Silicon Knights and Nintendo split

[I.S.T.]

Woah, well if you're going to say that, can you produce one of these interviews?

Of course. Here's a recent one:
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/506/506237p2.html

"We have a very good relationship with Nintendo," says Tanaka. "At one time, we had a hard time when it changed from Family Computer to Super Famicom. But at this time we have a good relationship with Nintendo.

That just says they had a hard time transitioning to the SNES/SFC. Where do you get bias from that? For all you know they might have had a hard time coding for it or found Nintendo's liecencing(I apologise for the mangling of that word.) too unbareible. Back in the SNES/SFC days they were in jerks about the liecencing(Once again, I apologise.) rights. Wouldn't let people put out games on their and other peoples machines until a few years into the SNES/SFC's lifespan, IIRC.

 

[GHost]

"I hated Nintendo because Mario killed Pacman, but I like them now because they allow me to release numerous crappy Pacman games on their system! Kawaii~!"

SoulCalibur with Link would be a more appropriate example.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Semantics aside, it's clear that the Cube has poor 3rd party support and the situation is getting worse every month. When you start looking at exclusives the situation is not good. I also find it extremely strange to compare Nintendo with Microsoft. The Xbox is facing a lot of challenges and not doing as well as I expected (blunders in Europe, lack of Japanese support, dearth of good RPGs, not enough all-ages titles, poor sales in Japan), but Microsoft is very new to the console business and has the cash to ride out the short term problems they are having.

Nintendo has been in the business for 20 years! They should know better. They are even getting schooled by Sony in the all-ages category with games like Jak and R&C doing really well. Not to mention the fact that Sony 1st party is quickly catching up to Nintendo in quality (ICO, SOCOM II, etc...). It's become pretty clear that Sony will eventually supercede Nintendo in their niche markets (little kids and hand-helds). It's only a matter of time.

When I speak doom and gloom for Nintendo it's because of their long term situation. It looks very bad right now. It reminds me of the Sega fiasco in slow motion. Sure they have the GBA to fall back on. Sure they have the cash reserves to ride out the hickups in the Cube. But because they have failed to rectify their shortcomings they are on the slow march of doom IMO.

 

[Fox5]

Semantics aside, it's clear that the Cube has poor 3rd party support and the situation is getting worse every month. When you start looking at exclusives the situation is not good. I also find it extremely strange to compare Nintendo with Microsoft. The Xbox is facing a lot of challenges and not doing as well as I expected (blunders in Europe, lack of Japanese support, dearth of good RPGs, not enough all-ages titles, poor sales in Japan), but Microsoft is very new to the console business and has the cash to ride out the short term problems they are having.

Nintendo has been in the business for 20 years! They should know better. They are even getting schooled by Sony in the all-ages category with games like Jak and R&C doing really well. Not to mention the fact that Sony 1st party is quickly catching up to Nintendo in quality (ICO, SOCOM II, etc...). It's become pretty clear that Sony will eventually supercede Nintendo in their niche markets (little kids and hand-helds). It's only a matter of time.

When I speak doom and gloom for Nintendo it's because of their long term situation. It looks very bad right now. It reminds me of the Sega fiasco in slow motion. Sure they have the GBA to fall back on. Sure they have the cash reserves to ride out the hickups in the Cube. But because they have failed to rectify their shortcomings they are on the slow march of doom IMO.

GBA wouldn't last them for very long, especially with the PSP coming out.
Kind of strange how Nintendo's best selling games now sell about as well as Nintendo's worst selling games on n64.

 

[Qroach]

Cybermerc,

It has nothing to do with GameCube specifically as the clueless Quincy would like you to think.

You're knowledge of how the game industry works is extremyly small. Once again you're VERY wrong. Not only that, but your impression of a Namco bias is also complete nonsense. Trying to explain this to you is like talking to a wall.

 

[I.S.T.]

GBA wouldn't last them for very long, especially with the PSP coming out.

I don't agree with this. The PSP is breaking into a 95% dominated market. And before anybody says, "Well, look what Sony already did with the PS1," the handheld market is much different compaired to the console market. at the point in time the PS1 was released, there were two companies going at each other, not one with a pratical monopolly. I think it'll do well, but not as well as most people think it will. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think it'll happen.

 

[Fox5]

GBA wouldn't last them for very long, especially with the PSP coming out.

I don't agree with this. The PSP is breaking into a 95% dominated market. And before anybody says, "Well, look what Sony already did with the PS1," the handheld market is much different compaired to the console market. at the point in time the PS1 was released, there were two companies going at each other, not one with a pratical monopolly. I think it'll do well, but not as well as most people think it will. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think it'll happen.

It won't outsell the GBA, but I think it'll outdo any future nintendo handhelds.
Also, the GBA doesn't make as much money as people may think, unlike nintendo's consoles, the majority of the games sold aren't nintendo made or produced, and profit margins are much smaller on carts at $20 or $30 than on console games at $50.

 

[cybamerc]

Fox5:

> That doesn't mean bias

It certainly does.

> a lot of companies didn't like nintendo's business practices of the time.

The troubles between Nintendo and Namco were caused by a dispute over licensing back in the 80ies but Namco's SNES support was excellent still because the SFC was the leading platform. But Namco's founder, Nakamura, was bitter and so when Sony got into the console business Namco threw all of its support behind that platform and talked Enix and Square into going with them. Nakamura simply hated Yamauchi.

> It also doesn't mention the n64, which namco showed even less support for.

That's because the troubles lasted until this generation.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Who cares? Namco's Cube support is still pretty minimal.

None of the big Namco franchises are on Cube:

Tekken series
Ace Combat series
Xenosaga series
Klonoa series
Time Crisis series
Ridge Racer series

Except for Soul Calibur 2. Tales of Symphonia is not exactly a sign of HUGE Namco Cube support. The numbers just don't work out well for Namco on Cube, like most 3rd party developers. The only reason SC2 did well on Cube was because the Cube has no fighters (like DoA3on Xbox) and Link was in the game.

 

[GHost]

Not sure if "minimal" is the right word... 3 out of 3 Namco games this E3 are on the cube AFAICR (as opposed to 1/3 on xbox and 1.5/3 ps2). It's not like GCN is some sort of an N-Gage for Namco, you know...

Edit: just checked IGN's list, 1/3 on xbox, and 1.5/3 on ps2 would be more accurate - since Tales of Symphonia is being ported to ps2, but it's released several months earlier on the Cube.

 

[I.S.T.]

Fox5:

> That doesn't mean bias

It certainly does.

> a lot of companies didn't like nintendo's business practices of the time.

The troubles between Nintendo and Namco were caused by a dispute over licensing back in the 80ies but Namco's SNES support was excellent still because the SFC was the leading platform. But Namco's founder, Nakamura, was bitter and so when Sony got into the console business Namco threw all of its support behind that platform and talked Enix and Square into going with them. Nakamura simply hated Yamauchi.

> It also doesn't mention the n64, which namco showed even less support for.

That's because the troubles lasted until this generation.

You know, maybe they liked Sony better? Got tired of Nintendo for a while?

 

[cybamerc]

Got tired of Nintendo for a while?

Yeah I'm sure that's what happened Nakamura woke up one day and thought to himself: "hmm, life with Nintendo is getting boring, let's try something new!"

The Namco/Nintendo dispute is not exactly a big secret. Neither is Nakamura's feelings about Yamauchi.

 

[I.S.T.]

Got tired of Nintendo for a while?

Yeah I'm sure that's what happened Nakamura woke up one day and thought to himself: "hmm, life with Nintendo is getting boring, let's try something new!"

The Namco/Nintendo dispute is not exactly a big secret. Neither is Nakamura's feelings about Yamauchi.

My hypothosis is that POSSIBLY they got fed up with Nintendo's policies regarding the liecencing of game(Yet again I apologise.). And that is only in effect IF they did infact get tired of Nintendo. Notice I had another possibility in my post. I'll quote it.

You know, maybe they liked Sony better?

I should have made that a bit clearer. I was refering to the PS1 specificly. Maybe they, like many devs in the PS1/N64 era didn't like the fact that the N64 didn't use a CD-ROM drive? That's why Square didn't go with the N64. Maybe Namco didn't support the N64 for that reason?

 

[PC-Engine]

Dead to Rights and Racing Evolution were on GCN too.

 

[Bohdy]

Just to lighten the mood check out this theory:

1) Dennis Dyack has stated the relationship between Nintendo and SK is/was very, very strong.

2) This announcment was completly out of the blue. Not the SLIGHTEST warnings at all.

3) IGN are the only people to have "offically" reported it. They are VERY close to Dennis Dyack.

4) Planet GameCube, also claiming to have contacted Dyack about this, posted the news at 3:33pm.

5) This news was announced April 13th. The E3 press conference ends May 13th.

6) Including the day of the announcment (April 13th) and the day after the end of E3 (May 15th) you have a total of 33 days.

7) Dyack has stated that if he hints towards there next game, ala: MGS, it will be in a much more tricky and sneaky method than he did last time, as people will be prepared.

8.) There has still be NO official announcment. When Rare departed there Nintendo announced it (including press release) the day we knew or the day after.

9) Dyack has said there is much more to the Eternal Darkness story, and that one day he would like to show it.

http://nintendo.gamerfeed.com/gf/news/6100/
notice the time(3:33PM) and the date april 13th, 33 days from the end of the E3.
theres also the Planetgamecube link to. Its on the front page, notice the time.
NEWS: Silicon Knights Breaks with Nintendo 3:33 PM CST by: Jonathan Metts
Critically acclaimed developer ends exclusivity agreement with Nintendo.

could it be? could this be a MAJOR marketing scheme by nintendo and SK to introduce the new ED?

This was thought up by someone from the Ign boards and while I don't subscribe to it it would prove very amusing were it to come true...

Introduces an element of doubt, no? 8)

 

[Qroach]

A marketing scheme? Oh gimme a break, I think the guy that wrote that is in denial.

 

[Teasy]

Oh for god sake, its only a silly bit of rumour mongering. Its even interesting in a far fetched comspiracy theory sort of way. Why do you need to take it so seriously?

 

[Qroach]

who's taking it seriously exactly? just relax teasy.

 

[Teasy]

Just thought you took it too seriously (too harsh). Its only a silly theory and was probably written tongue in cheek. Its the sort of thing to be taken light heartedly AFAICS.

 

[Qroach]

Don't jump to conclusions. Nothing I said should give you the idea that I took it seriously. All I said was the guy that wrote that is in denial. Someone certianly put some effort into their thinking.