I think the game industry has good reasons for keeping the prices
high, and marketing the game consoles the way they do. If you remember
back in the late 1970's and early 1980's Atari didn't have any
restrictions on who could create games for their platform. Not
surprisingly there was a huge explosion of game developers racing to
produce games for the console. Many of the big name companies of today
like Activision, Nintendo, etc got their start on the Atari 2600 and
expanded from there. While this might sound like a good thing it was
not. Atari wasn't making any money on royalties for the platform and
were competing against dozens of other companies on their own platform
without a lot of money coming in from sales. I don't know all the
details, but I do know Atari went bankrupt and they said it was
because the competition whiped them out.
For example, in 1985 one of the new comers to the seen decided to
release their own platform and called it the Nintendo Entertainment
System. One thing that made the NES instantly more popular was a
better processor, more ram, better resolution, better color graphics,
etc and all of that added up to superior games. Atari who was on their
7800 series was in deep financial trouble and couldn't keep up with
Nintendo. What did Nintendo do differently that Atari didn't?
Simple when they put out there console they started the practice of
exclusive licenses and royalties etc. If you wanted to compete with
Nintendo on their platform you had to pay Nintendo big fees to port
your game to their console. Obviously, it worked because Nintendo is
still going strong with a long history of consoles over a 25 year
period of time. Atari is ancient history.
The other reason is standardization. Atari didn't have any
restrictions who could develope games for their platform and I can say
there were some really low -quality games for the platform. That kind
of low standard compared to Nintendo's strict standards helped bury
Atari. No one wanted to take the risk of buying a dud when they know
Nintendo's games all have high ratings and not just any Jo Smith from
nowhere can create is own game for it.
On 2/15/11, Charles Rivard <woofer...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Am I missing something, and maybe not looking at it right or not
> understanding something, but don't these companies realize that if they made
> these programs available to more developers, and at a lower cost, the number
> of games available for their systems would vastly increase?, and so would
> their income? I'm not talking specifically about making games playable by
> the blind, either. If I wanted to develop games for, well, whoever, that
> could be played on a game console, if there were fewer restrictions and less
> of a cost to me, and how many other potential game developers, the money
> would be coming in even faster to the console designers and sellers.
> Shepherds are the best beasts!
Gamers mailing list __ Gamers@audyssey.org
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to gamers-unsubscr...@audyssey.org.
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to gamers-ow...@audyssey.org.