Support NeoGAF

[Eddie-Griffin]

With zero marketing or fanfare. They were testing the waters to see how people would react to the console and its games,

NES had two releases the AVS and another NES after, they had heavy marketing and promised retailers they would pay for any unsold inventory they didn't want. The press was all over the test launch and they sold half their allocation.

Flooding the market isn't exactly a smart strategy unless you're really confident in your system,

You don't seem to understand what time period you are referring to, or the fact that demand for games was still there, so blocking up retailers and dominating coverage makes it so you're the only choice available, so people who wanted video games would have to go with Nintendo.

Let's be frank here, most consumers didn't know the 7800 and SMS were on sale. Anyone who saw 2600s back on the shelves scooped them up. If NES is seen as the only option than consumers either buy it or they don't because in many parts of the country there wasn't anything else to buy. Nintendo knew there was a vacuum the fill they weren't dumb, Yamuchi the CEO said it himself out his own mouth,

Oh it has everything to do with it. The NES wouldn't have been half as successful without SMB as it was by far its biggest release and a seminal game remembered to this day. It showcased the NES technical prowess/advantage over the 2600 and sold the system almost single-handedly. The 2600 came close? That's not exactly impressive considering it had far longer on the market and was far cheaper by that point.

You're really having issues with this 2600 thing. It's is impressive because it meant Nintendo was almost lapped by a 1977 system after it spend gosh knows how much money to dominate retail and coverage with help from distribution partners, yet completely demolished just by sheer volume the 7800 and Sega with the SMS, but couldn't do that with the 7800. SMB was a free giveaway with the systems, it had fans and had good coverage but pretending that SMB alone was selling NES doesn't really work given the test launches in 1985 and 1986 which had the game already, and the fact the 2600 was right behind the NES in the US market in 1986 after the company was written off my armchair analysts outside the industry as dead, and Tramiel taking over the company a death nail.

In fact, Nintendo has more positive press than Atari until Tramiel turned the company around starting with the ST in 85.

Mismanaging the market and Atari's (lack) of quality control/financial woes are very well established though.

Has nothing to do with the 2600 in 1986, and Atari didn't have financial woes in 1986, and you seem to be getting your Ataris mixed up. Atari Inc =/= Atari Corp.

The 2600 launched before the NES didn't it? That 7800 and SMS didn't come close to matching the 2600 in sales only proves the dire condition consoles were in at the time.

Your conclusion is illogical and doesn't make any sense. Also I'm just going to assume you're trolling me and not actually reading my post because I directly said 'what' 2600 released in 1986 and you disregarded it entirely. it also contradicts the point you were trying to make before since you brought up "other" consoles and the only other consoles at the time were the 7800 and SMS.

All I'm trying to establish is that the NES had obvious advantages over the 2600 that made it more appealing and desirable to consumers

The problem is you're not realizing this is a subjective argument and it also works the other way around with people who saw things that weren't desirable, it's factual Nintendo created fragmentation with the NES, it's well known and a flaw that would end up being to the advantage of Sega and then Sony later on.

that it was innovative software that sold the NES in the end and the biggest reason for its success, and that Atari was barely competing by that point, selling on price and name recognition alone, as you couldn't even point to a single game that offered anything the other systems couldn't do, nor anything matching the quality of games on the NES at the time, and the 7800 flopping marking the end of Atari as a viable competitor/gaming company.

7800 didn't (commercially) flop, it just didn't win.

Atari was competing with the NES for 2 years with the 2600.

You're just saying what you want to believe. The rest of your statements are about things I never argued, but you're pretending I did. Your whole position is subjective. Some people wanted NES games and some didn't there's nothing controversial about those words (and Sega ended up proving this even more with the Genesis) this game vs game argument was never made, it's irrelevant to the conversation.

All I said was that the 2600 sold well despite all the factors against it showing there was still demand for the console and buyers didn't abandon it (which you've tried to argue multiple times) and that it's very likely the NES may have either lost, or still won but may have had a harder time winning (not as much of a landslide in sales after 87) if they played fair, which they didn't and this is also well documented.

You just seem to (over) hate the 2600 for some reason. I never pitted games on one system against the other like you're trying to do, which is a pointless debate because that's subjective. As seen by 2600 sales.

Frankly I don't like either console. They both were outdated and held console gaming back and made it so consoles had to wait 10 years to hit 3D.

 

[shiru]

You don't seem to understand what time period you are referring to, or the fact that demand for games was still there, so blocking up retailers and dominating coverage makes it so you're the only choice available, so people who wanted video games would have to go with Nintendo.

By your own admission the 2600 came close to the NES and sold 800k, outselling both the 7800/SMS in 1986 so I'm not sure what blocking/retailer embargo you're referring to. I didn't say there was no demand for games at the time, only a lack of offer.

Let's be frank here, most consumers didn't know the 7800 and SMS were on sale. Anyone who saw 2600s back on the shelves scooped them up. If NES is seen as the only option than consumers either buy it or they don't because in many parts of the country there wasn't anything else to buy. Nintendo knew there was a vacuum the fill they weren't dumb, Yamuchi the CEO said it himself out his own mouth,

100k 7800 and 125k to 250k SMS were sold in 1986, those are pretty decent numbers for a new console with basically no games/killer apps. Still embarrassing to be outsold by a decade old potato.

You're really having issues with this 2600 thing. It's is impressive because it meant Nintendo was almost lapped by a 1977 system after it spend gosh knows how much money to dominate retail and coverage with help from distribution partners, yet completely demolished just by sheer volume the 7800 and Sega with the SMS, but couldn't do that with the 7800. SMB was a free giveaway with the systems, it had fans and had good coverage but pretending that SMB alone was selling NES doesn't really work given the test launches in 1985 and 1986 which had the game already, and the fact the 2600 was right behind the NES in the US market in 1986 after the company was written off my armchair analysts outside the industry as dead, and Tramiel taking over the company a death nail.

I don't have an issue with the 2600. I have an issue with the claim that the NES only sold and dominated the console space solely due to anti-competitive practices, and ignoring its virtues and software, which is what really sells consoles in the end, not marketing or retailer deals. The test regions and focus group testing gave Nintendo the necessary market information to know they had a hit on their hands and scale production accordingly.

Has nothing to do with the 2600 in 1986, and Atari didn't have financial woes in 1986, and you seem to be getting your Ataris mixed up. Atari Inc =/= Atari Corp.

Atari was hemorrhaging money in 1983 and 84, due to declining sales after having saturated the market with shoddy releases, leading to its parent company to sell its Atari division that year. They got rid of them for a reason. The burial site isn't a myth.

Your conclusion is illogical and doesn't make any sense. Also I'm just going to assume you're trolling me and not actually reading my post because I directly said 'what' 2600 released in 1986 and you disregarded it entirely. it also contradicts the point you were trying to make before since you brought up "other" consoles and the only other consoles at the time were the 7800 and SMS.

The 2600 wasn't on the market until the 2600 jr?

The problem is you're not realizing this is a subjective argument and it also works the other way around with people who saw things that weren't desirable, it's factual Nintendo created fragmentation with the NES, it's well known and a flaw that would end up being to the advantage of Sega and then Sony later on.

What fragmentation are you talking about? How did they create it? Consumers didn't know that they had choice after all, what with Nintendo blocking the competition so how would people know any better to create any ill-will toward them?

7800 didn't (commercially) flop, it just didn't win.

Ha! The Gamecube didn't flop, it just didn't win.

Atari was competing with the NES for 2 years with the 2600.

You're just saying what you want to believe. The rest of your statements are about things I never argued, but you're pretending I did. Your whole position is subjective. Some people wanted NES games and some didn't there's nothing controversial about those words (and Sega ended up proving this even more with the Genesis) this game vs game argument was never made, it's irrelevant to the conversation.

All I said was that the 2600 sold well despite all the factors against it showing there was still demand for the console and buyers didn't abandon it (which you've tried to argue multiple times) and that it's very likely the NES may have either lost, or still won but may have had a harder time winning (not as much of a landslide in sales after 87) if they played fair, which they didn't and this is also well documented.

You just seem to (over) hate the 2600 for some reason. I never pitted games on one system against the other like you're trying to do, which is a pointless debate because that's subjective. As seen by 2600 sales.

They were competing only in the most shallow sense, I already said they were a failing gaming company which had nothing on offer to warrant any long term success. I don't "hate" the 2600, that's just you projecting and taking this so personally for some reason. I repeat, there was a demand for gaming prior to the NES, there just weren't good alternatives. And the advantages the NES had over the 2600 are not subjective, it was a far more advanced system offering a more robust gameplay experience than what was possible on the aging 2600. Which is what made it become the leading home console system in the end.

They both were outdated and held console gaming back and made it so consoles had to wait 10 years to hit 3D.

An absolutely asinine statement.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

By your own admission the 2600 came close to the NES and sold 800k, outselling both the 7800/SMS in 1986 so I'm not sure what blocking/retailer embargo you're referring to. I didn't say there was no demand for games at the time, only a lack of offer.

In 1986, that declined in 1987, and became very low in 1988.

Also in 1986, more press coverage with SMS and 7800 despite being hard to find at stores, and then that dropped in 1987, and vanished by end of 1988 for most press.

Sega had to sign with Tonka hoping they would get them into stores in 87, and Atari brought out a retailer.

By your own admission the 2600 came close to the NES and sold 800k, outselling both the 7800/SMS in 1986 so I'm not sure what blocking/retailer embargo you're referring to. I didn't say there was no demand for games at the time, only a lack of offer.


100k 7800 and 125k to 250k SMS were sold in 1986,

Sega only sold 125k, and brought in a lot more so those weren't good sales. 7800 sold out and could only produce 100k in 86, that's a very big difference.

The burial site isn't a myth.

The reason for the burial site is a myth, as well as the content of the burial site. Atari was already putting excess inventory and defective product in landfills before E.T. existed and there were not millions of ET carts buried, the whole issue of ET (nd Pac man) being a cause of the crash was done retroactively. No such articles exist even a few years after the time the game was released, it was completely designed to generate a story.

It also has nothing to do with the 2600 and NES in 1986.

The 2600 wasn't on the market until the 2600 jr?

I'm going to assume this is a troll since this conversation ahs been about 2600 and NES which wouldn't take place before 1986 when both were nationally launched You also twice avoided your own comment of and "other" consoles, which would only include the 7800 and SMS at the time, now you're trying to argue as if we haven't been talking about 1986 this whole time.

Ha! The Gamecube didn't flop, it just didn't win.

Gamecube lost Nintendo money, nice try though,

What fragmentation are you talking about? How did they create it? Consumers didn't know that they had choice after all, what with Nintendo blocking the competition so how would people know any better to create any ill-will toward them?

Fragmentation - "the process or state of breaking or being broken into small or separate parts."

As in NES caused fragmentation with their policies so there was a group of gamers that were up for grabs that the NES wasn't grabbing, some went to PC, many ended up going to the Genesis later, and then after that Sony. We saw Nintendo decline 3 consoles in a row after NES due to their lack of fixing that problem.

They were competing only in the most shallow definition of the word,

Atari in 1986 was not a failing company it was a new turnaround for the company under new ownership. I have no idea why you keep trying to act like the 2600 wasn't competing when it was, and then going back to Atari inc as an excuse when they didn't even exist in 1986.

I don't have an issue with the 2600. I have an issue with the claim that the NES only sold and dominated the console space solely due to anti-competitive tactics, and ignoring its virtues and software, which is what really sells consoles in the end, not marketing or retailer deals. The test launch and focus group testing gave Nintendo the necessary market information to know the system was going to be a success and scale production accordingly.

By the time the most talked about NES games came out in 88 or later the console had pushed out competition and there were lawsuits ongoing. Before that despite the games. In 1986 Nintendo was already starting that phase out of the competition and controlling retail and coverage, but the 2600 had enough pent up demand to prevent that from happening quicker. if the games were not worth anything as you said than the 2600 had no business getting that close to the NES because of it's 300x superior software.

Again, the software argument is pointless because it's subjective and you aren't considering that many people didn't want those games too, none of this is one-sided. There was no test group market information that would give Nintendo information to flood a million consoles in the retail channels, they did that to control the market and they had partners like Worlds of wonder and others to gatekeep for them, Sega nor Atari had anything like that.

You should look into some books on the subject, Nintendo did a quite a few things and deal with several partners launching the NES, they didn't just do a test and get 1 million units in stores, they got help to get 1 million consoles into stores through means that were directly tied to later lawsuits.

Now, being fair not every sale of NES consoles from 1986 through 1987 was bad. Some grew up with it as the only thing they knew and got their friends on board, some people were actually interested in some of the games released during this time. Nintendo had a great marketing campaign by itself to get attention from some players and parents especially.

But it's also true that some people didn't. The void Sega was able to take advantage of (as well as the growth in computer gaming later) was there for a reason, because Nintendo wasn't able to fill it. You're argument requires one to believe there was no void.

An absolutely asinine statement.

Consoles went from being closer to computers and arcade to being miles away even with some lower end cabinets.

The NES was based on the famicom, and had to use chips in the cartridges to run many of the games the system couldn't run other wise but still had the weaknesses of the famicom which was made with 1982 parts and released in 1983 inspired by the Colecovision.

The Sega Master system was an upgrade from the SG-1000 which was also inspired by the Colecovision and is almost a clone in specs. Also made from 1982 parts and while the SMS is stronger than the SG-1000 some of the weaknesses of the hardware other than a strong graphics chip was still retained.

The 7800 was also a system that was made from 82-83 parts, that was supposed to launch in 1984 paused by the sale to jack Tramiel.

All 3 of these consoles launched in the US in 1986 (4 including the 2600 junior, 5 if including XEGS). These were all outdated from the start suddenly the hardware problems the industry was moving away from were back including slowdown, flicker and etc. We should have already had Genesis level hardware in 1986, Japan was lucky to get the PC Engine in 87 and only had to deal with the famicom for another year.

In this case that goes for all the consoles, not just Nintendo. If those consoles didn't get cheap so fast I would have skipped that "gen".

 

[shiru]

In 1986, that declined in 1987, and became very low in 1988.

Also in 1986, more press coverage with SMS and 7800 despite being hard to find at stores, and then that dropped in 1987, and vanished by end of 1988 for most press.

Sega had to sign with Tonka hoping they would get them into stores in 87, and Atari brought out a retailer.

Yeah, not viable gaming systems in the end.

Sega only sold 125k, and brought in a lot more so those weren't good sales. 7800 sold out and could only produce 100k in 86, that's a very big difference.

Context matters. Sega was also a newcomer, and still managed to outsell Atari's new system. Regardless, 800k 2600 consoles were still sold in 1986, which shouldn't have been possible since they weren't being carried by retailers, according to you.
Did Atari also 'flooded' the market?

The reason for the burial site is a myth, as well as the content of the burial site. Atari was already putting excess inventory and defective product in landfills before E.T. existed and there were not millions of ET carts buried, the whole issue of ET (nd Pac man) being a cause of the crash was done retroactively. No such articles exist even a few years after the time the game was released, it was completely designed to generate a story.

It also has nothing to do with the 2600 and NES in 1986.

I didn't say it had anything to do with console wars in 1986, it was an example of market incompetence on Atari's part at the time, which got them the boot by Warner.

I'm going to assume this is a troll since this conversation ahs been about 2600 and NES which wouldn't take place before 1986 when both were nationally launched You also twice avoided your own comment of and "other" consoles, which would only include the 7800 and SMS at the time, now you're trying to argue as if we haven't been talking about 1986 this whole time.

Alright, you win.

Gamecube lost Nintendo money, nice try though,

We're talking about success by sales metrics and market positioning, not profits. Both the 7800 and GC were commercial failures for their respective companies, regardless of corporate financials.

Fragmentation - "the process or state of breaking or being broken into small or separate parts."

As in NES caused fragmentation with their policies so there was a group of gamers that were up for grabs that the NES wasn't grabbing, some went to PC, many ended up going to the Genesis later, and then after that Sony. We saw Nintendo decline 3 consoles in a row after NES due to their lack of fixing that problem.

Shit, that sounds a lot like competition and choice.

By the time the most talked about NES games came out in 88 or later the console had pushed out competition and there were lawsuits ongoing. Before that despite the games. In 1986 Nintendo was already starting that phase out of the competition and controlling retail and coverage, but the 2600 had enough pent up demand to prevent that from happening quicker. if the games were not worth anything as you said than the 2600 had no business getting that close to the NES because of it's 300x superior software.

I already said brand name and especially price were a big factor in the 2600 jr attaining such sales. It's not a coincidence that it retailed for less than 50$, since it was already deprecated at launch.

Again, the software argument is pointless because it's subjective and you aren't considering that many people didn't want those games too, none of this is one-sided. There was no test group market information that would give Nintendo information to flood a million consoles in the retail channels, they did that to control the market and they had partners like Worlds of wonder and others to gatekeep for them, Sega nor Atari had anything like that.

You should look into some books on the subject, Nintendo did a quite a few things and deal with several partners launching the NES, they didn't just do a test and get 1 million units in stores, they got help to get 1 million consoles into stores through means that were directly tied to later lawsuits.

Now, being fair not every sale of NES consoles from 1986 through 1987 was bad. Some grew up with it as the only thing they knew and got their friends on board, some people were actually interested in some of the games released during this time. Nintendo had a great marketing campaign by itself to get attention from some players and parents especially.

But it's also true that some people didn't. The void Sega was able to take advantage of (as well as the growth in computer gaming later) was there for a reason, because Nintendo wasn't able to fill it. You're argument requires one to believe there was no void.

(edit: was a bit too harsh) The NES succeded primarily due to its SOFTWARE, and had the console not had any games or killer apps that people wanted to play, it would have bombed like the 7800, and SMS relatively. People simply won't buy a product they don't like or have any interest in not matter how much of it you ship to retailers or market/advertise. The Megadrive was a next gen console offering an arcade-like experience at home in 1988, it's not even fair to compare. It also had a launch advantage over the SNES by two years, and differentiated themselves with edgy marketing and games.

 

[correojon]

Well I don't see how it affected the rest of the game anymore than SDT affected the rest of DMC5 or DS affected the rest of B3. In fact Bayo 3 if anything revolves more around the super mode in that game seeing as almost half of cerezas combat sections you literally need to use it to break enemy force fields or to enter barriers to fight enemies which cereza can't enter. In B2 you don't have to do anything like that, it is entirely optional.

Enemies in Bayo2 have a lot more health, can't be launched by normal attacks, will at most flinch at WWs, will parry very frequently, the enemy cast itself contains many more big enemies, the scoring system was redesigned around UC (the "combo" score accounts for damage and doesn't consider attack variety), the challenge scores were set to beat them with UC (combo/damage and time have been set around UC), Witch Time effectiveness was shortened a lot but at the same time the game has been redesigned to require WT...Now tell me how adding SDT affected the design of DMCV in comparison to DMC 3 or 4.

You also say: "almost half of cerezas combat sections you literally need to use it to break enemy force fields or to enter barriers to fight enemies", really? Almost half of the encounters? Are you sure you are not exaggerating just a tiny bit? The moment you start to claim such blatantly false statements it makes me think that you're more interested in "winning the discussion" than in actually having a honest argument.

And yes, if other super modes are bad but people don't criticise them but criticise UC then it's hypocrisy.

Let's see if I'm understanding your train of thought to say that UC is not broken:

1. You claim that UC is the same for Bayo2 as SDT for DMC or DS for Bayo3, ignoring how Bayo 2's design was negatively affected by UC and how that didn't happen for DMCV nor Bayo3, which is the main reason why people say UC is bad.
2. You then say all these systems are broken. At this point you're admitting that UC is broken, so I don't know what you're defending any more.
3. It's all hipocrisy. It's understandable for you to say this if you keep ignoring everything in 1), but I still don't understand how this is an argument in favour of UC not being broken.

>One allows you to forget about defense for a while and the other does the same for offense.

Nope. Using PB as an example even if you have the butterfly shield it is still optimal to get WT dodges as much as possible because you don't want the sheidl to break and the benefits you get in WT. I don't get this logic.

So then you're saying that the ideal usage of PB is to not need it? How does that add ANY depth at all to the combat? You are just playing as normal.
Your argument was that UC was not broken because there were better ways to use magic, like PB and IC, but neither of them seem to add any depth at all to the combat at best and at worst they even remove it, by allowing you to automate and not have to engage in defense (PB) or in offense (IC). Remember that we're evaluating all of this on the grounds of what makes the combat more fun and interesting, not on finding a min-maxed strategy to beat the game.

>I already said that if it is so, it's a huge oversight. BTW, you said that summoning a kiss takes 4 seconds, that's enough for any boss in Expert to kill her, I'm really surprised that it never happened to you.
Anyway, it doesn't completely invalidate the whole system though.

Only if the boss has a "summon-killer" move like Beast Luka. However it's not like they do it every time and they usually only pull it out if your summon has been on screen longer.

Nope, all bosses can kill or enrage your summons really quickly if they focus on them in Expert and above, they don't need a special move (which a lot of them have, not just Strider, even "regular" enemies like Beloveds do).
Still, you say that they only pull it if your summon has been out for long and that you have tailored your playstyle to avoid that. That seems like a way to balance the system and one that is working, because you yourself are using it, right?

>Anyway, it doesn't completely invalidate the whole system though.

Elaborate. And how exactly does UC "invalidate the whole system"

It doesn't completely invalidate the system because you're talking about one very specific scenario: Using Madam's kisses on a loop against a single enemy.

>Why would you do that? If you just tap into UC for a single attack you waste a lot of magic. It's obvious that the game is discouraging using it in that way.

You only waste about 3 orbs compared to 9 orbs for a full combo.

Yeah, but if you use 9 orbs you're comparatively doing much more damage for the cost. Say a single UC hit does 100 damage:

• Tapping UC for a single launcher: 100 damage, 3 orbs = 33.3damage/orb
• Full PPPPP combo: 100damage*10hits (let's say the final barrage does 5 extra hits, they're probably more) = 1000damage, 9 orbs = 111.1damage/orb. I'm being very conservative, I'm not even counting the final super WW that summons the full demon and surely does more damage than standard WWs.

You're doing 3 times more damage per orb with a full UC activation. And this is considering you're just hitting one enemy, if there is more than one enemy being affected by the attacks the difference becomes much, much higher with every additional enemy. You're wasting A LOT of meter this way, it's clearly a very inefficient way to use UC and it's the way the designers are telling you that you shouldn't be using it this way.

That's like saying flash slave is useless since you're wasting a small chunk of mana rather than using DS until the bar runs out.

The difference is that DS has been designed with all those different uses in mind. For once, you can build up magic much faster in 3 than in 2. You can interrupt summons at any time and instantly stop magic consumption. The meter is a continuous bar instead of discrete orbs, so you can control magic consumption much better than with UC where you're restricted to full orbs. The whole system has been explicitly designed to provide more flexibility so you can use it in smaller chunks or in a single long activation. And the great thing is that there is not a single right answer: Sometimes it's better to use Wink Slave to add an extra punch to your combos, others you can use Assault Slave for protection, others you can just pop the Demon in for a quick attack, others you want to keep it out (which can on itself be for different reasons: To deal damage, to apply a special effect, to immobilize enemies, to show invisible enemies...), others you want to buffer attacks and alternate attacking with Bayo without the Demon leaving...Also, you use the system in a different way for each of these actions: Some are instant fire and forget actions, others require more attention and inputs, some are in the middle. This is a rich system with many nuances.

>But even if you did, once you launch a big enemy...then what? You can't juggle it without UC.

You don't need to. A launch delays its movements for quite a while giving you ample time to deal damage or finish an enemy off.

Not without UC, because the enemy health pools have been severely increased. You can't launch an enemy once and kill it (or even just deal a significant amount of damage) before it recovers, apart of the smallest minions.

>Summarizing: You have to activate UC at the right moment when you're perfoming a launcher, so you can instantly deactivate it to not waste any more magic than necessary and all to do less damage, use more magic and have less options that if you just left it running?

Not true you waste like 3 orbs IIRC compared to like 9 for a full bar.

You use more magic comparatively, you're wasting more than 3X meter if you just activate UC for a launcher. If you repeat this 3 times (9 orbs) you'll do a total of 300 damage, while a full activation (9 orbs) will net you more than 1000 against a single enemy. For 2 enemies it's 600 VS 2000, for 3 it's 900 VS 3000 and so on. Like I said, this is a HUGE waste of meter.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Yeah, not viable gaming systems in the end.

Can't be viable if you can't sell your product.

Context matters. Sega was also a newcomer, and still managed to outsell Atari's new system.

No they didn't. they only outsold it in 1986 because Atari could only produce what they sold that year. Sega had much more stock and only sold 25k more than then the 7800. Then they only sold 500k by 1988 when later that year Atari sold 1 million 7800s.

Regardless, 800k 2600 consoles were still sold in 1986, which shouldn't have been possible since they weren't being carried by retailers, according to you.
Did Atari also 'flooded' the market?

They weren't, Atari already had the retailers expecting shipments before Nintendo started making their deals and product was already selling in 1985. There's a reason why Atari was only able to sell 800k+ 2600's in 1986, in 1987 they had more 2600 and produced more 7800's, but had less retailers to put them in, (and Sega had problems getting the SMS on shelves too) so in 1987 at most the 2600 sold 500k, with the 7800 selling an unknown amount, Atari was buying out a retail franchise so they can sell more of their products because on both the consoles and computer end Atari had a smaller retail network than they had before, because they were basically building up from scratch.

Atari to buy Federated stores for $63.7 million - UPI Archives

Atari Corp. said Monday it has reached an agreement to buy all of the stock outstanding of Federated Stores Inc. in a transaction valued at $67.3 million in...

www.upi.com

We're talking about success by sales metrics and market positioning, not profits. Both the 7800 and GC were commercial failures for their respective companies, regardless of corporate financials.

That's not what you were originally talking about with the 2600, or Atari as a company which you kept saying was failing when it was on rebound at the time getting your Atari's mixed up. Atari Corp was on an upswing in 1986.

I didn't say it had anything to do with console wars in 1986, it was an example of market incompetence on Atari's part at the time, which got them the boot by Warner.

Which like many other of these segways you've made has nothing to do with the topic, and is why I believe this entire thing is just you having some grudge against Atari for some reason, and you wanted them to fail harder than reality.

I already said brand name and especially price were a big factor in the 2600 jr attaining such sales. It's not a coincidence that it retailed for less than 50$, since it was already deprecated at launch.

Didn't work for the 7800 in 87, and the 2600 was already cheap, so why would that suddenly change in 1986 and 1987 (before the other price drop)?

The decline of 2600 sales is directly correlated with NES pushing competition more out of retail and taking over more coverage, reports of them being aggressive with their partners, and the appearance and increasing coverage of lawsuits or legal questioning of how Nintendo was run.

It also correlates the declining coverage and knowledge of the 7800 and SMS. All of these consoles were facing very similar circumstances all at the same time, pretending that's not the case is ridiculous, it wasn't just Atari having this issue.

(edit: was a bit too harsh) The NES succeded primarily due to its SOFTWARE,

That's also why the 2600 was competitive for 2 years relatively, even with Nintendo's anti-competitive arm, why the 7800 sold out at launched and continued to sell out what stock they could produce for those who were able to find it, and why the XEGS also sold out at launch in late1987.

Yes, NES also had games some wanted to play as well.

Some people like some games, some people like other games. Not much to look into here.

People simply won't buy a product they don't like or have any interest in not matter how much of it you ship to retailers or market/advertise.

You're right, that's why there was a giant void there for Sega to fill up later with the Genesis, as well as an exodus to computers and of western developers, and why some new games were made for the 2600. Many (not all) of the NES buyers weren't on previous consoles or were new kids growing up with the NES. This was noted in demographics of the time, there wasn't that much overlap between 2600/goldenage arcade/early home computer players, and NES/late 80s arcade/16-bit computer players. Other than the C64.

The other problem you are overlooking is that Nintendo had a lock on third party japanese publishers, several releases couldn't be brought over to the competition, and when by 1988 Nintendo had succeeded in making themselves the only product most customers saw they had almost all the games from Javanese third parties exclusive to them in the US, so when you keep bringing up game quality that's also part of the anti-competitive strong arming mentioned already.

This also adds to the void left over for future competition to fill like Sega and Sony, hell even 3DO. Nintendo left a whole group of consumers and developers unaddressed.

The Megadrive was a next gen console offering an arcade-like experience at home in 1988, it's not even fair to compare. It also had a launch advantage over the SNES by two years, and differentiated themselves with edgy marketing and games.

Not fair?

In the US Genesis sales were slow until around Sonic, and then it started selling record numbers for the company per quarter and millions of consoles a year started being sold. That is also when most of the practices Nintendo used to employ had been abandoned. The point is you saw a whole group of demographics that weren't on the NES go to the Genesis (even after the SNES launched), as well as developers that didn't bother with the NES.

Sega filled that void because Nintendo could not, it's the one that created the void with the NES. A whole group suddenly came back to consoles once the skepticism for Sega due to the SMS was removed and the Genesis was seen as a lucrative option. Those were some of the people who were buying 2600's, 7800's, SMS's, or home computers from 1986-1987. (Also Genesis launched in the US in 1989)

But we are getting way off track here, the issue you have is that the 2600 sold well along with the NES in 1986, and you keep trying to bring up a game argument for the NES winning but won't give an equal look to their practices, while disregarding those who had a preference for non-NES games in 1986-1987, but have no problem bringing up preferences of people in the opposite direction. I don't think that's a fair look at the situation.

 

[Hero_Select]

"FFXV is trash. Worst FF game ever made".

Wheres back in the real world, it's probably the best FF ever made and certainly in the top five of JRPG games.

I dont see how anyone can think that.

Sub-par combat with a terrible magic system.

You can heal and revive to wins almost indefinitely.

Terrible summon system

Chunks of story cut out and sold as DLC

Extremely static world. When it does get exciting post-timeskip you can't even explore it.

Chapter 12. If you played this pre-patch this was such a horrible slog. If you played this post-patch, it feels weird because there's spaces where you can "hide" but the ring is so OP that it doesn't matter.

The game has two good things going for it. The god-tier music and the bond with the boys. The camp scene at the end made me cry.

FF15 is a good game despite all the flaws but it's nowhere near close to even cracking top 10.

 

[shiru]

Can't be viable if you can't sell your product.

Can't be viable if you have no games.

No they didn't. they only outsold it in 1986 because Atari could only produce what they sold that year. Sega had much more stock and only sold 25k more than then the 7800. Then they only sold 500k by 1988 when later that year Atari sold 1 million 7800s.

So really, stock and shelf space weren't an issue, it was a lack of interest in the SMS the reason it failed? Interesting.

They weren't, Atari already had the retailers expecting shipments before Nintendo started making their deals and product was already selling in 1985. There's a reason why Atari was only able to sell 800k+ 2600's in 1986, in 1987 they had more 2600 and produced more 7800's, but had less retailers to put them in, (and Sega had problems getting the SMS on shelves too) so in 1987 at most the 2600 sold 500k, with the 7800 selling an unknown amount, Atari was buying out a retail franchise so they can sell more of their products because on both the consoles and computer end Atari had a smaller retail network than they had before, because they were basically building up from scratch.

Atari to buy Federated stores for $63.7 million - UPI Archives

Atari Corp. said Monday it has reached an agreement to buy all of the stock outstanding of Federated Stores Inc. in a transaction valued at $67.3 million in...

www.upi.com

That didn't work out for them did it? I wonder why.

That's not what you were originally talking about with the 2600, or Atari as a company which you kept saying was failing when it was on rebound at the time getting your Atari's mixed up. Atari Corp was on an upswing in 1986.

What? I was mocking your statement that the 7800 somehow didn't fail. Are you having trouble reading my posts?

Which like many other of these segways you've made has nothing to do with the topic, and is why I believe this entire thing is just you having some grudge against Atari for some reason, and you wanted them to fail harder than reality.

Great, more projection. You seem unable to follow a conversation and the context in which things are said.

Didn't work for the 7800 in 87, and the 2600 was already cheap, so why would that suddenly change in 1986 and 1987 (before the other price drop)?

The decline of 2600 sales is directly correlated with NES pushing competition more out of retail and taking over more coverage, reports of them being aggressive with their partners, and the appearance and increasing coverage of lawsuits or legal questioning of how Nintendo was run.

It also correlates the declining coverage and knowledge of the 7800 and SMS. All of these consoles were facing very similar circumstances all at the same time, pretending that's not the case is ridiculous, it wasn't just Atari having this issue.



That's also why the 2600 was competitive for 2 years relatively, even with Nintendo's anti-competitive arm, why the 7800 sold out at launched and continued to sell out what stock they could produce for those who were able to find it, and why the XEGS also sold out at launch in late1987.

Yes, NES also had games some wanted to play as well.

Some people like some games, some people like other games. Not much to look into here.



You're right, that's why there was a giant void there for Sega to fill up later with the Genesis, as well as an exodus to computers and of western developers, and why some new games were made for the 2600. Many (not all) of the NES buyers weren't on previous consoles or were new kids growing up with the NES. This was noted in demographics of the time, there wasn't that much overlap between 2600/goldenage arcade/early home computer players, and NES/late 80s arcade/16-bit computer players. Other than the C64.

The other problem you are overlooking is that Nintendo had a lock on third party japanese publishers, several releases couldn't be brought over to the competition, and when by 1988 Nintendo had succeeded in making themselves the only product most customers saw they had almost all the games from Javanese third parties exclusive to them in the US, so when you keep bringing up game quality that's also part of the anti-competitive strong arming mentioned already.

This also adds to the void left over for future competition to fill like Sega and Sony, hell even 3DO. Nintendo left a whole group of consumers and developers unaddressed.



Not fair?

In the US Genesis sales were slow until around Sonic, and then it started selling record numbers for the company per quarter and millions of consoles a year started being sold. That is also when most of the practices Nintendo used to employ had been abandoned. The point is you saw a whole group of demographics that weren't on the NES go to the Genesis (even after the SNES launched), as well as developers that didn't bother with the NES.

Sega filled that void because Nintendo could not, it's the one that created the void with the NES. A whole group suddenly came back to consoles once the skepticism for Sega due to the SMS was removed and the Genesis was seen as a lucrative option. Those were some of the people who were buying 2600's, 7800's, SMS's, or home computers from 1986-1987. (Also Genesis launched in the US in 1989)

But we are getting way off track here, the issue you have is that the 2600 sold well along with the NES in 1986, and you keep trying to bring up a game argument for the NES winning but won't give an equal look to their practices, while disregarding those who had a preference for non-NES games in 1986-1987, but have no problem bringing up preferences of people in the opposite direction. I don't think that's a fair look at the situation.

Oh boy. This is going in circles, so I'll just reiterate for the final time that the NES was an innovative piece of hardware with higher technical capabilities and software than the 2600 that made it a more desirable console for consumers hence achieving higher sales, success and future viability for developers, and that Atari and the 2600 had no future regardless of Nintendo's business practices. Sega rebounded with the Genesis. Atari didn't. You really seem obsessed with 1986 retail sales as if a single year of sales dictates the future viability of a console. The Dreamcast had high initial sales too, we all know how that ended up. You really can't grasp that one console can be more popular than others. You have this idea that the NES wasn't a success or popular because not everyone wanted one. I guess the PS2 wasn't a success/popular either, since it didn't capture literally the entire market.

 

[IDKFA]

I dont see how anyone can think that.

I think that. I stand by my statement. Every FF game has gotten better with every entry. I'm convinced 16 will be of the greatest games ever made.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Can't be viable if you have no games.

So then what were people buying for them? Ghosts?

That didn't work out for them did it? I wonder why.

Atari's deal with Federated didn't work for them because they were frauded, and Atari turned around to sue them, not for the reasons you're insinuating.

Federated cooked the books for the buy out and the ones behind it bolted after the purchase. They were already on the verge of collapse and their footprint had already shrunk significantly but Atari didn't find that out until after the buyout.

Anyway, the point is Atari brought that because of something you keep denying. They were being blocked from getting shelf space and having improving their distribution network fairly.

What? I was mocking your statement that the 7800 somehow didn't fail. Are you having trouble reading my posts?

No, you just can't read mine and forgot what you said about the 2600 earlier in the conversation before the 7800 was even brought up.

Great, more projection. You seem unable to follow a conversation and the context in which things are said.

Or you have constantly tried to go off topic to attack 2600 with unrelated meaningly tangents and aren't able to comprehend they aren't relevant to the discussion, as seen with multiple of your segways and bringing up Atari inc shit which has nothing to do with Atari Corp.

so I'll just reiterate for the final time that the NES was an innovative piece of hardware with higher technical capabilities and software than the 2600 that made it a more desirable console for consumers

Except you have no proof for this every time you repeat it and it's irrelevant to the discussion. You keep arguing your feelings that's shit is pointless. Atari with the 2600 alone was right next to the NES, and with the 7800 almost sold the same with very similar games they were selling before, you trying to push a subjective argument for the NES while ignoring it for those who brought the 2600 just shows you don't have an argument and are at best biased.

Atari sold that close with a tattered name that was just recovering, with Nintendo having more games available that year, better distribution partners, most of the coverage, and a massive marketing campaign, and yet from 1986-87 the 2600 did well, and even soon had new games being made for it by developers.

You're desperately trying to write off Nintendo infamous well known practices to pretend that only for Nintendo, did they sell based on games, and that people who brought 2600s because of it's games over the NES for some reason didn't exist. Which is a bizarre take given the 7800 did well those years as well with what they could produce, and they had pretty much better looking versions of those same type of games.

You just refuse to allow the fact that Nintendo's win wasn't 100% fair and legit and they pushed out the competition early. Sure it had games some people preferred, problem is that's the same the other way around, but you will not consider that possibility despite it objectively existing.

Sega rebounded with the Genesis. Atari didn't.

Except Atari did, in the time period we are discussing. Sega didn't "rebound" until 1991, and that was as a result of the NES leaving a whole group up for grabs you keep pretending didn't exist for some reason.

you really seem obsessed with 1986 retail sales as if a single year of sales dictates the future viability of a console.

I'm obsessed with the year we based this discussion off of? That's you're argument? So you don't have one basically.

Not to mention, I brought up 87 as well, and when you price out competition so people don't know or can't find competition that doesn't say anything about the viability of those machines, but of the unethical practices of the company pushing out the competition.

I also mentioned that the 2600 went from 19 million to over 30 million by 1990 but you have decided to skip over that because it's inconvenient to what you want to believe.

There is no getting around the fact that the sales of the 2600 almost entirely declined with Nintendo controlling more shelf space, coverage, and shaking down retailers. Not to mention the appearance of lawsuits and legal questions, all happening chronologically at the same rate.

The problem is you want to pretend Nintendo came in fairly (they didn't) and no one was buying the 2600 for games (they were) and that they were only buying the NES and ONLY the NES for it's games. yet somehow despite it selling ONLY on best games ever, the 2600 still sold well relatively to the NES when it was still on shelves for 2.5 years? That's a very poor and inconsistent argument.

Sorry, can't have it both ways, either the NES didn't have the games to get a large group of people to buy NES consoles in a landslide against the 2600 for the time (and prevent the 7800 from selling out) OR, the NES had the games some people preferred, but there were also still people who preferred the 2600 and it's games (and joystick controls), which is much more logical.

Otherwise this desperate argument you keep trying to use about NES had games people wanted and 2600 didn't doesn't make sense. They both had consumers who preferred games on one than the other, it's not one direction, sorry. It's clear you have a major problem with this but that's the truth, some people like some things, and other people like other things.

I also find it interesting that you haven't touched on the fact that NES dominance immediately started to unravel when these practices were thrown out or lightened up. Curious.

Anyway, I don't like either of them, I prefer the Master System, but even that was based on outdated tech, the gap between computers and even some lower end arcades compared to consoles was just getting to big for my liking.

You have this idea that the NES wasn't a success or popular because not everyone wanted one

I never said the NES wasn't a success or wasn't popular. Thanks for confirming you weren't ever even trying to have an argument worth any salt. This whole thing is just you being upset that the NES didn't launch out the gate dominating everything 10:1 and that's the truth of it. It's also why you won't consider customers who brought other things, and why you believe that NES games made it impossible to prefer the 2600, instead of the logical approach that some people like some things, and some people like other things. Instead of completely making up ana argument I never made, it may help to look at the past without the bias.

 

[shiru]

I never said the NES wasn't a success or wasn't popular. Thanks for confirming you weren't ever even trying to have an argument worth any salt. This whole thing is just you being upset that the NES didn't launch out the gate dominating everything 10:1 and that's the truth of it. It's also why you won't consider customers who brought other things, and why you believe that NES games made it impossible to prefer the 2600, instead of the logical approach that some people like some things, and some people like other things. Instead of completely making up ana argument I never made, it may help to look at the past without the bias.

A bunch of dumb fucking horseshit. I'm out. I'm tired of your dumb accusations and lack of comprehension.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

A bunch of dumb fucking horseshit. I'm out. I'm tired of your dumb accusations and lack of comprehension.

I didn't accuse you of anything, everything you've done was done by yourself.

What you quoted even was me clarifying a untruth you told about my argument. As YOU quoted, I never said anything about the NES not being a success or popular, you've been spinning words like that since the start of the conversation and haven't been honest from the start.

At the end of the day, the 2600 was more wanted than commonly believed, and it held up it's own during a time many people wrongfully thought it wouldn't, with it selling ~11 million across the late 80's until the 90's which is impressive for an old dinosaur, and in the face of well documented monopolistic practices it did very well from 86-87. That's basically all the core of the conversation was about. It wasn't some abandoned things no one brought anymore.

Never said anything about NES not being popular or a success. I wonder why you would make that up it's nowhere in any previous post Oh well.

 

[anthraticus]

Too many to list/bother thinking about

 

[Hero_Select]

I think that. I stand by my statement. Every FF game has gotten better with every entry. I'm convinced 16 will be of the greatest games ever made.

Lol. Okkaaayyy

 

[Edgelord79]

Developers are lazy.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

nah. That's accurate as much as I love ME1

ME2 dumbed down RPG aspects too much for my liking. Plus the sense of mystery and discovery is unmatchable in ME1.

ME2 is still great game and I understand why general public might like it more than ME1.

I just finished another playthrough of ME1 on Steam Deck (took me ~30 hours) and I'm 8 hours into ME2.

ME3 and Andromeda are next.

 

[TheDraconian]

Elden Ring is completely flawless, innovates on the Souls formula, and is one of the greatest games ever made.

 

[TheDraconian]

Breath of the Wild is the greatest game ever made. It was good but not very enjoyable for me.

PC gaming is not as good as it was before: These are just folks blinded by nostalgia googles. Its more broad with way more capabilities than ever before.

 

[TheDraconian]

Dude shut the F up. Just because your eyes are stupid, doesnt mean the game is shit.

What are you referring to?

 

[CuNi]

What are you referring to?

A quote from, if I am not mistaken, the RE4R Thread where we had a meltdown thread just a few days ago that claimed RE4-Gameplay aged "like milk" because said poster didn't like the controls.

Edit:
Here is the mentioned thread

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/resident-evil-4-aged-like-milk-and-plays-like-trash.1645299/

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Breath of The Wild is the best Zelda game

The game is boring as all hell

 

[mcjmetroid]

Most recently:

"nobody cares about split screen gaming"

Meanwhile the switch is selling millions, Mario Kart 8 deluxe is still on the weekly charts etc.

 

[Filben]

Opinions can be shit but they can't be wrong.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Buying physical games will save you from losing all your games in case of an internet outage that might happen one afternoon and you'll have to - *GASP* - go outside and touch grass for a while.

 

[consoul]

Gears of War pioneered the cover-based shooter genre. It didn't.

 

[Spaceman292]

Pokemon Scarlett and Violet are the best Pokemon games.

 

[TheDraconian]

A quote from, if I am not mistaken, the RE4R Thread where we had a meltdown thread just a few days ago that claimed RE4-Gameplay aged "like milk" because said poster didn't like the controls.

Edit:
Here is the mentioned thread

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/resident-evil-4-aged-like-milk-and-plays-like-trash.1645299/

Bruh. What?
Dude is a literal clown anyway so I ain't surprised.

 

[consoul]

Opinions can be shit but they can't be wrong.

Opinions are like assholes. People like to post theirs on the internet.

 

[Fuz]

but FF15 is trash,

But it's not the worst FF.

 

[Kev Kev]

"The most important aspect of an RPG is the story."

I like when a video game story is engaging and it surprises me with quality writing and editing, but in the end they still just feel like video game stories. Often times they feel convoluted, layering on plot point after plot point and never coming to a satisfying conclusion, while also not giving you enough information, especially when it comes to RPGs. Don't get me wrong, I like a nice story, but it's far from the most important thing in a video game for me. Fun gameplay loops and great feeling controls is the most important. The story just need to be serviceable.

 

[TheDraconian]

Breath of The Wild is the best Zelda game

The game is boring as all hell

And I'd think you were a BoTW hyperfan with that kind of avatar

 

[Drizzlehell]

Gears of War pioneered the cover-based shooter genre. It didn't.

I think what you mean to say is that GoW wasn't the first game to do it but it was absolutely the first to popularize it enough to make it into a fad.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

And I'd think you were a BoTW hyperfan with that kind of avatar

Well I mostly game on Switch so there's that

I'm eventually going to get a Steamdeck too due to emulation

 

[TheDraconian]

I'm eventually going to get a Steamdeck too due to emulation

Do it. It's just an awesome PC portable. You won't regret it.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

Do it. It's just an awesome PC portable. You won't regret it.

That's the plan

 

[DemonGamerTTT]

Game X is a clone of game Y because Y come first or is the leading in it's genre.

People keep vomiting this every single time someone tries to create a new game on s genre that has established leader.

Few examples: plataform fighters, MMOrpgs, monster collector, kart racing, 2.5D fighting games, action adventure with rpg elements and DODGE...

All of those gest instantly called "clone" even though they are derivative of something else... But guess what everything humans do is derivative of someone's else work...

 

[Happosai]

Soul Calibur 4 is a great game and is best played on PS3

 

[Mediocre Arachno-Lad]

RE2 , RE2 remake, RE 7 and RE village are better

Dude, Village is RE4 with a botched face-lift:

• Botched difficulty scaling
• Botched combat loop
• Botched weapon progression
• Botched bosses, outside of maybe Moreau and Miranda
• Less weapons
• Village is the worse RE4 village
• Castle is the worse RE4 castle
• Beneviente manor is... well, it's not worse, but it's basically an Ashley section
• Factory is the worse RE4 island
• Soldats are worse Regenerators
• Lycans are worse Novistadors

I can do this all day

Both are retarded story-wise, but only one takes itself seriously.

 

[StueyDuck]

Breath of the Wild is a good Zelda game = wrong

 

[TheDraconian]

Older games are unplayable because of their graphics, controls or fps.

I think that's part of their charm as old games and makes them unique

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

AAA games are not the only relevant games to play.

 

[Gambit2483]

Breath of the Wild is a good Zelda game = wrong

That's not unpopular. That's just wrong.