They used to have strict content rules. However it seems that these have been relaxed recently
“Today, changes to the content of games are done primarily by the game’s developer or, occasionally, at the request of Nintendo. The only clear-set rule is that ESRB AO-rated games will not be licensed on Nintendo consoles in North America” - Wikipedia
From what I can tell, there’s never been an AO console game on any system, exclusing the hot coffee fiasco. So it’d be a pretty unfair knock on Nintendo, if it was meant as a knock.
Wasn’t meant to be a knock - my bad. I was stating something that I knew was happening a long time ago, but when I checked now, it seems they no longer do - old info, my mistake.
Still, Nintendo’s past efforts to censor games has cultivated a different type of audience than the other companies have. And their current focus on casual games has increased the difference. Conventional wisdom nowadays is that Microsoft and Sony aren’t even competing with Nintendo in the console wars anymore. The Wii is more of a secondary console for hardcore gamers, while a primary one for casual gamers. The others are primary consoles for mid- to hardcore gamers only.
If by “recently” you mean sixteen years ago. Mortal Kombat 2 for the SNES was the first game released to take advantage of those relaxed restrictions. Nintendo has published M rated games like Eternal Darkness and Conker’s Bad Fur Day. At this point the distinction exists solely in developer’s heads as I said in post #10.
(If you want a good example for the change in position among Nintendo look at MK1 and MK2 or Wolfenstein 3D and Doom; the ports of those games for the SNES crossed the boundary period when Nintendo got wise to the fact that people were demanding more.)
The story of Nintendo’s management follies up through the midst of the N64 period is a story unto itself. It’s like they were actively trying to kill the company. Which is why you see a dramatic improvement in quality among Nintendo products since about 2000 when the new management started to bear fruit. I suspect that old Nintendo’s dealings with developers poisoned the Gamecube on the vine (continuing the fruit metaphor) but I would have thought that time and market base covers a multitude of sins (market base helped people put up with Sony’s quirks and Microsoft’s complete failure to make an impact in Japan). Instead we have a generation of people in charge who still think of Nintendo today as Nintendo 1990.
I disagree–the GameCube, released in 2001, was Nintendo’s worst performing console ever, selling substantially less than the GameCube. Did they make mistakes during the 64 era? Sure (although even their “mistakes” are somewhat subjective), but it didn’t hinder them to the extent that their decisions during the GameCube era did. And to present it as “like they were actively trying to kill the company” is just a tad hyperbolic.
And to frame this argument in a different light, Nintendo has always been profitable–even during the GameCube era (barring a single quarter), which is more than either Microsoft (except for just the past year now) or Sony can say for most of the past few years. In short, if we’re going to discuss “follies,” we’re going to need to define what exactly that is.
Well, they did alienate pretty much every publisher they dealt with to the point that they only had one major publisher left willing to put exclusives on the Gamecube. And they ran off a developer they had published many titles for that were among their biggest sellers. And drove one hardware manufacturer they jerked around into taking the tech and making their own game console which proceeded to crush their own console. And they invested heavily in a lot of high profile disasters like the Virtual Boy.
The change over occurred around 1998 when it became clear that the N64 and it was too late to save the Gamecube. Everyone had already gotten fed up with Nintendo and hitched their wagons to Sony. You’ll note that during the Gamecube period they made the DS which had a similarly high resistance from third party publishers at launch.
This, just this. It sums up exactly why the Wii doesn’t get all of the latest and great high-profile games.
If you’ll forgive the pimping, I wrote an editorial on this strange phenomenom a few weeks ago called Wii Want To Play PSP Games.
Two things…
As stated above, Nintendo’s “content restrictions” were done away with nearly 20 years ago. The lack of Mature-rated games on the system is solely the fault of third-party developers who don’t want to bring them to the Wii. (Although, the ESRB lists 27 M-rated titles for the system, so they do exist)
Sony has stated repeatedly that they will not pay for exclusives this generation. The PS3 gets most of the same games the Xbox 360 gets solely because the systems are close enough.
Is Nintendo doing anything actively to court these AAA games?
Yes. It’s mostly behind doors stuff that doesn’t make the news, but Reggie Fils-Aime (Nintendo of America’s president) has called out Rockstar two or three times in public interviews to bring GTA to the Wii.
That’d be interesting. I’d think that it’d be a completely different game.
Bitch Clits
That’s a game?
It’s the Japanese version of Nintendogs.
So I LOVED Lego Star Wars. I am a huge Star Wars nerd, so that helps but overall I freakin loved the game.
Played Lego Indiana Jones…Not to much fun. Like Indy and all, but it just wasn’t as fun overall. I was saddened.
Anyone here played Lego Batman? I am not a Batman fan very much (if at all) but Star Wars was SO good, and Indy was SO bad, I am hesitant to play it.
I ask because I am excited for Lego Harry Potter, because I am a big Potter nerd too, and I don’t want to be dissapointed again.
Can you explain what you liked about Lego Star Wars and maybe name a few other games you like? I’m a huge Star Wars nerd too, and I got my wife to play this with me after a friend of hers raved about how great it was, but we were both very underwhelmed. We slogged our way through the first movie and collectively decided to give up out of boredom sometime during the second. I wanted to like this game SO BAD (asked for it and got it for xmas), but it just did not do it for me at all.
This is largely true, even if there was more than one developer putting exclusive out on GCN (Capcom, Lucasarts, and Sega all spring to mind). However, I’m still not convinced that was all the result of decisions made during the N64 era so much as it was simple marketplace conditions at the time of the GameCube’s launch (the near-identical sales of the Xbox support this).
That’s simply not true; Nintendo sold Rare as they no longer considered them valuable to their company:
*"Nintendo was given the option of buying the remaining un-owned portion of Rare. Nintendo declined. Instead, Nintendo received $183m from Microsoft for its position. According to Peter MacDougall, Executive VP of Sales and Marketing with Nintendo of America, “Nintendo had the ability to continue its exclusive relationship with Rare, but in looking at the company’s recent track record, it became clear that its value to the future of Nintendo would be limited… In other words, we passed on this opportunity for very good business reasons.” *
The situation’s a lot more complex than you make it out to be. It’s true that the result of whatever actions took place was the creation of the PlayStation. But again, to frame it as “like they were actively trying to kill the company” is a debatable truth revealed only in hindsight. The reason the deal was originally dismissed was because Sony would have, due to a prior contract signed with Nintendo, retained full-control over any game using the SNES CD-ROM accessory. It was essentially a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario.
Yes, the PlayStation sold more units. That didn’t stop Nintendo from being massively profitable during the 64 era regardless–at no time were they ever close to “failing” by any monetary standard.
Virtual Boy and what else? The 64DD, maybe, but that’s specific only to Japan–and even upon it’s release, it was pretty clear Nintendo knew its place as a niche product, as indicated by it being sold only via mail-order.
I’m not exactly sure what this “change over” is that you speak of…Iwata didn’t become president until 2002. Again, the GameCube is Nintendo’s worst faring console, and I disagree with your original premise that there was a “dramatic improvement in quality among Nintendo products since about 2000”–in my subjective opinion, products made post-2000 were generally much worse, and this was reflected in sales of the console.