Nintendo's monopoly was good for us.

[NFG]

Seriously, under Nintendo's iron rule we had it good like never before or since.

Read the details.

[benzaldehyde]

Piercing and insightful. I had always attributed the glut of poor games to Sony's mass market machinations. Quantity over quality, and all that. However, Sony's quality control is just plain demented. Correct me if I'm wrong (i.e. school my ass), but doesn't Sony decide which games to release in the US? This is why Arc the Lad took six years to arrive, and why I'll probably never get to play the new Goemon game. Yet they permit verifiable dreck to be released in the US... and it sells. I guess it�s just a bigger market now. With the increased demand by the common consumer, they who move the most product win, despite the product quality and the presence of better designed and supported options available.

<Looks at Dreamcast and Gamecube...>

DAMN YOU, Sony!

Of course, now in our larger market, Sony rules the roost. Gamers are left with little choice to get those contemptible "exclusives" that you discussed.

<Looks at Playstation 2 and curses his hypocrisy...>

[davidleeroth]

That's a great article.

When Nintendo ruled the market you knew you'd always end up p(l)aying pure gold.
 

[Richter X]

Yeah. You know, sometimes certain systems have had some very nice hardware, but that won't get you anywhere unless you've got some silicon gold to play in it.

System + = Profit!?

System + Great Games = Profit!

[HunterX]

I guess that your article explaines why I ordered an iQue. I didn't think about that before, but I guess I just miss the old days and that's why I am always so happy about new stuff (= innovation) coming from Nintendo. I like it simple.

[Guest]

PS: Although their GBA/GC linking stuff sucks ;-)

[Blaine]

A good read. I agreed with most of it, nothing really jumped out at me that made me think 'no, you're crazy'.

But I'll say that I think you've missed a few points that are relavant to the game landscape we all now skate.

When the NES was king there was a major difference from when the PS2 was king. That difference is...millions. In the hayday of the NES and prior times, games could make millions of dollars. It's concievable. But the cartridge medium costs a lot more in terms of distribution than the CD medium we know today (witness the N64 prices vs. PSX prices on a new release game. N64 tended $10 to even $15 more for the exact same game).

So, could you make millions? Yeah, but nowhere near what you can do today. The market for gamer, and therefore game purchasers, is wider than it's ever been. You have an entire generation of dyed-in-the-wool console gamers breeding another generation.

Today, EA can make money hand over fist by simply churning out the same game over and over again.

Couple that as well with the higher development cost. The game development model current sits at an average of 12 to 18 months for your run of the mill game.
The equipment you need to make it, the number of people, the cost of the development hardware the over all price to make a game has gone up significantly. It costs millions to produce a Metal Gear.

Therefore, the investors are quite cautious. In some ways rightly so. But no one is willing invest in diversity, to try out new ideas. You get some games: Cosmic Smash, Rez, Animal Crossing...but for the most part these are all from 1st party or high powered 3rd party developers.

All of these are reasons we're seeing so many me-too games. Also with the higher production costs and higher pressaure to make the m-m-m-millions...the current development is fucked when it comes to making a 'good' game.

I think the most telling point is Nintendo's quality control.

Another point to remember is that at that point in time, if you were making a game for the NES you KNEW you couldn't do it for another console. So you had a more rigid set of specs to work with. You didn't devote time and resources to multi-console releases! You did one version and did the living hell out of it.

While it may be convient for all, and help to maximize profits...the 3 console system is bad for gamers. It's like if a movie studio filmed and produced 2 whole versions of a movie; one for theatrical release and one for home. An even more extreme comparision could set that to theatrical, vhs and dvd release. Sure you can re-use a lot of the assets and proper planning can yield yadda yadda yadda yadda...fact of the matter. Time is money. Money is a prime concern. Time is a prime concern. They can't do everything in 18 months. And if you have to develop cross-platform games, you do have to develop 3 versions. It is not a simple port.

If you're designing for one system, one set of specs where you know the RAM will be exactly the same on all units, the CPU is the same, the audio capabilities are all the same you can get away with a whole lot more in terms of game design. This is why console games are always superior graphically and speed wise to a PC version running on a comprably (processor wise, memory wise) computer. It's always been that way.

If you made a game for the NES, you could only make it for the NES. You weren't allowed to do multi-console releases. That, by hook or crook and whether they like it or not, gave developers more time (relatively) to tighten and perfect thier games.

All that aside, you do have some good points.

[Tsubaki]

The article is mostly fair, but I think there's one major element that's a little off...  since when did the NES have this gold-standard of games?  Maybe the system of checks was in place, but have you forgotten that most of NES games are garbage?

Not to be confused with the argument that old games are better or worse than the stuff coming out now, as I do prefer NES-flavor gaming than next-gen gaming, but just like now, the amount of gems released are few.  There are flashes of brilliance like Megaman 2, Mike Tyson's Punchout, Super Mario Brothers, but then there's the infinite amount of crap that came out.  Sure we tend to remember the masterpieces, and that goes the same for current systems.  There may have been more great games on the NES than on the PS2/GC/XB combined right now, but the NES also had a library that outmassed them.  There really was a ton of junk titles for the NES, so I'm not sure why all the propaganda about Nintendo quality assurance.

I'm not saying the NES was bad at all.  I just don't believe Nintendo's iron rule had any (positive) effect over the quality of its library.

[Endymion]

Do I need to point out the way Apple Computer, Inc. is dismissed as meaningless next to the Microsoft monopoly--and then held up as a shining example of monopoly itself when the article needs more proof of its assertions?

Follow me here--only Apple makes Apple computers. How then can Apple have a monopoly on Apple computers? The very idea is patently absurd. If you extend this argument--every game manufacturer has a monopoly of their own sales. This narrow-minded tunnelvision is not applicable to the very definition of monopoly. Nintendo had a monopoly on video games--not on Nintendo sales, because it make no sense to even say this. How can anyone but Nintendo have a monopoly on Nintendo's market? Nintendo, rather, had a monopoly in the market of video games, one that held true far and away from their own sales domain. If you treat computer markets the same way, it is not possible for Apple to have a monopoly--there are a plethora of other computer makers to choose from, which most people in fact do buy from. The matter that most of those computers have no option of operating system bundle other than Microsoft's is what makes that monopoly existant.

Back to the article--Sega I saw marketed the Genesis the same way they worked out the Master System. I owned a Master System at the time the NES was the current console to have. I found its game quality and my general satisfaction of purchase to be much better than the NES games I played, and titles that were there, while fewer, fairly flowed into my library free of hype and taint of advertisement. That precedent held for the Genesis, at least until the Sonic era, at which time they played the video game game the Nintendo way--hype and hubris. I don't know about repairing a console as old as the NES, I am not entirely ready to believe that Nintendo would willingly do such a thing today, but if they were doing that into at least the pre-N64 era, I'm hard-pressed to call it anything but hubris. That's something that any business can do without.

[Endymion]

Today, EA can make money hand over fist by simply churning out the same game over and over again.

It costs millions to produce a Metal Gear.

Therefore, the investors are quite cautious. In some ways rightly so. But no one is willing invest in diversity, to try out new ideas.

All of these are reasons we're seeing so many me-too games.

The real reason you see "me-too" games today more than you used to is the simple fact that there are only so many ways to make a video game. The first racing video game is fondly recalled because, hey, it was the first! Being the first, it tells you "this is a racing game, this is what a game that depicts a race should be like." The next racing game, even if it isn't a sequel, even if it's made by a completely different developer, will be compared to this, and it will be gauged on its faults and its improvements from the mark which "the first" has given to us.

It literally becomes difficult when so many games have been made over the past thirty years to create something "original." It's all been done before in one way or another, to the point that when you see this new game with this new feature--it really is a rarity. Most games feature things that last year's games already had, the one thing that can be reliably improved upon, once the concept has been actualised, is the implementation. So this implementation improvement usually comes up to "realism," you can drive in this new game the same way that you could drive in last year's racing game(s), but what's this difference? Well we have better computer/console technology now so... it's more "realistic." This isn't the bad thing the old-schoolers want to make it out to be, but all because it's nearly impossible to create a game that hasn't been done before in some way. They have to improve on something to get people interested at all.

[NFG]

Endymion brings up some good points, but while they're not exactly wrong, they miss my point.  Blaine summed up the gist of my argument excellently when he said that because of Nintendo's monopoly locking publishers to one platform they "did one version and did the living hell out of it."

Apple has a monopoly over their own stuff in the same way any manufacturer does, however the difference here is no other manufacturer offers apple stuff.  Apple has complete control over not only the sale of their own products, but also the news about their products.  If you want or need Apple-compatible software for your work or home you don't have any other options.  It's because of this control that the apple choice, once made in the same way you'd choose to buy a NES, makes things very easy.  One source for news.  One pricing structure.  One range of high-quality (and high-priced) products.   Nintendo monopolized the games industry in a way Apple can't dream of doing to the computer industry, and they used their power to keep nearly all the content locked to their hardware, and restricting manufacturer's output so that they were forced to work harder.  

Both Nintendo + Apple have/had solid locks on their own products that ensure quality.  Nintendo's seal of quality didn't ensure that a game was good, but it did tell you it met Nintendo's exacting standards of language, violent content, etc.

As for 'hubris', I don't know how taking care of your customers twenty years after the fact could be considered this way.  I can send a Famicom or Fami Disc System to Nintendo any time I want to and they'll repair it and send it back to me for a very reasonable price.  I can even order parts for them, try doing that from Sony, who wouldn't even repair their PS1 when it was NEW.  Hubris?  No, that's world-class support.

[President Andrew Jackson]

Hey, I read the article off a link I discovered on insertcredit.com and I have to say that this is exactly what I've been ranting about to my friends for the past few years.  

I�d also like to add the fact that direct competition has forced Nintendo to rush products that would have otherwise been delayed for years (usually under Miyamoto).  "Delay" is a nasty word, but I wish I could go back to playing games that actually seemed worth the wait.  Even games as recent as Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time (the first delayed with the N64 launch and the other just plain delayed) managed to make everything 'right again' when they came out.  Windwaker and Sunshine were just mediocre.

Now that Sony and Microsoft have their claws in the industry, filling it with all their mainstream MTV crap as they do, video games just aren't as fun as they used to be.

To be fair though, Nintendo has screwed themselves over through some of their more shady business practices.

[fig]

Sorry the article is just blinkered nostalgic rubbish.

Granted the quality of these games compared to the previous generation of consoles were much higher. But in europe the NES didn't really take off the home computer market with the spectrum 48k, C64 and amstrad 464 was king. Many english gamers regard this time as the golden era for many similar reasons you outline in your article. There are a number of factors for this:-

1- pure nostalgia (i bet the author was a kid when the NES was in its heyday)
2- the abstract quality of those games. Because the graphics and were poorer the gamer had to invest more of his time in imagining the experience he was interacting with, which makes the whole experience much richer.
3- games were more inventive because there was more game styles to invent. it was much easier to break new ground as there was so little to compare the games to. which ties into :-
4- games were easier to make. In all factors time, cost and technical know how games development time runs into years these days, the NES games could be produced in a matter of weeks.
5- Not All games were mario, metroid etc. most were
Athena, Bible Adventures, Super Pitfall, Hudson Hawk, Renegade, Chubby Cherub, Mighty Bomb Jack, M.U.S.C.L.E., Where's Waldo, Total Recall, Fist of the North Star, The Legend of Kage,  Muppet Adventure, Bad Street Brawler, Barbie, Gilligan's Island, Tag Team Pro Wrestling, X-Men, Heroes of the Lance, Deadly Towers. (thanks to seanbaby for the list) Notice the number of poor movie tie ins on the list? somethings never change....
6- the SNES had a much better range of games (IMHO best nintendo console ever). during the time of the mega drive(genesis in usa), gameboy (same company, direct competition), jaguar etc.

[davidleeroth]

Living in Finland, I have to say the NES market in Europe, especially in Scandinavia, was very different compared to US.

There's a reason I'm saying we had it good back then. Just check the Scandinavian release list. Pure nostalgia or actual quality over quantity?
Hmm... another thought... why most of the games were released on 1st or 15th day? That's when people get their salary... pure coincidence...

[Endymion]

I did, I think, get your point Lawrence, but rather I disagree which I may not have put across as well as I'd hoped. I didn't want to get sidetracked on the Apple thing, but I disagree with that as well, and it isn't just because I happen to use this meaningless computer in question. On the contrary however, there are several different hardware vendors quite ready and available to cater to any needs you may have concerning "that other platform," which pretty much covers anything that doesn't have an old 1990s commercial jingle that's so worn out you were tired of hearing it before you knew that the kid from Diff'rent Strokes was working as a security guard. For that matter, there are even several other alternative operating systems for the other side of the fence, including some longstanding mainstays that have been around for years on end and still support positively ancient Apple hardware. If I were only bringing up how Apple is not the only nor the definitive source of news involving all things Apple from A to Z, that last url is a gateway to a whole wide world of it all. You can get "Apple stuff" in a place as mundane as Best Buy, too. We use the same hard disks and memory the rest of the world does. I should also mention that the best, most well-informed computer engineers and yes, even hackers that I know personally do not use Windows or Linux by choice and certainly not outside of their workplace--they aren't puttering away on an Amiga, either.

I think the Nintendo Seal of Quality is a matter quite segregated from the article. If it were only about quality, why does monopoly equal quality? I don't think that either Apple--as evidenced already I hope --or Nintendo are prooof of that. Quality is a good business practise. I don't think any one business needs a monopoly in their field to achieve that. It is universally recognised that monopoly is not incentive for quality; if there is a pull to monopoly and quality that your article shows, it is that monopoly does not necessarily mean lack of quality, but this is only insofar as these are entirely separate abstractions involved with the businesses in question. I don't think that you can point to any monopoly formula that Nintendo did right in order to maintain quality. There were too many circumstantials that did not exist before, and may not exist again, in order for this to have happened for them.

And about hubris--my kneejerk reaction when hearing about a company that does unreceipted warranty service on a twenty year old broken console is outright irresponsibility. What kind of decisions are made that keep product in place for this kind of service and replacement? Probably the kind that moves a business from first place (1985-1994) to last (2003).

[NFG]

I'd like to reply to your last point rather than the numerous others because it's late and I can't really focus on much more.  Who said it was a warranty repair?  It's not free, you pay for this service.  As far as I'm concerned if Nintendo's got parts and technicians enough to take my money and fix my systems so I can continue to love their games, that's in no way a negative thing by any measuring stick.  You'd have to be seriously deranged to think otherwise as far as I'm concerned.

Actually, while I'm on a roll...

Your links are to Apple PARTS dealers.  Nintendo had plenty of authorized (and un) 3rd-party peripheral manufacturers too.  It's kind of irrelevant.  My point was that Nintendo's position as the only game in town allowed them to control the flow of news in a similar way Apple does when they shut down rumor sites like the evil heavy handed bastards they are.  Sure, there's holes in my argument - like the fact that monopolies are f**king BAD.  Nintendo's reign wasn't all golden happy funtime for everyone, but it was a hell of a lot more fun than the fractured madness that is the gaming scene of today.  

Regarding the quality seal, I should have said Nintendo's monopoly allowed them to more rigidly enfore the rules represented by the quality seal.  It's easier to tell your licencees to toe the line when they haven't any alternatives.

And for the record I never had a NES 'back in the day'.  I got my first unit around 1995, long after the craze passed, and I don't really care for more than a half dozen NES titles, so I'm not really a nostalgic fanboy.

L.

[Vertigo]

Nintendo of America may well be still very helpful when it comes to support and all that jazz, but Nintendo Europe, or should I say Nintendo Germany aren't even up to disgrace status. Even when you ignore the PAL and release delay issues, the fact that England only just recently got it's own official Nintendo site in English meant that we basically had to ask Nintendo of America, who get all shirty when they see your UK email address and try to tell you to ask the Germans, who only communicate in German. But Germany is Europe apparently.
I used to call up the Nintendo Hotline in America when I was really desperate because the plebs at Nintendo UK Hotline were just about pretty bloody useless. They couldn't tell me how to get the Hadoken in Megaman X, for example, but NoA told me right away. Another favourite response of NUK was "Well it just takes practice". Useless, really.
And will they touch your NES? Will they hell. And you're fairly lucky if they help you with your SNES or even your N64 these days.
So maybe Nintendo were and are great in the US, but from a European perspective, I think Sega certainly had the upper hand, which can be seen in the vast numbers of Megadrives sold.

[Milemarker]

Probably the kind that moves a business from first place (1985-1994) to last (2003). >>

Well, I don't agree with the article too much. For one, "Bad games" certainly did not originate with Sega. Look at Atari. Also, some of the most terrible games ever made were on the NES. Not to mention Nintendo's strict censorship policies which weren't lifted until Sega started gaining a lead by targetting a slightly older audience.

However, Nintendo aren't last in 2003. X-Box is DEAD in Japan. If it weren't for Microsoft's steady stream of money backing it, along with mindless US gamers, the X-Box would have died long ago. MS are still taking a big hit with the Box, and if that is "second place" then I'd rather Nintendo be third, or they will be dead by next year.

Nintendo are definitely doing a lot better. They were in a lot more trouble during the n64 era than they are now.

[Vertigo]

Also, the thing all the analysts fail to see that Nintendo themselves are watching very carefully is the fact that even now with all the GameCube price cuts to near-impulse buy levels, the hardware still turns a profit in each unit sold. Nintendo are very clever, which is why I'll never write them off to the point of going software only, and if they do, it'll only be because they are ready to do it, not because they would be forced to like Sega.

[NFG]

I was kind of hoping I wouldn't have to explain myself on this, but maybe now's the time.  The article was written with the seed of an idea, and I pursued that idea without considering other factors. It't not a serious examination of life under a Nintendo monopoly so much as a nostalgic look back at how good things were while that monopoly was extant.

As for Sega, I didn't say bad games came because of Sega so much as I said the uncontrolled, unqualified flood of crap was started by Sega whose standards were, it has to be said, much lower than Nintendo's.

[NFG]

I was kind of hoping I wouldn't have to explain myself on this, but maybe now's the time.  The article was written with the seed of an idea, and I pursued that idea without considering other factors. It't not a serious examination of life under a Nintendo monopoly so much as a nostalgic look back at how good things were while that monopoly was extant.

As for Sega, I didn't say bad games came because of Sega so much as I said the uncontrolled, unqualified flood of crap was started by Sega whose standards were, it has to be said, much lower than Nintendo's.

[Guest]

As for Sega, I didn't say bad games came because of Sega so much as I said the uncontrolled, unqualified flood of crap was started by Sega whose standards were, it has to be said, much lower than Nintendo's.>>

Except that the Atari started the "flood of crap" which continued with the NES. The nes had tons upon tons of terrible games.

If you grew up playing the NES, you'd see that. Sega's standards were the same as Nintendo's. The "seal of quality" meant the game was licensed to play on the NES, not that the game was good or even remotely good.

I understand the concept of the article, that being that it was great back when you were a kid and everything was good, and you didn't have a choice(even though I initially chose the Atari 7800 over the NES, hehe). However I still disagree with the article, because even when I was a kid with an NES I knew that the system had tons of crap, and I had two systems(7800 and NES)to play.

[Blaine]

The real reason you see "me-too" games today more than you used to is the simple fact that there are only so many ways to make a video game. The first racing video game is fondly recalled because, hey, it was the first! Being the first, it tells you "this is a racing game, this is what a game that depicts a race should be like." The next racing game, even if it isn't a sequel, even if it's made by a completely different developer, will be compared to this, and it will be gauged on its faults and its improvements from the mark which "the first" has given to us.

It literally becomes difficult when so many games have been made over the past thirty years to create something "original."

Surely you're not implying with that last line that we're out of ideas. Because even if that were true (and I assure you it is in no way, shape or form true) the arguement still doesn't stand well because...even if everything being made is a re-make...we're still only re-making the same 10 games.

In the 'old days' you had tremendous variety. Guys older than I will remember a time where they could buy a game that was a combination garbage-man simulator/action game (pick up your garbage, kill the aliens). Minter's stuff like Intergalactic Battle at The Edge Of The Universe... the game dynamics could only be so unique, granted, but the gestalt of the games were a type of ingenuity and creativity we rarely see these days.

It's true that you can say an RPG is an RPG, but when it's time to make one it's usually a Medival Europe RPG.

We get some diversity, but the NES had Princess Tomato in The Salad Kingdom AND Final Fantasy. I mean, that's RPG diversity.

Really, I promise you this isn't stuff I'm infering or making up. I've actually met and talked with developers all over the world. I sat in a conference by Chris Klug (of EA) on this very subject (creativity in games, how to get more, etc..Essentially what is wrong with the current business model). I personally know professional game developers.

The problem is not that we can't think of anything. The (I should say A) problem that we can't get the cats with the money to pony it up for anything off the beaten path. They want another futuristic FPS, they want another extreme sports title and it continues to do so until you get something a little different...then that's all they want. The selection of games does increase but very, very, very slowly and never radically.

EA once published games like Archon and M.U.L.E. Brilliant, what would now be called 'fringe' games. And now, thier stance is the following (Direct from Chis Klug's own mouth): "EA is only interested in making Triple A titles". And thier definition of 'Triple A' titles does not include games like M.U.L.E.

Sad, but true.

One day soon, Independant Game Dev will take off and you'll see what I mean. But for now...Madden 2004 will only beget Madden 2005 will only beget Madden 2006 will only beget Madden 2007...

[john galt]

Nintendo's 'monopoly' was anything but.  The only way for a (coersive) monopoly to exist is to have governemnt laws barring others from entering the market.  When a company like nintendo grabed the ball and ran with it in the mid 80s, they knew that if they slipped up, the master system would eat them alive.  As is in all competition, the most competent rise to the top while the others fall by the way side.  I think its very interesting to point out that gamers have never really been after the top quality graphics, theyve allways wanted substance.  Nintendo continued to deliver with great games on an 8 bit system while 16 bit systems existed from both Sega and Neo Geo.  Today we see the GBA attach to the game cube and we all rejoice, but let us not loose sight of the Atari lynx hooking up to the jaguar in the exact same manor.  Priaise backwards compatablity, but do not forget that it was celico and intelivision that were the compatable with atari 2600 games before atari 5200 was.  The whole story of the game industrys crash in 83 to today has shown that quality games from 3rd party creaters and excelent inhouse flagships create winning systems.  As for economics, your 'monopoly' or any one is at the mercy of the next person to best it.  Nintendo didnt have laws baring others from entry, if it did; all of the games would suck and theyd screw everyone harder than anyone dreamed possible.  

[NFG]

Your argument seems random and unfocused.  One moment you're defending Nintendo, the next you're against them.  What's your point exactly?

Monopolies don't come from legislation, they come from control.  All monopolies fall, but I don't think any 3rd party feeling the weight of Nintendo's boots on their bottom line would have said Nintend DIDN'T have a monopoly.  They had what, 85-90% of the video game installed userbase, and used that to demand extremely high royalties and exclusivity agreements.  It's unquestionably a monopoly.

Nintendo was never in danger of being eaten by the Master System, Tonka had no idea what to do with it.  I think history shows that 'most competent' is defined by the winners.  The tech landscape is covered with brilliant, advanced and wholly competent losers.

Was this Jaguar-Lynx linkup ever used or only demonstrated?

I'd say a case could be made that people stuck with the NES and not the Genesis or TG-16 because people are historically stubborn and cheap.  They didn't upgrade because they had a NES and the game prices for it were plummeting.  In-house teams are overrated and result primarily in higher margins, not higher sales.  The Playstation didn't become king of the world based on Sony/Imagesoft or even Psygnosis, it was Namco and Square that did all the software work.

Nintendo was at the right place with the right people at the right time, and they milked it for every advantage and every dime they could.

[Agentspikey95]

It was a monopoly, if you look at any classic games site, they'll tell you, nintendo had it it's 3rd party developers in hellish contracts, where they couldn'y develop for anyone else but nintendo. This led to the death of atari, the master system, and anything else competing with the NES, which is why nintendo got sued over it. they had created a monoply. but we all know how the 16-bit battle turned out. XD

[Emperor Samoth]

BULL SHIT!  How can you be against Comunism and say that Nintendo's monopoly was any better?  Nintendo had you all play mediocre versions of the Arcade games we all loved.  Two words for you:  Double Dragon

[Emperor Samoth]

"Regarding the quality seal, I should have said Nintendo's monopoly allowed them to more rigidly enfore the rules represented by the quality seal. It's easier to tell your licencees to toe the line when they haven't any alternatives."

This Administrator is smoking crack.  The "Seal of Quality" should've been called "Seal of Licensing" since that's all it was.  You need to know the facts man.

Wikipedia entry for "NES" will bring this under Seal of Quality:

"Nintendo's near monopoly on the home video game market left it with a degree of influence over the industry exceeding even that of Atari during its heyday in the early 1980s. Many of Nintendo's business practices during this period were heavily criticized, and may have played some role in the erosion of Nintendo's market share throughout the 1990s. Unlike Atari, who never actively courted third-party developers, and went so far as to go to court to attempt to force Activision to cease production of Atari 2600 games, Nintendo had anticipated and encouraged the involvement of third-party software developers � strictly on Nintendo's terms. To this end, a 10NES authentication chip was placed in every console, and in every officially licensed cartridge. If the console's chip could not detect a counterpart chip inside the cartridge, the game would not be loaded. Nintendo combined this with a marketing campaign introducing the Nintendo Seal of Quality.

Commercials featured a purple-robed wizard instructing consumers that the Nintendo Seal of Quality was the only assurance that a game was any good � and, by implication, that any game without the Seal of Quality was bad. In reality, the seal only meant that the developer had paid the license fee; it had nothing to do with the quality of the game."

[Vertigo]

Give you a clue: The PlayStation is hardly the shining example of a high ratio of quality software.
But anyway, I think I know what's coming next, after a 21 month topic bump.

[atom]

This article really hit home with me. There are a billion games out there today, some for my NGC, some for XBOX, some for PC. I never know what the hell to buy because there is 3.4 billion different titles, and they all tend to be too similiar to one another. Back in the day of the SNES, most of your games were original. Exceptions are RPGs and Bash Em Ups, (bad dudes, tnmt4). Halo 2 was a great online experience for me, so i bought an XBOX. Back then, it would have just came out on my SNES anyways.

[Endymion]

Staggering choice is bad now?

[Akir]

(After skipping every other reply)


You make some really great points lawrence. Today I went to Walmart to do some shopping. I decided, "Hey, I got an extra $20, why not buy a game?"

Bad Choice.

The first dissipointment I got when I got there was the price, which made no sence to me whatsoever. Unlike movie studios who spend 3 Billion dollars on a movie, so need to rase the price to make a profit, Software houses only spend thousands of dollars (and quite a lot smaller on advertizing), so they don't need to make that much extra money.\

I'm getting off topic. Sorry.

The point is, I'm tired of being pushed into the same games over and over again. It seemed that there was a very high amount of Whac-A-Mole there- a game that came out practically before computers. Other then that, everything was CRAP. The truth is, there havn't been any innovated, let alone different games since Katamari Damashi.

However, when I looked at nintendo's games, everything was new and innovative. Unfortunately, they can't afford to make other people conform to a standard anymore.


I wish people would stop saying that Halo is cool when it's just (Yet another) Shooter. There are ~50 of them produced anually.

And once again, I am proven to be an idiot for getting A PS2 instead of a Gamecube.

And, being as stupid as I am, I'll get an Xbox 360 this time.

[Vertigo]

The point is, I'm tired of being pushed into the same games over and over again.

Play something else then.
Seriously.
There is actually plenty of choice out there if you can be bothered to look past the shelves of whoever owns EB this week.
Even then, if EB is the only choice you have, check out the 2nd hand shelves. There's always some idiot who's sold in a gem and bought A N Other racing/FPS game to replace it.
I find solace in 2D. I've played games on my XBox twice this year. Why don't you try that instead?

Note: Halo was a lot cooler if you had the opportunity to play the story mode in co-op, or got 8 or more people together for multiplayer. Single player Halo was nice enough but anyone who only experienced single player and then criticised the game missed the point of the package.

[Akir]

You kind of miss the point of what I'm trying to say. I'm saying that All I ever hear about is the same game over and over again. There are about 500 Racing games, and all of them are the same. The only differances there tend to be are the tracks and the cars. Don't even get me started on Sports games; there's a thousand of them. The theme also goes with platformers, FPSes, Beat 'em' ups, and lately, most other games. It's just less noticible.

In fact, when I went to Walmart, they had a package of 3 games (For a notable $10! Great for if you have kids!), and each of them was the same game, just repackaged.

[Guest]

I think you need to fire up an emulator and play some of those old nes games again, there was just as many shit games released for NES as for PS2 or any other popular system.  I think nostalgia just blinds people to how truly awful the majority of 8bit games were, plus back then we were all young and way more easily entertained.