• GamesRadarCollanderCooper - March 27, 2013 2:17 p.m.

    #1. Tell Nintendo fanboys not to be so smug. Remember, it was hubris that sunk the Titantic... and an iceberg.
  • Arobadope - March 27, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    what about sony pc and xbox fan boys?
  • BladedFalcon - March 28, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    You're talking about the fanboys, not the companies themselves, KIND OF a big difference. Besides, both Sony And Microsoft have also had their huge moments of hubris, and it has cost them greatly as well. The whole PS3 launch was a disaster precisely because of Sony's hubris, and if the rumors behind the new Microsoft machine are to be believe, it's likely they'll suffer the same fate. It's generally very bad when a company gets cocky, not just for Nintendo, but for everyone. Only... Nintendo seems to get cocky as soon as they hit bullseye again >>;
  • Arobadope - March 28, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    Notice how HE is talking about fanboys too. How has Nintendo, the company, been cocky, and how has that been any different than Sony, or Microsoft when they are on top? You gave the example of the PS3 launch....wasn't that just after Sony's massive success of PS2? Sorry, but under scrutiny your statement makes 0 sense.
  • BladedFalcon - March 28, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    "How has Nintendo, the company, been cocky, and how has that been any different than Sony, or Microsoft when they are on top?" Either you're too young, or too ignorant if you're seriously asking this. As much as Sony or Microsoft have screwed up, their hubris didn't end up creating their own biggest rival. Nintendo basically created the PlayStation by first asking Sony to create a disc-based console for the, and THEN publicly ditching and humiliating Sony by suddenly switching to do that project with Philips. Nintendo got cocky, and when they realized that the deal with Sony wouldn't benefit them as much, they thought they could get away by just dumping them and using someone else. Lo an behold, couple years later, the playstation was born, and for the next two generations, proceeded to eat Nintendo's market. And meanwhile, all Nintendo got from the Philips partnership was the CDi... and we all know how "great" that was... Also, more proof of hubris? one of the main reasons Nintendo suddenly lost a big chunk of party support after the SNES, was because Nintendo abused the hell out of third party companies by imposing ridiculous limitations on them, Forcing them to pay outrageous amounts of money to put their games on nintendo's proprietary formats and straight up making sure their own titles always got preference over others, this of course, got almost every third company pissed, and which is why almost all of them didn't hesitate to jump ship to the Playstation when it came out. And since then and to this day, Nintendo still hasn't been able to bring back the support it used to have back in the NES and SNES days. Just because you don't have your facts straight, doesn't make a statement make 0 sense, FYI.
  • Arobadope - March 28, 2013 11 a.m.

    Lol first off opening anything up with either you're too young or too ignorant already shows you know the flaws in your argument. Nintendo is a BUSINESS They want to make MONEY, if a deal doesn't favor them, or they feel it doesn't favor them......why would they do it? That's not 'hubris' at all that's just them feeling that the deal with Sony wasn't a good one. Do you know the specifics of the deal? Do you know how the profits were going to be split? No? Then you're talking out of your nether regions. That's partial hubris. We all know Nintendo's old 'certification' standards, what of it? Do you remember the Atari days? When games like Custer's Revenge were allowed on the market, or what about the ET game? Because Nintendo required that it brought the overall quality of games up. Did it hurt them when another competitor was actually able to compete? Of course, but it did help at the time. Partial hubris at worst, quality control at best. Though if it was as bad as you say why didn't those third parties jump onto Sega's consoles? It's funny how ONCE MORE under scrutiny your argument fails. Like I said your statement makes 0 sense. FYI
  • BladedFalcon - March 28, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    There's no flaws in my argument when it's shown that you clearly don't know or understand what you're talking about. The details about the deal with Sony where widely known, and if you cared to do a little bit of basic research, you'd know that as well. The reason why Nintendo threw a hissy fit over the Sony deal, was because it gave Sony a say on any property put on a disc. Nintendo didn't like the idea of another company having the final say on their products, which is fair enough... Problem is, the contract had already been made, and it was Nintendo's fault, not Sony's that they hadn't looked well at the contract. And even if Nintendo was in the right here... the way they did was completely arrogant and it's what pissed Sony off so much that ultimately prompted them to keep on going with the playstation: Breaking the deal is one thing, breaking the deal while on a public event, making a show of the company you just broke contract with is a very different story. Slice it any way you want, that was a mistake, and the results are now very well recorded in history. This is not me making zero sense friend, these are facts. Also, you like to speak about arguments that fail under scrutiny... How about your argument about "Quality control" hm? You made it sound like thanks to Nintendo's "certification" games no longer were crappy or buggy, if so, explain to me exactly how did games such as Back to the future, and Friday the 13th made it on to the system? If Nintendo's policy really was that concerned about quality and not so much grubbing money for themselves, those games shouldn't have appeared on the systems. As for why companies didn't jump over to Sega? Most of the actually did, so much so that they even created different versions of their games altogether just to be in the console. But if you're asking why they didn't jump ship like they did when the Playstation hit big? the reason is obvious: Even on it's best days, Sega was on par with Nintendo at BEST, but never on top, even though Nintendo's policies were BS, Developers stuck with it because they were still very popular. However, once everyone saw that the Playstation was kicking the N64's ass and was easier and cheaper to develop, they jumped ship without a second thought. See, if you actually stop and use LOGIC, it makes perfect sense, you should try it sometimes ^^
  • Arobadope - March 28, 2013 1:45 p.m.

    You should take your own advice on using logic. 1) Contract language is normally vague or widely interpreted, you've obviously never had a detailed look at half the contracts you've ever signed, if you've signed any I don't know you sound 15 to me. 2) I never said it wasn't Nintendo's fault, hell you even admitted that the reason they backed out was understandable. 3) That's not the full details of the contract, what you gave was the very bare-bones basics that everyone already knows. You once more dodged questions aimed at you (notice how far gone we have from fanboys) 4) It wasn't arrogant, underhanded yes, but arrogant? No. Maybe you should look the word up since you seem to not understand its definition. 5)Yes, it's you making 0 sense because what you are arguing is that it shows arrogance/hubris/pride, which by the way the original statement was made to FANBOYS not the company, when it doesn't. It just shows poor business practices. 6)I never said they weren't crappy or buggy, you're putting words in my mouth which I find hilarious mind you. Also, quality control doesn't work all the time, Skyrim is an amazing example of that, actually many modern games are. 7) Sony was on top due tot he N64 coming out a year later, maybe YOU should do some research and understand the market a bit better? Also if Sega was on par with Nintendo, that still begs the question of why didn't they jump ship en mass to Sega? If it's as good as its competitor then they aren't losing anything by moving over, developing on both consoles isn't proof of jumping ship, if that's the case Sony and Microsoft both have terrible business policies since most games are multiplatform and devs are jumping ship all the time. It's called trying to maximize profit by hitting as many sources as possible. Hence why you see a severe lack of exclusives now and days. 8) Let me give you some logic, correlation does not imply causation. Otherwise you'd note how N64 still received a fair amount of ports and so did PS, GC received a fair amount of ports and so did PS2, for obvious reasons Wii failed to see the same amount of ports of games as the previous two consoles. Playstation being out a full year ahead of the N64 obviously attracted more devs to it, it was the newest thing out. Kind of like how 360 came out before PS3 and Wii, and had a nice cushion, then the Wii came out took off, and the PS3 eventually took off with price cuts and what not. However, for a time the 360 saw a nice line of games solely for it. Was it massive? Nah, but pretty steady. By your reasoning this means devs didn't like Sony or Nintendo and jumped ship to 360. 9) Once more you fail under scrutiny please try again.
  • BladedFalcon - March 28, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    If you think personal attacks add any validity to your argument, you're amusingly mistaken, just so so you know ^^ Yes, contracts are tricky things, vague and as such, should be read careful. You'd think a company as powerful as Nintendo was back then, would have decent counseling and would have read any contracts they signed carefully. Not really sure what you're trying to argue here, if they signed a contract they didn't like in the end, it's their own damn fault either by not looking carefully, or not having a better counseling. I don't see how am I dodging any questions here? From the begging, my post wasn't directed at all at fanboys, that's never what I was trying to argue nor did I ever gave the impression that I wanted to, so why would you even bring it up? And yes, the minute details of the contract aren't known to me nor you, that doesn't mean one can't have a good idea of what went on, and again, regardless of what the contract was specifically, you said it yourself: "if a deal doesn't favor them, or they feel it doesn't favor them......why would they do it?" So yes... if the deal wasn't favorable to them, signing on it was stupid. I know what arrogance is pretty well, it means a person or entity considers itself superior to others, and it's exactly that kind of attitude that would prompt Nintendo to break from the contract the way it did. Underhandedness would have been to look for loopholes or seek to change the deal in a way that wouldn't draw attention to them. What they did was the complete opposite, which is what someone arrogant would do, because they would think they're good enough to get away with it. I put no words in your mouth, you actually said: " Because Nintendo required that it brought the overall quality of games up." But that's not necessarily true when you still got a myriad of shovel-ware, and obvious cash-in titles. Besides, one thing is to demand high quality from your third parties, and another very different thing is to charge extra or make deals that take advantage of others just because you happen to be on top, Nintendo was basically bullying third parties back then. You wanna talk about logic? fine, okay then, you claim that Sony was on top because it came out before the 64... By that Logic, the Dreamcast should have then been on top the PS2 and the other consoles that came later, and we all know how THAT went. So your argument actually, truly makes zero sense. Also, you answered your own question regarding Sega, they didn't jump exclusively to Sega because both companies had both a very good market, such as today the PS3 and the 360 do. But companies DID jump ship and develop for the PSOne far more than what they did for the N64. And here again, you argument falls apart. Again, do some research, take some time to look at the amount of quality games the PSOne had versus what the N64 had, or what the PS2 had over the GC or the Xbox. In both cases, Nintendo Consoles were severely lacking in third party support compared to the other consoles, same way it does now. Again, a quick trip to wikipedia can make that evident for you. Lastly, it's kinda ridiculous to try and compare the 360's success to that of the PSOne. Even thought the one year did give Microsoft a headstart, it never even came close to dominating the market the way the PSOne did, so the reason for the PSOne's success wasn't just because of the head-start like you claimed. Again, it was because it was cheaper, significantly easier to develop, and didn't have the restrictions Nintendo put on third parties back then. The reason You didn't see that kind of shift this generation was because no one, not even Nintendo, could afford trying to put those kinds of limitations anymore. Anyway, that's all the time I feel like putting into this little chit-chat, t'was entertaining for a bit, but now it's beginning to become redundant. Unless you have something truly different to say, I think I'll leave it at that. Either way, thanks for keeping me amused on this slow day!
  • TheDudeFromNowhere - March 27, 2013 1:44 p.m.

    Lol ~ add trophies/achievements. I guess...... and yes, games, they need games. Once Super Smash Brothers Wii U comes out, I WILL BUY ONE.
  • agentkuo - March 27, 2013 1:17 p.m.

    I definitely agree with all the points made. Nintendo as a publisher's biggest problem is that they don't take time to understand their own products, and in turn, they don't fully understand what they're capable of. With the Wii U, when it was announced, Nintendo practically said "We don't know what it can do." But they released it anyway. Nintendo needs to take time, years, to fully understand each new idea they have, and then once they've perfected that idea, then release it to the public. Its this "Get it on the market as soon as we have the idea" mindset that keeps pushing them steps behind other companies like Sony and Microsoft. I don't want to see another home console from Nintendo for at least another 10 years. They really need to take the time to perfect their products.
  • J-Fid - March 27, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    I've been saying for years that Spring 2014 is the earliest we will get to play Smash Bros. Don't see that changing any time soon.
  • Talvari - March 27, 2013 12:56 p.m.

    Can agree with most of this. That and a better name really would help.. T.T Though I still think it's way too early for people to be claiming it's dying >.> Don't agree with the whole achievement thing though. More of a personal thing though and i like that Nintendo are giving devs the option of adding in achievements if they want. Never really felt much from pre-set achievements and always preferred making them up myself. They definately need more 3rd party support though..hoping people will see the potential and start doing shizzle assuming nintendo branch out. Past Nintendo systems have always had enough exclusive experiences that i can't get anywhere else though so i'm not too bothered, but that's just me :D
  • shawksta - March 27, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    There are problems and Nintendo can fix them, let's hope for the best Frankly this is otherwise an almost close situation with the 3DS, as you said it yourself Henry last Talk Radar.that the 3DS sunk lower but the Wii U is a console, letting the situation be more harsher. Whatever Nintendo shows E3 will need to make that killer app or atleast make Mario Kart U awesome because nobody can resist Mario Kart, sales will happen but since 7 improved on aspects, this can be the best, that is if Pikmin 3,Bayonetta 2 and others don't already do a great job. Its too much of a stretch asking for Smash Bros this year unless they made good progress, were even lucky were getting a teaser at E3 and Sakurai didn't start till Kid Icarus Uprising was finished, but meh, Luigi's Mansion got a sequel, anything can happen
  • Tjwoods18 - March 27, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    The big ass game pad is what's holding me back. I don't need the extra clutter.
  • BladedFalcon - March 27, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    Steps 2 and 3 is really all it needs... But then again, those are the same 2 steps every single Nintendo console has failed to provide since the N64, so...
  • Arobadope - March 27, 2013 11:07 a.m.

    Annnnnnd this myth continues.

Showing 41-57 of 57 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.