbitrary set of rules. There's a very interesting article by the makers of maniac mansion here that goes into it. This didn't change until nintendo got burned hard censoring mortal kombat.

3.) Nintendo routinely used their market position to prevent third parties from making ports of NES titles for other competing consoles like the master system. You made a game for the NES, that was it- it didn't appear anywhere else.

4.) Probably the biggest headache was the system for getting carts made. All carts were made by nintendo. from the maniac mansion article:
Quote:
The way cartridges got made at that time was you submitted a finished game to Nintendo with a letter of credit. If they accepted the game, they would tell you how many units they would manufacture for you, when, and at what price. We submitted Maniac, hopeful that our labors were completed.

so third parties had no control over how many carts would be printed. nintendo made that call based on your credit rating. not enough carts for demand? too bad. and even worse, if nintendo thought you could sell 500,000 carts and you sold 400,000, you would still owe nintendo in full for the remaining 100,000 carts you couldn't sell. One bomb could tank a studio but nintendo would make their money either way.

edit: wiki has a good explanation:
Quote:
Nintendo's intention, however, was to reserve a large part of NES game revenue for itself. Nintendo required that they be the sole manufacturer of all cartridges, and that the publisher had to pay in full before the cartridges for that game be produced. Cartridges could not be returned to Nintendo, so publishers assumed all the risk. As a result, some publishers lost more money due to distress sales of remaining inventory at the end of the NES era than they ever earned in profits from sales of the games. Because Nintendo controlled the production of all cartridges, it was able to enforce strict rules on its third-party developers, which were required to sign a contract by Nintendo that would obligate these parties to develop exclusively for the system, order at least 10,000 cartridges, and only make five games per year.[51] GameSpy noted that these "iron-clad terms" made Nintendo many enemies during the 1980s. Some developers tried to get around the five game limit by creating additional company brands like Konami's Ultra Games label, others tried going around the 10NES chip (see below).[2]
---
you don't really know a woman 'til you've had a strong drink and a fistfight with her. - nord wisdom from utgherd the unbroken
#2private400(Topic Creator)Posted 2/9/2013 1:58:06 PM
These strict licensing measures backfired somewhat after Nintendo was accused of antitrust behavior.[52] The United States Department of Justice and several states began probing Nintendo's questionable business practices, leading to the involvement of Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC conducted an extensive investigation which included interviewing hundreds of retailers. As the FTC probe concluded, Nintendo quietly changed the terms of its publisher licensing agreements to eliminate the two-year rule and other particularly draconian terms. Nintendo and the FTC settled the case in April 1991, with Nintendo required to send vouchers giving a $5 discount off to a new game, to every person that had purchased a NES title between June 1988 and December 1990. GameSpy remarked that Nintendo's punishment was particularly weak giving the case's findings, although it has been speculated that the FTC did not want to damage the video game industry in the United States.[3]

On top of that, nintendo was not above inventing "chip shortages" to create artificial scarcity to promote their own games. This happened with zelda II and mario II.

the poster who said sony's policies when creating the PSX were a "breath of fresh air" for third parties was being really conservative, imho.
---
you don't really know a woman 'til you've had a strong drink and a fistfight with her. - nord wisdom from utgherd the unbroken
#3iKhanicPosted 2/9/2013 2:00:52 PM
Part of the whole point of the GC was to become more open with 3rd Parties. Nintendo realized that that hurt them on the N64, so they changed it, and the GC had fairly good 3rd party support.

Then the Wii lost it all because it wasn't HD and had an unconventional control scheme.
---
Not changing this sig until we get a new main series Tales game released on a Nintendo console in the US
#4PsyrenCallPosted 2/9/2013 2:01:47 PM
I see lots of words, but no comprehension from the person who wrote them.
---
In fearful day, in raging night, with strong hearts full, our souls ignite! When all seems lost in the War of Light, look to the stars, for hope burns bright!
#5Board_hunter567Posted 2/9/2013 2:15:34 PM(edited)
Were most of the big name third party developers/publishers even around back then?
The ones that were seemed to have gotten their claim to fame from their NES titles.

Besides that, no childlike grudge would ever get in the way of more money.
#6AceMosPosted 2/9/2013 2:14:15 PM
the first 2 points helped SAVE gaming

the 3rd one is no diffrent than what alot of ppl wish did happen now

and the 4th meh it was a diffrent time
---
3 things 1. i am female 2. i havea msucle probelm its hard for me to typ well 3.*does her janpuu dance*
#7Chocobo115Posted 2/9/2013 2:17:20 PM
Oooh Maniac mansion.

Now that was good game, Nurse Edna still scares me 20 years later :(
#8jairusmonillasPosted 2/9/2013 2:27:02 PM
PS1 was the reason 3rd party was given hope of freedom. Thank you Sony.
#9diggyfreshPosted 2/9/2013 2:42:53 PM
very good topic. it puts things in perspective.

I would argue in N's defense that the market was very different then. your topic seems to suggest that N wasn't taking risk.

the video game market at that time was in ruins. N was taking a risk simply by releasing and marketing a console. their attitude at 3rd parties was justified by this.

letting 3rd parties publish whatever they desired was bad. case in point: the ET game.

now things are competitive, so 3rd parties need to bring their A game to survive.
---
Currently playing: ZombiU, RE: Revelation, & Xenoblade
#10EndgamePosted 2/9/2013 3:01:23 PM
PS1 was the reason 3rd party was given hope of freedom. Thank you Sony.

yes, the freedom to suck

I miss the old Nintendo, Nintendo forced them to actually TRY
---
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death for my right to fight you to the death. -Stephen Colbert