they made emulators illegal? are you sure it's not just emulators of current systems without expired patents?Quote:
Originally Posted by sasuke
they made emulators illegal? are you sure it's not just emulators of current systems without expired patents?Quote:
Originally Posted by sasuke
I don't know if I got this clearly, but I heard that the original author of DeSmuME stopped working on his emulator because of laws in France.Quote:
Originally Posted by 17daysolderthannes
This definitely IS awesome news! So I publish a game with French and English covers, who cares? This could be anybody, as the Wii is a great platform imho and needs more development to be better. I can think of a few developers right off the top of my head that would do great things if they were so inclined.Quote:
Originally Posted by sasuke
Published out of France? Sounds good to me.
Or, better, compare prices of PC games to PS3/360 versions. (often 1/2 the price, sometimes less)Quote:
Originally Posted by 17daysolderthannes
Now, the 3DO issue is true, without licence royaltees, all coneole manufatures would have are 1st party games and hardware to profit from, thus necessarily driving up hardware prices. (like with computer platforms) It would elliminate the razor and blade buisness strategy. Good for some hardcore gamers that buy many new games, but bad for more cassual users with a hanful of games, and those who rely on cheaper, used games. (making the hardware generally less accessible)
That's the nature of an open platform though, that was one of the things 3DO tried, and failed with.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbigreddog
The comparison to 3DO isn't apt. 3DO was not an open platform, it just had much cheaper license fees. The main thing that distinguishes 3DO as unusual is the strategy of licensing out the hardware. This isn't comparable to the topic, because nobody is suggesting that Nintendo stop making systems and leave the job to licensed electronics manufacturers instead. That's the reason 3DO was so expensive -- Panasonic and Goldstar got nothing from the games, so they had to profit on hardware sales. Nintendo also profits on hardware sales, but it's a bit different. Nintendo makes a modest profit on each unit sold in the sense that they wholesale the units for more than their cost; but when you consider all of the hardware-related costs, Nintendo breaks even on systems at best. It's still very much the razor and blades strategy (actually closer to it than Sony and MS, because Gillette doesn't take huge losses on razors). For Panasonic, the system itself (and controllers) was their only stake in the business, so each unit had to be sold at enough of a profit to turn an overall profit, and a significant one at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
A better comparison would perhaps be the Colecovision. There was no licensing, anyone could make Colecovision games. Coleco still managed to sell it at a reasonable price, and early on, they were making a tidy profit. Part of their strategy was to publish games for competing platforms (Atari also did this under the Atarisoft label, and Mattel dabbled with the M-Network label), and also to make money on the accessories. Much like Nintendo (and all their competition at the time), they made a modest profit on the hardware. Colecovision ended up crashing, but that doesn't mean this type of business model couldn't work.
Another comparison might be the Commodore 64. Although it's a computer, it was made like a console (one standard model, manufactured by Commodore, etc.). It debuted at $600, but its price fell rapidly, and it was pretty cheap by 1984. It was consistently a profitable product for Commodore, and had no license/lockout.
All that ever did was imply that a game is quality, when there is a good possibility it iss total garbage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Why-Disciple
Fucking "Total Recall" on the NES got the seal of quality..."Total Recall"!!!!
It no longer says "of Quality", now it just says "Official Nintendo Seal".
Well that is pretty damn nice of them.
I had to pass this along to the vintage-computer forum readers, I think there will be some interest there.
Ahh well that clears things up, and makes a lot of Wii games make more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
That should of had a "recall" on that game! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Venture
That's true, though up to the PSX, most video game hardware companies made profits off the base unit (or at least broke even, but likely made profits at least in some tim in the console's life). I was thinking more in the line of PC gaming (or windows specifically, as the topic quote refers).Quote:
Originally Posted by j_factor
Still, taking away 3rd party profits would make the hardware likely to rise in price, particularly as any such decision (legally implemented) would apply Sony and M$ as well, which have considerably more expensive hardware. (the Wii may very well be the most profitable home console -in hardware profits, since the PSX was released)
Part of that was facilitation of using the razor-blade strategy as well, with low cost optimized hardware and 1st parties producing a ton of games. Modern consoles have far fewer 1st party games proportionally, Sega would probably have been the last really significant one in this regard, with Nintendo always having a spareser library of self published games.Quote:
A better comparison would perhaps be the Colecovision. There was no licensing, anyone could make Colecovision games. Coleco still managed to sell it at a reasonable price, and early on, they were making a tidy profit. Part of their strategy was to publish games for competing platforms (Atari also did this under the Atarisoft label, and Mattel dabbled with the M-Network label), and also to make money on the accessories. Much like Nintendo (and all their competition at the time), they made a modest profit on the hardware. Colecovision ended up crashing, but that doesn't mean this type of business model couldn't work.
The open nature of the early consoles, VCS in particular (with no quality control over 3rd parties), is often stated as a major contribution to the crash of 1983. Now there ware a number of factors in general then, a large number of companies involved, but Atari having too large a market share was one of the biggest (meaning if/when it ran into trouble, the entire market would be effected). It's lucky the Nintendo got the competition they did or thing might have gone that way again. (granted the early 80s market was probably the least stabil it's ever been because it was so young, with affordable home computers emerging for the first time as well)
Nintendo's quality control policies (and related, more dubious licencing policies), may not have been entirely necessary, but to the degree of preventing what happened in the early 80s on the 2600, it was (again, not the other, monopolistic exclusivity practicises). There may have been a lot of mediocre officially licenced games, but comparing many of those against the bottom bin 2600 games still makes them look pretty good. (of course, some unlicenced publishers put out great games, like Tengen and Camerica, but others like Color Dreams represented more of what occured on the 2600)
Today's market is a good deal different though, and eve
Yes, but commodore was able to sell it cheap due to their vertical integration (and the streamlined, cost optimized design) and still make a nice profit while having little support from the software side.Quote:
Another comparison might be the Commodore 64. Although it's a computer, it was made like a console (one standard model, manufactured by Commodore, etc.). It debuted at $600, but its price fell rapidly, and it was pretty cheap by 1984. It was consistently a profitable product for Commodore, and had no license/lockout.
And it doesn't seem to have suffered the issues the 2600 did either. (or maybe the crappy games are more overlooked, compared to the 2600 with its relation to the crash- granted the C64 was a huge contributor to the console gaming crash as well)
If something did ever happen to force console manufactures to open the platforms as such, either they'd end up much more expensive, or (more likely) much more striped down to minimize cost, resulting in much less capable hardware. (like the Wii)
you mean like apple?Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbigreddog
Don't own a Mac... is that what they really do?!Quote:
Originally Posted by bohokii
He means like the iPhone, where they control what apps are available with an iron fist and no recourse.