The Shrine

Fun read!

But make no mistake about it. Howard Lincoln was Nintendo’s attack dog. He was much more aggressive behind the scenes than he was in front of a camera or an interview. If you have ever read about Howard Lincoln, and his business relationship with Nintendo of America president Minoru Arakawa, you get the sense of how cutthroat Nintendo of America’s management was back then. Lawyers are super competitive people, and I believe his competitive edge made him one of the most influential Nintendo executives of all time.

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2013/03 ... ame-along/

Oh yeah, he was ruthless. Read the book Game Over, it gives you a great idea of just ruthless he was. He demolished everyone who tried to screw them or stand in their way, even the gov't sensors. He did quite a bit for the gaming industry in general

When your competition (Sony) is ripping you a new one because you pissed them off with a broken deal, the best you can do is resort to name calling and being an asshole.

Fast forward to the 16-bit days. It is 1994 and Joseph Leiberman is holding congressional hearings with Sega and Nintendo about the violence of videogames. What does Howard Lincoln do? Instead of defending the industry, he uses it as an opportunity to get revenge by getting the government against Sega while painting Nintendo’s image as saints.

Fuck you, Howard Lincoln. That did more damage to the gaming industry than you realized and only pidginholed Nintendo even further into the "family friendly" genre of consoles.

SineSwiper wrote:When your competition (Sony) is ripping you a new one because you pissed them off with a broken deal, the best you can do is resort to name calling and being an asshole.

Fast forward to the 16-bit days. It is 1994 and Joseph Leiberman is holding congressional hearings with Sega and Nintendo about the violence of videogames. What does Howard Lincoln do? Instead of defending the industry, he uses it as an opportunity to get revenge by getting the government against Sega while painting Nintendo’s image as saints.

Fuck you, Howard Lincoln. That did more damage to the gaming industry than you realized and only pidginholed Nintendo even further into the "family friendly" genre of consoles.

Sine, put your hatred of Nintendo aside and stop blabbering about something you know nothing about. Without Lincoln gaming would only consist of G-rated games

Zeus wrote:Without Lincoln gaming would only consist of G-rated games

That's a pretty bold statement, considering that the article states the opposite.

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:Without Lincoln gaming would only consist of G-rated games

That's a pretty bold statement, considering that the article states the opposite.

Are we forgetting Night Trap? Lincoln defended the entire video game industry very well back then, that's what I was referring to. Liebermann sure as shit still hasn't forgotten and has continued the battle as late as December of 2012

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/12/18/li ... t-murders/

Zeus wrote:Are we forgetting Night Trap? Lincoln defended the entire video game industry very well back then, that's what I was referring to.

Fast forward to the 16-bit days. It is 1994 and Joseph Leiberman is holding congressional hearings with Sega and Nintendo about the violence of videogames. What does Howard Lincoln do? Instead of defending the industry, he uses it as an opportunity to get revenge by getting the government against Sega while painting Nintendo’s image as saints. Here was Lincoln’s chance to destroy Sega in front of congress. Bill White, a Sega representative, was at the hearing.

“I can’t sit here and allow you to be told that the industry has been transformed today from children to adults. It hasn’t been. And Mr. White, who is a former Nintendo employee, knows the demographics as well as I do. Furthermore, I cant let you sit here and buy this nonsense that this Sega Night Trap game was somehow only meant for adults. Fact of the matter is, this is a copy of the packaging. There was no rating on this game at all when the game was introduced. Small children bought this at Toys R Us and he knows that as well as I do. When they [Sega] started getting heat about this game, then they [Sega] adopted the rating system and put ratings on it. But today, just as I’m sitting here, you can go into a Toys R Us store or a Walmart or a Kmart, and you know as well as I do, you can buy this product and no one..certainly no sales clerk at retail, is going to challenge you.” Lincoln told congress.

When they [Sega] started getting heat about this game, then they [Sega] adopted the rating system and put ratings on it. But today, just as I’m sitting here, you can go into a Toys R Us store or a Walmart or a Kmart, and you know as well as I do, you can buy this product and no one..certainly no sales clerk at retail, is going to challenge you.” Lincoln told congress.

Thanks for finding the quote to prove my point.

Just because he was adept enough to do two things at once (defend the industry and try to destroy Sega) it don't mean he didn't do it

Zeus, what the hell are you talking about rofl, he did not defend the industry. In no part of what you just quoted did he defend the industry, he pointed out you could buy Night Trap, which is a violent ass video game at Toys R Us and nobody would stop you. Because the rating system doesn't work, and these are the type of games Sega makes. Nintendo at that time DIDN'T have any violent stuff on their system so they could take the moral high road. It's worth pointing out that Howard Lincoln was with your favorite politician Joe Liebermann during that whole debacle.

What does Howard Lincoln do? Instead of defending the industry, he uses it as an opportunity to get revenge by getting the government against Sega while painting Nintendo’s image as saints.

What was the end result of those hearings?

The result of those hearings was a better ESRB to my understanding, but you can't sit here and say Howard Lincoln defended the industry dude lol. Howard Lincoln helped Nintendo look good and vilified Sega. That's the long and short of his participation in those hearings.

He pointed out A) Sega made this violent game, Sega took heat for the violent game, C) Sega used the rating system after they took heat, and D) regardless of the rating system anybody could still buy this game at family friendly Kmart, Walmart, etc, and E) Children are buying it because kids play video games.

Now how did you arrive at he defended the industry out of that?

Not a better ESRB, the actual wide-spread usage of one. Before that, it was voluntary and pretty spotty. It basically became like the movie ratings afterwards where it's mandatory and adhered to by all industry players (and the ESRB became a separate entity with teeth).

How did Lincoln defend the whole industry? Don't forget, Nintendo basically WAS the industry back then. Yes, they had a new player in Sega who had made some noise and was starting to encroach on their territory (even led the SNES for a couple years; overall industry was still easily Nintendo's). But for many years (and it hadn't changed by the Night Trap days), people referred to it as "playing Nintendo" not "playing video games". So who was on the front lines when Liebermann's witchhunt? Nintendo. Represented mostly by whom? Howard Lincoln, as he was for all legal battles against the company.

Did he try to destroy Sega? Of course he did. He's a hard-nosed, take-no-prisoners attack dog. Just ask Universal about the name Donkey Kong. But what did he do while attempting to destroy Sega? Defend the industry's right to exist with freedom of gaming types. At the same time Nintendo itself released G-rated games, they allowed many T and M rated games on even the SNES (big deal when blood was put back into Mortal Kombat 2 if I'm not mistaken). The reason that was allowed is because of his basic "freedom of speech and this ESRB rating system" defence.

So, while trying to protect his company (and destroy Sega), he in turn protected the industry from a witch hunt. He was the first man on the front lines when it came to these attacks and it was because of him that the industry has been able to use the "freedom of speech and ESRB rating system" defense for the last 20 years. He championed it against the early 90s witchhunt.

Nintendo was part of the problem, not the solution. Remember, this is the company that heavily censored some of their games, just to keep their "family friendly" image. The ESRB came about despite Nintendo, not because of Nintendo.

Haha, this was in 1994?

That year Nintendo co-published Killer Instinct, and ported it to SNES a few months later. Killer Instinct was one of the most violent games of the 16-bit generation.

1990.

Mortal Kombat came out in Arcades in 1992, then was released on the SNES with blood/violence heavily censored.

Killer Instinct came out in Arcades in 94, SNES late 95.

SineSwiper wrote:Nintendo was part of the problem, not the solution. Remember, this is the company that heavily censored some of their games, just to keep their "family friendly" image. The ESRB came about despite Nintendo, not because of Nintendo.

ESRB was nothing until Nintendo adopted it. They WERE the industry, man. If they don't say "freedom of speech" and "with the ESRB we're like movies now", entire industry would been in an upheaval.

And it's been the same argument that has kept everyone off their back ever since. That's what Nintendo - and Lincoln - did even though they were only lookin' out for #1 and trying to destroy Sega.

Eric wrote:1990.

Mortal Kombat came out in Arcades in 1992, then was released on the SNES with blood/violence heavily censored.

Killer Instinct came out in Arcades in 94, SNES late 95.

I believe the ESRB stuff didn't come out until after Mortal Kombat 1 was released on SNES. Either that or it was so close Nintendo wanted to look like the good guy and censor it. But #2 had it all back in if I remember correctly

And the attacks from Senators continue

http://www.gamespot.com/news/industry-m ... or-6405583

Zeus wrote:And the attacks from Senators continue

http://www.gamespot.com/news/industry-m ... or-6405583

Right, lets tone down video game violence, but lets not vote in a bill to ban assault weapons. Smart thinking senators.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/03/19 ... fails.html

My mistake, those hearings did happen late 1993, early 1994

1994 Nintendo/Sega championed the ESRB to Congress together, but during those hearings, Howard Lincoln also threw Sega under the bus.

September 1993 was when we got the infamous sweat SNES version of Mortal Kombat, because Nintendo was still trying to be cuddly and keep that image, after they manned up, and we of course got the best MK2 on the SNES and started releasing edgier/more violent games keep in mind these games only came out AFTER those hearings and the establishment of the ESRB.

That being said, neither Sega or Nintendo are innocent. :p

Nintendo chairman Howard Lincoln and Sega vice president Bill White took potshots at each other during the hearing. Lincoln said that the Sega CD game Night Trap — another photorealistic, occasionally violent game that the company had rated MA-17 — “simply has no place in our society” and testified that “small children” had bought it.

Meanwhile, White’s position was that Sega was more responsible than Nintendo, because his company had a rating system in place. He played tapes for the congressmen of violent games on Nintendo systems that carried no ratings, even going so far as to bring a Nintendo Super Scope gun controller with him to the hearing in an attempt to embarrass Nintendo. Lieberman would later express his shock that the two executives went after each other with such ferocity.

Long story short, Sega had a rating system, Nintendo didn't, Sega had more violent games before Nintendo, Howard Lincoln used that fact to attack Sega, and afterwards we got the ESRB, and Nintendo got a bunch of violent themed games that we could all enjoy. Nintendo, Sega, Electronic Arts and Acclaim all were involved in this process, I wouldn't say Nintendo WAS the industry, Sega had a 55% marketshare in 1992, but they messed up with the 32X and Sega CD, and killed themselves in late 94/mid 95 with the Saturn. Also the entire industry was under threat of the "Video Game Ratings Act of 1994" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/1 ... edemocrats which basically meant they HAD to adopt a rating system or congress would do it for them, and they did, which killed the bill.

Honestly Zeus, I don't see Nintendo as champions here, I see them as a shrewd business that was looking out for its self-interests and did what they had to in order to avoid being fucked over. They did it in a very solid way which gave us the ESRB which for all intents and purposes has been an amazing tool but I don't think there was any way Nintendo COULDN'T have supported this back in the day when it was their primary business.

We're speakin' sort of the same language, Eric. As I said, in the process of defending themselves (Sega was 55% of the next-gen market only - NES was still a huge seller and don't forget the GB - and only for about 2 years) they, in turn, defended the entire industry. It was their adoption of the ESRB, begrudgingly, that finally brought it into the limelight and gave it credibility.

If they don't adopt the ESRB, it means nothing. Remember, "Nintendo" was a synonym for "video games" up until basically the Playstation days. Sega was popular with us gamers but other than those couple of years in the early 90s, just weren't influential enough for long enough to have a real impact. We gamers always knew who they were and loved them (Dreamcast is one of my all-time fav systems) but since about 1994 when the SNES passed the Genesis, they were always a secondary company.

And their primary weapon at the time? Lincoln. He's the one who made all the shrewd decisions (Arakawa put a ton of trust in him) when it came to defending Nintendo from anyone who tried to go after them. Game Over and Ultimate History of Video Games give you a good idea of what he was really like. He really was Nintendo's knight in shining armour. Without him, they wouldn't even be close to the company they are today in the US. And who knows how the industry woulda been like without Nintendo's rise in the 80s....

Zeus wrote:We're speakin' sort of the same language, Eric. As I said, in the process of defending themselves (Sega was 55% of the next-gen market only - NES was still a huge seller and don't forget the GB - and only for about 2 years) they, in turn, defended the entire industry. It was their adoption of the ESRB, begrudgingly, that finally brought it into the limelight and gave it credibility.

Again, the adoption of the ESRB was despite Nintendo & Lincoln, not because of Nintendo & Lincoln. If they didn't adopt the ESRB, we would have seen the NVGRB be implemented behind their backs. The VG industry wanted more control, so they started the ESRB.

If it was up to Lincoln, all games would be happy, cheery, and kid friendly. He only toned down that image after Sega and Sony started putting out more M-rated games (whether they were rated or not). Even so, Nintendo has been fighting that image since forever, and it's been Nintendo's downward spiral for over a decade. (Nintendo tries, but they end up pushing the "token black guy" of M-rated video games. "Hey, look, I have an M-rated game, too!")

Don't believe me. Look at this. The colored bars are Nintendo's share. Yes, they have the kid friendly games down pat, but they are losing their lunch to the two other dominate forms of VGs: sports games and M-rated games. Europe slightly better for them, but still in the same vein. Sure, Japan looks all rosy, but it's pretty hard to compete when Japan's xenophobia results in zero US companies on that list.

And this was a slow year for video games...