1UP.com 'What If' in Gaming History Week

[Metal Ghost]

http://www.1up.com/features/what-if-gaming-alternate-realities

 

Very interesting project going on at 1Up.com this week. They are devoting all of their features this week, 25 in all, to looking at pivotal moments in gaming history and then performing 'what if' analyses on them. I have to admit that this may be the most I've enjoyed 1UP, well, ever!

 

I think that AtariAgers should represent in their comments section....collectively we represent a wealth of knowledge that's hard to beat and stands quite impressively!

[BillyHW]

Something I'm not quite getting. If Activision (and they seem to think the modern Activision is the same company as the old Activision, I thought they weren't really related) had won the right to sell games for the 2600, how is it that Nintendo was able to get third parties to pay licensing fees to publish games for the NES?

[Rex Dart]

Oh boy.

[BillyHW]

Oh boy.

 

Oh boy what?

[akator]

What if 1UP.com never existed? Oh, glory day...

[Emehr]

Oh boy.

 

Oh boy what?

 

Skip to 1:31

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsrXZ_Mdehw&feature=player_detailpage#t=90s

Edited May 23, 2012 by Emehr

[Metal Ghost]

Something I'm not quite getting. If Activision (and they seem to think the modern Activision is the same company as the old Activision, I thought they weren't really related) had won the right to sell games for the 2600, how is it that Nintendo was able to get third parties to pay licensing fees to publish games for the NES?

 

Nintendo had security measures in place on their console to prevent 3rd parties from publishing games without entering into an agreement with Nintendo. The 2600 had no such security measures in place. The security measures could be broken (for exampel Tengen did this) but the process was long, tedious, and dependent on how it was done could be illegal.

[BillyHW]

Something I'm not quite getting. If Activision (and they seem to think the modern Activision is the same company as the old Activision, I thought they weren't really related) had won the right to sell games for the 2600, how is it that Nintendo was able to get third parties to pay licensing fees to publish games for the NES?

 

Nintendo had security measures in place on their console to prevent 3rd parties from publishing games without entering into an agreement with Nintendo. The 2600 had no such security measures in place. The security measures could be broken (for exampel Tengen did this) but the process was long, tedious, and dependent on how it was done could be illegal.

 

I thought that bypassing the lockout chip was pretty trivial. And how could it be illegal if Activision had already won their suit?

[Metal Ghost]

Something I'm not quite getting. If Activision (and they seem to think the modern Activision is the same company as the old Activision, I thought they weren't really related) had won the right to sell games for the 2600, how is it that Nintendo was able to get third parties to pay licensing fees to publish games for the NES?

 

Nintendo had security measures in place on their console to prevent 3rd parties from publishing games without entering into an agreement with Nintendo. The 2600 had no such security measures in place. The security measures could be broken (for exampel Tengen did this) but the process was long, tedious, and dependent on how it was done could be illegal.

 

I thought that bypassing the lockout chip was pretty trivial. And how could it be illegal if Activision had already won their suit?

 

My impression was that it was not easy, at least not initially. On top of that, Nintendo was able to successfully threaten stores that if they stocked unlicensed product they would withold their own product, including the consoles themselves. That effectively deprived the unlicensed product of any distribution channel.

 

As far as Activition, they won a suit that allowed third parties to publish games for another company's console. Their court case did not put into precedent that you could illegally copy code in order to get your game to work on another company's console. Big difference. Just like today....I have a right to make a game on the Xbox 360. I do not have the right to copy code that gets my game to play nice with the 360's security measures. That's how Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all get a royalty on every piece of software sold for their consoles.

 

Activition did not need to take that step because there were no security chips or software on the 2600.

 

This is my understanding of it at least.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Metal Ghost

[BillyHW]

I'm curious, why wasn't the cartridge slot patented in the same way that a USB connection slot is patented?

[high voltage]

You always think Nintendo (NES). You oughta think Famicom, Japan.

Nintendo introduced licensing fees with the Famicom, not the NES. When all third party publishers agreed to do so (in Japan), it was easy to employ the same strategy in USA for the NES.

 

In the book Game Over Nintendo actually states that ANYONE could do games for Nintendo, but they still insisted on being a licensee, and with a lot of lies and a good in-house lawyer (despite of lots of court action), they got away with it in USA. If anyone made a game with NOA permission, they used threats (see below).

Edited May 24, 2012 by high voltage

[BillyHW]

Did Famicom even have a lockout chip? So Japanese third party publishers paid licensing fees for no reason? I'm not quite getting it.

[high voltage]

I'm curious, why wasn't the cartridge slot patented in the same way that a USB connection slot is patented?

 

Again, two different cartridge slots, one for Famicom, another for NES

[BillyHW]

I'm curious, why wasn't the cartridge slot patented in the same way that a USB connection slot is patented?

 

Again, two different cartridge slots, one for Famicom, another for NES

 

Okaaaaay. So why weren't both cartridge slots patented?

[high voltage]

Did Famicom even have a lockout chip? So Japanese third party publishers paid licensing fees for no reason? I'm not quite getting it.

 

There were companies selling Famicom games without license.

Because Nintendo couldn't get them to court, they threatened the gaming shops to stop selling the unlicensed games or Nintendo would not supply the shops anymore with Nintendo games. Some companies tried selling unlicensed games via mail-order, Nintendo would again threaten the gaming magazines to stop advertising those, or Nintendo would stop sending them games for reviewing.

Quite a nasty company, Nintendo.

Later, NOA would do the same in USA, threatening game shops if they sell Tengen games, Nintendo would not supply them with their games.

 

The Famicom did not have a lock-out chip, in Japan NCL used periodic system revisions, which helped a bit. Also, it's Japan, companies like Namco and Konami just went along with being a licensee, something like a 'proud to be one of the circle'.

NCL did regret later not putting in a lock-out chip, because NCL lost huge sales along the Pacific Rim

Edited May 24, 2012 by high voltage

[Reaperman]

edit: oh just nevermind

Edited May 24, 2012 by Reaperman