2D Nintendo64 games

[Team Andromeda]

I'm pretty sure the Saturn sold 5.4 million in Japan compared to the 5.2 million in Japan for the N64. Even though Sega had superior 3rd party support compared to the N64. Hell the N64 managed to have 5 games sell over a million units in Japan alone. And that's not even counting Mario 64 or Zelda compare that to the Saturn and it's only 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...64_video_games

Sigh...


I made sure to state software and that score SEGA Saturn had the bigger share of the Japanese Market right into 1997 . The point of sales is valid but remember the Wii can boast a hardware installed base the PS3 and 360 can only dream of , but in terms of marketshare for games its far from the same picture, the PSP again has massive installer base of units sold, but market share for games in the west is tiny.

The late start with the N64 was among the least of their problems . . . hell, a much earlier release actually would have been premature (given the SNES's timeline and market value) . . . though 1995 in Japan and 1996 in the US/Europe would probably have worked quite well.

Stop being so silly , for one it's not just about SEGA it was also about SONY and NCL leaving it so late lost NCL huge market share in Japan to both SONY and SEGA for which the N64 never really recovered, much like going so late with Snes in the West gave SEGA a massive open goal to get a big userbase and great support. It's a lesson SONY had to learn it's self with the PS3. Not only did going so late , cost SONY being the lead platform of choice for 3rd party developers, it cost SONY the USA market to MS and it looks like it will never get that back this gen.

The 3DO and Jaguar had bigger head starts than the Saturn or PSX, but both had far bigger problems in other areas

Are you serious ? The Jaguar was nothing more than a joke when it shipped it was clear to all it was to be hopelessly outclassed and Atari didn't have the money to back or push it much , and the 3DO ridiculous retail priced , priced it completely out of the market (which was a shame as the hardware and software were of good quality. Those 2 consoles are simply terrible and bad examples Now you're going to sit and say going early didn't pay off for the 360 or the Mega Drive in the West .

wonder if SGI's contract with Nintendo had mandated use of said workstations or if Nintendo and SGI just wanted to squeeze extra money from devs regardless.

I believe it was confirmed by SGI that as part of the agreement with NCL they also supply the stations, software eum systems and what not

Exactly, software support from 3rd parties was the issue . . . and Nintendo wasn't catering well to that at all

NCL never did and giving such a huge head start to SONY and SEGA as well as going Cart only, lost NCL huge support in Japan and quite a lot in the West too .

[kool kitty89]

I maintain that the head start was only a very small part of it . . . Nintendo's other problems were the brunt of the issue, and had it not been for those, they very well may have beaten out Sony (and Sega) on the mass market in all regions. But Nintendo's upper management was obviously too arrogant and stubborn to even consider such a competitive market model and management campaign.
Albeit, they really needed to work out some of those issues in the SNES years for that to work. (ie establishing strong bonds/loyalty with good relations with various Japanese 3rd party publishers -especially significant in Japan, where honor is a far more integral part of culture -even in the business world- and Nintendo would have been respected for behaving in such a manner, but they did the exact opposite and made no friends with 3rd parties -and probably had a fair amount of discontent from some 2nd parties as well)

Again, thenewguy and I already discussed this at length in the 32/64-bit console thread.


1995/96 was a perfectly fine time for Nintendo to launch a new console . . . hell, doing so earlier could have been a really stupid business move given the SNES's market position worldwide and the North American market slump. (the latter compounded all the problems with the 3DO, 32x, Saturn, etc)

Sony had no existing mainstream console to even consider, so pushing out sooner only had the issues of launch software/support. (and spending more on marketing earlier on vs potentially reserving that for later)

Had Nintendo launched a more cut-back design with weaker/more primitive software in 1994 with similar problems with 3rd party relations and use of carts, it probably would have done worse than the existing N64. (even more so if it was a less cost effective machine than the current N64)


The Jaguar and 3DO are separate topics I could certainly get into (and have before) . . . and your comments on those are WAY oversimplified too (especially from the perspective of the time -ie it was definitely not obvious that Atari was as weak as they were -not just monetarily, but the management situation . . . the latter of which prevented investment spending that could have allowed competitive funding -as the expense of far greater risk . . . like Sega took on several times -including the Genesis and Dreamcast), but I'll stop at that. (not to get into the technical performance at all . . . or cost effectiveness, etc)

[Da_Shocker]

I maintain that the head start was only a very small part of it . . . Nintendo's other problems were the brunt of the issue, and had it not been for those, they very well may have beaten out Sony (and Sega) on the mass market in all regions. But Nintendo's upper management was obviously too arrogant and stubborn to even consider such a competitive market model and management campaign.
Albeit, they really needed to work out some of those issues in the SNES years for that to work. (ie establishing strong bonds/loyalty with good relations with various Japanese 3rd party publishers -especially significant in Japan, where honor is a far more integral part of culture -even in the business world- and Nintendo would have been respected for behaving in such a manner, but they did the exact opposite and made no friends with 3rd parties -and probably had a fair amount of discontent from some 2nd parties as well)

Again, thenewguy and I already discussed this at length in the 32/64-bit console thread.


1995/96 was a perfectly fine time for Nintendo to launch a new console . . . hell, doing so earlier could have been a really stupid business move given the SNES's market position worldwide and the North American market slump. (the latter compounded all the problems with the 3DO, 32x, Saturn, etc)

Sony had no existing mainstream console to even consider, so pushing out sooner only had the issues of launch software/support. (and spending more on marketing earlier on vs potentially reserving that for later)

Had Nintendo launched a more cut-back design with weaker/more primitive software in 1994 with similar problems with 3rd party relations and use of carts, it probably would have done worse than the existing N64. (even more so if it was a less cost effective machine than the current N64)


The Jaguar and 3DO are separate topics I could certainly get into (and have before) . . . and your comments on those are WAY oversimplified too (especially from the perspective of the time -ie it was definitely not obvious that Atari was as weak as they were -not just monetarily, but the management situation . . . the latter of which prevented investment spending that could have allowed competitive funding -as the expense of far greater risk . . . like Sega took on several times -including the Genesis and Dreamcast), but I'll stop at that. (not to get into the technical performance at all . . . or cost effectiveness, etc)

Doubtful since Nintendo proved that they had an extremely loyal fanbase in the states.

[kool kitty89]

Had Nintendo launched a more cut-back design with weaker/more primitive software in 1994 with similar problems with 3rd party relations and use of carts, it probably would have done worse than the existing N64. (even more so if it was a less cost effective machine than the current N64)

Doubtful since Nintendo proved that they had an extremely loyal fanbase in the states.

That's not to say it necessarily would have been a total flop, but certainly much worse than the N64 was historically. Launching a next-gen console full-force in 1994 just didn't make sense for Nintendo (or even '94 in Japan and '95 in the US). And it wasn't so much loyalty in the US that was the winning factor, but good marketing and software support (having an established brand name certainly made for a strong base for marketing to build onto though) . . . and Nintendo had far less problem with 3rd party relations in the US/Europe than Japan. (partially due to cultural differences and partially due to NoA/NoE not being quite a bad as NoJ -in large part out of necessity . . . Nintendo had been forced to soften their policies in the SNES years with Sega's competition and the general legal issues/threat and discontent of 3rd party publishers)

Let's look at this: A 1994 system with the same price point and margins (and market model) as the N64 in '96 would obviously be significantly less powerful (and not just less processing power, but less RAM -making it harder to port later-gen games to -or PC games in general).
OK, so a weaker system (probably weaker than the PSX) with Nintendo management exactly the same (same problem with 3rd parties, etc), and similar quality development tools for the time. (ie likely worse than the N64's in '96 -since the market standards for SDKs were generally more limited in '94/95)

Then you have the major issues with the SNES: 1994 through 1996 were prime market years for the SNES (especially '94 and '95), cutting back on that sooner could have compromised massive profits in all regions (but especially the US). Plus, the SNES had only been on the market for 3 years by mid '94, so even less attractive to overall profitability.

You've also got the mid-90s slump to consider: from 1993 through 1995, the North American game market had seen a substantial slump in the market across the board (new and old systems alike) . . . Nintendo was perhaps the most successful to combat that with their 1994/1995 SNES software and marketing efforts, but nevertheless it made for a market that was relatively unfriendly for high-end next-gen consoles (even in the $250 range, that's pretty expensive) . . . the SNES did well as it was established and very affordable (the Genesis was still doing well at the time too -though likely compromised a great deal by problems with the 32x, CD, Saturn, etc). The slump also heavily exacerbated the issues with the 3DO, Jaguar, 32x, Sega CD, and Saturn.

Sony had nothing to lose really, since they had no console on the market at that point, and the PSX fit well in the higher-end niche segment of the market in '95, and Sony had the resources to push it full-force on the market through the 1996 holiday season (when the market was truly ready to go big for the new generation).

Nintendo OTOH would have to make direct trade-offs for marketing/spending between the SNES and N64 (or what have you), as well as more substantial trade-offs for starting nest-gen promotions and software development so early. (with the N64's 1996 release, they came at basically the perfect time for the US market, no wasted year of a gradual build-up, but jumping right in with intensive marketing and killer software -limited in quantity, but they had a killer app and a number of other games that fit well with the US market before Christmas -like Shadows of the Empire)


And, again, Nitnendo didn't win over the US's interest with the N64 through sheer brand-loyalty (if anything, the US market has proven time and again to be among the most fickle and prone to jumping on whatever is market/advertised the best -hence the Dreamcast doign relatively well in the US, Genesis, Xbox, PSX, etc -the 2600's success was largely tied to marketing too). They had brand-recognition for sure, and that's something marketing could obviously build-on, but the N64 didn't simply sell well because of "loyal" Nintendo users, it sold well because of the marketing and games fitting well with the market. (and obviously having a huge niche in the "kiddie" and "family friendly" market segment -and that's something their brand-recognition built-on as well)

When I was a kid in the late 90s (or my brother for that matter), I didn't want an N64 because it was Nintendo, I wanted it because of Star Fox 64, Mario 64, Goldeneye, Diddy Kong Racing, Mario Kart 64, Shadows of the Empire, Rogue Squadron (well, not so much since it went to PC -but I would have if I wasn't a PC gamer -same for Battle For Naboo and some others), and perhaps most of all (at least by late 1999) Super Smash Bros. (I'd list Zelda, but honestly, that wasn't a factor . . . I hadn't known much about OOT until my dad got it for himself some time in 2000 ) Oh, and Pokemon was a big factor back then too.
Albeit a lot of that had no impact from TV advertising and more to do with what I saw at kiosks in stores (especially Fry's, Blockbuster, and to lesser extent Funcoland), what we rented, and what my friends were playing at the time. (albeit some of those I knew more from TV ads than anything else -definitely the case for SSB, same for Paper Mario later on . . . I remember a lot of Playstion ads more than Nintendo ones actually, and a few Saturn ads even . . . and some Genesis ads -like the S&K Christmas one, though not so much for SNES either, oddly enough)

Granted, anecdotal accounts are limited anyway, so not a major supporting argument for the rest of my comments.

[Team Andromeda]

1995/96 was a perfectly fine time for Nintendo to launch a new console . . . hell, doing so earlier could have been a really stupid business move given the SNES's market position worldwide and the North American market slump. (the latter compounded all the problems with the 3DO, 32x, Saturn, etc)

Lets gets real. For starters we're talking of Japan here and going in 1995 would have made sure that part of the last ground and the damage done wouldn't have happened. And this slump is just not based on facts SONY had no trouble selling the PS to the world oror the USA in 1995.

Let's look at this: A 1994 system with the same price point and margins (and market model) as the N64 in '96 would obviously be significantly less powerful (and not just less processing power, but less RAM -making it harder to port later-gen games to -or PC games in general)

We'll never know that and listen to some SEGA was offered this chispet in 1993 and should have gone with it .

Then you have the major issues with the SNES: 1994 through 1996 were prime market years for the SNES (especially '94 and '95), cutting back on that sooner could have compromised massive profits in all regions (but especially the US). Plus, the SNES had only been on the market for 3 years by mid '94, so even less attractive to overall profitability.

. As Sony showed with the PS and the PS2 you can launch a successor to you console and enjoy fine software and hardware sales for your previous console . So please don't come it on that one. Its always excuses for NCL with you.

You've also got the mid-90s slump to consider: from 1993 through 1995

Yes people getting bored of their old consoles and lots of people wanting to go to next-gen and 3D . Also don't give this slump some of SEGA best sales in the west was in the years 1994 to 1995 if fat when FIFA lauched it was hard to find a Mega Drive or a copy Fifa in the shops at key periods.

Sony had nothing to lose really, since they had no console on the market at that point,

True, but not true for the PS2 which came some 6 years after the PS, the same of time frame for the Mega Drive to the Saturn and the Snes to the N64 . Facts which seem to elude you.

And, again, Nitnendo didn't win over the US's interest with the N64 through sheer brand-loyalty

Is anybody making that point ? I don't think so. NCl won the USA market with more or less one game and that was Mario 64 - and to be fair to NCL . Only they could have made a game that good at the time .

I didn't want an N64 because it was Nintendo, I wanted it because of Star Fox 64, Mario 64, Goldeneye, Diddy Kong Racing, Mario Kart 64, Shadows of the Empire, Rogue Squadron (well, not so much since it went to PC

No brand loyalty but in that list there's 3 NCL games and 3 sequels to NCL classics on the SNES I mean really... . In most casts most people will want consoles due to games at the end of day, sure Hardware nuts and loyal fans will buy the Hardware regardless, but I bought a Snes for Mario, a N64 for Mario, The PS2 for DMC and ICO, the X-Box for HALO and JSRF and even thought it had a SEGA badge they was no way I was buying crap like the Game Gear or the 32X

In most cases it will always be about the games . I'm sure most people a Mega Drive not because it was made by SEGA , but for Sonic, Madden and Fifa at the end of the day

Doubtful since Nintendo proved that they had an extremely loyal fanbase in the states

In not just in the states but in the likes of France too. NCL have the most loyal fanbase out of any corp imo and that's been part of their trouble since the SNES days . NCL never really needed 3rd parties, their fanbase make sure that NCL games dominate their console software sales and its been a Huge issues for 3rd parties to complete with be in on consoles or Handhelds.

[kool kitty89]

Lets gets real. For starters we're talking of Japan here and going in 1995 would have made sure that part of the last ground and the damage done wouldn't have happened. And this slump is just not based on facts SONY had no trouble selling the PS to the world oror the USA in 1995.

A 1995 launch in Japan (with at least decent software support) and '96 in the US probably would have been fine timing-wise (especially since Nintendo had already canceled some SNES projects in favor of the N64), though that's hardly addressing Nintendo's fundamental problems.

It still would have been little different had they not addressed the severe management problems that totally compromised 3rd party support in Japan (and to lesser extent in the west). That's the primary issue, the release date was a very minor one by comparison.

We'll never know that and listen to some SEGA was offered this chispet in 1993 and should have gone with it.

Sega almost certainly was offered the chipset in '93 and arguably should have gone with it (though honestly, I think they could have done better than the N64 or Saturn with in-house development -or perhaps drawing on their partnership with GE/Lockheed-Martin . . . or perhaps partnering with ATi or such if possible -ATi had a pretty nice, general purpose 2D/3D/MPEG multimedia chipset in development in the early 90s that went to market in '95 as the first RAGE card).

It would certainly be interesting to get more details on the situation with the SGI chipset in '93 (and the context of the proposed partnership), and that's definitely near the top of the list for questions in Melf's upcoming interview with Joe Miller. (validation and details for the supposed SoA-Imagesoft hardware design/concept R&D partnership efforts would be another thing Miller should definitely address . . . plus some added details on the 32x's development that are still a bit gray or totally blank, and maybe some information on SoJ's other developments as far as he knows -aside from insights on design work at the time, it would also be interesting to know how much SoA was made aware of and how much SoJ kept secret)

As Sony showed with the PS and the PS2 you can launch a successor to you console and enjoy fine software and hardware sales for your previous console . So please don't come it on that one. Its always excuses for NCL with you.

Yes, but there's MANY trade-offs to that . . . and Sony certainly didn't launch the PS2 or PS3 early enough to compromise the PSX or PS2's primary market (both were launched as the previous-gen system was naturally entering the budget market) . . . Sony also had a LOT more money to throw at things and wasn't nearly focused on pure profits as Nintendo.

That's another point: market stability and profitability are more important than pure marketshare . . . that's arguably the biggest mistake Sega made (aside from the internal management conflicts and related communication/cooperation issues).

Being on top in sales isn't any good if you compromise profits. (deficit spending in the short run can work well if you shift to profitability in the long run -and that's often necessary for pushing a new system, especially from the mid 90s onward, but it also obviously sets you up for a much bigger fall if you do fail . . . Atari is an extreme counterexample with the Jaguar, they stuck to very moderate spending relative to any competion, a very conservative approach that limited potential success along with risks: OTOH, had they heavily pushed with investment spending for software R&D and marketing, they may have pushed into the mass market to a reasonable degree, or the whole thing may have crashed and burned and Atari would have gone bankrupt -even worse if the Tramiel's had used private funds to bolster the company as they'd lose that investment with the company . . . spending with 3rd party investors/loans would at worst leave the company penniless and defaulting on debt, but leave the Tramiels' private funds untouched -as it was though, Atari Corp was able to be liquidated in a highly profitable manner in 1996)

This is also the argument you usually point out for the Dreamcast: it had sold fairly well, but at what cost? . . . and they could have continued pushing it further in the hopes of transitioning to profitability in the long-run, but the longer they spent with it, the greater the potential risk of complete failure. (albeit, they could have taken more conservative routes in several aspects of the DC's management from day 1 that may have reduced sales to some degree, but possibly facilitated better stability and profitability -a ton of variables there though)

Yes people getting bored of their old consoles and lots of people wanting to go to next-gen and 3D . Also don't give this slump some of SEGA best sales in the west was in the years 1994 to 1995 if fat when FIFA lauched it was hard to find a Mega Drive or a copy Fifa in the shops at key periods.

Sega's best sales year (at least revenue wise) was 1992 followed by a significant decline in 1993 (which was still the second highest sales year), or at least that's what the news articles of the time (and studies specific to the "slump") depict. Nintendo took a major fall in '93 as well, but the managed to pick that back up better. (those same articles point out how Nintendo was pushing a new software campaign to address the slump vs Sega pushing new hardware more -particularly the 32x . . . which really didn't work)
Though there are some conflicting reports that put 1993 as the peak year. (this has been discussed before)

Still, a massive chunk of 4th gen sales in the US took place from 1993 onward . . . it may have peaked in some respects in '92, but the composite sales up to that point were still only a fraction of the market. (ie revenue was nominally down compared to previously, but actual unit sales volumes were still massive and dominated the market into 1996 -I'd need to compare more detailed figures, but the 16-bit systems may have still outsold the 32/64-bit ones numerically in '96 in the US -in Japan, the SNES apparently was still holding about 1/3 of the market in '96)


So, any new system pushed out would likely fit into that early-gen high-end niche market that some consoles end up catering to. The PSX definitely fit in that category in '95, a rather niche expensive high-end system that wouldn't hit mass-market acceptance for another full year . . . Sega and Nintendo potentially could have carefully managed nex-gen releases in parallel with the mainstay SNES/Genesis, but that obviously would have been more difficult than Sony in many respects. (balancing resources especially: software R&D, marketing, working within existing budgets or risking more with heavier investment spending, etc)
The introduction of 32x obviously didn't help that situation, though neither did the Saturn itself (both technically, cost, and management wise) . . . the Sega CD also complicated things (especially since it was rather niche itself, but Sega had invested a lot into it, and dropping it suddenly would have compromises for profits and PR -the 32x compounded that issue).

Sega obviously failed to manage a good balance in the transition to the 5th generation (far more issues than the 32x alone, mind-you -though that was certainly symbolic of their problems at the time). It's arguable what the ideal situation would have been for them, but there's so many mistakes that even having a few problems remaining would have been far better than what happened. (like if the Saturn was simply launched in a normal manner in fall 1995 in the US/Europe, obviously even better without the 32x complicating things -which would not only allow better focus on the Saturn's niche market, but allow better organized support for the Genesis in the late-gen)

Sega had handled the transition of the Master System to Genesis/MD quite well by comparison, even though the overall situation was somewhat comparable. The SMS was quite weak in Japan and was dropped after only 3 years on the market (and 5 years after the original SG-1000), but they maintained support for the Genesis in the US up through 1991 and far longer in Europe (catering to the strong market for the SMS in that region).
Compared with that, you had the MD followed by the MCD (similar in release date gap to the SG-1000 to Mk.III) doing far better in the US (and MD doing well in Europe -though MCD less so, especially outside of the UK), but unlike the SG-1000/SMS case, both Sega had both systems (or system+add-on) released in the west with both being supported and the newer system remaining relatively niche.
With the MD's weak position in Japan (though by far the best they'd ever done up to that point), it made more sense to cut it like they'd done with the SMS, but kept western support a good bit longer . . . though support for the Sega CD would be harder to compare given its limited market (assuming Sega wasn't able to boost interest).
Then there's also the issue of backwards compatibility making the transition somewhat smoother and potentially allowing new users (be it first time Sega users or previous MD/CD owners) to play MD/CD games on the new system as well as the new games. (especially if no adapter was needed -unlike the MD, but like the 7800, Mk.III, PS2, etc)
And then the issue of having an architecture that was relatively straightforward to port to and from the older systems (ie like some multiplat MD/SMS games were done as), albeit most 3D stuff probably wouldn't be down-ported to the MD/MCD. (perhaps some pseudo 3D stuff or such) There's a lot of 2D and pseudo 3D games on Sega consoles in '94-97 that could have been cross-platform though. (including a lot of stuff on the MD and CD that could/should have been upgraded to Saturn -or what have you)

True, but not true for the PS2 which came some 6 years after the PS, the same of time frame for the Mega Drive to the Saturn and the Snes to the N64 . Facts which seem to elude you.

None of that clashes with what I already said . . . and on top of that, Sony had comparably larger resources to facilitate pushing more systems at once (without as much risk), but overall their timing was quite good regardless. (the PS2 was certainly not rushed to market time-wise, and from marketing, critical reception, and publisher support standpoints, it was one of the best launches of all-time)

Your comparison of the PS2 supports most of my points on the N64's release date being timely . . . 6 years is quite a good time for a new console for the most part, with a few exceptions. (exceptions like the NES -both in Japan, and it's position in the US where older hardware was released much later, though still with a nominal gap of 5 years to the release of the SNES . . . and the Genesis, technically older/longer on the market, but 1989/1990 had been modest years for the system -'89 almost wasted entirely- and '91 was the first real mass-market year for the system, and it was still quite competitive/relevant alongside the SNES in '95 and '96 -partially because the SNES wasn't nearly as big of a technical leap that it could have been with that 2 year advantage -it's not just about how long a system has been on the market, but more about when the market conditions are right for a successor -both in terms of general market demand/interest and existing/projected interest/support for the current/old system)

Is anybody making that point ? I don't think so. NCl won the USA market with more or less one game and that was Mario 64 - and to be fair to NCL . Only they could have made a game that good at the time.

Yes, that point was made in the post I was directly responding to. (from Da Shocker) Nintendo definitely won the US market with a lot more than Mario 64 . . . good timing, hype/marketing, and overall software support that catered relatively well to the market (not as much quality over quantity as marketability over quantity and quality -albeit much of the software was above average quality, though overall not really a higher good to bad ratio than any other system on the market -the spread of genres was highly marketable for the US though, and the marketing meshed with that) One could also argue the N64 had a graphical advantage . . . and many would agree, but that's such a big area of contention (especially among these forums) that I'm not going to try and push that point now.

Now, if you DO want to go from the standpoint of "SM64 won the US market singlehandedly" . . . then that too would add more problems to a hypothetical 1994/95 launch of a Nintendo platform:
no mario for at least the 1st year on the US market, and generally weaker hardware further limiting things for when it did come out . . . so the '96 game (assuming it was released) would be comparably worse looking (and possibly worse-playing) due to technical limitations.

Then there's the issue of spending a bunch on marketing in '95 with far weaker reception in the US, and more spending needed to keep up the pace in '96 (without as much hype tied to it as having the launch that year would).

Then there's the outstanding issue of Nintendo's 3rd party relations/policies and use of carts which would mean they'd almost certainly still lose most support to Sony (and be unattractive as a multiplat option) and almost certainly still lose Square as well. (even weaker system, still void of multimedia capabilities a la CD, and nothing different to combat Sony's attraction for partnership/publishing)

I also disagree that Nintendo was the only ones capable of producing a game of the caliber of Mario 64 in '96, but that's a different topic in general. (though I don't see it as nearly as overrated as some seem to think it -it's certainly overrated, but it was also pretty awesome at the time)

No brand loyalty but in that list there's 3 NCL games and 3 sequels to NCL classics on the SNES I mean really... . In most casts most people will want consoles due to games at the end of day, sure Hardware nuts and loyal fans will buy the Hardware regardless, but I bought a Snes for Mario, a N64 for Mario, The PS2 for DMC and ICO, the X-Box for HALO and JSRF and even thought it had a SEGA badge they was no way I was buying crap like the Game Gear or the 32X

Most people will buy for games . . . and for marketing of the games and the system in general, with a massive emphaiss on the latter.

The reason the NES dominated the US market was almost entirely due to marketing . . . part of it was their monopolistic policies, but those were especially moot early on when the SMS had an almost even library at launch (in 1986) and consistently flashier graphics, it was marketing and management that made the difference there.

It was marketing that allowed the Genesis to get so big (do you think Sega's games -even Sonic- would have been anywhere near close enough to make it a household name in the US?), same for the PSX, N64, Dreamcast, Xbox, PS2, 360, Wii, etc.

Having (reasonably marketable) nominally mediocre software with excellent marketing (and funding for such) will usually beat out generally higher-quality software on a poorly marketed platform (especially if said software doesn't cater to the mass market demands of the time). And, of course, having actual quality, marketable software with massive marketing will be even better.

In most cases it will always be about the games . I'm sure most people a Mega Drive not because it was made by SEGA , but for Sonic, Madden and Fifa at the end of the day

No, they bought it (in the US) because of good marketing along with marketable software . . . good software alone is nothing without getting people interested in it.

In not just in the states but in the likes of France too. NCL have the most loyal fanbase out of any corp imo and that's been part of their trouble since the SNES days . NCL never really needed 3rd parties, their fanbase make sure that NCL games dominate their console software sales and its been a Huge issues for 3rd parties to complete with be in on consoles or Handhelds.

I totally disagree . . . a HUGE amount of their success was tied to 3rd party support, and not pushing to be competitive with that was (and is) their biggest flaw overall.

They did end up with decent 3rd party support in the US, which is part of what made them more successful there.

Actually, if any company could have gotten by without 3rd party support historically, it probably would have been Sega due to their massive in-house software resources (1st and 2nd party), especially in the early/mid 90s.
In the case of the Master System, they probably could have held firm with little/no 3rdparty support (as Nintendo forced upon them) if only they had good marketing to back that up. (and perhaps a shift for some lacking areas in software that SoA later addressed -basically if Sega of the 80s had management like SoA of the early 90s, the SMS probably would have been quite competitive in the US regardless of Nintendo . . . the sort of management talent that Katz was giving to Atari Corp's entertainment division at the same time . . . allowing Atari to managed a massive lead in market share with the 7800 over the SMS in '86 and 87 -let alone the 2600 in the budget market . . . hell, the 7800 was almost keeping up with NES sales in the first year or so, in spite of extremely limited funding and software -though by '88 it was far behind and the SMS was starting to do a bit better under Tonka)

[Da_Shocker]

I totally disagree . . . a HUGE amount of their success was tied to 3rd party support, and not pushing to be competitive with that was (and is) their biggest flaw overall.

They did end up with decent 3rd party support in the US, which is part of what made them more successful there.

Actually, if any company could have gotten by without 3rd party support historically, it probably would have been Sega due to their massive in-house software resources (1st and 2nd party), especially in the early/mid 90s.
In the case of the Master System, they probably could have held firm with little/no 3rdparty support (as Nintendo forced upon them) if only they had good marketing to back that up. (and perhaps a shift for some lacking areas in software that SoA later addressed -basically if Sega of the 80s had management like SoA of the early 90s, the SMS probably would have been quite competitive in the US regardless of Nintendo . . . the sort of management talent that Katz was giving to Atari Corp's entertainment division at the same time . . . allowing Atari to managed a massive lead in market share with the 7800 over the SMS in '86 and 87 -let alone the 2600 in the budget market . . . hell, the 7800 was almost keeping up with NES sales in the first year or so, in spite of extremely limited funding and software -though by '88 it was far behind and the SMS was starting to do a bit better under Tonka)

Wait what!? Looking at the sales of all the Nintendo consoles and it's quiet easy to see that it was Nintendo that was dominating the top sales:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...games#Nintendo

6 of the top 10 selling NES games were from Nintendo. 8 of the top 10 for the SNES are from Nintendo. 10 of the 10 ten selling N64 games were from Nintendo. That is a stark contrast to Sega who only managed only 5 of the top 10 Genesis games. 4 in the the PSx from Sony, 2 on the PS2 from Sony. Even looking at the Xbox and 360 the numbers are the same. You mentions Sega's in house software resources but what does it matter if they aren't selling a ton of units?

[Team Andromeda]

It still would have been little different had they not addressed the severe management problems that totally compromised 3rd party support in Japan

NCL thought they didn't mass 3rd party support they've never been helpful to 3rd parties it never held back the NES, the SNES so why you deem it such an issues with the N64 I do not know. Lauching so late and giving SEGA and SONY such a massive window was what cost NCL as well as the lack of a CD-Rom drive.

Sega almost certainly was offered the chipset in '93 and arguably should have gone with it

Even though that would have meant SEGA not being able to launch till 96, would have had all the same issues with a console being hard to developer for and an ever more costly development environment. I'm sure SEGA would have gone for CD-Rom meaning that chipset would have been in Saturn price point too and then SEGA would have issues with blurry textures washed out colours. I'm not seeing any really major advantage at all here

or perhaps drawing on their partnership with GE/Lockheed-Martin

No way could they have given SEGA a chipset at the price point needed for a mass-market console at that time

Yes, but there's MANY trade-offs to that . . . and Sony certainly didn't launch the PS2 or PS3 early enough to compromise

The PS2 came out 6 years after the PS 1st launched, exactly the same time frame to the Mega Drive to the Saturn , the Snes to the N64. And even then SONY was still able to make a killing on PS sales even with the PS2 out .

Sony also had a LOT more money to throw at things and wasn't nearly focused on pure profits as Nintendo

Again with the excuses . It was about the money it was the fact with a great line up games and an attractive price point and still great 3rd party support the PS2 was still an attractive console to buy even after the PS3 came out . So no I really doubt launching the N64 in 1995 would have hurt Snes sales or N64 sales at all.

Being on top in sales isn't any good if you compromise profits

please stop moving the goal posts all the time.

Sega's best sales year (at least revenue wise) was 1992 followed by a significant decline in 1993 (which was still the second highest sales year), or at least that's what the news articles of the time

SEGA in 1994 had one of its biggest revenue years in its history, true to say sales of MD hardware were down but that will always happen in a console life cycle . SEGA was still selling massive amounts of Hardware , posting great profits and selling lots of software

The PSX definitely fit in that category in '95, a rather niche expensive high-end system that wouldn't hit mass-market acceptance for another full year

Just stop it now. No console on it's lauch or in its 1st year is mass market it neither as the broad enough range of games or the price point for that , that always comes latter in the console life cycle . What SONY should was there was more than enough people in 1995 to make the jump to the next gen , and SONY took away sales from not just the Mega Drive and SNES but also massive amounts of one time SEGA and NCL fans.

Sony had comparably larger resources to facilitate pushing more systems at once

Really ? So why was SONY so unable to support the PSP, PS2 while developing the PS3 at the same time ? Even though at that time SONY had a much bigger In-House Studio structure , even NCL has trouble supporting the Wii, DS, and 3DS . So how on earth SEGA thought it would be able to support the Mega Drive, Mega CD, 32X, Game Gear, Arcade and Saturn all at the same time I do not know . Far better if SEGA dropped all In-House support for most of the consoles and just focused in on the Saturn and Arcade . It would have been in a much better shape to take the fight to SONY and NCL.

That is where SEGA truly cocked up in the 32 bit war and not getting SONIC ready early in.

Nintendo definitely won the US market with a lot more than Mario 64 . . . good timing, hype/marketing, and overall software support that catered relatively well to the market (not as much quality over quantity as marketability over quantity and quality -albeit much of the software was above average quality, though overall not really a higher good to bad ratio than any other system on the market -the spread of genres was highly marketable for the US though, and the marketing meshed with that) One could also argue the N64 had a graphical advantage . . . and many would agree, but that's such a big area of contention (especially among these forums) that I'm not going to try and push that point now.

It won most of the world over with Mario 64 and we all know it . The N64 support was limited even in the USA , Nintendo America had to slash the price of the console early in (moves you slate SEGA for) but it didn't matter when you had Mario 64 to save the day

I also disagree that Nintendo was the only ones capable of producing a game of the caliber of Mario 64 in '96

No other developer imo could have made a platform game of that quality at the time, and truth be told most have bettered it since

do you think Sega's games -even Sonic- would have been anywhere near close enough to make it a household name in the US?

The Mega Drive with out Sonic, John Madden would never as sold as well as it did, even if SEGA spent billions and billions on pushing the system imo . You got to make games people want to play at the end of the day.

same for the PSX, N64, Dreamcast, Xbox, PS2, 360, Wii, etc.

?. The DC ads were pretty limited and crap, more so in Pal land , the X-Box and 360 marketing just dire since day one imo . I will agree NCL run a slick campaign with the Wii and SONY who's push of the PS3 has been way better than MS 360 ad in the USA and UK (especially the Kevin Butler ads) still lead the PS3 to be way behind the 360 in the USA and UK

good software alone is nothing without getting people interested in it.

and people will not be interested in your product with out good software.

I totally disagree . . . a HUGE amount of their success was tied to 3rd party support,

You look at most NCL software charts and its always dominated by NCL published or NCL produced games

it probably would have been Sega due to their massive in-house software resources (1st and 2nd party), especially in the early/mid 90s.
In the case of the Master System,

SEGA did not have massive In-House resources in the early 90's at all. Most of the Mega Drive , Game Gear work was out sourced. It wasn't until the Saturn that SEGA Japan started to build up it's In-House studios and also put it's Arcade teams to work on consumer based software and conversions and even with 10 In-House studios by the time of the DC (12 odd World Wide and some with 4 or more productions lines ) it was clear you needed 3rd party support on your console .






No other developer could have made a platform game of that quality at the time, and truth be told most have bettered it since.

[kool kitty89]

Wait what!? Looking at the sales of all the Nintendo consoles and it's quiet easy to see that it was Nintendo that was dominating the top sales:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...games#Nintendo

6 of the top 10 selling NES games were from Nintendo. 8 of the top 10 for the SNES are from Nintendo. 10 of the 10 ten selling N64 games were from Nintendo. That is a stark contrast to Sega who only managed only 5 of the top 10 Genesis games. 4 in the the PSx from Sony, 2 on the PS2 from Sony. Even looking at the Xbox and 360 the numbers are the same. You mentions Sega's in house software resources but what does it matter if they aren't selling a ton of units?

That's a really bad way to look at things . . . you can't just go by the single top selling games, as those can still only make up a very small part of the market. Other games may sell far less individually, but make up FAR more collectively.

That fact also skews the comparison with Sega's 1st party software on the Genesis: Sega had FAR, FAR more titles published by them, and I'll bet those total to substantially more units sold than all Nintendo published games on the SNES. (though I'll bet 3rd party software sales still outstripped Sega's by a wide margin)

Plus, remember that (unlike pre-crash consoles in the west), nearly 100% of those publishers were paying royalties to Sega and Nintendo (more so for Nintendo), so every 3rd party title sold was more money in the bank. (or more money to invest into software/hardware R&D and marketing)

NCL thought they didn't mass 3rd party support they've never been helpful to 3rd parties it never held back the NES, the SNES so why you deem it such an issues with the N64 I do not know. Lauching so late and giving SEGA and SONY such a massive window was what cost NCL as well as the lack of a CD-Rom drive.

It didn't hold back the NES because 3rd parties were effectively forced to publish for the system since they had no other option: there was no real competition in Japan until NEC (and even then not strong/well managed enough to really pull 3rd party interest from Nintendo)

Even though that would have meant SEGA not being able to launch till 96, would have had all the same issues with a console being hard to developer for and an ever more costly development environment. I'm sure SEGA would have gone for CD-Rom meaning that chipset would have been in Saturn price point too and then SEGA would have issues with blurry textures washed out colours. I'm not seeing any really major advantage at all here

That's not necessarily true, the development of the chipset could have gone differently anyway, and in any case, a 1996 release could have been a massive boon for Sega regardless.
1996 was an excellent time to launch in Sega's biggest market (North America) and not too bad for Europe either . . . more of an issue for Japan, but Sega's chances there weren't very good anyway. (better to build on your strengths and risk them for something less significant and generally questionable)

Sega obviously would have had CD-ROM, and still an overall cheaper system than the Saturn (highly consolidated chipset, unified bus with 4 MB RAM, etc -RDRAM was nominally expensive, but the partnership with SGI obviously bypassed that -and as it was, SGI was basically using the N64 as a marketing gimmick for RDRAM with hopes that it would bolster overall market sales -which it didn't, but that deal still worked great for Nintendo ).

Sega wouldn't have had the restrictions on 3rd parties either, so you'd almost certainly have seen far more substantial 3rd party support and more use of the hardware in general (even without better tools than Nintendo/SGI had historically).

You'd have 2D and 3D capabilities technically superior to the Playstation in basically every respect and considerable advantages over what the Saturn could do in 2D as well. (though probably not better in every instance) Not to mention better multimedia capabilities than the Saturn, and potentially better multimedia capabilities than the PSX. (depending on the audio and video compression schemes used -the N64's chipset had the potential to manage better than MJPEG or H.261 and much better than ADPCM audio)

Then there's the general assumption (based on SoJ giving the go-ahead for the SGI partnership) that SoA would have had more substantial influence on software development (and management in general) that generation, and the 32x wouldn't have existed at all (obviously).
Sega's biggest problems with the Saturn was general management and marketing . . . especially for North America. Software was wrong for the market, the release date was wrong, marketing was screwed up, pricing was screwed up (and price-matching Sony cut into marketing funds), and that all got progressively worse as cash flow faltered. (and then the whole PR mess from the 32x being released and then clashing with the Saturn -and Genesis, and market in general- and getting shut down early -with obviously PR backlash- and then the massive PR issues with consumers, developers, and retailers over the mess Sega made in May of 1995 with the Saturn's early release -exacerbating the whole 32x problem substantially, on top of hurting the Saturn in its won right with high price, poor software support, poor distribution, and generally odd release time -seriously, who launches a new console in the spring? . . . 32x or no, a September -or even November- launch would have made far more sense, especially if well organized -though the timing alone would make it inherently better organized)

No way could they have given SEGA a chipset at the price point needed for a mass-market console at that time

Why not? I'm talking in general here . . . ie for R&D collaboration for a console design with low cost as a primary concern (perhaps with plans to repurpose it as a low-cost arcade board too -as with the Titan and Naomi . . . and others prior to that).
Though partnering with another 3rd party could have made sense too. (again, ATi may have been an interesting possibility given their Mach/Rage graphics/multimedia chipsets -2D+3D+MPEG-1) Actually, ATi would have been especially good due to the excellent APi/library support available for their designs. (excellent for console games and great for PC ports) Of course, it was another 2 generations before any game console actually used an ATi chipset. (but the 2 most popular consoles are using them this generation )

Still I still think Sega should have been able to design a very nice, streamlined, cost-effective 2D/3D console on their own . . . I'm not sure why the Saturn ended up the way it did. (if they'd had something as efficient or cost effective as the Jaguar it would be another story, but that's not the case -even more so since Sega's resources should have meant a faster turnaround for that design with many more bug fixes and perhaps added features due to accelerated development -many of the Jaguar's limitations came from it being mostly designed in 1990 -that is the core logic documents and architectural design- the rest of the time was spent on implementation in silicon and trouble shooting -so with faster development, they could have started the later -like '92- and had a far better perspective on market needs)

The PS2 came out 6 years after the PS 1st launched, exactly the same time frame to the Mega Drive to the Saturn , the Snes to the N64. And even then SONY was still able to make a killing on PS sales even with the PS2 out .

I already agreed with this several times and expanded upon it. . .

Again with the excuses . It was about the money it was the fact with a great line up games and an attractive price point and still great 3rd party support the PS2 was still an attractive console to buy even after the PS3 came out . So no I really doubt launching the N64 in 1995 would have hurt Snes sales or N64 sales at all.

N64 in 1995 would have potentially hurt SNES sales if Nintendo used their same limited R&D and marketing budgets (ie made direct trade-offs for SNES and N64 investing) . . . expanding their overall budget would be a different topic. (riskier to be sure, and probably not something Nintendo would do -Sega OTOH probably would be willing to do so, especially SoA at the time)

please stop moving the goal posts all the time.

I'm talking about a composite of issues that branched from the fundamental topic. (many of which are important to provide supporting arguments for the main topic)
So, yes, I stand by that statement.

SEGA in 1994 had one of its biggest revenue years in its history, true to say sales of MD hardware were down but that will always happen in a console life cycle . SEGA was still selling massive amounts of Hardware , posting great profits and selling lots of software

In North America, according to several well-documented sources, Sega was most definitely down in 1994 by a good margin . . . the contention comes from whether they were down in 1993 or up in that year. (there's a detailed study on the North American slump that was quoted in Kent's UHoVG book . . . it's not available publically -it's a private university study- but is well documented and I know sheath has a copy -you could ask him in a PM if you'd like to see it)
However, there's also this document that contradicts that somewhat with revenue in 1992 being lower than '93 in the US (though 1994 is consistent) . . . and that's all marked as calendar years, not fiscal years. (so fiscal years may be the issue -especially Japanese fiscal years)

Just stop it now. No console on it's lauch or in its 1st year is mass market it neither as the broad enough range of games or the price point for that , that always comes latter in the console life cycle . What SONY should was there was more than enough people in 1995 to make the jump to the next gen , and SONY took away sales from not just the Mega Drive and SNES but also massive amounts of one time SEGA and NCL fans.

I highly doubt the PSX had much impact on MD/SNES sales in '95 . . . it was a high-end niche product that interested many users who wouldn't have been buying more MD/SNES stuff anyway. (perhaps it pulled interest away from PCs . . . or more so 3DO, Jaguar, and 32x )

And yes, some consoles are mass market almost from day 1, and if they're not, there's a lot more than software and price point impacting things as well. (the Colecovision, NES, SMS, PC Engine, 7800, Wii, Dreamcast, Game Cube, and N64 were all at realistic mass-market price points at launch, and several had substantial enough software to reach mass market acceptance as well -though many of those had other problems with management, marketing, or overall market problems -like the '83 crash- compromising them)

That is where SEGA truly cocked up in the 32 bit war and not getting SONIC ready early in.

Sonic and sports (especially football), and various genres popularized on PCs at the time, and problematic 3rd party support, etc. (as for PC genres, FPSs or "Doom clones" were already starting to get really big . . . space combat sims were in their golden age, etc)
Of course, that's not addressing Sega's massive foibles with the Saturn's launch in the US and its other flaws. (hardware, software/SDK, etc)

What Sega needed with the Saturn was something much, much closer to what they did with the Dreamcast . . . except without the 32x/Saturn failure and cash flow problems haunting them.

It won most of the world over with Mario 64 and we all know it . The N64 support was limited even in the USA , Nintendo America had to slash the price of the console early in (moves you slate SEGA for) but it didn't matter when you had Mario 64 to save the day

That's like saying Sonic made the Genesis or Mario made the NES alone . . . there's far, far more to it than that, and marketing is at the top of that. Killer apps won't go anywhere without the necessary marketing/distribution/management, that's what Sega totally screwed up with the Master System in the US (and NEC with the TG-16), among other things.

There hasn't been a single successful (or at least popular) console in North America that didn't sport great marketing.

The Mega Drive with out Sonic, John Madden would never as sold as well as it did, even if SEGA spent billions and billions on pushing the system imo . You got to make games people want to play at the end of the day.

Genesis without good management and marketing would have almost certainly been another Master System . . . and EA would have gone unlicensed, possible sued by Sega. (that's the way things were looking without Katz's management skills -and Kalinske's follow-up to that)

The DC ads were pretty limited and crap, more so in Pal land , the X-Box and 360 marketing just dire since day one imo . I will agree NCL run a slick campaign with the Wii and SONY who's push of the PS3 has been way better than MS 360 ad in the USA and UK (especially the Kevin Butler ads) still lead the PS3 to be way behind the 360 in the USA and UK

In the US, the marketing campaigns of the DC managed to pull Sega's rep back out of the muck from the mid/late 90s, and for a time it looked like it just might bring them back to the mainstream. (the software was also excellent, both in quality and in terms of fitting the mass market at the time -and the architecture and tools made it extremely attractive and efficient to develop for)

They had expert marketing in the US at the time . . . not sure about Japan and Europe, but apparently they were rather crap (especially Europe). The DC's management/marketing shows many similarities to the Genesis, except they started with an even more uphill battle than against Nintendo in 1990, had major monetary issues, and had lost their brand loyalty in Europe.

and people will not be interested in your product with out good software.

Mediocre software can still win the day if marketed well enough . . . especially if it's only partially mediocre with significant redeeming qualities (like graphics and multimedia eye candy).
Plus, 3rd party support almost inevitably means a fair amount of good games in general . . . and marketing (and tactful management for licensing/relations with 3rd parties) will almost certainly get you that, especially with enough money. (though money without tactful management will get you nowhere)

You look at most NCL software charts and its always dominated by NCL published or NCL produced games

Already addressed this above.

[Team Andromeda]

It didn't hold back the NES because 3rd parties were effectively forced to publish for the system since they had no other option: there was no real competition in Japan until NEC (

3rd Parties didn't flock to the NEC PC -Eng . So you're a bit mute on that point .

That's not necessarily true, the development of the chipset could have gone differently anyway, and in any case, a 1996 release could have been a massive boon for Sega regardless.
1996 was an excellent time to launch in Sega's biggest market (North America) and not too bad for Europe either

The USA was SONY and NCL biggest market, yet the PS2 , the Snes ECT was launched in Japan 1st - why you expect SEGA to act any different, when in the history of video games Manufactures launch in their domestic homeland (bar 1 or 2 exceptions ) I really do not know. And giving SONY a year head start and the market completely and utterly to it's self would have been the end for SEGA even more so .And as for the chipset going the other way I seriously doubt it

Sega obviously would have had CD-ROM, and still an overall cheaper system than the Saturn

You're having a laugh the N64 launched for 25,000 yen add in a 100 - 150 quid double speed CD-Rom and you're in Saturn price point more so with added RAM needed if SEGA were to have gone the CD-Rom Route .

I already agreed with this several times and expanded upon it.

So stop going on about a rushed launch or not support a system long enough . When SEGA supported the Mega Drive for as long as SONY and NCL supported the PS, the SNES before brining out their successors. It may have escaped your notice that the Mega Drive shipped in 1988.

Why not? I'm talking in general here

You do know that ST-V was vastly less expensive than Model 1,never mind Model 2 for starters a clear sign of which chipset cost less to make

You'd have 2D and 3D capabilities technically superior to the Playstation in basically every respect and considerable advantages over what the Saturn could do in 2D as well.

I don't agree at all. For the main the PS and Saturn had the better chipsets , better display more detailed texture maps, way better sound and better blend of 2D and 3D games.

Still I still think Sega should have been able to design a very nice, streamlined, cost-effective 2D/3D console on their own

I think the Saturn was a class system and where it was really let down was in the lighting and 3D transparent dept - Which made a lot of PS games look better simply because you do nicer effects and lens flare.

In North America, according to several well-documented sources

I just go on CSK reports to the Stock market at time .

I highly doubt the PSX had much impact on MD/SNES sales in '95

I'm really can't be bothered to post the old top 20 sales charts in those day, only to say the 10 was becoming more and more dominated by PS games and not Mega Drive or Snes game.

And yes, some consoles are mass market almost from day 1, and if they're not

Stop talking such utter rubbish . Each console launched comes in at a high price point and is lacking in must have games on their launch, then after a year price cuts come in, there more must have games and then it opens up the console to the casuals or floating consumers

Genesis without good management and marketing would have almost certainly been another Master System

You know Kazts is an unsung SEGA hero to get the sales he did was pretty good going. But the day SEGA showed Sonic to the world at the CES show was the day that the Mega Drive became a must have console and backed up by John Madden 1 and 92 it was an unbeatable combinational.

In the US, the marketing campaigns of the DC managed to pull Sega's rep back out of the muck from the mid/late 90s

They did much better, but again one look at Sonic Adv and more so NFL 2k made so many in the USA want the console - giving the PR boys a much easier task of selling the console .

They had expert marketing in the US at the time . . . not sure about Japan and Europe, but apparently they were rather crap (especially Europe).

SEGA Japan spent a lot and tried, but the damage was already done. SEGA Europe was run by a French baboon at the time sadly enough.

There hasn't been a single successful (or at least popular) console in North America that didn't sport great marketing.

Sigh... I doubt there been a single or at least popular console in N. America that didn't have a 'must have' title to call it own

Already addressed this above.

I don't think you have myself

[j_factor]

What's this thread about, again?

[sketch]

No one knows...