The Competition creating YOUR software... Something I Miss

[digitalpress]

Remember the days when competing console manufacturers created games for their competitors' systems?

Atari had AtariSoft, who made games for virtually every system.

Coleco produced games for the Atari VCS and Intellivision, their two biggest competitors in the early going.

Mattel designed games under "M Network" for the Atari 2600, clearly their greatest nemesis.

Somewhere in those 8-bit years, this stopped. Nintendo wouldn't produce games for the Master System and Sega wouldn't produce games for the NES. Do you think this helped or hurt the industry in the long run?

[Keir]

Seems to me it was a bad idea. No one makes money from selling hardware.

[digitalpress]

What I miss is the equivalent of playing an Atari game on my Intellivision.

More recent example: Playing Mario games on the PS2.

Since as you say - no one makes money selling hardware - why do you suppose Nintendo wouldn't try to capitalize on the huge base of PlayStation owners out there and release one very good PS2 game using their franchise characters?

[CrazyImpmon]

I think they stopped mostly because they didn't want to give any competing console an advantage. But in a way, I'd prefer they port some games across multiple console so those with tight budget can get one console and have a choice of any games.

[Keir]

Right. I meant stopping the practice was a bad idea. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

[Ascending Wordsmith]

why do you suppose Nintendo wouldn't try to capitalize on the huge base of PlayStation owners out there and release one very good PS2 game using their franchise characters?

It's a matter of extreme competition. If Nintendo were to make a game for the PS2, most would interpret it as a sign of weakness. Sony and Nintendo are Japanese corporations. It's in their culture to battle bravely and show no weakness. Who can blame them? I think that capitalizing on the fanbase of a competing console this late in the industry would produce unwanted results in the area of a corporation's reputation. Sure, Nintendo could rack up a nice wad of cash with a great Mario game on Sony's machine, but the reputation is what matters.

[kainemaxwell]

In the industry, isn't it that companies actually loose money on the hardware and they make the profit on the software itself?

[Quazick]

I'd love to see a port of animal crossing to ps2 :/

[YoshiM]

Wasn't Tengen a branch of Atari? I have no idea when the Atari 7800 faded away, so I don't know if Tengen would count in this thread.

However, Tengen DID have Sega games available for the NES (Shinobi, Afterburner, Alien Syndrome, maybe more that I can't recall) so Sega did kinda sorta sell games for their rival, but used a middle company to do it.

As for the idea of selling games on competitor systems and helping/hurting the industry: I think it helped the industry as no one was spread too thin (except maybe Acclaim, the village console bicycle) and attracted gamers to a particular console. It could be argued that by making games for competing platforms that would bring in more income. This may be true for a third parties, but if you are a company that MADE a platform, you'd want people to buy your games for your platform. You get money from hardware, software, and the future business as the customer is almost guaranteed to buy another title for your system.

[digitalpress]

In the industry, isn't it that companies actually loose money on the hardware and they make the profit on the software itself?

Kaine, read Keir's first post and my second for your answer.

As for reputation, I don't see it. I know what you mean, that it's BRAVE to stick it out and develop only for your own company's console. But wouldn't it be BRAVER to step into the enemy camp and CONQUER it? I mean, how huge would it be for the Nintendo name to have a Donkey Kong game listed at #1 in the sales charts?

Or maybe that's my American "bravado" and not bravery at all.

[Ascending Wordsmith]

As for reputation, I don't see it. I know what you mean, that it's BRAVE to stick it out and develop only for your own company's console. But wouldn't it be BRAVER to step into the enemy camp and CONQUER it? I mean, how huge would it be for the Nintendo name to have a Donkey Kong game listed at #1 in the sales charts?

Or maybe that's my American "bravado" and not bravery at all.

THAT, my friend, is called 'balls'! If any company ever pulled that off, I'd immediately quit my current activities and apply for a custodial position at that company. Now that you brought that up, I'd very much like to see someone do it.

Imagine the headlines:

Sony's Playstation 2 Tops Chart with Donkey Kong Country 4

I'd like to see the faces of Sony executives after reading it. Especially if Nintendo annouced a special version for the Gamecube that would include more characters, added stages, more secrets, and online gameplay. That would be hilarious!

[Mayhem]

Unlike Sony or M$, Nintendo rely on their games to shift their consoles. Nobody that I know buys Nintendo's consoles to play third party software! So releasing one of their games on a competitor's machine would indirectly harm their potential user base figures...

[digitalpress]

Unlike Sony or M$, Nintendo rely on their games to shift their consoles. Nobody that I know buys Nintendo's consoles to play third party software! So releasing one of their games on a competitor's machine would indirectly harm their potential user base figures...

Fine. Then how about this headline:

"HALO 3: THE URANUS MISSIONS" EDGES OUT "ZELDA: THINGY OF PLACE" FOR TOP GAMECUBE SALES

If I had my way it would be ALL OUT WAR, like the old days. Ninendo doesn't wanna take a risk and put a DK game out on the Xbox? Then how about we put the best Xbox game on GameCube?

I hope someone is getting all of this.

[Nature Boy]

I never really cared for those old ports to be honest. It never felt right to me.

I personally don't see anything wrong with using the consoles as a lost leader. Especially when Nintendo makes licensing money for every game produce on their consoles (on top of the killing them make with their own games). And you know they're internal titles (which *do* hit #1 on the sales charts, even back in the N64 days) are going to sell a bunch so there's no reason for them to give Sony or Microsoft a leg up. No amount of compensation on their part would make up for the benefits of having Nintendo games on their machines.

I ponder Sega's current strategy when thinking about this. Do they only release games like Super Monkey Ball on Gamecube because that's where they feel the best market is, or do they have an arrangement with Nintendo where Nintendo pays them to keep those games exclusive to the 'cube?

If you're a software developer I think that's the way to go. Get extra compensation from the console manufacturers to produce your games on their machine (you need the market demand of a Sega though). After all, you're doing them a favour by presumably expanding their installed base.

[NvrMore]

I think one of the major points being missed here is that a developer has to pay the console manufacturer to develop on their system. Meaning that if a rival company (e.g. most obvious example, Nintendo) were to develop a game for a rival system they would be making their rival money.

Plus in the case of Nintendo (the biggest example of a 1st party), in developing for only their own system they make more profit on the games they sell, because they don't have to pay a licencing fee.

And there's the point that software exclusivity draws consumers to a console (Quick note: Nintendo do make around $10+ profit on each GCN, although they're the exception to the rule with sony making an equivalent loss and MS making a somewhat scary loss), which in turn draws third party developers to a console who in turn pay to develop for that system (yes, other factors are important in third part support but this is one).

As for third party's making games exclusivly for a single system, it's more often a case of either market preferences (System Y's fanbase are more accepting of this style) or personal preference on the part of the developer (e.g. Capcoms current linup for the GCN were brought about by some of the main staff preferring the system and where is is headed).
Cash rewards (Bribery ), aren't quite as prevalent and are something that have become more well known due to MS's incursion into the market and their cash for games / temporary silence approach to supporting their system, although in the same breath it is noteworthy that reductions in licencing fee's are most likely a common bargaining chip and are a tactic that has most likely been employed for quite some time.

[Kid Ice]

The only time I remember this ever happening (a company w/ a living platform putting games on another platform) was when Mattel and Coleco made games for the VCS (and Atari started whoring out games soon after). At the time, I felt it was a VERY WEAK gesture on the part of Mattel and Coleco. If your system is so damn great, why do you need to make Atari games?

The VCS was so dominant at that time it sort of made sense, but I interpreted it as Mattel and Coleco giving up.

As for "Atarisoft"; that seemed like a bit of a desperation move too. However, at the time, you just HAD TO have those games. You could not do without Pac Man, Centipede, or Defender. So it made a little sense for Atari to do that. But no one HAD TO have Astroblast or Venture!

The weird thing about Atarisoft was they made games for everything. They made TI games. They made Vic 20 games. I thought they were going to make Pac Man for my toaster.

I wouldn't say any one company holds all the aces today the way Atari did back then. If Nintendo were to release Rogue Leader and Metroid Prime for PS2 tomorrow, you would find my Gamecube in Buying and Selling the next day. As for Sony, I just never considered them a developer of software. As for Microsoft...please.

the kid

[gamingguy]

I think Atari selling games on the competitors' systems was a bad idea. All they succeeded in doing was showing how out-dated the Atari 2600 was compared to Intellivision, Colecovision, and Commodore 64. Example: Pac-Man. That probably hurt Atari's console sales.

I think Nintendo was wise not to follow Atari's example. Had Nintendo ported Super Mario Bros 1/2/3 to Sega Master System, everyone would have seen how much superior graphically SMS was to NES. By refusing to port games, no one could make a direct comparison and choose SMS instead of NES to play Super Mario.

[slapdash]

Do you think this helped or hurt the industry in the long run?

I'm really not sure... I lean a little bit towards hurt (as far as creativity) but can maybe say it helped (as far as sales). Here are some thoughts, though not necessarily reasoning behind those views...

1) Third-party developers are supposedly turning away from the Game Cube, much as they turned from the N64, citing disappointing sales. Well, why is that? Because you can get the game for GC, PS2 or XBox... Can you guarantee that buyers will get the GC version if they own the other systems (which is becoming more and more common)? No, you can't. So, if they were serious about selling games on GC, they'd make them exclusive. I despise going to Best Buy or other stores like that and only seeing 5-20 exclusive games for a system, and then like 10-60 that are available on at least one of the competing consoles...

2) Can you think of any systems that have sold less than 50-75 titles? The only one I can think of post-crash is the Virtual Boy. The SMS, Lynx & Jaguar were maybe close, but compare the numbers of older systems to the numbers for newer systems. Any system now seems to do better than the average system then. Is that just because of improved buying power of the dollar? Or the licensing model Nintendo started? Or just a growing crowd? Regardless, titles across multiple platforms seems to have done okay...

[NvrMore]

1) Third-party developers are supposedly turning away from the Game Cube, much as they turned from the N64, citing disappointing sales. Well, why is that? Because you can get the game for GC, PS2 or XBox... Can you guarantee that buyers will get the GC version if they own the other systems (which is becoming more and more common)? No, you can't. So, if they were serious about selling games on GC, they'd make them exclusive. I despise going to Best Buy or other stores like that and only seeing 5-20 exclusive games for a system, and then like 10-60 that are available on at least one of the competing consoles...

I'd agree in part, but the GC rumors you're talking about aren't quite so clean cut as to just fall into being a problem of the games being available on other systems. The companies which were crying poor sales, just happen to be conveniently forgetting to mention that the games they released which didn't sell well were basically crap, thus gamers weren't willing to waste money on them when there were better titles available.

(Plus the main reason for lack of 3rd party on the N64 was due to the decision to use cartridge based media)

But at the same time, I do have to agree with you in part, because the PS2 has a far greater number of casual gamers who are considerably less discerning regarding their gaming purchases (I'm not bashing PS2, honest, just the wide base of casual gamers), so the game would sell better.

I just wish that if they are going to do multi system ports, then they actually do them properly rather than just implementing a cheap slap and patch translation >

[Mayhem]

Can you think of any systems that have sold less than 50-75 titles? The only one I can think of post-crash is the Virtual Boy.

Atari 7800
Neo Geo Pocket Colour