what innovations has nintendo really brought the industry?

[high voltage]

Shoulder buttons, I mean VCS paddles had a button 'on the side of the shoulders' instead of on top, so it's really putting the buttone more 'up' with the SNES joypads.

 

As for being longest in the industry

Philips been going almost as long as Nintendo (1891), but Milton Bradley even longer (1860), IBM since 1896

Edited July 5, 2010 by high voltage

[jeremysart]

Shoulder buttons, I mean VCS paddles had a button 'on the side of the shoulders' instead of on top, so it's really putting the buttone more 'up' with the SNES joypads.

 

As for being longest in the industry

Philips been going almost as long as Nintendo (1891), but Milton Bradley even longer (1860), IBM since 1896

 

Come on! That argument makes no sense. Philips does not make games or game consoles, not since the 80's. Milton Bradley and Parker brother, same deal, long gone out of anything to do with video games. IBM is a computer company, not a gaming or home console company.. and they werent making video games or computers in 1896, trust me.

I think were talking about the longest runner up in the gaming industry.. that is also still alive and well, making games.

 

And the side buttons on the ping pong controller, and the shoulder buttons on the SNES controller: Two completely different things.

[Retro Rogue]

Philips does not make games or game consoles, not since the 80's.

 

 

90's. Philips CD-i from '91 through '98.

 

Milton Bradley and Parker brother, same deal,long gone out of anything to do with video games.

 

Both wholly owned subsidiaries/brands of Hasbro, which actually has still been involved in video games.

 

IBM is a computer company, not a gaming or home console company..

 

They've OEM'd for video game companies. The Jaguar was manufactured by them for instance.

Edited July 5, 2010 by wgungfu

[kool kitty89]

Shoulder buttons, I mean VCS paddles had a button 'on the side of the shoulders' instead of on top, so it's really putting the buttone more 'up' with the SNES joypads.

 

As for being longest in the industry

Philips been going almost as long as Nintendo (1891), but Milton Bradley even longer (1860), IBM since 1896

 

Come on! That argument makes no sense. Philips does not make games or game consoles, not since the 80's. Milton Bradley and Parker brother, same deal, long gone out of anything to do with video games. IBM is a computer company, not a gaming or home console company.. and they werent making video games or computers in 1896, trust me.

I think were talking about the longest runner up in the gaming industry.. that is also still alive and well, making games.

 

And the side buttons on the ping pong controller, and the shoulder buttons on the SNES controller: Two completely different things.

In addition to what wgungfu already said, note my earlier response speaking specifically in the context of electronic entertainment/games. (Sony is old too, but only entered home video games in the early 90s -most prominently with their Imagesoft label on several Sega CD titles and some PC and 3DO releases iirc)

 

Nintedo's foray didn't start until the mid 70s with Pong clones, so despite the company's age, that's what to compare. By comparison Sega (especially the preceding Standard Games/Service Games and Rosen Enterprises) had been the in the coin-op business for a very long time (1940 for Standard Games), they were a significant part of the electromechanical coin-op sector in Japan since the market was created and one of the first to get into video/vector arcade games too. They also had more a western presence (and several games released on home consoles in the early 80s).

 

They entered the programmable (cart based) home console market on the same day as the Famicom with the SG-1000 in Japan and continued to expand in the arcades, becoming one of the notable names in the industry, even in the west (especially in the late 80s/early 90s), hell go to any existing arcade in the US and there's a fair chance you'll find a couple Sega arcade systems (Star Wars Trilogy Arcade is one of the most common -and enduring). They were up there with Namco, Capcom, SNK, and Atari in the arcades (granted Atari games was waning compared to the early 80s arcade feats), and ahead in some areas. (some of the broadest array of arcade games out there by a single company)

 

They may have left the home console scene and experience the Sammy merger, but the brand is still there and at least tied to something resembling the older company and is still active in the home console market as well as arcades -more in Japan though even that market isn't what it once was. (unlike Atari of today but more like Atari Games) They do seem to have been backing away from the PC market for some reason, kind of a shame and I'm not sure why.

 

 

As for shoulder buttons, I don't find the paddles really comparable: joysticks with triggers are somewhat more comparable IMO, and indeed with the transition from joysticks to gamepads the shoulder/triggers were a fairly natural extension to that. (especially compared to multi-button joysticks with a trigger and a top fire button and/or buttons on the base as well)

The SNES's shoulder buttons weren't ideal though and a little tough to use, but the more trigger like placement on some later consoles (PSX, Saturn -especially the 3D controller- N64 -even L and R work a good bit better- nuerous PC controllers like the Sidewinder gamepad and xterminator, etc), though some were worse in other areas. (PSX has worse d-pad and buttons, western Saturn mk1 D-pad was not great for some people, the Saturn 3D controller with actual triggers is awesome -too bad they dropped the larger concave bottom row buttons though)

 

 

 

You keep trying to turn this into a discussion/debate about the original Mac systems, while my original post was focused on the companies as a whole.

That's a MUCH bigger discussion then and there's plenty of points in their history when that hasn't been true. I can see the attraction to all-in one systems, but I've honestly never been that impressed with Macs for the premium they charge (except the workstation class stuff and higher-end macbooks which tend to be a pretty good value and sometimes the only options -it can be tough to find PC notebooks with really capable graphics hardware for example; the Mac Pros and Macbook Pros are really nice -for the former you can sometimes manage better for cost with a homebrewed/custom system but not always and even if better for the cost, not necessarily better overall). Of course, the price thing goes out the window with special deals for education and such. (which is where most of my dealings with Macs took place -G4 emacs and macbooks throughout highschool and a few cases with relatives other than that -plus a hand me down powerbook 5300 I got around 10 years ago that I used to tinker around with quite a bit -I must say I don't really care for the turn Apple took more recetly with their form over substance thing like those crappy keyboards they've got now -I hated that thing thought my digital video editing class last year and that was with a new MacPro, mice aren't really any worse though, but I've never gotten what was such a big deal about Mac over PC -used both a ton at School and generally had a better perception of PCs, other than messing with DOS which wasn't very fun for a kid -there was OS/2 and Windows to work with though -and in elementary school everything was win9x already -a few cases of 3.1 and my dad was using OS/2 Warp for a good while for -later NT and 2000 a bit later -kept with 9x on the family PCs though until XP was fairly mature, eventually went to XP-Pro for the sever/office PC too)

 

Again, the best thing Apple (and Steve Jobs in particular) have done is marketing, and that's something that weakened when Jobs was gone, like the Mac in the early 90s... or the Newton. (some of the biggest technological innovation was done by Wozniak though -though one could argue putting such features as the IIGS's hardware and OS got into the Mac line instead could have been more useful -given the push for the Mac in general in spite of remaining Apple II popularity)

 

This is way off topic and most had been discussed before, so I'll try and leave it at that.

(also I misspoke about GEMDOS, I meant DRDOS)

Edited July 6, 2010 by kool kitty89

[carmel_andrews]

I think nintendo's 'contribution' to the industry (via the concept of 'invention and innovation') is very limited it has to be said

 

I say that after reading a well known multipage article (or was it a feature) about atari (including an interview with it's then MD/CEO sam tramiel) it was originally printed in Edge magazine and subsequently re issued/printed in the american equivalent 'next generation' magazine

 

According to the actual article/feature (not the interview with ST), up to and including the time of the said article/feature, the writer claimed that Atari's patents and IP's, innovations/creations/inventions etc encompassed over 90 percent of everything created or designed within the computer gaming and videogaming industry (beit hardware or software technologies and techniques), and you have to consider that before the nes took off, other companies were making innovations/inventions as well as atari (that's why i say nintendo's contribution to the industry in that area of the industry is very small/limited indeed)

 

The only innovation that i can remember nintendo bringing to the industry was it's way of tying up software developers/publishers to writing/programming games content exclusively for nintendo...however, reading between the lines on this, the only part of that which is an 'innovation' is the 'exclusivity' aspect, otherwise it was no different to what companies like atari/sega were doing in getting companies to publish games content for their offerings (bearing in mind ofcourse that it was an out of court seetlement between atari and activision which ultimately created the concept of and the market for 3rd party videogames publishing and development)

Edited August 24, 2010 by carmel_andrews

[MindController]

Nintendos HFC (Hands Free Controller) for people with physical limitations. Well maybe it isn't an innovation, but I have yet to see any company before them try to reach this specific audience with an accessory.

 

http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/nes/47.php

[high voltage]

Interesting, of course Atari Mindlink was supposed to be released 84, aiming at people with physical limitations perhaps?

http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/2600/mindlink.html

Edited August 30, 2010 by high voltage

[Tr3vor]

http://www.i-mockery...ocks/nes/47.php

 

 

How are you supposoed to press A and B at the same time?

[Jess Ragan]

I still say this is the bitter residue of Atari fans who refuse to give Nintendo its due because the NES was the clear market leader in the late 1980s. You can always find some precursor to an innovative technology, but these ancestors tend to be primitive, and with a tenuous connection to the technology that people actually wanted to use. Who cares if the Diamond RIO came to the market years before the iPod? It was the iPod that popularized music players. Does it really matter that the CD-i had a remote-like controller first? Nobody played the CD-i, and the scope of that controller was far more limited than what the Wiimote offers. Is it really that big a deal that the Atari 2600 had wireless joysticks first? They were enormous and heavy and the wired sticks worked better.

 

"First" doesn't mean "better," and the spoils don't generally go to the pioneer, but the perfectionist. The Diamond RIO had almost no storage capacity next to the more roomy iPod. The CD-i remote doesn't hold a candle to the Wiimote even with its problems. And that wireless joystick was junk compared to all the wireless controllers we have today. You guys are just clutching at straws in an attempt to deny Nintendo the victory it rightfully earned. Sorry, but they're the current market leaders now, and were the market leaders back in the 1980s. Learn to live with it.

 

(Besides, everybody knows that it was Ralph Baer who was the true innovator in the video game market. You should ask him what he thinks of the supposed visionary Nolan Bushnell!)

[Retro Rogue]

I still say this is the bitter residue of Atari fans who refuse to give Nintendo its due because the NES was the clear market leader in the late 1980s.....You guys are just clutching at straws in an attempt to deny Nintendo the victory it rightfully earned. Sorry, but they're the current market leaders now, and were the market leaders back in the 1980s. Learn to live with it

 

Thread jumping with the same fanboy message? Complaining about people interested in Atari on an Atari forum seems a bit silly. But I'll entertain it.....

 

Of course one could simply hold up a mirror accusing you of the same in regards to Nintendo. Because fanboyism does not seem to be relegated to the Atari side only. And as being someone who can't "learn to live with" the fact that Nintendo is *not* responsible for all those things, and in fact has been given credit for lots of things (to the point of it taking on a lore of its own) to the point of Nintendo fans trying to rewrite history based on myth. You're actually the one coming off as clutching to straws by turning this in to something it's not - nobody was stating anything in regards to Nintendo etching out and dominating market share during the late 80's and later. This thread was purely about innovation and invention that was previously attributed to Nintendo as the source, and wrongly so. As you say, learn to live with it and quit trying not to give others their due.

Edited September 1, 2010 by wgungfu

[carmel_andrews]

What victory....Nintendo just got lucky (i.e being in the right place at the right time)

 

i.e most of the american manufacturers were recovering from the crash (or what was left of them)

 

American consumer's were prepared to buy anything that was remotely interesting

 

Unfortunately that didn't include any hardware offerings the american manufacturers were offering and gladly lapped up anything that the japanese manufacturers were offering (minus the msx ofcourse)

 

And what American manufacturers there were, their futures were uncertain, coleco had the coleco vision put on the BB in favour of the adam and even that wasn't doing good numbers, intellivion had just been bought out by a senior manager at mattel, atari had just been bought out by tramiel and what limited funds he had went into the st and xe (initially) the crown was there for a new leader to take, it could really have been anyone's and nintendo only got there as they got to the US market ahead of sega, had it been the other way around a different story would have ensued

[Jess Ragan]

And much of the credit Atari has been given as an innovator isn't really deserved either. How far do you want to go back with this? The Fairchild Channel F beat the Atari 2600 to the market as the first game console with interchangeable cartridges. Ralph Baer claims that he created the concept of Pong before Nolan Bushnell, and even sued to defend his intellectual property. Then there was Steve Russel's team at MIT who preceded them all with Spacewar! on the PDP-1. We could take this all the way back to Naughts and Crosses and Tennis for Two if you'd like.

 

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing here, which is a lot of Nintendo hate from people who should give the company more credit for its contributions to the video game industry (including, you know, reviving it). If you want to split hairs into atoms, you probably could find predecessors to most of Nintendo's milestones. However, there's innovation in taking old ideas and improving them, and taking flawed ideas and making them work. Who would argue that the radial tire wasn't innovative because it was a descendant of the wagon wheel? This is precisely what you're doing with this thread... minimizing the importance of redesigns that have pushed this industry forward.

 

You're framing Nintendo as a bunch of conniving thieves (much like Atari itself did in its racist comic), and I won't stand for that, even if I'm in the belly of the beast. It's not accurate, it's not fair, and it's not right.

[Retro Rogue]

And much of the credit Atari has been given as an innovator isn't really deserved either. How far do you want to go back with this? The Fairchild Channel F beat the Atari 2600 to the market as the first game console with interchangeable cartridges.

 

Actually the Fairchild console is tied with the 1292 Advanced Programmable Video System, point being all we're interested in here is facts not "nintendo bashing".

And I'm always the first to correct anyone who says Atari was the first. What the 2600 was however, was the first to *popularize* the programmable console format. Just as Nintendo may have been the first to popularize some things that we found in this thread were created or innovated by others. And that's certainly not taken anything away from Nintendo. As we're seeing in the other thread, Nintendo wasn't the first to have a directional pad - i.e. a surface contact based control area in a singluar area consisting of carbon contacts or similar contact pad switches on the pcb, generally controlled with the thumb. They certainly were the first to popularize the format for the industry and deserve all that credit.

 

Ralph Baer claims that he created the concept of Pong before Nolan Bushnell, and even sued to defend his intellectual property.

 

Nope, he sued nobody. Magnavox sued everyone to defend the patents they were licensing from Sanders. And it was never about the concept of Pong, rather the technology. And the Tennis game on the Odyssey wasn't even designed by Ralph it was his partner's, Bill Rusch. The lawsuits were purely about the technology of moving symbols around via a video signal, and providing user interaction with said video generated symbols. As I've said time and again.

 

 

Then there was Steve Russel's team at MIT who preceded them all with Spacewar! on the PDP-1. We could take this all the way back to Naughts and Crosses and Tennis for Two if you'd like.

 

That's a big big gross generalization. Proceeded them all with what? By that logic you could say a caveman painting on a cave proceeded them all. That's not what's being argued.

 

And Pong did jumpstart the video game industry, just as Super Mario Bros. did revolutionise the home console software industry some 13 years later.

 

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing here,

 

No, it's what you're interpreting it as. Not what actually is. I'm telling you once again it had nothing to do with devaluing Nintendo or attacking it. Any more than when I research any other subject to try and straighten out facts and get to the bottom of things. I didn't see anyone else doing anything different in this thread.

 

 

which is a lot of Nintendo hate from people who should give the company more credit for its contributions to the video game industry (including, you know, reviving it).

 

We've gone through this before, the credit for "reviving" it is an after thought, a later marketing revision. At the time, all three companies (Nintendo, Sega, Atari) were seen as a sign that the market was in revival. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, (etc., etc.)

 

Nintendo should get full credit in it's part of helping to revive the market, and certainly it's move to completely dominating the revived market by '87-'88.

 

If you want to split hairs into atoms, you probably could find predecessors to most of Nintendo's milestones. However, there's innovation in taking old ideas and improving them, and taking flawed ideas and making them work.

 

Not if the innovation occured before the company it's being attributed to. The iPod was a verifiable innovation over the then current market of MP3 players, not a simple next or improved step. Just as the me to's that came after that may have improved in some aspects over the iPod, but were not necessarily innovations.

 

 

 

You're framing Nintendo as a bunch of conniving thieves (much like Atari itself did in its racist comic), and I won't stand for that, even if I'm in the belly of the beast. It's not accurate, it's not fair, and it's not right.

 

You're making accusations that are simply not true, and *I* simply won't stand for that either. Nobody framed Nintendo, nobody put them in the light of thieves - they're not the ones claiming innovation, origination, etc., on these subjects - other people are and have over time and that's what's being discused. What you're trying to portray this discussion and our motivation as is what's completely not accurate, fair, and simply not right - and almost offensive. As an author and historian, I have no motivation in promoting one company over another and I certainly don't let personal likes and dislikes get in the way of accurate research. That would be completely unprofessional. And that's the *only* thing that's motivated me in this or the other discussions. If you can't participate in a discussion on trying to figure out firsts or innovations that belong to Nintendo or others (which has been extremely tame compared to other threads on this forum), without taking offense or trying to spin it the way you are, then maybe you shouldn't participate in said discussions and move on.

Edited September 1, 2010 by wgungfu

[carmel_andrews]

guy's...just kiss and make up yeah, just be happy that we are all passionate about classic gaming and retro computing (even if we do sit on different sides of the fence)

[high voltage]

There was a magazine in the UK called N64 catering for...you guessed it...the N64. It was from Future Publishing, a publishing firm to never get it right anyway (they still do Edge and ilk like that).

 

Anyway, the reviewers in the magazine actually believed the N64 was the first 4-player console, and worse, it was the first console with analogue controls (also mentioning some further 'facts' which were not so). I mean, that is plain wrong, and for a so-called professional magazine to even put that in print without doing 'any' research is unforgivable.

They did get a nasty email from me at the time, but it was never printed. Later, they had a letter from a reader, mentioning analogue Vectrex pads, at least that was some success.

 

And of course, this was the same with the Nintendo fanboy kiddies of US...oh look what Nintendo invented....wow, never had that before.....glee, stick that in your Atari pipe and smoke it.....

it's like saying Adolf won WWII

Edited September 1, 2010 by high voltage

[gdement]

Innovation is a gradual continuum. If you wish, nobody has ever been the "first" to do anything.

Such arguments are an easy way to minimize anybody's achievements.

 

Same thing is true on the software side. I can't think of a single video game that doesn't borrow significantly from something that came before. Even "Tennis for Two" is a ripoff of a real life sport.

Edited September 1, 2010 by gdement

[PsychoKittyNet]

 

And of course, this was the same with the Nintendo fanboy kiddies of US...oh look what Nintendo invented....wow, never had that before.....glee, stick that in your Atari pipe and smoke it.....

it's like saying Adolf won WWII

 

Actually its nothing like that, Godwins law twice already in one thread damn.

 

In all seriosness, honestly I dont see why people get alll worked up about this, should it matter who did what first? As long as you enjoy the games, why does it matter?

[Retro Rogue]

Just came across another example from the thread topic "people who try to give nintendo credit for pretty much everything under the sun." Another active editor at Wikipedia tried to promote Mike Tyson's Punchout!!! as the first licensed sports video game, and this isn't the first time I've seen that mistake - for some reason a lot of people think it is. Intellivision of course had licenses with the MLB, PBA, NHL, NASL, PGA, United States Ski Team, NBA, and NFL. All part of their Sports Network. Likewise as far as individuals, Atari had Pelé's Soccer in 1981.

Edited September 3, 2010 by wgungfu

[SoulBlazer]

Just came across another example from the thread topic "people who try to give nintendo credit for pretty much everything under the sun." Another active editor at Wikipedia tried to promote Mike Tyson's Punchout!!! as the first licensed sports video game, and this isn't the first time I've seen that mistake - for some reason a lot of people think it is. Intellivision of course had licenses with the MLB, PBA, NHL, NASL, PGA, United States Ski Team, NBA, and NFL. All part of their Sports Network. Likewise as far as individuals, Atari had Pelé's Soccer in 1981.

 

I'm not convienced they did that on purpose, Marty...I think it's cause MTPO was so popular a game, that everyone played it, and just thought it WAS the first licenced sports game. It was certinaly better known then any of the eariler Intelivision and Atari games.

[Retro Rogue]

I'm not convienced they did that on purpose, Marty...I think it's cause MTPO was so popular a game, that everyone played it, and just thought it WAS the first licenced sports game. It was certinaly better known then any of the eariler Intelivision and Atari games.

 

I didn't say they were doing it on purpose. Regardless it's still an example of the quoted topic.

 

And I'd say now it's better known, at the time of Mattel's heyday their sports games were actually quite well known.

[MindController]

Isn't Atari's first great console and last great console one in the same? And I don't mean the Jaguar. Haw Haw!

[tz101]

Nintendo introduced the rumble pak with the N64 controllers. Before long, both Sony and Microsoft had rumble feedback in their controllers as well.

[Hydian]

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

 

Sorry to bring this up since it was posted so long ago...but Apple didn't create any of those things.

 

Mouse...first invented by Douglas Engelbart at Stanford Research Institute. The first commercial mouse was released by a German company and even Xerox had one before Apple.

GUI...Xerox had a couple before Apple.

USB...Developed by a group of seven companies. Apple is not one of them.

Multi-touch...Apple does claim to have invented this and even filed patents on it, but in reality their exact implementation of multitouch was publicly demonstrated two years prior to their claimed timeline by someone else and forms of it have existed since the 1980's.

 

But all of this talk about who invented what isn't really what defines innovation. The innovation is how it is used. Rumble Packs, for example, are built upon a patent and technology that belongs to a company that developed force feedback for medical systems. The innovation is taking that technology and making a better gaming experience with it. Online gaming and hard drives existed on PCs long before Microsoft released the Xbox, but that doesn't diminish the impact or innovation of their applying that technology to consoles.

 

Sometimes, taking something that had been tried and failed and figuring out how to make it work is real innovation. The Wii controllers are innovative as is Natal because they allow you to interact with games unlike anything before them. The fact that there were previously controllers that had some of the technology in them doesn't change this. None of those previous controllers let you just stand in the room and interact with the game without having anything to directly connect you to the console.

 

Every company has had some innovations. Nintendo's just stand out more because they are constantly changing the way that we play games. Where other companies are generally content to follow along, Nintendo will fearlessly go out on a limb and produce what everybody claims is doomed to failure. Then, more often than not, the rest of the industry finds itself scrambling to come up with their own solutions to copy what Nintendo has done just as they are right now. I hate to say it, but Nintendo doesn't miss very often. I'm sure that someone will accuse me of being a fanboy, but whatever helps you to sleep at night. I don't have any skin in this game. I just buy what I like and I call them as I see them. If anything, I'd like to see Sega come out of retirement and make another run at a console, but that will never happen.

[high voltage]

So if Nintendo copies it is fearless, if other companies copy Nintendo, who already copied everything else, it's scrambling....?

Nintendo doesn't miss, because the technology already is in place....no more.

[Austin]

Eh, I posted something, but then decided I probably shouldn't bother..

Edited September 5, 2010 by Austin