The fail of NES hardware/gaming video from UK outlook

[mr_me]

A lot of Tandy and Others was IBM Clone so IBM compatible computers controlled around 25% of the home market in 1986

This was before IBM started its home computer line in 1987 with PS/2 Standard and before the SVGA's came out

Thanks. Off topic but you must mean IBM PS/1 in 1990. IBM PS/2 was very expensive, too expensive for a home computer. Colour monitors and VGA was very expensive until the 1990s when IBM/compatibles became more popular for home.

[Tanooki]

That's for certain. I got my first PC Christmas of 1990 and I was I have no idea why told what it cost, $4000. It was a Headstart Computer, 386sx16, 2MB of ram, a 800x600 VGA card, the very first CD ROM drive(like a 1/2 speed with a caddy), dot matrix printer, a big old CRT with it, 80MB hdd, had a sound blaster in there, 2400 modem, pair of speakers, the other usual accessories. Even came with like a half dozen CDs, one was all games from the PC from like mid 80-1990, Manhole for Windows, Compton Encyclopedia, and other random stuff. It did so much for the day it was crazy, yet within a couple years it got retired out for a 486dx33 with some even nicer parts, wash rinse repeat every 2 years for awhile. Each time the cost dropped as IBM got more and more and the others left in the dust.

[atarilovesyou]

As stated back on page 2, it was claimed the reason the deal Ariolasoft had for distribution of the Sega Master System in the UK fell through, was they felt Sega wanted to charge too much for 8 bit cartridge software..

 

It wasn't a case of UK gamers not wanting to buy software, we would much rather pirate it, it was the fact you saw 16 bit titles on ST for £19.95, Amiga for £24.95 and these were games either written for hardware or latest coin op conversions etc and here were NES titles finally appearing in UK,many of which we had enjoyed on C64 etc a long time before and NES just didn't seem to offer good VFM, software wise.

 

8 bit software shouldn't cost more than 16 bit software was line of thought to many of us.

 

Plus UK mags like Zzap64 etc weren't that impressed by inital look at NES and were busy filling our heads with talk of the Amiga and ST..

 

NES was simply too dated by time it arrived here to make an impact.

 

It wasn't a case of cannot afford, but 1 of why buy another 8 bit system, when the 16 bit market is really starting to dawn and the ST price point alone made it the more attractive option than the NES.

 

As stated back on page 2, it was claimed the reason the deal Ariolasoft had for distribution of the Sega Master System in the UK fell through, was they felt Sega wanted to charge too much for 8 bit cartridge software..

 

It wasn't a case of UK gamers not wanting to buy software, we would much rather pirate it, it was the fact you saw 16 bit titles on ST for £19.95, Amiga for £24.95 and these were games either written for hardware or latest coin op conversions etc and here were NES titles finally appearing in UK,many of which we had enjoyed on C64 etc a long time before and NES just didn't seem to offer good VFM, software wise.

 

8 bit software shouldn't cost more than 16 bit software was line of thought to many of us.

 

Plus UK mags like Zzap64 etc weren't that impressed by inital look at NES and were busy filling our heads with talk of the Amiga and ST..

 

NES was simply too dated by time it arrived here to make an impact.

 

It wasn't a case of cannot afford, but 1 of why buy another 8 bit system, when the 16 bit market is really starting to dawn and the ST price point alone made it the more attractive option than the NES.

 

Well at least you're offering a reason other than outright piracy, but I have to then ask: when did the ST and Amiga make their debut in the UK? And what were these 16 bit games that were taking the market by storm in the UK?

 

To me, trying to have a discussion is like pissing in the wind: you just can't get anywhere without getting soaked.

 

I'm talking about the retarded video that some dummy put out to explain why he thinks the NES wasn't a success in the UK. I counter with this: who gives a shit if it was or wasn't? Gamers from that part of the world, if you choose to listen to fanboys like High Voltage and his ilk, get all uppity when NES fans declare how "Nintendo saved video games globabally!" Yet those fans are more right than wrong, because what WAS a success in the UK after the NES didn't make waves like it did in the USA?

 

The Super Nintendo! And yet, that system would not have come to prominence had it not been for the success of the NES...and where? In North America and Japan, that's where.

 

I'd like to take computer gaming out of this whole discussion, because as far as I'm concerned, they're quite different markets. Since computers had other uses that kept them relevant in a household, the fact that you could play games on them is of a secondary consequence. That there was at least a stream of games coming out for them was a nice way to let kids who started on consoles continue gaming after the shake-out (that of course didn't happen in the UK, I get it already). And by the time the NES came out in the UK, you had 16 bit computers out there that obviously were capable of some amazing games (although I can't think of one that had the global impact of a Super Mario Bros 3 or even Zelda) Of course the 16 bit computers were capable of putting out great stuff, but how much did one of those computers cost compared to an NES? If you take into account how much the games sold for (which if you'd believe this video, everyone was pirating them anyway so...) then I'd have to say one was just as expensive a proposition as the other. And I'm sure the Super Nintendo wasn't cheap either, yet it was a success there. Go figure.

 

If anyone wants to understate the importance of the Nintendo in the global outcome of gaming, that's their opinion...but not a very informed one. So the NES wasn't a hit in the UK. So friggin' what? It was in the major markets: Japan and NA. And in the end, it's fair to say Nintendo 'won' the console wars of the 90s, if that's important to anyone.

 

If dummies like the one in the video like to stir the pot and pretend the multitude of pirated sub-par games for whatever that eight-colour computer system was were better than what the NES had to offer, then hey...I honestly feel sorry for the guy, and it's a shame he didn't get the full experience. In my part of the world, we had all the major new consoles: NES, SMS...about the only thing I didn't see EVER was a 7800, but read about it for a moment in 88 and early 89. The NES gaming experience was flat-out better than anything Sega could muster, but then it wasn't long until the Genesis arrived in late 89 and 90, ushering in the 16 bit era that the SNES eventually took over. That's how it turned out, and that's how Nintendo took over the world and that's how Nintendo 'saved' video gaming. But who cares? Sony's been more or less king ever since the Playstation came out (other than the Wii blip) and there you have it. But you can't somehow pretend like the way Nintendo came to prominence in Japan and NA wasn't important, even though it wasn't nearly as popular in the UK. And they eventually got it right with the SNES.

 

This topic has become about as boring as watching paint dry....maybe the Crash Deniers will get their backs up over something to change the scenery! But all this drivel can be summed up in two sentences:

 

The NES wasn't very popular in the UK.

Nintendo went on to dominate the global console market anyway.

 

The end.

[zzip]

That's for certain. I got my first PC Christmas of 1990 and I was I have no idea why told what it cost, $4000. It was a Headstart Computer, 386sx16, 2MB of ram, a 800x600 VGA card, the very first CD ROM drive(like a 1/2 speed with a caddy), dot matrix printer, a big old CRT with it, 80MB hdd, had a sound blaster in there, 2400 modem, pair of speakers, the other usual accessories. Even came with like a half dozen CDs, one was all games from the PC from like mid 80-1990, Manhole for Windows, Compton Encyclopedia, and other random stuff. It did so much for the day it was crazy, yet within a couple years it got retired out for a 486dx33 with some even nicer parts, wash rinse repeat every 2 years for awhile. Each time the cost dropped as IBM got more and more and the others left in the dust.

 

$4000 does seem high for that rig in 1990. That was around the time I first started seriously considering getting a PC and was shopping 386 systems. I don't remember exactly how much they were then, but I could say for certain that if they were over say $1500, I wouldn't have been considering one.

[mr_me]

I don't think its correct to understate Nintendo's place in video game history. But like this video says it is often exagerated. But it should not be understated how Nintendo used illegal business practices to form its illegal US monopoly hurting consumers.

 

If there was talk about doubting the 1983 industry crash there shouldnt be any doubt. The cut in dollar revenues was huge. But despite the massive losses in 1983 demand for video games increased that year.

 

Looking at old Sears Christmas catalogs, the NES was not in 1985 at all. In 1986 it sold for $90 including SMB and two controllers. Didn't know it was so cheap. C-64 was in both 1985 and 1986 for $150, C-128 was the only other computer.

[Mayhem]

Well at least you're offering a reason other than outright piracy, but I have to then ask: when did the ST and Amiga make their debut in the UK? And what were these 16 bit games that were taking the market by storm in the UK?

 

To me, trying to have a discussion is like pissing in the wind: you just can't get anywhere without getting soaked.

 

I'm talking about the retarded video that some dummy put out to explain why he thinks the NES wasn't a success in the UK. I counter with this: who gives a shit if it was or wasn't? Gamers from that part of the world, if you choose to listen to fanboys like High Voltage and his ilk, get all uppity when NES fans declare how "Nintendo saved video games globabally!" Yet those fans are more right than wrong, because what WAS a success in the UK after the NES didn't make waves like it did in the USA?

 

The Super Nintendo! And yet, that system would not have come to prominence had it not been for the success of the NES...and where? In North America and Japan, that's where.

 

I'd like to take computer gaming out of this whole discussion, because as far as I'm concerned, they're quite different markets. Since computers had other uses that kept them relevant in a household, the fact that you could play games on them is of a secondary consequence. That there was at least a stream of games coming out for them was a nice way to let kids who started on consoles continue gaming after the shake-out (that of course didn't happen in the UK, I get it already). And by the time the NES came out in the UK, you had 16 bit computers out there that obviously were capable of some amazing games (although I can't think of one that had the global impact of a Super Mario Bros 3 or even Zelda) Of course the 16 bit computers were capable of putting out great stuff, but how much did one of those computers cost compared to an NES? If you take into account how much the games sold for (which if you'd believe this video, everyone was pirating them anyway so...) then I'd have to say one was just as expensive a proposition as the other. And I'm sure the Super Nintendo wasn't cheap either, yet it was a success there. Go figure.

 

If anyone wants to understate the importance of the Nintendo in the global outcome of gaming, that's their opinion...but not a very informed one. So the NES wasn't a hit in the UK. So friggin' what? It was in the major markets: Japan and NA. And in the end, it's fair to say Nintendo 'won' the console wars of the 90s, if that's important to anyone.

 

If dummies like the one in the video like to stir the pot and pretend the multitude of pirated sub-par games for whatever that eight-colour computer system was were better than what the NES had to offer, then hey...I honestly feel sorry for the guy, and it's a shame he didn't get the full experience. In my part of the world, we had all the major new consoles: NES, SMS...about the only thing I didn't see EVER was a 7800, but read about it for a moment in 88 and early 89. The NES gaming experience was flat-out better than anything Sega could muster, but then it wasn't long until the Genesis arrived in late 89 and 90, ushering in the 16 bit era that the SNES eventually took over. That's how it turned out, and that's how Nintendo took over the world and that's how Nintendo 'saved' video gaming. But who cares? Sony's been more or less king ever since the Playstation came out (other than the Wii blip) and there you have it. But you can't somehow pretend like the way Nintendo came to prominence in Japan and NA wasn't important, even though it wasn't nearly as popular in the UK. And they eventually got it right with the SNES.

 

This topic has become about as boring as watching paint dry....maybe the Crash Deniers will get their backs up over something to change the scenery! But all this drivel can be summed up in two sentences:

 

The NES wasn't very popular in the UK.

Nintendo went on to dominate the global console market anyway.

 

The end.

 

I would say it was as much a perception of quality alongside the fact that the ST and Amiga were delivering good games. You put screenshots of a 16-bit title next to the NES, and you can guarantee most people are going to be looking at the former in general. Especially when the games were HALF the price of the NES titles in the UK. I'm not as well informed about the 16-bits as some people, but I believe both machines arrived in the UK in 1986. By the time the NES had some sort of market share in the UK, they had both been out a good couple of years. As for must have games in that initial period, I'll defer to someone else as I don't really know, all the great Amiga games I know came after 1987. Bar Marble Madness and Deluxe Paint (which obviously isn't a game!).

 

As for prices, I believe the NES launched at £129.99 in the UK. By comparison at the time, I think the Amiga 500 launched at £499, and the 520ST... not sure, but less than that. Hopefully someone can answer that.

 

And you're wrong about what was a success afterwards. In the UK, the Mega Drive (aka Genesis) sold more than the Super Nintendo afaik, again bucking the trend for most of the rest of Europe.

 

Thing is, while slowly getting there, Europe is actually now the biggest world market for videogames, go figure.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Mayhem

[Lost Dragon]

I first started seeing the ST being advertised is the UK gaming press by Silica Shop around Autumn of 1985, but at £749 it was very much a serious user machine, it wasn't until Atari started bundling it with hundreds of pounds if free software it became attractive to me as a gamer.

 

Earliest ST games that made me sit up and take notice?

 

Starglider, Star Trek,Ancient Mariner, Time Bandits Gauntlet, ST Karate etc,be it for sampled sounds, high resolution graphics or fast wire frame 3D,but at this point I was still very happy with my C64 as it was getting conversions of Commando, Ghosts n Goblins etc.

 

The NES started to appear in NEWS sections of games press here in UK around May 1986 but by October 86 there were still no firm plans for a UK release date and press were also starting to feature news of the 7800 and Master System.

 

The consoles seen as ideal for those wanting to replace aging hardware like the VCS but didn't want the hassle of tape loading likes of ZX Spectrum, C64 etc had.

 

July 1987 saw Atari UK running 3 page adverts in Games Press with ST down to £499.95..

 

Still way above our price range, but NES started to have 2 page adverts a month later, showing console, Zapper,R.O.B,etc

 

Prices?

 

£99 for std pack..console 2 controllers and SMB

 

£159 for Deluxe Pack Zapper,R.O.B, Duck Hunt and Gyromite..

 

Ad made clear 27 games available.

 

This should help give an insight into UK timeline etc, I hope.

Edited March 28, 2017 by Lost Dragon

[Lost Dragon]

I should also point out by Autumn on 87 Silica were doing the 520STFM for £299 Inc VAT.

 

At this price friends older Brothers etc started picking them up for games, music,art, C.A.D etc and we started to play the games more than just read about then and thus started to save up for them, our sights were set on getting into 16 bit gaming ASAP.

[mbd30]

I should also point out by Autumn on 87 Silica were doing the 520STFM for £299 Inc VAT.

 

At this price friends older Brothers etc started picking them up for games, music,art, C.A.D etc and we started to play the games more than just read about then and thus started to save up for them, our sights were set on getting into 16 bit gaming ASAP.I c

 

I can see how the NES failed in the UK because it arrived too late and was poorly marketed compared to America and Japan.

 

But this fact is only of historical interest.The NES is 1983 8-bit console technology that shouldn't be expected to be on par with 16-bit computers from several years later. It's understandable that kids at the time wanted the more technologically impressive new thing. But why should that matter now? Why is there this lingering hostility towards the system because it wasn't as powerful as the ST and Amiga? If more advanced graphics and sound is all that matters then let's just stop playing classic games and switch to modern PC games and Playstation 4 from now on.

Edited March 28, 2017 by mbd30

[high voltage]

 

The end.

 

Not by a long shot!

[high voltage]

 

I can see how the NES failed in the UK because it arrived too late and was poorly marketed compared to America and Japan.

 

But this fact is only of historical interest.The NES is 1983 8-bit console technology that shouldn't be expected to be on par with 16-bit computers from several years later. It's understandable that kids at the time wanted the more technologically impressive new thing. But why should that matter now? Why is there this lingering hostility towards the system because it wasn't as powerful as the ST and Amiga? If more advanced graphics and sound is all that matters then let's just stop playing classic games and switch to modern PC games and Playstation 4 from now on.

Huge range of classic games on Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. Which ones...search the net, the world is open to you guys.

[zzip]

 

I can see how the NES failed in the UK because it arrived too late and was poorly marketed compared to America and Japan.

 

But this fact is only of historical interest.The NES is 1983 8-bit console technology that shouldn't be expected to be on par with 16-bit computers from several years later. It's understandable that kids at the time wanted the more technologically impressive new thing. But why should that matter now? Why is there this lingering hostility towards the system because it wasn't as powerful as the ST and Amiga? If more advanced graphics and sound is all that matters then let's just stop playing classic games and switch to modern PC games and Playstation 4 from now on.

 

There's a revisionism in games media that tends to ignore or downplay anything released before NES and NES and Nintendo franchises get placed on some kind of weird pedestal. I wouldn't call it hostility, but those of us who don't have nostalgia for the NES just see it's importance differently than those who grew up with it I guess.

[Lost Dragon]

That's basically the UK NES in a nutshell, arrived late, poorly marketed in early days and found itself competing with the emerging 16 bit hardware.

 

There's no need for hostility towards it, but then people create YT vids to mock the Saturn, Jaguar, etc.

 

It's just part and parcel of modern times,easier to mock than understand I guess?

 

What shouldn't be done and sadly often happens as magazines want to please Nintendo, as it puts in a lot of advertising revenue, is the UK history of the NES be detailed as anything other than a non-event compared to USA and Japan.

 

Turtles, Megaman, SMB 3, games by Rare etc went down very well with press and public alike here and should be remembered fondly.

[empsolo]

Huge range of classic games on Atari ST and Commodore Amiga. Which ones...search the net, the world is open to you guys.

Yet if you watch Retrocore's channel you find out half of the Amiga and ST conversions of coin op games are either hilariously broken or simply just not fun to play.

[CatPix]

 

I can see how the NES failed in the UK because it arrived too late and was poorly marketed compared to America and Japan.

 

But this fact is only of historical interest.The NES is 1983 8-bit console technology that shouldn't be expected to be on par with 16-bit computers from several years later. It's understandable that kids at the time wanted the more technologically impressive new thing. But why should that matter now? Why is there this lingering hostility towards the system because it wasn't as powerful as the ST and Amiga? If more advanced graphics and sound is all that matters then let's just stop playing classic games and switch to modern PC games and Playstation 4 from now on.

Welll Just look at Atailovesyou reaction to the topic.

Nobody denies the importance og the NEs globablly, yet, it's important to understand that the NEs wasn't the game saver of the industry that most peopel claim it is.

From my point of viex, the hostility always seems to come from people defendign the NES, not from people that likes the UK computers.

I'm not saying it never happen, but on this forum I more see people attacking the ZX Spectrum than attacking the NES. It can make people a bit bitter when someone come and claim that they were a bunch of pirating cheapstakes that woulnd't want to pay to play "real entertainment".

Edited March 28, 2017 by CatPix

[enoofu]

I don't think its correct to understate Nintendo's place in video game history. But like this video says it is often exagerated. But it should not be understated how Nintendo used illegal business practices to form its illegal US monopoly hurting consumers.

 

If there was talk about doubting the 1983 industry crash there shouldnt be any doubt. The cut in dollar revenues was huge. But despite the massive losses in 1983 demand for video games increased that year.

 

Looking at old Sears Christmas catalogs, the NES was not in 1985 at all. In 1986 it sold for $90 including SMB and two controllers. Didn't know it was so cheap. C-64 was in both 1985 and 1986 for $150, C-128 was the only other computer.

Wouldn't say that Nintendo was the one creating its business practices in the 1980's nor was it a real monopoly in North America

 

Most of its business decisions seem to be laid down by the developers in both Japan and North America to guarantee their profits, while Nintendo took most of the risk's of publishing and manufacturing.

Atari did similar business decisions until around 1982, for example Activision vs Atari,

[Lost Dragon]

Whilst i totally agree, people shouldn't try and compare the NES with the likes of the ST and Amiga, hardware wise, it should be pointed out at the time Silica Shop and Atari themselves,were advertising the ST based on the Power Without The Price marketing angle...

 

Nintendo's own UK magazine adverts had the slogan:Nintendo Now Your Playing With Power, which in hindsight might of backfired slightly as it was 8 bit hardware up against 16 bit..

 

Sega by comparison were running Master System magazine ads with slogan:SEGA TV Arcade Action

 

And pushing the 'best arcade games in the world for your home' angle and the fact games started at £14.95 and the basic console, 2 controllers and Super Hang On game was £79.95.

[mr_me]

Wouldn't say that Nintendo was the one creating its business practices in the 1980's nor was it a real monopoly in North America

 

Most of its business decisions seem to be laid down by the developers in both Japan and North America to guarantee their profits, while Nintendo took most of the risk's of publishing and manufacturing.

Atari did similar business decisions until around 1982, for example Activision vs Atari,

 

Sure, the goal of every business is monopoly but there are laws against anti-competitive behaviour. Atari wanted a monopoly but the courts wouldn't allow it. Courts have dealt with monopolies with 50% market share. Nintendo's monopoly was as much as 90% in the 1980's. https://www.giantbomb.com/nintendo-entertainment-system/3045-21/

 

Monopolies can be legal but not when anti-trust laws are violated. Laws to protect the consumer and competitors. Nintendo's lockout chip proved to be a barrier for software companies to enter the video game market. They prevented retailers from selling unlicensed games (unlicensed games and circumventing the lockout chip is perfectly legal). They prevented developers making games for other systems. They restricted how many titles a developer can produce. [And there was the price fixing.] Nintendo was forced to change its policies and pay penalties for its violations.

http://www.upi.com/Archives/1991/01/08/Nintendo-hit-with-105-million-antitrust-suit-by-American-Video/3242663310800/

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/11/business/nintendo-to-pay-25-million-in-rebates-on-price-fixing.html

http://www.nesworld.com/ave-article2.php

 

Can you explain the risk Nintendo had in publishing their partners' games? How does manufacturing costs compare to development costs? [Forgot about Nintendo's developers fees developer has to pay]. Nintendo enters a large market where in 1983 millions of videogames sold but everyone decides to exit the market; they have no competition. They force their potential software competitors to share revenues with them. The developer partner is limited in how many titles it can sell. If they dont sell the developer loses huge investments in development costs [and Nintendo developer fees]. Developers have to choose their titles carefully, forced to be conservative making games of a proven style. Nintendo has no restrictions.

Edited March 29, 2017 by mr_me

[empsolo]

Monopolies can be legal but not when anti-trust laws are violated. Laws to protect the consumer and competitors. Nintendo's lockout chip proved to be a barrier for software companies to enter the video game market.

Except it seems that Nintendo's lockout chip does not provide a barrier to entry seeing as every single video game console from the NES onward had some sort of lockout mechanism to prevent unlicensed third party manufacturers from having their games work in the system. The very next system, the SNES had an even tougher lockout chip that no third parties ever managed to crack and consoles like the PlayStation and Saturn had their own forms of lockout systems as well. In fact, Atari Games tried countersuing over the mere existence of the lockout chip during the whole Rabbit chip debacle and lost.

 

 

They prevented retailers from selling unlicensed games (unlicensed games and circumventing the lockout chip is perfectly legal).

This was never proven in court. It was always alleged but nobody could ever find any sort of witnesses to verify the allegations. Just like in the same way that Atari, Coleco, and Mattel Electronics all accused each other of having sales reps who would badger retailers into not carrying the other competitors stuff. It's interesting that main reason why major retailers did not not carry unlicensed NES games mostly had to do with the fact that most unlicensed games used volt spikes to short the lockout chip. A mechanism that can potentially damage your NES over long term use.

 

They prevented developers making games for other systems. They restricted how many titles a developer can produce. [And there was the price fixing.]

This one is pretty false actually. As we know this because Howard Lincoln took the stand during Atari Corps monopoly suit and gave sworn testimony on the specific terms of the NES license. Specifically the point that only specific games had a 2 year exclusivisty with Nintendo and that licensed third parties could develop another IP for a different company if they do chose. Atari for its part could find no third parties who would claim they were harmed by the NES license and that even backfired when Nintendo pointed to Atari corps own incompetence in securing western third parties let alone Japanese ones during the heyday of the NES and that companies like Activision and Hudson were making games for other systems.

 

Further more concept of system exclusive games is certainly not illegal considering all the moneyhatting that Sony and Microsoft do to keep certain third party games on their systems to the detriment of the other.

 

As such Atari Corp never saw a dime from Nintendo and would to crumble as that old Dinosaur withered in the face of a changing market.

 

Nintendo was forced to change its policies and pay penalties.

Nintendo never actually had to pay penalties as the justice department tried but couldn't build a case outside of the question of wether or not it was legal to under fulfill orders from retailers. (You know the same thing Atari did to try and prevent retailers from flooding the market with unsellable merchandise in the year running up to the crash) and even then the question of legality was never settled as Nintendo settled out of court by having to give a five dollar rebate to customers which resulted in Nintendo's best sales year for the NES.

 

And even still the only thing that ended up getting dropped as of note going into the SNES era was the two year exclusive clause for all games developed for the NES. That's it. Nintendo had won the right to be sole manufacturer for licensed third parties. Had won the right to have a lockout mechanism. And had the right to have system exclusive games on a permanent basis if agreed to. All stuff that carried from the NES days into SNES era that are still with us to this very day going into the 9th generation of home consoles.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited March 29, 2017 by empsolo

[enoofu]

 

 

"Nintendo was forced to change its policies and pay penalties for its violations"

Nintendo didn't really change it policies at all during the NES time period, outside of allowing developers develop for other systems. Price fixing was considered a small settlement, due to Nintendo not wanting the bad publicity and the FTC weak position in it's case.

"They prevented retailers from selling unlicensed games (unlicensed games and circumventing the lockout chip is perfectly legal)."

Courts kinda of went Nintendo way on this, and Nintendo was one of the main pushers of Digital Millennium Act which resolved this issue in Nintendo favor.

 

 

They restricted how many titles a developer can produce

Seems very developer friendly as it added limited competition

 

 

 

Can you explain the risk Nintendo had in publishing their partners' games

Was a real fear of another crash, as North America went though the Crash of 1977, and 1983. A mass crash would of forced the developers into bankruptcy and Nintendo would of been forced to pay for all the carts not sold, even possible that Nintendo could be forced to repaid some developers fees in the developers bankruptcies.

 

 

 

Courts have dealt with monopolies with 50% market share. Nintendo's monopoly was as much as 90% in the 1980's

Don't think it was that popular in North America, a huge chunk of the video gaming market was in Arcades, and computer Video gaming software wasn't really tracked in 1980's since they were mainly sold by regional/local retailers in the US

Edited March 29, 2017 by enoofu

[zzip]

Wouldn't say that Nintendo was the one creating its business practices in the 1980's nor was it a real monopoly in North America

 

Most of its business decisions seem to be laid down by the developers in both Japan and North America to guarantee their profits, while Nintendo took most of the risk's of publishing and manufacturing.

Atari did similar business decisions until around 1982, for example Activision vs Atari,

 

I think the difference was Atari's position was only they should publish for their own platform. Because up to that point, there had been no precedent for third-party publishers on game consoles.

 

Nintendo's stance was "only 5 games per publisher per year on NES", and they had to give exclusivity. This was enforced through technology.

 

In retrospect, Nintendo's was far more anti-competitive and they got away with it for years. Atari's didn't survive the first court case, so it was not even effectively enforced.

[empsolo]

 

I think the difference was Atari's position was only they should publish for their own platform. Because up to that point, there had been no precedent for third-party publishers on game consoles.

 

Nintendo's stance was "only 5 games per publisher per year on NES", and they had to give exclusivity. This was enforced through technology.

 

In retrospect, Nintendo's was far more anti-competitive and they got away with it for years. Atari's didn't survive the first court case, so it was not even effectively enforced.

The five games a year rule was ironically designed to ensure that smaller NES publishers could get their games onto shelves without having to fight the Bigger and more popular NES giants like Konami and Capcom who could endlessly publish stuff to fill entire mail order catalogs front to back.

 

According to the History of Video Games by Stephen Kent, Activision embraced the five year rule as it meant that Activision would have an easier time getting on shelves instead of fighting hundreds of shovelware devs as they did during the VCS era.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mr_me]

The lockout chip stopped being a barrier for competition once Nintendo's monopoly was resolved. You can thank the Sega Genesis for that. Nintendo like Atari was slow to introduce an improved replacement system, holding back the industry, like Atari. Now developers have a choice on who's closed system they can develop on and are less likely to face illegal anticompetitve policies.

 

In the late 1980s some developers were making huge profits as they were complicit in Nintendo's illegal monopoly. But they weren't necessarily making the games they wanted to. The ones who were hurt were the developers who were illegally shut out and the consumers.

[empsolo]

The lockout chip stopped being a barrier for competition once Nintendo's monopoly was resolved. You can thank the Sega Genesis for that. Nintendo like Atari was slow to introduce an improved replacement system, holding back the industry, like Atari.

This is patently and blatantly false. Sega had nothing to do with the SNES or it's development. Nintendo had been looking as far back as 1987 for a successor system to the Famicom. We know this because a year earlier, Hudsonsoft had pitched their Hucard console to Nintendo as a possible replacement for the Famicom. The early design process for the Super Famicom started as early as 1987 with prototypes starting to be manufactured in 1988. What caused the delay of the Super Famicom wasn't due to this insane idea that Nintendo wanted keep the NES going for an extra few years. The real snag was specifically over backwards compatibility and the feasibility of having to mass produce cartridge slots for two different regions as well as dual lockout chips. (or three if you count the PAL lockout chip

 

 

 

Now developers have a choice on who's closed system they can develop on and are less likely to face illegal anticompetitve policies.

Except there isn't anything illegal about Nintendo's policies. You still have to sign up with one of the two and more often then not the Big boys sign up with Sony because it's the market leader with the XBONE being left with scraps.

In the late 1980s some developers were making huge profits as they were complicit in Nintendo's illegal monopoly.

And yet the justice departmnt could find no evidence of racketeering by the Japanese companies at the height of the Anti-Japanese witch hunts of the late eighties.

 

 

But they weren't necessarily making the games they wanted to.

That's true even today. Devs are forced to make games that they know will sell but don't enjoy making because would rather not take a risk on a passion project vs a marquee franchise. Just ask Ubisoft.

 

 

The ones who were hurt were the developers who were illegally shut out and the consumers.

Except no company was ever illegally shut out as Nintendo's licenses were ruled legal.

Edited March 29, 2017 by empsolo

[mr_me]

...

That's true even today. Devs are forced to make games that they know will sell but don't enjoy making because would rather not take a risk on a passion project vs a marquee franchise. Just ask Ubisoft.

...

 

Exactly and Nintendo's policies and terms makes it worse.

 

There's nothing wrong with exclusive agreements but under a monopoly Nintendo's restrictive anti-competitive policies violate antitrust laws and are illegal. A developer can only make five titles but Nintendo can makes as many as they want, is not fair. The developer pays all the costs and takes the risks. If a developer can't afford the terms they could go elsewhere but not in 1988 in the US.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=N_OkBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188