Talk:Nintendo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

NES description

Quote :

"The NES success was probably due to its relatively low price (14,000 yen), Regardless of sales, the NES wasn't as technologically advanced as some other consoles on the market, and had somewhat blocky controllers."

I think this description is quite innacurate and reflects more someone's personnal opinion. It should be mentionned that the NES was very popular mainly because of it's good games and the console was clearly better than what we had on the market back then(except for some expensives computers such as the Amiga 500). The somewhat blocky controllers were not an issue back then, actualy these controllers were better than what the other consoles offered.

If someone could rewrite that part of the article, it could be great.

--Wikipikiki

---

The article refers to the company as Nintendo Software Technology Corporation, however I am fairly confident that NSTC is in fact a subsidiary of Nintendo Corporation. Can anybody verify which is correct? Dan Mazurowski 27-Sep-2003

I have verified that NSTC is in fact a wholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo Company Limited. NSTC is an in-house software devloper. Dan Mazurowski 01-Oct-2003

---

Game & Watch is actually older than Donkey Kong. It is a long series, and still on-going, with the Gameboy and Gameboy Advance games being the most recent. -- LGagnon

Viewtiful Joe

If it's exclusive to Nintendo, how come it's been announced for PS2? Tom- 16:46, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Hm. I'd still point out that VJ1 was exclusive. Still, do what you want. Maybe this calls for List of Gamecube exclusive titles Snowspinner 18:11, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Content Policies

Is there anywhere a full listing of all the subjects that Nintendo of America banned from games prior to 1994? Most are mentioned in the article, but I know that there are a few more things that weren't allowed, such as Nazis and related subjects. --Paul Soth 17:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm interested in this quote: "Among the banned subject matter was the appearance of blood, gore, nudity, religious icons (such as crosses)..." however, Castlevania did have crosses, quite predominantly throughout the series. Is the author of this section sure that all religious icons were banned from Nintendo's games? --Sam Peterson 8/29/2004 PST.

Ok, I don't have time to edit this down, but here is the list according to a old manual I found in the office. This is not a comprohensive list, but it's the major points in the manual.

The following Game Content Guidelines are presented for assistance in the development of authorized game paks (i.e., both Nintendo and licensee game paks) by defining the type of content and themes inconsistent with Nintendo's corporate and marketing philosophy. Although exceptions may be made to preserve the content of a game, Nintendo will not approve games for the NES, Game Boy or Super NES systems (i.e., audio-visual work, packaging, and instruction manuals) which:

• include sexually suggestive or explicit content including rape and/or nudity; (1)
• contain language or depiction which specifically denigrates members of either sex; (2)
• depict random, gratuitous, and/or excessive violence; (3)
• depict graphic illustration of death; (4)
• depict domestic violence and/or abuse; (5)
• depict excessive force in a sports game beyond what is inherent in actual contact sports; (6)
• reflect ethnic, religious, nationalistic, or sexual stereotypes of language; this includes symbols that are related to any type of racial, religious, nationalistic, or ethnic group, such as crosses, pentagrams, God, Gods (Roman mythological gods are acceptable), Satan, hell, Buddha; (7)
• use profanity or obscenity in any form or incorporate language or gestures that could be offensive by prevailing public standards and tastes; (8)
• incorporate or encourage the use of illegal drugs, smoking materials, and/or alcohol (Nintendo does not allow a beer or cigarette ad to be placed on an arena, stadium or playing field wall, or fence in a sports game); (9)
• include subliminal political messages or overt political statements (10)

This is a good guide: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/Nintendo.php --Paul Soth 21:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I added that link to the article. Fredrik | talk 23:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

anti trust case

" By the end of the 1980's the courts found Nintendo guilty of anti-trust activities because it had abused its relationship with 3rd party developers and created a monopoly in the gaming industry by forcing developers not to make games for any other platforms"

The courts of which country? I persume the US from the context in the article, but it would be useful to clarify.

Didn't developers have to purchase cartridges from Nintendo? That's what I've read somewhere.Pelladon 22:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember now, NES cartridges had a "lockout chip", without it the game won't run. And Nintendo was the supplier. But there were ways around that.Pelladon 15:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Emulation policies

"Nintendo is known for hard-line stance against emulation of its video game consoles."

This is false... ask the average person on the street about Nintendo and see if they mention emulation.

The wording in this section is awfully sympathetic towards electronic pirates, as if their stance was a defensible one. It makes it seem as if Nintendo were unusual among corporations for taking a "hard line stance" against emulation, when in fact the existence of laws in the US and abroad such as the DMCA make it clear that Nintendo's position is the default. Considering that no other competitors from the era they're repackaging games from still exist as console manufacturers, they might be the only ones currently concerned with combatting the specific issue right now, but don't think Sony and Microsoft don't share the exact same position. Nintendo is being singled out here on the sole basis of their popularity and resilience - people want to emulate Nintendo games the most, so they're the biggest opposition.

"Until mid-2002, the company also claimed that emulators have no use other than to play pirated video games, contested by some who say emulators such as LoopyNES (for NES) and VisualBoyAdvance (for GBA) have been used to develop and test independently produced software."

Nintendo targets specific emulators and very specific emulator configurations, so this is a fallacy. The one that made them go "hard line" against the "emulation community" was the Nintendo 64 emulator which not only required cracked (i.e. the anti-piracy mechanism was circumvented) roms, but had no dev kit available. Yes, that emulator had no other use than to play pirated games... sorry, but Nintendo was right.

I understand why software pirates resent companies that take measures to counter their illegal activities - obviously they want the parade of "free" software to keep coming their way - but underhanded criticism of Nintendo for self-preservation is unwarranted here, imo.

It's not false, they are indeed known for their stance... however, I agree we should change the wording. As for dev kits, you don't know that they weren't in development. Under U.S. law, emulators themselves are legal, and that's what this is saying regarding Nintendo: they generally have a tough stance toward emulation. Also, keep in mind people like Capcom use emulators in legitimate games, like Mega Man Anniversary Collection. Andre 19:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've changed it a bit, see how you like it. Andre 19:20, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on why Nintendo's emulation policies are worthy of distinguishment when they are apparently the norm.

Nintendo is much more agressive in prosecuting than the average video game company. --Locarno 13:03, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I covered this before, but maybe you don't agree. It seems to me that the reason they're "much more aggressive" than the average (hardware + software) game company is because they're one of a slim minority that has survived long enough to have a valuable library of old games and hardware worth preserving. Their "stance" or "position" on emulation is NOT unusual. Their "actions" regarding emulation might be considered so, but that's only because the other current, large game (hardware + software) manufacturers don't have much to enforce against, yet.

Regardless of their reasons for their stance, they are a lot more vigilant about emulation and such. Andre 19:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point being, their increased vigilance relative to other companies is also relative to longevity and available library. While it may be a logically true statement, the distinction in reality is a phantom of incomplete information. You may as well add a note to the Microsoft article claiming that MS is known for its stance against operating system piracy. True, but meaningless, considering their market dominance. Sony, et al. -- in ratio -- are no different than Nintendo.

While you are right on some level when it comes to comparing Nintendo to Sony or Microsoft, your assertion doesn't hold water when comparing Nintendo to historical market peers Sega or Atari, or arcade counterparts Namco, who do have properties of similar longevity but are not as vigilant in defending them against pirates. Although none of these companies manufacture game-playing hardware, they are in much the same situation as Nintendo as far as software emulation is concerned. However, Nintendo's stance is by far the most aggressive - not that this is bad, or undesirable, but it's the reality nonetheless. Nintendo's stance is also the antithesis of smaller, pro-emulation game companies such as Toys For Bob (makers of Star Control II). Whatever the motivation for Nintendo's stance, it deserves to be elucidated in the article. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm more or less a Nintendo fanboy, and I don't think the company is evil for protecting its intellectual property. However, I don't want to strip information from this article under the guise of "NPOV." Andre (talk) 16:06, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

History before 1950?

A while ago I remember reading about the history of Nintendo all the way back to its founding in 1889. Where did it go? --Gutterball1219 01:24, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did you check through the article's history? Sometimes good chunks of articles are deleted by mistake when they're edited. I know there's probably hundreds of edits to go through and that it's tedious, but it's the only way I can think of to find that info.
--Fern 14:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While in Japan years ago I happened to photograph the origional Nintendo building, which bares a Plaque. [1] I was told that the cards were illegal when they first started, so the company started under ground. Feel free to work this image into wikipedia. I didn't because the page is pretty long as it is.

I think it's very important to note that Nintendo started out manufacturing Hanafuda playing cards. It's of particular relevance that Hiroshi Yamauchi completely transformed the company into what it is now.Mouseclicker

Checking the founding date of Nintendo, two dates appear on 1889: one in September 23rd and other in November 6th. Is there an official date given by Nintendo? Baltakatei 06:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked around Nintendo's site, but I only saw the year. You could email them about the official date though. --Snkcube 21:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Game Boy Evolution

This is an unsubstantiated rumor and should not be on this article. I've listed it for deletion. Andre (talk) 21:04, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

P.J. McNealy has said that he expects a new Game Boy this year. The codename for the next Game Boy is Evolution, though... mabye readd this?

Negative. Nothing official. Wikipedia is not meant to gather rumors from across the internet. I honestly doubt they'll have another GB come out this year (more likely next year), but regardless if they have anything for this year, you'll know at E3. K1Bond007 06:54, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

no such news hath come this way... i think it started as a misspelling of "revolution", which then became a seprate product to explain the difference...or something like that....

History

It seems to me that the sections "Rise of TV consoles", "1990-1995", "1995-2001", "2001-present" should be sub-sections of "History". A lot of the new content to the history section is also duplicated, parts like the date of NES/SNES being launched and so on. I'd do it myself, but since I'm not a main contributor to the article, I don't want to make some huge change to it that no one agrees with. Probably should be thought out and discussed anyway. K1Bond007 04:17, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I was kind of half asleep while writing the history section, so sorry for the huge amount of mistakes I made. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 21:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've changed my mind: these areas are those that are detailing the consoles themselves. Perhaps some information in them should be moved into History, but do not removed them. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 21:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

a LOT would need to be moved into history, and this entire section re-written if you do it like that. Most of the text in each "console" doesn't have much to do with the console, but eithe Nintendo's competitors or their own policies and strategy. Terrapin 21:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)So therefore it is alsome

What does DS stand for

According to Nintendo it stands for Developer System. On the Nintendo DS FAQ page it specifically asks the question. Here's Nintendo's reply:

• What does "DS" stand for?

To our developers, it stands for "Developers' System," since we believe it gives game creators brand new tools which will lead to more innovative games for the worlds' players.

It can also stand for "Dual Screen."

http://www.nintendo.com/consumer/systems/ds/faq.jsp

Also using Google to see which is true is unfair in this situation since the main feature of DS is the "dual screen". K1Bond007 16:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I think that Dual Screen is the real one, and Nintendo is just using Developer's System to play up that feature to the developers and the press. Andre (talk) 20:15, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't see the problem in listing both. I'm just going by what Nintendo claims. Had I not read that yesterday (even I questioned its legitimacy), I would have agreed with leaving it as Dual Screen. If you can find another source at Nintendo claiming it stands for Dual Screen (primarily), I'd be happy to rewrite the statement. K1Bond007 20:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

The DS stands for Dual Screen, period. The "developers' system" was just a statement to attract developers. ✏ OvenFresh☺ 22:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then you need to specifically state that for consumers it's Dual Screen and for developers it's Developers System" because no where on Nintendo's website or the official DS website does it say anything about standing for Dual Screen (except for what I found, show above). Odd how you say it was to attract developers, but yet the information provided is on a FAQ for Customer Service, don't you think? It needs to be clarified rather leaving it how it is now. K1Bond007 01:19, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Press have contacted Nintendo and the response is that it can stand for BOTH "Developer's System" and "Dual Screen".

Nintendo translation and recent revert

I reverted the recent edit due some nonsensical edits such as the structure of the article branching consoles into "Home consoles" etc. Generally handheld portables are not considered consoles at all. In fact the section should be changed to "Handheld systems".

Also the translation of the word "Nintendo" that was added is totally unfounded and is not a shared translation from other resources. I've seen everything from:

• "Leave luck to heaven."
• "Deep in the mind we have to do whatever we have to do."
• "Work hard, but in the end it's in heaven's hands."
• "Heaven's Hands shop"

and now the recent addition. First of all because there is no definitive translation found anywhere on the internet, I recommend the entire part about what Nintendo means in Japanese to be removed from the intro and moved to another section where this can be explained further. It, in my opinion, totally distracts from the article to begin with the name then go into a hodgepodge of unfounded, non-definitive (and to be frank) crap. I'd also remove what they were and get down to what they are. Leave the article to explain what they were, more in-depth to what they are, and how they got there. The intro needs to be reworked. K1Bond007 05:54, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

-- I also believe that a section on what Nintendo means could be benificial... I was the one who added the part in about it's meaning as a commitiment to excellence.

in the latest issue of Nintendo Power, someone asked what it meant. apparently it's "what we do we can, as best we can, and await the results" go figure.

Recent Edits

I have added information to people (Howard Lincoln / Reginald Fils-Aime). There is a page all about Mr. Fils-Aime... and that is linked.

As far as Revolution goes... should there be a new section for it when all that is known is that Nintendo is working on it... and then rumors?

Project Revolution has its own page. Don't add too much information here. Actually, until it's officially announced (meaning shown off - meaning E3), I would say add nothing here besides what you already added. K1Bond007 06:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Why Reverting?

Why does this page keep getting reverted whenever information is added that is benificial? If there is bad info... remove it and leave the good info.

No one reverted. Look at the history. In fact look at your latest addition - you added Howard Lincoln and Reggie twice. K1Bond007 04:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

What do you think about adding a section about the meaning of "Nintendo"? I would make one, but no sense in it if someone is just going to delete it.

Not right now, I'd rather wait for more discussion on what I wrote. K1Bond007 05:39, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

People Section

I have made bio-stub pages for some of the people in the "people" section. Thanks K1Bond007 for updating my George Harrison link (I was about to do and and saw someone else already did.)

You know, you should really register with Wikipedia. Whatever you choose to do that's cool, but it's free. Btw when you write on a talk page you can sign your name (or at least time stamp it) by typing 4 ~~~~. You get this -> K1Bond007 02:42, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Extra Pictures For Consoles?

I think it would be a good idea to add pictures for the other regional versions of some of the consoles where they differed greatly - especially in the case of the SNES/SFC, in which the US version (pcitured) looks vastly different to the PAL SNES and the Super Famicom, which besides labelling are identical. Anyone got a good picture of a PAL SNES or SFC in a similar style to the other pictures in that section? With the picture being that size, it wouldn't matter which one of the two it is.

A similarly styled picture of the Famicom might be nice to put in the "Consoles" section too, though there already is a picture of one further up so it's not necessary.

Maybe pictures of the main forms of Game Boy (GB Pocket and GB Color) and the original GBA would be beneficial too?

I really think a picture of the PAL SNES/SFC is necessary though. A lot of people outside North America who won't know what the hell that is, and may be disillusioned in thinking they once played on or owned a SNES. --Zilog Jones 10:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changeover

This is a great article changeover! --69.209.152.15 22:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

History of Super Famicom

From the current version of the article: "In 1991, the Super Famicom was launched under the name "the Super Nintendo Entertainment System" (SNES). The SNES was released in Europe in 1992."

My question is in 1991 where was it released - North America? --Jeff 04:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Released in the U.S. in 1991. It was released in Japan in the fall of '90. K1Bond007 04:41, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

History disappearance

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#History_of_Nintendo_disappears_off_face_of_Wikipedia ✏ OvenFresh² 02:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Nauseam used the move function to move the article from Nintendo to Nintendo Co Ltd or whatever (IMHO a very very poor move). When you do that it moves the entire history over to the new article name. Once a move has been done you can't move it back without getting an admin to do it. Actually you can't move an article to a title that already exists (ex. I can't move Nintendo to Sega because an article exists.

That was what you were talking about right? Hope that helps anyway. Good to see it was moved back. K1Bond007 03:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Number of Units Shifted

I have recently come across this site

http://journal.pcvsconsole.com/?thread=14306

I think it would definitely be beneficial to include sales figues for Nintendo and even a page dedicated to sales figures across all formats, if you have no objections i'll add an entry into this page. --Pluke 16:36, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

N64 > PS1 in units sold?

I question the accuracy of the following line:

"The N64 managed to come out on top over the Saturn and secure a solid #1 spot above the #2 Sony PlayStation."

IIRC, the Playstation sold far more than the N64, both in North America and worldwide. Can someone confirm (or disprove) my suspicions?

You're right. That's false. I removed the line. K1Bond007 17:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

It DID make more money, though. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Similarly, I was wondering about the statement that GameCubes sold is beating Xboxes sold by a small margin. I think we should find a source on that. Viewdrix

Notable people - Gunpei Yokoi

Shouldn't Gunpei Yokoi be in the infobox for notable people? He invented the d-pad and is seen as the creator of the gameboy. Jacoplane 04:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Four Swords Adventures - By R&D2?

Since when? I thought it was developed by Flagship. -- A Link to the Past July 9, 2005 03:11 (UTC)

Not NPOV

It surprises me that an article about Nintendo could not have a NPOV, but I guess now I realize that any topic can be biased. Anyway, read the entire article. In many ways, it's an advertisement for Nintendo... For example, suggesting that Nintendo as a "kiddie company," is a false view, calling Nintendo a leader in customer service, and so on. These are irrelevant compliments just tossed in, in awkward places, that make it seem like the article was written by people who have shrines of Shigeru Miyamoto in their homes. For example, consider this quote: "A common justification pirates try to make..."

Clean it up, please. 71.241.239.159 11:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you? I can't stand complainers who have no interest in assisting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

While "kiddie company" may not be the best wording, this aspect of Nintendo cannot be ommited, because their attempt to market themselves as "family friendly" led to some important effects in their games, and affected things such as localization and translation, particularly in regards to Mortal Kombat.

Huge article

This page is huge, I think we can stand to either get rid of some of this information, or break some of it (History in particular) into separate articles. It just seems like a lot. KramarDanIkabu 22:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Amount of sold games

The article says "and have sold over 2 billion games worldwide." I understand 2 billion as 2 000 000 000 000 games. Is that right, or you are referring to 2 000 000 000 games (which I understand as two thousand millions). I suggest using numbers instead of the "billion" noun to prevent confusion. -- ReyBrujo 17:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

well, you are thinking wrong. here is place value: 1=One 10=Ten 100=One Hundred 1000=One thousand 10000=10 thousand 100000=100 thousand 1000000=1 million so... 1000000000=1 billion and 2000000000=2 billion. Your 2 billion is 2 trillion. --Ac1983fan 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

"Billion" has two meanings, while 2,000,000,000 or 2,000 million has only one meaning. -- ReyBrujo 20:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

no... 2,000 million is 2 billion --Ac1983fan 20:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you just proved my point. 2,000 million is 2 billion for english natives, but it is 2,000 million for non-english natives, see billion. We both can understand that. I am not sure what is Wikipedia official policy regarding numbers, I will check. -- ReyBrujo 21:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

A simple search found this discussion. Seemly, the best solution was to use just numbers. Do you agree to change 2 billion with 2,000,000,000? The other option, as stated here, seems to be stating you are using the short scale, which seems too technical for something that would be solved by just using numbers. -- ReyBrujo 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm just going with what I learned in school... you can change it if you want....--Ac1983fan 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll change it to numbers to make it easier... if somebody had just done it, this whole pointless discussion would never have happened.. LOL... --Ac1983fan 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No discussion is pointless if held in a civilized way. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 21:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)