What development led to the introduction or success/failure of a console?

J7.

J7.

CAGiversary!
Feedback
6 (100%)
What development led to the introduction or success/failure of a console?
Name the console that led to another console's introduction. Of course there are a # of factors for making a new console, but competition is always part of the reason and some consoles were that competition. I'll start with:

Video game crash of 1983 led to the success of the NES.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Only one I can think of is Sony approaching Nintendo about a CD add-on, similar to what Sega did with the Genesis. Nintendo told them to fuck off and ultimately lead to the big 'N' losing the next two generation wars to said 'add-on'.
 
[quote name='Jodou']Only one I can think of is Sony approaching Nintendo about a CD add-on, similar to what Sega did with the Genesis. Nintendo told them to fuck off and ultimately lead to the big 'N' losing the next two generation wars to said 'add-on'.[/QUOTE]

Wouldn't this example work for the all knowing CDi also? (With Philips, not Sony )
 
[quote name='DrMunkee']Wouldn't this example work for the all knowing CDi also? (With Philips, not Sony )[/QUOTE]
Yep, and now that I think about it Nintendo was actually the one interested in doing something with Sony and even signed a contract for an 'SNES-CD' IIRC. Then there was some issue with the contract and that's when Nintendo broke it off. I think Philips just went on with what they were working on to produce the CD-i, which explains why there was a (horrible) Zelda game on the system.
 
The PSP was created to be the evolution of the GameBoy Advance. They are very similar in shape, and what they wanted to do (PSP went the media route because they wanted to set themself apart). When Nintendo's successor to the GBA was the DS, it threw Sony in a tailspin.
 
[quote name='J7.']Name the console that led to another console's introduction.


I'll start with:

Video game crash of 1983 birthed the NES.[/QUOTE]


Huh?
 
[quote name='Jodou']Yep, and now that I think about it Nintendo was actually the one interested in doing something with Sony and even signed a contract for an 'SNES-CD' IIRC. Then there was some issue with the contract and that's when Nintendo broke it off. I think Philips just went on with what they were working on to produce the CD-i, which explains why there was a (horrible) Zelda game on the system.[/QUOTE]

I've heard two reasons over the years, one said issue was that Sony wanted all licensing to Nintendo's IPs made for the CD system as part of the contract, and Nintendo said hell no. I've also heard it was that Sony wanted to let anyone license games to be made for it while Nintendo wanted strict control over that as was customary for them.

Nintendo allowed Phillips to make it's own games based on Nintendo IPs, I imagine Phillips wanted this in case things did not work out or Nintendo had to present something more appealing after what had just happened with Sony.

[quote name='Malik112099']Huh?[/QUOTE]

No companies wanted to make video game consoles after the crash of '83, and Nintendo saw an opportunity. After the 2 years of the crash they debuted the NES despite what everyone in the business was saying about this industry. Nintendo saw an opportunity and they grabbed it. Had the crash not occurred who knows what would've happened, the NES may have never made it big - at least not when it did - had Atari failed, other console makers abandoned the industry, and many US based studios closed. The crash allowed Nintendo to brand their console as a toy and that ultimately helped them. The crash shifted the industry's dominance to Japan. Had Atari not failed they could've maintained their stronghold on America.
 
The NES birthed the Genesis. Meaning that the success of the NES was one of the major reasons for the development and introduction, at the time it did, for the Genesis.
 
[quote name='J7.']The crash allowed Nintendo to brand their console as a toy and that ultimately helped them.[/QUOTE]

That is slightly misleading. The only reason it was deemed a toy was because of the included pack-in, R.O.B. That was the ploy to deem it a toy and not a video game machine.

[quote name='J7.']The NES birthed the Genesis. Meaning that the success of the NES was one of the major reasons for the development and introduction, at the time it did, for the Genesis.[/QUOTE]

NES did not birth the Genesis, but it did birth the Master System.
 
[quote name='flameofdoom666']NES did not birth the Genesis, but it did birth the Master System.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it was the older SG1000 and SC3000 computers that birthed the Master System which was really the SG1000M3 SEGA Mark 3, third in the line of SG/SC. The Genesis was SEGA's one-upping of the NES.

The Master System was more of a competitor to the NES like the PS3 and 360 today.

Speaking of the 360, the original XBOX really birthed that monstrosity. The original was the trojan horse, and now we've got Micro$oft's home media center in our homes.
 
[quote name='62t']NES came out in Japan in 1983. If anything the crash of 1983 simply delay the US launch of NES[/QUOTE]
Yup. To say that the NES came out of the 1983 crash is ridiculous, especially since the Famicom got its start in a whole 'nother country. Same goes for the NES - Genesis thing.

I've another one, though it's kind of unusual: the Game & Watch inspired the basic design of the Nintendo DS.
 
[quote name='flameofdoom666']That is slightly misleading. The only reason it was deemed a toy was because of the included pack-in, R.O.B. That was the ploy to deem it a toy and not a video game machine.
[/QUOTE]

After the crash, retailers would not touch a 'video game system' with a 10 foot pole. Nintendo came up with R.O.B. to disguise the true nature of the Famicom/NES. They could then go to retailers and say 'See it's a toy!' to get them to stock it.

The NES debuted at Macy's in NYC, and Macy's only carried it after Nintendo agreed to buy back any unsold consoles after the holidays. I was lucky enough to be there and got to try out as a kid.

Of course the NES sold out and quickly became a huge hit. Nintendo quickly dropped the R.O.B. disguise and the rest is history.
 
[quote name='blueshinra']Yup. To say that the NES came out of the 1983 crash is ridiculous, especially since the Famicom got its start in a whole 'nother country. Same goes for the NES - Genesis thing.

I've another one, though it's kind of unusual: the Game & Watch inspired the basic design of the Nintendo DS.[/QUOTE]

It sold the most in the US by a wide margin. And I was talking about how the crash helped it in the US. So people are free to explain what helped birth the NES in Japan. What do you mean same goes for Genesis? The failure of the Master System against the NES is one of the major reasons for the Genesis to arrive when it did, NES played a role in that. These are not the only reasons they are one of many reasons as I said in OP.

[quote name='62t']NES came out in Japan in 1983. If anything the crash of 1983 simply delay the US launch of NES[/QUOTE]

It may have delayed it in the short term but in the long term it helped the NES tremendously to not have any serious competitors. As I said 2 console makers dropped out of the industry entirely and Atari acted like video games were a fad at that point. Studios responsible for 2600 games shut down. The crash opened the doors for Nintendo after they were able to successfully market the NES to retail.

[quote name='flameofdoom666']That is slightly misleading. The only reason it was deemed a toy was because of the included pack-in, R.O.B. That was the ploy to deem it a toy and not a video game machine.



NES did not birth the Genesis, but it did birth the Master System.[/QUOTE]

It was not just R.O.B. They changed the names of the console and its components, and the look of the console to make it look more like a toy in order to get retailers to carry it. All of this, especially R.O.B., allowed them to brand it as a toy.

This:
[quote name='Chuplayer']Actually, it was the older SG1000 and SC3000 computers that birthed the Master System which was really the SG1000M3 SEGA Mark 3, third in the line of SG/SC. The Genesis was SEGA's one-upping of the NES.

The Master System was more of a competitor to the NES like the PS3 and 360 today.
[/QUOTE]

After the Master System ultimately failed against the NES, Sega rushed out the Genesis.
 
[quote name='J7.']After the Master System ultimately failed against the NES, Sega rushed out the Genesis.[/QUOTE]

What doesn't Sega rush... ugh.
 
I probably should've titled this what development led to the introduction or success of a console as my claims make more sense that way. I'll fix the title now. Feel free to what led to the failure of a console too!
 
[quote name='J7.']I probably should've titled this what development led to the introduction or success of a console as my claims make more sense that way. I'll fix the title now. Feel free to what led to the failure of a console too![/QUOTE]


So what caused the Dreamcast to fail?

Many would say the ease of Piracy on the system.

I would argue that the real killer was retailer and consumer distrust of Sega after the Sega CD, 32X, Saturn mess.

Some would also say the PS2 came along and killed the Dreamcast, but I think the system was already doomed by that point.
 
[quote name='J7.']It may have delayed it in the short term but in the long term it helped the NES tremendously to not have any serious competitors. As I said 2 console makers dropped out of the industry entirely and Atari acted like video games were a fad at that point. Studios responsible for 2600 games shut down. The crash opened the doors for Nintendo after they were able to successfully market the NES to retail.[/QUOTE]

Your history is a bit confused. Was Nintendo helped by the crash? Somewhat, but it was also hurt. In fact, early on it had trouble convincing many companies to make games for the NES because they had rededicated efforts to the PC. Stores had no interest in carrying the system, and as others have mentioned ROB and the Zapper were added to make it presentable as a "toy" rather than "game."

It can also be said that Atari helped Nintendo by turning them down, since the NES was originally offered to them for distribution outside Japan. Same with Genesis and the Lynx. Obviously, they made the wrong choice of those three.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']So what caused the Dreamcast to fail?

Many would say the ease of Piracy on the system.

I would argue that the real killer was retailer and consumer distrust of Sega after the Sega CD, 32X, Saturn mess.

Some would also say the PS2 came along and killed the Dreamcast, but I think the system was already doomed by that point.[/QUOTE]

All of those were factors. The last one, in particular, had a lot to do with the anticipation for the PS2. Sony made a targeted campaign to hype their system and keep consumers away from the DC. This included the pledging of DVD support, something that many homes still lacked at that time. But companies have done this for years in the console wars, including Nintendo with the 64 and their hyping of Jurassic Park quality graphics.
 
[quote name='FantasyChronos']correction playstation together with the (then) upcoming xbox killed dreamcast all over ... the online network gaming![/QUOTE]
Dreamcast was the first to introduce online console gaming when comparing those three. In fact, PS2 did very little to support online outside of SOCOM and Twisted Metal Black. Phantasy Star Online was just too buggy and hacked to really get things off the ground, but the console was dropped long before it had a chance to improve anyways. The only thing that survived the first wave of online was Live and only because M$ had the money to pour into the project.

You can do anything when money is no object.
 
[quote name='elwood731']Your history is a bit confused. Was Nintendo helped by the crash? Somewhat, but it was also hurt. In fact, early on it had trouble convincing many companies to make games for the NES because they had rededicated efforts to the PC. Stores had no interest in carrying the system, and as others have mentioned ROB and the Zapper were added to make it presentable as a "toy" rather than "game."

It can also be said that Atari helped Nintendo by turning them down, since the NES was originally offered to them for distribution outside Japan. Same with Genesis and the Lynx. Obviously, they made the wrong choice of those three.[/QUOTE]

I think when 2 console makers pull out of the industry entirely and your main competition had failed and subsequently studios who made games for them closed down, you're helped quite a bit. Imagine if just 1 console maker pulled out now, how much that alone could help the others. Nintendo was helped more by the crash than they were hurt by it.

I pointed out those things myself in this thread and the Atari part fits in with what I said about them seeing the industry as a fad at that point. Nintendo may have had to pull the strings to get NES accepted at retail in the beginning, but after that it was gangbusters because they had a quality product and no serious competition.

[quote name='Puffa469']So what caused the Dreamcast to fail?

Many would say the ease of Piracy on the system.

I would argue that the real killer was retailer and consumer distrust of Sega after the Sega CD, 32X, Saturn mess.

Some would also say the PS2 came along and killed the Dreamcast, but I think the system was already doomed by that point.[/QUOTE]

All of these, it was a perfect storm against DC so that really it was mostly the hardcore who owned it. Add no support from EA to that list. I think the biggest reason is distrust of Sega followed closely by PS2.

[quote name='Jodou']Dreamcast was the first to introduce online console gaming when comparing those three. In fact, PS2 did very little to support online outside of SOCOM and Twisted Metal Black. Phantasy Star Online was just too buggy and hacked to really get things off the ground, but the console was dropped long before it had a chance to improve anyways. The only thing that survived the first wave of online was Live and only because M$ had the money to pour into the project.

You can do anything when money is no object.[/QUOTE]

I had a lot of fun online with PS2 with many games. Off the top of my head, NFSUG, NFSUG2, Hot Shots Golf 4, Champions of Norrath, NHL, Burnout 3, ATV Offroad.
 
[quote name='Jodou']Dreamcast was the first to introduce online console gaming when comparing those three. In fact, PS2 did very little to support online outside of SOCOM and Twisted Metal Black. Phantasy Star Online was just too buggy and hacked to really get things off the ground, but the console was dropped long before it had a chance to improve anyways. The only thing that survived the first wave of online was Live and only because M$ had the money to pour into the project.

You can do anything when money is no object.[/QUOTE]

I had a lot of fun online with PS2 with many games. Off the top of my head, NFSUG, NFSUG2, Hot Shots Golf 4, Champions of Norrath, NHL, Burnout 3, ATV Offroad.
 
[quote name='J7.']I think when 2 console makers pull out of the industry entirely and your main competition had failed and subsequently studios who made games for them closed down, you're helped quite a bit. Imagine if just 1 console maker pulled out now, how much that alone could help the others. Nintendo was helped more by the crash than they were hurt by it.[/quote]

You're jumping to conclusions with no facts to back it up. Sure, not having any direct "new" competition helped Nintendo, but Nintendo struggled mightily early on due to the crash. Including, nearly giving up and going home, and having to bring in third-party partners just to help them sell the thing to stores. You're grossly oversimplifying things.

As for one console maker leaving the current market and helping the others, well that's exactly what did happen during the crash. Consolidation in the game market has generally been a bad sign.

I pointed out those things myself in this thread and the Atari part fits in with what I said about them seeing the industry as a fad at that point. Nintendo may have had to pull the strings to get NES accepted at retail in the beginning, but after that it was gangbusters because they had a quality product and no serious competition.
Click to expand...

Atari did not see the industry as a fad. They actually turned down those consoles due to a variety of reasons, including financial troubles and their own in-house development. You're not getting your facts straight and simply imposing motivations that weren't there.

As for Nintendo, it was hardly an easy road. You're making it far too simple.
 
[quote name='elwood731']You're jumping to conclusions with no facts to back it up. Sure, not having any direct "new" competition helped Nintendo, but Nintendo struggled mightily early on due to the crash. Including, nearly giving up and going home, and having to bring in third-party partners just to help them sell the thing to stores. You're grossly oversimplifying things.

As for one console maker leaving the current market and helping the others, well that's exactly what did happen during the crash. Consolidation in the game market has generally been a bad sign.[/QUOTE]

Facts? Magnavox and Coleco abandoned the industry due to the crash, fact. Not having "direct new competition" is the same as what occurred, no serious competition. Nintendo's biggest problem due to the crash was getting retailers to carry the system early on, which they handled quite intelligently and once retail saw how well it did they jumped on board. That period was much shorter than the subsequent period of domination of the industry. Their original plan with the wireless controller, keyboard, etc for the NES in America was not the right idea and it was the crash that led them to realize this. It also allowed them to have a great lineup of titles for the official launch in the states.

Also, look at how NES did outside Japan and America, not so well. Some of this can be attributable to the effect of the crash as well. In Europe a crash did not occur because most gaming was done on PC and this continued i.e. there was serious competition in Europe.

What does consolidation being bad for the industry have to do with the effect of the crash on NES's success... If you lose a direct hardware competitor, your console is going to sell better.

[quote name='elwood731']
Atari did not see the industry as a fad. They actually turned down those consoles due to a variety of reasons, including financial troubles and their own in-house development. You're not getting your facts straight and simply imposing motivations that weren't there.

As for Nintendo, it was hardly an easy road. You're making it far too simple.[/QUOTE]

Yes they had financial problems, but Atari took their designs for consoles and shifted them to be computers instead once they saw the emergence of home computing. They further emphasized computers even more under Tramiel's direction.

I'm not saying it was easy for Nintendo. I'm just pointing out how something like the crash of '83 can benefit a company ready to strike than just being something that was negative. It's not that simple.
 
i guess if you have a great idea and you think you can deliver it that is what leads to sucess be it online play superior hardware and performance , exclusive titles or motion controllers
 
A lot of people in this thread debating the relevance of the Video Game Crash of 1983 to the launch of Nintendo would be interested in checking out the podcast Play Value. Many of the earlier episodes discuss those issues specifically.

It's a shame they still don't develop episodes because it really was a fantastic show.
 
[quote name='Renaissance 2K']A lot of people in this thread debating the relevance of the Video Game Crash of 1983 to the launch of Nintendo would be interested in checking out the podcast Play Value. Many of the earlier episodes discuss those issues specifically.

It's a shame they still don't develop episodes because it really was a fantastic show.[/QUOTE]
Never heard of it before but will take a look, looks very interesting.
 
Play Value is/was great and highly informative. I saw it 1st on video on demand thru my U-verse service. They mentioned that the Teddy Ruxpin was actually a factor of helping Nintendo get into toy stores (as I recall from the last time I watched the episodes).
 
Interesting thread, especially the early crash and whether it helped Nintendo or not. I will go on the side that your entire industry crashing does not help a company. A company can be in better position to handle it, and come out better on the other side, doesn't mean it really helped. Take the auto industry now, the latest financial meltdown has moved Ford into a better bargaining position, doesn't mean the crash was really great for Ford.

I'll throw out something else. I think Super Mario 64 influenced the entire way people think of 3D platformers. Even games like today's Ratchet & Clank harkens back to that game in collection, etc. You almost wonder, if that game bombs, does the whole gaming industry look different today?

To a lesser extent, Halo set the standard for how FPS's should be laid out on a controller, and most games follow something close to it now (it's odd to go back and try something like Quake on the Dreamcast, where you move with the buttons).
 
[quote name='lordxixor101']Interesting thread, especially the early crash and whether it helped Nintendo or not. I will go on the side that your entire industry crashing does not help a company. A company can be in better position to handle it, and come out better on the other side, doesn't mean it really helped. Take the auto industry now, the latest financial meltdown has moved Ford into a better bargaining position, doesn't mean the crash was really great for Ford.
.[/QUOTE]

Not a good comparison imo. 1, Ford was already in the industry not a new comer. 2, There's still just as many car companies in that industry as before the meltdown. 3, Ford has been crap for a long time. Now Nintendo: new comer, no serious competition, quality product.

Take the car industry, remove everyone but a few crap companies or okay companies with a crap product, and enter with the best quality car for a great price that has ever been created... then see what happens.

Furthermore, games are like books, movies, and television. It's something that is going to always exist for people's consumption. The industry crashes, it is going to rebound eventually. So it's not like the industry crashing was going to ultimately mean it would not exist again. It was only a matter of time before it reemerged better and brighter. When crap entertainment becomes the mainstay it is eventually superseded by quality.
 
Here's an interesting tidbit I recall from the head of Hudson when they launched the TurboGrafx system in the US. One major reason they ultimately lost the console wars to Nintendo and Sega is because NEC, their partner, overcommited funds to produce the hardware, so they had a huge number of systems sitting around on store shelves. This created a problem because they didn't have enough money for marketing then. And no doubt, Sega and Nintendo dominated the TurboGrafx when it came to marketing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top