what innovations has nintendo really brought the industry?

[high voltage]

The Japanese are well known for being a nation of 'copiers', they even copied their language from the Chinese.

[Emehr]

I always viewed them kind of like Apple. Other companies focus on cool technologies, Nintendo and Apple focus on making cool technologies accessible to the masses.

 

Huh?

Having a way more expensive product than your competitor is bringing it to the masses?

 

Yep that's exactly it

 

Try this instead: the mouse, graphical user interface, USB, multi-touch interface, etc. You know, those things you take for granted now.

[Jess Ragan]

Hey, if you're going to be talking about the "hypocrisy" of Nintendo innovations, let's talk about the dorks who say, "Nintendo makes nothing but Mario games! Now if you'll excuse me, I need to play Grand Theft Auto 73." Now THAT is hypocrisy.

 

You're always going to find someone who did something first if you look hard enough. The game.com had a touchscreen, but it took the idea from Apple's Newton line of personal digital assistants... and if you were willing to dig deep enough, you could probably find someone who came up with the idea first. There's been 3D in video games for decades, starting with the 3D glasses sold for the Sega Master System (not a bad effect, by the way). Motion control dates back to the Power Glove and probably some archaic peripheral that came before that.

 

What you're doing here is cherry picking prior examples of video game innovation in an attempt to piss all over Nintendo and what it's accomplished in this console cycle. The fanboys always do this, because they're ENRAGED that Nintendo is back on top and will do whatever it takes to minimize their success and make themselves feel like winners. So what if some long bankrupt company tried X, Y, and Z first? Nintendo popularized it; made it viable in the video game market when others had failed. Being a pioneer is important, but the difference between making history and being a historical footnote lies in making the innovation successful.

 

Nintendo made motion control successful, so it's fair to say that Microsoft and Sony are biters when they attempt to capitalize off that success.

[desiv]

I'd have to say the big N's biggest innovation to the market is that they aren't afraid...

 

When the crash happened, everyone was afraid to enter the market again... We'll stick with computers, consoles are a fad that has passed...

 

Nintendo saw a hole in the market and decided to jump in...

 

Everyone is making flashier and more expensive 3D consoles... Nintendo decided NOT to come out with another HiDef expensive system that was technically better at X by 12.8% and costs over $300.

They said, hey, if we come out with a system that isn't the most powerful, but has this motion control system and appeals to the non-hardcore gamers as well, we think there's a market there..

 

That kind of thinking is pretty innovative...

Yes, the technology for motion control was around before, but if Move or Kinex (how is it spelled?) are any good, it's thanx to Nintendo...

 

Heck, the ONLY semi-new system I have in my house is the Wii. Because it was different and it appealed to me AND my wife.

I have plenty of games in my retro-library and on my PC. I didn't feel I needed a console. My wife isn't a gamer.

Nintendo found a market that included us...

 

That was pretty innovative...

 

desiv

Which is pretty funny as, I never played NES or SNES back in the day. :-)

[kool kitty89]

How about the eject button on the SNES? I think that was an innovation. It's too bad later cart-based systems didn't have that, considering it certainly made taking carts out a bit easier.

Actually thy did even better with the N64 as it managed a cart slot that had springy but very smooth insertion and extraction, very easy to do single handed. OTOH, the Genesis is one of the best (especially model 1) for sheer knock resistance and extremely tight contact grip. (I can literally lift the console up by the cart while playing a game and not have it freeze)

 

 

The Nintendo 64 had a gpu made by silicon graphics. I would call that innovative.

I don't see how the manufacturer has anything to do with being innovative... It should be the features that matter.

 

 

 

 

From a hardware perspective, not sure there is really tons that they've done that they were "the first with".

• Even the NES joypad always reminded me a bit of the Intellivision disc controller.
• Analog sticks in the N64 were previously done on the 5200, as were four port controllers.
• Scaling on the SNES was previously done on the Lynx (mode 7 might be an original to them though).
• the motion controller on the Wii was previously on the Dreamcast in the fighting controller

I think that people remember Nintendo for innovation speaks (similar to Apple) how well they've taken niche tech and adapted it for the masses.

Well, the NES dpad set-up is more liek the 3rd party pad controllers for the VCS (somewhat intellivision like but with rubber pressure pads rather than a disc), 4-contacts like traditional joysticks for 8-way digital control. All you have to do is notice people using joysticks with their thumb on the end of the stalk to get that idea though, but the short stock colecovision or gemini controllers are rather like that too. (too bad the button placement on the CV makes using your thumb impractical -5200 is a bit like that too, but analog of course)

 

As to the gamepad layout in general, Nintendo took that from their game and watch line, but if you look at contemporaries you could get inspiration for suck layout (handheld thumb input controller) from LED sports games and such, or radio controlled car/plane transmitters. (or using joysticks as thumbsticks as I said above) In fact, I seem to recall that prototypes of the 5200 controller were based on RC control thumbsticks but those got dropped for the cheap funky mechanism with clumsy implementation of the paddle pots linked outboard of the stick. (there was a newer controller almost released that did use a spring loaded pot module with shorter stalk that got dropped after the sale of Atari Inc consumer in '84)

 

Now the Vectrex seems to have taken that idea full force with a thumbstick/joystick very much like a 2-axis control stick of a RC tranmitter, and on top of that, the mini arcade style controller is very much arranged like a gamepad, though a lot larger than the NES pads. (I think the original Genesis pads are fairly close in overall size)

 

 

 

 

The CD-i Light Gun also uses motion sensing too.

The Menacer and Super Scope predate that I believe: both used infrared sensor bars. (though that mechanism was abandoned until digital/HDTVs became popular)

 

 

 

 

As I said, the Intellivision disc is kind of a crude gamepad, but Nintendo nailed the idea. The Intellivision controller is extended vertically with directional controls on the bottom and other controls above and on the sides. The Nintendo pad is extended horizontally with directional keys on the left and the other inputs on the middle and right. Much more ergonomic controller scheme, IMO. Subsequent controllers on other systems might be bigger, have more buttons, have additional analog sticks, etc. but most still take after the basic design of the NES. I would call it a true influential innovation.

Don't forget the Vectrex, which was released about the same time as the Famicom. (not only a good gamepad like design, but a very well implemented analog controller and with a good number of games that actually took advantage of it, as well as still working reasonably well for 4/8-direction type games -not counting worn out units with broken springs)

 

 

As someone else suggested, the N64's GPU may have been quite innovative for 1996. It is hard to believe that "Tomb Raider" and "Mario 64" are both from the same year.

Yeah, but that's game design, not hardware unless you mean the perspective correct filtered textures. (PSX games could largely avoid the warping problem when subdivided affine mapping was used and PSX had unfiltered, but often higher resolution or less compressed textures than the N64 due to the carts used -some advantage of the hardware managed texture cache as well vs the N64's software managed one) Of course the PSX is a 1994 machine while the SGI chipset seems to have been reworked and developed to a large extent from 1993 onward. (I don't know much about the early version, but that's what SGI approached Sega with in early 1993 and got criticized by Sega's Japanese engineers for being inefficient and too costly, even after SGI had made some modifications based on their criticism)

 

The implementation in the N64 is a bit bottlenecked from what I understand (in part due to cost cutting), but a big part of it was Nintendo's rather restricted support on programming microcode on the RSP, not only did they restrict the development tools available for a good while (and the tools themselves were extremely limited anyway), but they denied or heavily discouraged use of the alternate "turbo 3D" microcode which was actually available (the standard "fast 3D" code had some effects that weren't often necessary and higher accuracy -or maybe it's precision- than necessary as well, turbo 3D dropped a lot of the effects and such and apparently offered 4-5x the polygon rate, though it may have dropped soem commonly used features as well as less necessary ones).

A few companies took it upon themselves to use custom microcode programs on the DSP, namely RARE and Factor 5/Lucas Arts. (soem Nintendo games too iirc)

Edited June 27, 2010 by kool kitty89

[dreamcastrip]

I heard it was Nintendo who most notably introduced the gaming disease known as sequelitis.

[PsychoKittyNet]

I always viewed them kind of like Apple. Other companies focus on cool technologies, Nintendo and Apple focus on making cool technologies accessible to the masses.

 

Huh?

Having a way more expensive product than your competitor is bringing it to the masses?

 

Yep that's exactly it

 

Try this instead: the mouse, graphical user interface, USB, multi-touch interface, etc. You know, those things you take for granted now.

Intresting side note, Apple did not make the first GUI OS, Xerox did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto

 

I have never really gave much thoughts to the inovations or non inovations if you prefer, I just loved the system. I loved the games, I loved that little grey box, when I was 5 I did not care about those sort of things.

[Emehr]

Intresting side note, Apple did not make the first GUI OS, Xerox did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto

 

I have never really gave much thoughts to the inovations or non inovations if you prefer, I just loved the system. I loved the games, I loved that little grey box, when I was 5 I did not care about those sort of things.

Yeah, Apple technically didn't invent much of that. They just took some technology and brought it to the masses, which is what was being referred to (i.e. the Apple and Nintendo comparison).

 

I just find it amusing that anytime the word "Apple" is used in a thread, there will always be someone that drops in and posts something anti-Apple. There must be a name for this phenomenon. Kinda like Rule 34.

[kool kitty89]

Much of Nintendo's technical development has been incremental improvements on older designs or concepts. The true innovation of Nintendo has always been their marketing. They took video game marketing to a whole other level.

 

In the 80's, they were innovative with the licensing model for the NES. Without it, the NES might have suffered the fate of other game systems. The licensing and lockout concept is still used today (albeit, not as draconian as it once was). For the NES, it allowed them to avoid having their console glutted with boatloads of crappy titles and have some amount of quality control.

 

I disagree on several points. The licensing thing really hut the industry in some respects, namely preventing reasonable competition by forcing exclusivity on 3rd parties. They already had a bunch of Japanese developers onboard in Japan (with no such restrictions or even security on the console) so those naturally agreed to the terms for western releases (though many larger ones used secondary labels to get around the limitations). Several companies sued Nintendo over their monopolistic tactics and though several settled out of court, Tengen eventually won their suit against Nintendo's illegal licensing policies.

 

However, what they did do right, was actually restricting unlicensed 3rd parties (which Atari/GCC had already implemented on the 7800 in 1984, and in a far more efficient and reliable fashion -no finicky lock out chip causing the blinking screen, but a software header/checksum like the SMS and Genesis used later), so they could actually profit from 3rd party sales rather than competing with them over the market. Nintendo's quality control over 3rd parties was generally BS demonstrated by the wide array of mediocre to downright poor licensed games released.

One other important thing was pulling older titles off the shelves as their sales declined to avoid oversaturation of the market as well as cost of overproduction. (all major issues leading up tot he '83 crash)

 

They also had brilliant advertising and promotions, but I'll have to say that many of the early 80s adds were quite good as well, if not even more prominent. (it was other things that were issues, including some marketing/distribution issues, but not so much advertising) Packing-in killer apps was already championed in cases like Space Invaders with the VCS/Telegames Arcade, Donkey Kong with CV, etc.

 

They got rather lucky with the game crash in North America too, meaning competition was minimal and crippled (Atari Inc being sold off too), as it was they had a hell of a time getting in (they were trying since early 1983 before the FC was out in Japan and tried Atari/Warner who was dubious over a small unknown company with an unproven product -and actually decided against it but tried to trick Nintendo into a legal block with an exclusivity deal, though that went nowhere -and I highly doubt it would have worked anyway, but it did delay them a bit). It was hard to get in after the crash, but would have been had regardless as a small, unknown foreign company and without the crash, one facing stiff competition. (as it was, the C64 was the biggest competition)

They again, had the advantage of an established hold in Japan (Sega was a distant second) and lucky break to get the change to learn from the mistakes made in the North American market rather than learning the hard way.

In Europe, the market was much more level with home computers being huge competition into the early 90s, NES's rather late release, and the SMS getting a rather good foothold (especially in the UK) and with more visible advantages over contemporaries. (SMS games tended to look more in line with some ST or even some Amiga games compared to the NES which was a bit more like the C64 some of the time -Spectrum had far simpler graphics, though it did tend to have more flicker than the NES due to less cut-down games with larger/more numerous sprites)

Sega did very well in Europe up to the mid-90s when a combination of heavy internal factors and extreme competition from Sony really hurt them. (and the deficit spending competing against Nintendo in the west put them in a bad position too, with newcomer SOny taking deficit spending to a new level, pouring cache into advertizing, buying Psygnosis, price dumping, etc)

 

In other marketing aspects, the Wii is a great case. I think the Wii was a brilliant bit of marketing. They created an extremely accessible console, one that was underpowered and lacked HD graphics, but had an innovative and fun control scheme.

That's quite true, though it's a shame that Sony sort of divided the market in the first place (before the 5th more so 6th generation there was really no distinction between "hardcore" and "casual" games as such, and it's a shame that really happened the way it did)

 

I don't mind the gimmick they managed to promote quite old on ~5 year old hardware (~8 year old now -GC with soem modest upgrades that would have been feasible ~2002/2003), but what does annoy me is games that lack conventional support and could clearly use it, or especially games that offer it but only for the classic controller rather than the nominally superior GC controller. (perhaps not for games where you really want a d-pad and diamond button pattern)

IMO, it would have been awesome if most games supported the GC controller (and maybe added CC support later on), with the exception of a few cases where it wouldn't make too much sense to not use the motion/tilt/pointer controls, and even in games where the pointer/motion controls work well, the option would have been nice. (Ghostbesters -which did on PS2- Metrod Prime III, or Twilight Princess -which did on GC- for example)

It's not like adding that kind of feature would be a huge task for most games.

And think god Super Smash Bros Brawl and Mario Kart wii support the GC pad or I might not even play those.

 

Nintendo managed to sell cheap, dated hardware at a proportionally high price by tying in an ingenious gimmick which may not have been ideal, but worked good enough for what was needed. Coupled that with good advertising and pack-in software for their target audience, and there you go, it prints money just like the DS.

It did get them a lot of criticism though both in terms of software (especially 3rd party "shovelware") and hardware.(including some Nintendo fans, or frustrated GC users -especially since a huge portion of the library could have been done on the GC at almost identical quality)

On top of that, you get a big chunk of the userbase in the heavily "casual" demographic only buying a few games (software traditionally being the key profit making area) and possibly some peripherals/accessories, though the fact that they're making a killing on relatively overpriced hardware and accessories mitigates that.

 

Then they focused on a target market that everyone else ignored. In essence, they created a whole new market that practically didn't exist. How many 60 year olds do you see buying Xboxes or PS3s? Plenty buy the Wii. Non-traditional games buy the Wii. What other game system has had that kind of response?

Yeah, it was an area of the market which had previously been better addressed better: hell, part of the NES's key to success was appealing to younger and older customers not typically targeted before. (hell, my Grandpa in his early 60s at the time, was the one who convinced my dad to buy an NES back in 1989/1990 after he'd gotten his -though only ever had a few games, namely the pack in mario/duck hunt/track meet with power pad and Jack Nicklaus' Major Championship Golf)

And that demographic was supported rather prominently through the 4th generation, but I think starting in the 5th gen there was a push for the "hardcore" "epic" type stuff more, though I think the change may have been more substantial in the west. Not just hardcore in the sense of genres mainly on PCs before that, but in the general high production cost cinematic "epic" games.

 

 

 

The lack of HD graphics makes sense if you look at it. Less than 35% of the market had HD TVs when it came out, and the HD buyers were not who they were targeting. Likewise with graphics. On standard TVs, 480p looks great. It allowed them to undercut their competition in price and achieve a market penetration that their competitors wish they had.

Not so mauch IMO. Catering to SD support is one thing, but omitting HD support is another. I think it has more to do with the re-use of the GC architecture (which never did better than 480p and unfortunatley often restricted to 480i -240p in some classic compilations)

Edited June 28, 2010 by kool kitty89

[kool kitty89]

I'd have to say the big N's biggest innovation to the market is that they aren't afraid...

 

When the crash happened, everyone was afraid to enter the market again... We'll stick with computers, consoles are a fad that has passed...

 

Nintendo saw a hole in the market and decided to jump in...

Nintendo had been trying to get in months before the crash, but it took a long struggle to get in, actually a bit of a lucky break they got avoiding getting caught up int he crash and learning from others mistakes rather than their own. (and with a lack of competition)

There was no crash in Japan or Europe, in fact 1983 was the real start for consoles getting big in Japan. (the 2600 wasn't even push in Japan until a couple months AFTER the Famicom and SG-1000 launched in summer of '83, as the repackaged 2800)

 

Everyone is making flashier and more expensive 3D consoles... Nintendo decided NOT to come out with another HiDef expensive system that was technically better at X by 12.8% and costs over $300.

They said, hey, if we come out with a system that isn't the most powerful, but has this motion control system and appeals to the non-hardcore gamers as well, we think there's a market there..

With the timeframe they released it, they could rather easily have developed a low-cost HD console, perhaps weaker than the competition, but if clean and optimized in the right areas, it would have been fine, though wouldn't be sold as at high a profit as the Wii, but perhaps a slim profit vs the losses Sony and MS take on their hardware. (something in line with the Dreamcast in the way of low cost with high cost performance/cost efficiency, reasonably powerful but very friendly to program on and thus harness that power easily)

 

Note I'm talking about "HD" more or less in the context of current gen hardware ca 2006: the key to HD is simply resolution, which doesn't necessarily mean that much other than a crisp picture and PC gamers had already had similar or higher resolutions since the mid/late 1990s. SO you could have a console with PS3/360 level graphics other than being rasterized at SD resolutions, or 6th gen quality graphics (or older) at HD resolution. (you can play the DOS version of Quake I at 1440x900, Duke Nukem 3D is even higher than that)

 

High res is nice though, especially with games lacking antialising. (oddly a lot of games still seem to opt for little or no AA)

 

 

Heck, the ONLY semi-new system I have in my house is the Wii. Because it was different and it appealed to me AND my wife.

I have plenty of games in my retro-library and on my PC. I didn't feel I needed a console. My wife isn't a gamer.

Nintendo found a market that included us...

True for me too, though our SNES, Genesis, N64, GC (or Wii as GC) all tend to get more use. I'm a bit of a PC gamer too, but more limited to older games (that and I don't have a decent gaming computer -though in the opposite side, I'd really like a good win9x PC for some older DOS/Windows games that can't work anymore -or are slow in Dosbox)

For the record, yeah, at home, my mom has played the Wii a bit, though mainly a few multiplayer games like Bowling or Pool (good fun), but the most I've played with her is on the VCS (especially Combat) and N64 (mainly SSB, though at times SMKart and Pokemon Colosseum's minigames), though Ms Pac Man is a big one too (on VCS, but especially the co-op version on the Genesis)

 

Most girl gamers I've known (mainly back in elementry/middle/high school) had a fairly broad interest in games, though as I recall, RPGs and adventure games were fairly prominent (one used to bring Eartbound, Harvest Moon, and Pockey and Rockey), though pretty much everyone like SSB (one of my female friends totally kicked ass at that game and had to play as Jigglypuff simply as a handicap to give others a chance), as I recall most were up for some good FPS action too tough, 4-p split screen on the N64, good times. (as I recall one of them really liked Shadows of the Empire too, or was at least a lot better than I was at the time; then again she was a couple years older)

Edited June 28, 2010 by kool kitty89

[Retro Rogue]

How about the eject button on the SNES? I think that was an innovation. It's too bad later cart-based systems didn't have that, considering it certainly made taking carts out a bit easier.

 

Austin, meet the Bally Professional Arcade (1978) and Fairchild Channel F (1976):

 

 

Nintendo debuted the d+pad with the Game & Watch series… which dates to 1980 perhaps another innovation from Nintendo may be the automatic RF switch? also are Nintendo the first to implement shoulder button in the controller?

 

As someone mentioned, the 5200 already had an automatic RF. Also, the Microvision ('79) had a dpad style control for one of it's interchangeable games:

 

Edited June 28, 2010 by wgungfu

[shadow460]

Did any other console aside from the N64 use Rambus RAM?

 

Personally, I don't really see where any of Nintendo's ideas is an "innovation". I never really thought of it that way. I have noticed that with the newer consoles, Sony and Microsoft have flashier machines. Comparing consoles generation for generation, the couple of Nintendo consoles I have (NES and N64) are close to if not the strongest consoles hardware-wise of their respective generations that I own. The portables are just the opposite--the Game Boy classic and the DS are the weakest.

 

Overall, though, I have nothing against Nintendo. If the game (or specific port of a game) I want to play is available on one of their systems, then I'll buy that system. That was the case when I purchased the NES, the N64, and the classic and the color Game Boys. Although the DS is another matter, I eventually would have purchased it for FFXII Revenant Wings and Geometry Wars Galaxies.

[Nesbroslash]

First shoulder pads, first dual screens, first motion controlled system, official emulation set (virtual console) first real-time simulator, first platform fighter, first avatar maker (suck it microsoft! ) And the Wii has a longer survival rate than the xbox or ps3.

[Atari2600Lives]

Here is (by far) the biggest thing Nintendo brought to the table....this one is hard to top...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigeru_Miyamoto

Edited June 28, 2010 by Atari2600Lives

[Jess Ragan]

I heard it was Nintendo who most notably introduced the gaming disease known as sequelitis.

 

Refer to my earlier post about Halo, Grand Theft Auto, etc.

[Retro Rogue]

first motion controlled system,

 

Nope. There were others before it, like the Steve Bristow designed Radica series of sports plug and plays from the late 90's (The Radica Plug and Play series as it was entitled, included Baseball, basketball, golf, fishing, tennis, etc.) and even the XaviXPort system(2004).

 

first real-time simulator,

 

???

 

first platform fighter,

 

What are you thinking of? As far as I remember, Namco's Dragon Buster (1984) is the earliest.

 

 

And the Wii has a longer survival rate than the xbox or ps3.

 

Considering all three are still going?

[ErickFTW]

They created platformers with Donkey Kong right?

[8th lutz]

They created platformers with Donkey Kong right?

Not quite. Donkey Kong only added gameplay elements to the platform genre.

 

Space Panic was released in the arcades a year before Donkey Kong. Space Panic doesn't have the jumping ability of Donkey Kong, but is considered to be a platformer.

Edited June 28, 2010 by 8th lutz

[mbd30]

What are you thinking of? As far as I remember, Namco's Dragon Buster (1984) is the earliest.

 

He's most likely referring to "Super Smash Bros", a different kind of platform fighter.

[roland p]

The Nintendo 64 had a gpu made by silicon graphics. I would call that innovative.

I don't see how the manufacturer has anything to do with being innovative... It should be the features that matter.

link

Putting high-end 3d technology, previously only available in high-end 3d workstations, in a home console is innovative.

 

Ok, maybe the n64 isn't perfect and textures where low-res, but it had bilinear filtering and its polygons where rendered with a high precision compared to the playstation.

[high voltage]

Here is (by far) the biggest thing Nintendo brought to the table....this one is hard to top...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigeru_Miyamoto

 

This guy deserves far more credit than Shigiwhatsit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier

[DracIsBack]

Huh?

Having a way more expensive product than your competitor is bringing it to the masses?

 

The masses seem to be buying, regardless of price. Their shtick is to make it user friendly and look pretty ... then people seem to think they 'invented it originally'

[Nesbroslash]

first motion controlled system,

 

Nope. There were others before it, like the Steve Bristow designed Radica series of sports plug and plays from the late 90's (The Radica Plug and Play series as it was entitled, included Baseball, basketball, golf, fishing, tennis, etc.) and even the XaviXPort system(2004).

 

first real-time simulator,

 

???

 

first platform fighter,

 

What are you thinking of? As far as I remember, Namco's Dragon Buster (1984) is the earliest.

 

 

And the Wii has a longer survival rate than the xbox or ps3.

 

Considering all three are still going?

Actually, here's what I meant: Platform fighting game= Smash Bros. Survival= The Wii itself just doesn't have as many internal failures. Simulation= Animal Crossing. Hope that straightens things out.

[BydoEmpire]

The biggest thing is the concept of the hardware maker being the exclusive (legal) manufacturer of software, which all 3rd parties have to go through to put out games. The "seal of approval." It set the foundation for the rest of the industry which continues to this day.

 

This is where Nintendo has been innovative. They look for markets or concepts others have ignored and take it to the bank. I think this is how Nintendo will continue to survive as well.

I think that's a good point. Even stuff like the analog stick. Back in the day, I hated that the Apple ][ had an analog joystick. I wanted a real, 8-way arcade style joystick. Nintendo took something that already existed and made a way to not only market it, but make it relevant to gaming. They made games that took advantage of, and practically required it. They didn't invent it, but they certainly brought it to the mainstream and innovated in its use by games.

[high voltage]

The 'Seal of Approval' was like a joke really, even games like Godzilla and Taboo got them. Actually the seal of approval only meant the cartridge works in said console. Did it set a standard? As a matter of fact Nintendo didn't care much who bought their cartridges for making games, as long as they bought loads.

 

As for looking for concepts and taking them to te bank, Love Hotels? Rice cookers? late entry in Pong consoles? didn't exactly rocked the world (or Japan). The laser range did good, as did some of the Nintendo toys during the 70s.

Edited June 28, 2010 by high voltage