spiffyone Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 And that's where Sega carved their niche. Offering arcade experiences in the home, then growing from there to include original home console offerings. And that was a strategy that Atari could have taken, if Tramiel had taken all or part of Atari Games with him when he took Atari's consumer division and also extended a contract with GCC. No, that's where Sega failed in the US. (in Europe the arcade angle had more weight -though they had other advantages like better sports games -especially soccer- better distribution/marketing, etc) Sega in the US got popular when they STOPPED pushing the Arcade at Home angle specifically. (Tonka balanced that a lot better than Sega had, but still had fairly mediocre marketing compared to Nintendo) When SoA launched the Genesis in August of 1989, they still started off with "We Bring the Arcade Experience Home", but when Michael Katz stepped in fall of '89 (cutting his vacation short), he shifted things considerably and followed up with the highly competitive "Genesis Does" marketing campaign. (the first truly successful US console marketing campaign by Sega) They didn't ignore the arcade stuff, but they didn't limit themselves to thinking on those terms either:...) Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that Sega carved their initial niche on bringing their arcade experiences home, and then grew from there to offer new console-centric experiences. With SMS, which later helped them on Genesis. During that SMS/pre-Genesis-MegaDrive era they really didn't have much of a choice but to go with the "arcade-at-home" strategy initially as that's what they had, but they understood pretty early on (with Alex Kidd, for instance) that they needed to also offer new console-centric experiences. Did they "fail" with the early strategy? Not really if one realizes that's all they really had. They just had themselves. There was little to no 3rd party support due to Nintendo's license practices. So Sega had to go it alone for the most part, and what they had was what they built their entire business around (then and even now): arcade games. Slowly they took a more console-centric approach because they realized they needed to broaden their scope, but the arcade stuff remained the backbone of the company, and the arcade ports are what sold them to their "core" audience (the ones who bought the most Sega games). In order to have a successful console, a company has to grab hold of a "core" audience and grow from there. Even Nintendo's done that with Wii in some ways, as it is the Wii "core" audience that are the ones keeping software sales going while the "casual" audience just buys a couple of games with their console purchase. Regardless of strategy, Sega would've NEVER pulled off the SMS ahead of NES. But...it made for a healthy company in the long term which was my point: because Sega "went it alone" they had dev teams that were among the best in the industry (if not the best as far as amount and range of quality output). And because they learned during the SMS years that they needed console-centric experiences they were able to develop IPs like Phantasy Star which helped them fill holes in the later Genesis/MegaDrive line-up and also have teams in place to attempt to make a mascot IP (which later turned out to be Sonic). Atari could've pulled off something similar, if not better in the western markets because Atari Games was more well-known in arcades in the US and Europe and Atari as a whole still had some of that brand recognition left that gave them one up on Sega. So, in light of the fact that Nintendo had pretty much ALL of the JP 3rd party support and most of the US 3rd party support as well, Atari would, similar to Sega, have had to "go it alone" which is what they did. Unlike Sega, however, Atari didn't have the output necessary to make 7800 more of a contender on a world-wide scale. And even though 7800 outsold SMS in the US, it would've been by a lot more, IMHO, if 7800 had had more appealing software than it did. Long term that would've put them in a better position going into the next gen, with whatever console they would've gone with (which, if all the hypothetical stuff i've outlined would've come to pass, probably would've been an ST based console; if not, and the Flare thing still came to pass, should've been Panther, which, in reality, Atari probably should've gone with anyway over Jaguar). And I'm avoiding comparing them both directly to Nintendo because they both would not have beaten NES that gen due to Nintendo's stranglehold on the 3rd party devs. Both had to go it alone. Did 7800 beat SMS in the US/NA? Yes. But that was on price point and brand recognition alone. And it was a short term win, which is my real point. Long term Sega's strategy worked out better than Atari's because they had the internal dev teams in place to pump out the necessary software when they shifted strategy from mainly arcade ports to arcade ports AND new home console stuff. Atari didn't have that. Even in the short term, you have to agree that they would've won by a lot more in the NA market against Sega had they much more compelling software (which internal or closely tied dev teams would've supplied), and long term that would've helped them a great deal going into ST home console or Panther or whatever. Atari Games' arcade games were rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things (nice additions, but way down the list). True. Against Nintendo. Against Sega's SMS, however, it could've made the gap between them a lot larger, and long term would've made for a healthier company going into the next gen with IPs that would at the very least have a larger initial install base than without those IPs. More IPs to draw from means more software for the home console, and as you agree that arcade ports helped Sega in Europe quite a bit, would that not have been a good move for Atari as well? Forget NES. Neither was going to outsell NES. Against each other, though, 7800 beat SMS due to better distribution, better price point, and more brand recognition. Imagine if 7800 had more compelling software, how large that gap would've been. In Europe, SMS sold well due to better distribution, better 3rd party support and growing from the initial strategy of "arcade at home" experiences. Imagine if 7800 had the exclusive on Atari Games arcade ports how that would've helped them in Europe. Combine that with GCC and internal Atari Corp. developers working on all cylinders to bring out new compelling 7800-centric software, and it probably would've sold more than SMS in EU/PAL regions. Add to that better 3rd party support (as SMS had due to Nintendo having less of a grip in Europe), which, to bring up one of your points Atari should've gone after (why they really didn't is most likely due to going "on the cheap" as a strategy...good short term, not so good long term). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetset Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Can't you guys keep the techno-babble to a dull roar? Trying to follow this thread is like trying to dig out a hangnail. BlahBlahBlahBlahBlah! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+thegoldenband Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) Heh... would you write Castlevania for a system with the 2600's sound chip, though? Oh, I don't know...maybe? Edited February 14, 2011 by thegoldenband Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Heh... would you write Castlevania for a system with the 2600's sound chip, though? Oh, I don't know...maybe? I can't get the music to play on StellaX... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+thegoldenband Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) Huh, works for me (I just downloaded fresh copies). Did you inadvertently download the source (.bas) files instead of the .bin files? Edited February 14, 2011 by thegoldenband Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) Huh, works for me (I just downloaded fresh copies). Did you inadvertently download the source (.bas) files instead of the .bin files? I'm using version 1.13 if that makes any difference. (just drag and drop like any other ROM image, but I get a black screen and nothing -even if I try to use the VCS switches or joystick) I'm kinda on limited time at the moment so I can't respond to some of the postings above but I wanted to ask if GCC ever considered marketing the 7800 on their own... They didn't own the rights, it was locked up in limbo with Warner, Atari, and GCC. It had been a work for hire contract with Warner that was then fed to Atari Inc as an actual commercial product. The issue was that GCC hadn't been paid for their R&D fees for MARIA and the 10 launch games (or 11) and Warner wanted to pass those fees on to Atari Corp even though the contract had been with them directly with the technology fed to Atari Inc as such. (a complex arrangement demonstrating some of the problems with Dual management -I don't think Atari Inc even had a direct say in the matter, ie Warner was going with the 7800 whether Atari Inc fully accepted it or not -let alone any direct influence in the hardware development or software development for the launch games) And what was Warner Communications thinking with not just handing the 7800 over to Atari Corp? Did they have some idea of wrestling the home video game rights to the "Atari" name and assigning it to Atari Games Inc/Corp along with the 7800? It just doesn't make much sense what they did if they were trying to get Atari off their books... Yes, it would have been in their best interests to pay GCC and be done with it. (or at very least pass those on as additional loans to Atari Corp) However, it by far would have been even more in Warner's best interests (let alone Tramiel) to manage the split in a formally organized manner with a normal transition with every detail mapped out for what TTL would be getting as well as giving Atari Inc staff sufficient notice of layoffs ahead of time. (or better, a smooth transition to keep Morgan's reorganization going but fold that into Atari Corp -have Tramiel and Morgan formally discuss the entire thing and at very least get TTL management up to speed before leaving them to their own devices -if Tramiel still didn't want to keep Morgan on longer in any capacity, though there's decided advantages to that) Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that Sega carved their initial niche on bringing their arcade experiences home, and then grew from there to offer new console-centric experiences. With SMS, which later helped them on Genesis. Ant it was a waste of time, albeit if they had stuck to arcade centric marketing against the NES, but managed exceptional advertising/marketing/distribution/etc (including kick ass packaging/box art, more attractive cartridges, etc, etc -the lack of the FM add-on was really odd, not even released in Europe though it was in Japan and integrated with the 1987 SMS there in spite of the Mk.III/SMS doing worst in that region and being discontinued before anywhere else -pretty much dropped when the MD came out with development moved over to western releases) But really, Sega should have made note of the arcade status, but focused on general video game advertising in the US. Hell, look at Atari/Coleco/Mattel/Activision/Imagic/etc's advertizing in the early 80s even and there's a TON that's not tied to the arcade at all. (I'd say the majority -even many arcade ports had the games themselves pushed more than the fact they were arcade games -in some cases the arcade aspect wasn't even mentioned) Had Sega had the likes of Katz managing things and building up SoA, they very well could have competed very strongly in the US market and attracted enough 3rd party interest to foil Nintendo's exclusivity strategy. (ie it would have worked against Nintendo if they tried it) They definitely should have pushed the better graphics too, and the sound was weaker but still OK (less than it should have been for the 1985 Mk.III launch, but at least better than TIA, though weaker than the Intellivision/ST/Vectrex/MSX/Spectrum128k/CPC/etc), and releasing the FM add-on at a low price would have been a very nice option around that too. (let alone standardizing it internally in '87 as with Japan -for the add-on, they'd have to use external mixing as with the SG-1000 Mk.III since the cart slot and expansion port lack sound input) During that SMS/pre-Genesis-MegaDrive era they really didn't have much of a choice but to go with the "arcade-at-home" strategy initially as that's what they had, but they understood pretty early on (with Alex Kidd, for instance) that they needed to also offer new console-centric experiences. Arcade ports, to many, weren't arcade ports at all, but just games. (Alex Kidd was in the arcade anyway -not all the same games mind you, but Lost Stars in the arcade came before Miracle World on the SMS -sidescrolling platform games WERE arcade games so there's no point in distinguishing as such since most genres were in the arcade as well -difficulty was usually modified for the home market though, be it ports, remakes, or original games) The problem was weak marketing all around, they failed to appeal in the way Nintendo did in spite of having competitive hardware, software, and price points. (carts should actually have been cheaper to produce due to the single bus/single ROM design and lower pin count with smaller PCB) The TV ads were weak, the box art was terrible until Tonka's in '88 (Japan was at least as good as Famicom competition though), the carts had no art at all and were a bit bland/clunky overall too, and the one nice thing was the plastic clamshell cases used. (the Japanese MegaDrive adompted those as well and the US Genesis got all of that right too for the most part -especially after Katz came in) Sega even had a larger marketing budget initially if the new articles are accurate. (if Atari had had a 6-9 million marketing budget in 1986 things would have been very different -let alone if some of that went into R&D for games, though even putting 100% into advertising could have meant more and better games a la 3rd party interest and increased sales revenue following that -hype generates developer interest, just look how many devs initially signed onto the Jaguar in spite of Atari's shaky market position) Did they "fail" with the early strategy? Not really if one realizes that's all they really had. They just had themselves. See above, they did fail as such for sure. Arcade games didn't have to be marketed as arcade games alone, and there's a lot of other areas to boost things in general. (let alone direct competition with the superior hardware aspect -Katz did that later on, but the SMS had enough of an edge to push that as well, though less extreme than the Genesis) Again, focusing on the arcade was only one part of the problem, the other was the advertising overall and other aspects of marketing. (the crappy, unappealing box art, distribution network and product tie-ins, etc, etc) The very early "Arcade at Home" advertizements for the Genesis were actually pretty good too, though still sorely lacking the competitive edge that Katz added. (and Coleco, Mattel, and Atari had used to compete with years earlier -especially back to back comparisons as well as breadth claims of a better/more powerful system overall) Regardless of strategy, Sega would've NEVER pulled off the SMS ahead of NES. Why? They had the software, they had the hardware, they had the money, and Nintendo was virtually a nobody on the market just as they were. (Nintendo's initial killer apps were mostly in-house games and many of the Japanese 3rd party games would: 1. be countered by Sega's in-house games and 2. may have been persuaded to Sega's side or license for Sega publishing as with several games on the Genesis in the west -including some games published by 3rd parties in Japan and 1st parties in the US like Technosoft's Thunder Force II; then you've got the US and EU 3rd party developers who wouldn't have been restricted by Nintendo's licensing if they were pulled away by Atari and/or Sega instead -thus Nintendo would be forced to loosen their policies or risk loosing 3rd party support) NEC made an even bigger mistake than Sega with the PCE later on (quite literally had the potential to be the Sony of the 4th generation), but that's another topic. And I'm avoiding comparing them both directly to Nintendo because they both would not have beaten NES that gen due to Nintendo's stranglehold on the 3rd party devs. Both had to go it alone. Except they could have forced Nintendo to never have that stronghold (it would have done nothing but deter US devs from licensed development for the platform -let alone EU devs who already had just that dilemma). Sega did it with the Genesis and not just because of Sonic (that was the clincher after the fact, but Katz had layed the ground work and cut deep into the market with such at Nintendo's absolute peak in NES sales in '89/90 -in a FAR worse position than back in '86/87 other than Nintendo's hardware being older, but it WAS already 3 years old in '86) Did 7800 beat SMS in the US/NA? Yes. We don't know that for sure. But that was on price point and brand recognition alone. And it was a short term win, which is my real point. Long term Sega's strategy worked out better than Atari's because they had the internal dev teams in place to pump out the necessary software when they shifted strategy from mainly arcade ports to arcade ports AND new home console stuff. Atari didn't have that. Even in the short term, you have to agree that they would've won by a lot more in the NA market against Sega had they much more compelling software (which internal or closely tied dev teams would've supplied), and long term that would've helped them a great deal going into ST home console or Panther or whatever. No, Sega won due to those advantages and (more importantly) the marketing/management instrumental to the market as well as competition really screwing up and leaving a hole for them to poke into. NEC had the resources, the hardware, and the initial Japanese support to roar into the US rather like Sony did with the PSX (should have done very well in Europe as well), but they screwed up on some many levels it's not even funny. (they made the console bulkier but didn't even add 2 controller ports -let alone integrate the full 5 ports -which would have been awesome, even if an optional deluxe model, they didn't slash the price -very integrated hardware with vertical integration and resources to sell at a loss, they failed to push saturation marketing in the US -Europe is a bit different and could cater better to the strategy NEC used in Japan but with tighter pricing, probably keep the compact form factor as well for Europe, and they failed to push through Nintendo's licensing agreements -the biggest loophole would be to license/publish 3rd party titles under their own label and offer such to both Japanese and western developers as an alternative to licensed 3rd party publishing -offer royalty deals to treat such an NEC published game more or less as a 3rd party game, and push for a build-up of western software development in general as well as staple franchises/genres needed in the regions -like Sega did with Sports) And no, Atari Corp could have run with the success they had in the late 80s and struck while the iron was hot with a reasonably competitive 4th gen console by 1989 with a competitive price point and marketing to match taking advantage of their much stronger revenue. (given the drastically declining 7800 sales in '89 they could have even pulled back much of the resources going into it at the time -and started phasing it out in 1990) They had the potential to push into Europe quite favorably as well with the right hardware at the right price, but the trick in the US would be getting 3rd parties to develop for the system without direct commissions: the most direct loophole for Nintendo's licensing of the time would have been to offer royalty agreements to publish under the Atari label and avoid Nintendo's blocking strategy. The other thing would be to continue pushing for computer developers/publishers who still hadn't gotten roped into Nintendo's trap. (and of course, with better management the ST line could have been much healthier -at least in Europe, but perhaps maintaining niche competition much better in the US even, hell they were in a position to start building a good relationship with Tengen/AGames even by that point -they lost Katz and they lost Jack, after than things seemed to fall apart all around -any relations with AGames probably should have been delegated by Katz: hell, he did that for EA and Sega when put in a very tight situation with EA threatening to go unlicensed and SoJ being hostile towards EA's intentions and indignant that they'd reverse engineered their own tools) And, of course, this is in the context of Atari Corp being in the same position they were historically in 1988/89, no other changes prior to that. (like the night and day difference that proper management of the split could have made) OTOH there's no reason Sega couldn't have competed many, many times better than they did with the SMS in the US. (maybe not made #1, but at least come far closer than they had) Again, Nintendo had the advantage of pushing into the market for some 3 years prior to the final September 1986 launch while Sega didn't even push for heavy investment in build-up of US management/marketing or license marketing/distribution to a highly capable toy/entertainment company in the US. (they did the latter in Europe very well while Nintendo made very poor choices in many cases -other than Germany and maybe parts of northern Europe like Holland/Sweeden/etc which were small markets anyway, they screwed up even more in the UK with a very late release) True. Against Nintendo. Against Sega's SMS, however, it could've made the gap between them a lot larger, and long term would've made for a healthier company going into the next gen with IPs that would at the very least have a larger initial install base than without those IPs. More IPs to draw from means more software for the home console, and as you agree that arcade ports helped Sega in Europe quite a bit, would that not have been a good move for Atari as well? Forget NES. Neither was going to outsell NES. Atari would have flattened Nintendo and Sega if it hadn't been for Warner's horrible management of the split. I was speaking in the context of Atari Games being an insignificant facet of the problems caused by the split. (ie the 7800 would have launched in 1984, Morgan's continued plans would have meant for very organized downsizing in the final steps in reorganization -part of that would mean retaining the most integral console programming staff, Atari Games would could have had very friendly relations -or still been part of AInc if Warner hadn't found any buyer at all or sold off AInc intact, the Rainbow Chipset may have been adapted over the ST and ATG may have been properly folded into Atari Corp R&D, the 8-bit computers would have been marketed better in '84 and the planned peripherals would have been released, etc, etc -and more revenue/funding with diminshing debt much sooner so the company would be healthier on all accounts) Edited February 14, 2011 by kool kitty89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tomlin Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) 2 8kB 16 pin DIP chips 4-bit wide DRAM? Didn't exist in 1984, or especially in 1983 when the 7800 was actually being designed. 16Kx4 would have been perfect for the consoles of the day. Also, you mentioned 8Kx1 DRAMs? 8Kx1 and 32Kx1 were oddball chips, often partial rejects from the full-size chips. DRAM from the start to this day goes in powers of 4. (So does SRAM, but being 8 bits wide means they had the odd powers in terms of bytes: 2K 8K 32K 128K.) The 8K SRAM would have been a smart idea, if they had been thinking ahead, but I'm sure that the chip cost in 1983-1984 was just too high. If you're thinking in millions of units, an extra dollar for a chip is a million dollars right there. But nobody was expecting that they would be stuck in a warehouse for two years. These days console manufacturers are much smarter about the decline in chip costs over time, with the PS3 launch being an extreme example. An external RF modulator? Nobody did that until Nintendo (and only TI in the computer market officially used external modulators; Apple and Commodore users almost always used dedicated monitors), and one big reason was that TV sets only had RF inputs up to that time. Composite video inputs were only in the newest of TV sets, and game consoles in the day traditionally were used on hand-me-down TV sets. Another reason was that they were comfortable with the FCC approval process for an internal RF modulator; separating them would have been too radical, especially during the crash. On the sound and RAM issues though, they COULD have opted for an add-on (like a mid 80s flavor of the XM -like a POKEY with 32k of SRAM or DRAM -in 1987 you say the first games to use POKEY or RAM those Epyx games had full 32kx8-bit SRAM chips inside), and then add those features standard to later 7800 models. (ie 7800 Plus or something) Hell, they could have introduced that module along with a keyboard add-on instead of the XEGS. Add-ons (for new functionality, not backwards compatibility) fragment your market. They would NOT have been done, especially then. Even changing the base console fragments your market, and Atari was way too cheap, and it's just not done for a console that isn't taking the world by storm. It would NOT make sense, period, full stop. No add-on has ever been successful except for CDs (and the N64 memory), and CD expansions basically create a whole new system. Were there ever any cartridge games made specifically for the Sega CD? Nope. You can get away with incremental improvements in a computer system, but not in a ROM-based console. Coleco might could have gotten away with it for a Super Game Module, but that would have been a major improvement worthy of a new system. They should have had IRQ input on the cart slot though, or a dedicated expansion port for RAM+sound+etc with more than the cart slot offered. (not the video expansion port...)It would have been cheaper and cleaner in the long run to push more RAM and POKEY from the start though, and possibly put POKEY's keyboard+SIO lines on an expasnion port (for the computer add-on ). Shoulda, woulda, coulda. GCC's folks knew a lot about video game hardware, but they were learning VLSI design by the seat of their pants. They wanted to use 1701 for the Maria part number (an obvious Star Trek reference) and then found problems with it and had to make a new one. There wasn't enough time or budget or expertise to do a better design, or they would have. As I recall, they turned in their final design just about the time of the sale to Tramiel, so you can't even blame Jack for the 7800 design. In contrast, Nintendo was a financially-stable company that could afford to take their time and come up with a good design. In fact, they screwed up a chip and did a complete and totall recall of the first production run of Famicom consoles. Would Atari ever have done that in any era? Also, they did have one important limitation: the 2600 cartridge slot and backwards compatibility. They added 8 signal lines. There wasn't enough width in the plastic shells to go for an extra 4 pins (don't forget the 2600 door pins), and they needed those notches to keep 2600 carts from being inserted incorrectly. (And yes there was an IRQ line, and nothing ever used it.) It seems like GCC engineered the 7800 without really any direct contact with Atari Corp (all through Warner), but I still don't see why they wouldn't have pushed for POKEY from the start. That's because they did indeed build it without much if any contact from Atari. And there really wasn't room for a full Pokey on that board. Pokey may have been a nice sound chip, but half its pins were for I/O functions that wouldn't be needed. And there wasn't any "inheritance" (like the 5200 had) that would make the Pokey better than another chip. Atari may have had thousands of them just lying around, but there's still a cost associated with them. A PSG would have been best, just from the smaller size alone. Everything else you mention is mainly tied to Warner's poor transition: even some outright mistakes made by Tramiel may have been avoided with a proper transition supported by Warner. It's kind of difficult to get a "proper transition" when getting rid of a hot potato. Video games were considered dead (even if for the wrong reasons), and it wasn't just overstock that was being dumped. A repackaging of the 65XE in a gaming bundle should have been cheaper, and could have been positioned better as a "games and educational computer" and marketed as an entertainment/educational/entry level computer not overlapping quite as heavily with the 7800 as the XEGS did. (the one change should have been moving the cart slot to the top of the machine -composite outputs is a moot issue, the monitor port is no more difficult to use than the Master System AV port -and there's S-video ) Actually, there wasn't S-video. The connector was first introduced in 1987 and wasn't widespread until big screen sets in the late '90s, though Commodore had been using a form of it in dedicated monitors for the C-64. (Dedicated monitor = extra $$$ = not the console market.) And basically nobody used a brand new TV for video game consoles back in the '80s anyhow. Edited February 14, 2011 by Bruce Tomlin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarifever Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) they had dev teams that were among the best in the industry (if not the best as far as amount and range of quality output). I think Sega still has this claim today. Ignoring their weaker moments (Shadow the Hedgehog for example) that were necessary after they nearly died (yeah Shadow sucked, but how much did it make compared to what it cost), they still have one of, if not the, most diverse lineups in games. Like arcady racers? Outrun Live Arcade and Coast to Coast. Like Rally? Sega Rally. Like RPGs? Phantasy Star on and offline. Like 2D platformers? Sonic 4. Like 3D platformers? Sonic Colours. Like fighting games? Virtua Fighter 5. Kart Racers? Sonic and Sega All Stars. Music games? Samba. Arcade flight games? After Burner Climax. Classics? Sonic's Genesis collection. Puzzle? Puyo. Racing? Daytona. Whatever? Jet Set Radio. Light Gun? House of the Dead Overkill. Fishing? Sega Bass Fishing. Tennis? Virtua Tennis. And on and on. If you count the stuff they are smart enough to get behind as publishers (Bayonetta, Mad World, The Conduit, etc.) you could buy nothing but Sega stuff any generation and fill almost every niche with a quality title. The thing is, Atari never, ever had this kind of output. Even in their glory days, many of their best games were conversions of someone else's stuff. Note: Before anyone trips over themself to say "Sega hasn't made anything since the Dreamcast, wah!" remember two things: 1) Virtua Fighter 5. Sega Rally. Outrun Online Arcade. After Burner Climax. Sonic's Genesis Collection. Sonic Colours. Sonic 4. All Star Racing. Super Monkey Ball. Yakuza. Phantasy Star Universe. Valkyrai Chronicles. Virtua Tennis. House of the Dead Overkill. Empire Total War. Etc.... 2) Shut up. Edited February 14, 2011 by Atarifever 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) 2 8kB 16 pin DIP chips 4-bit wide DRAM? Didn't exist in 1984, or especially in 1983 when the 7800 was actually being designed. 16Kx4 would have been perfect for the consoles of the day. Ah OK, that would explain why the 5200 used 2k (16kx1-bit) DRAMs as such. Were there only 1-bit wide DRAMs at the time, or just for the 8kB/32kbit densities? (or were there 2-bit wide chips? -I'd gotten the impression that 2-bit was rather uncommon vs 1/4/8/etc -8 being later as well, 16 later still, and 32-bit wide DRAMs not until the late 90s iirc) Also, you mentioned 8Kx1 DRAMs? 8Kx1 and 32Kx1 were oddball chips, often partial rejects from the full-size chips. DRAM from the start to this day goes in powers of 4. (So does SRAM, but being 8 bits wide means they had the odd powers in terms of bytes: 2K 8K 32K 128K.) Yes, sorry" when I wrote "8k 1-bit" I meant 8kB (not kb) 1-bit wide chips vs all the cases where I specifically defined the chips as with 32kx1-bit (which would be 8kB 1-bit wide). I think I was trying to be a bit more straightforward with some of the less tech-savvy in the discussion, though I guess I just made that more confusing. (probably should have just qualified the kbit notation from the start and stuck with it) And while I wasn't even referring to such odd densities, yes, I do understand that issue with 4/8/32/256/1024kbit densities being standard. (SRAMs tending to follow the same, though ROMs and some custom RAM chips for high production count embedded systems vary more -I believe NEC had some odd densities in their PCE consoles and I know Sega used 64 kB -32kx16-bit- PSRAM chips in later model MD/Genesis consoles, though the SDRAM chips used in the 32x and Saturn were not custom and included 256 kB densities -128kx16bit- and the Saturn had a mix of 512kB and 256 kB SDRAM chips as such -the final model Genesis 3 used heavy buffering to allow the VRAM and PSRAM to be displaced by a single 128kx16-bit SDRAM chip -same as 32x/Saturn used- though only 128kB was actully used -the 8kB SRAM for the Z80 had long been embedded in the main ASIC by that point along with the Z80, VDP, all I/O, 68000, YM2612 -all of that save the SDRAM support had been integrated back in 1995 with the VA4 revision of the Genesis 2) The 8K SRAM would have been a smart idea, if they had been thinking ahead, but I'm sure that the chip cost in 1983-1984 was just too high. If you're thinking in millions of units, an extra dollar for a chip is a million dollars right there. But nobody was expecting that they would be stuck in a warehouse for two years. These days console manufacturers are much smarter about the decline in chip costs over time, with the PS3 launch being an extreme example. Yeah, after thinking on it more, that's why I started favoring the idea for an add-on (via the cart slot or a dedicated expansion port) to address that a couple years down the road (or at/near launch given the delays for '86). In that sense, fully after the fact, it would favor a unified POKEY+RAM upgrade as well. (in Atari Corp's position, 1987 would have been a prime time to offer that given the 2 Epyx games pushing 32kx8-bit SRAM chips on-cart and BallBlazer with POKEY -though the latter didn't end up on the market until early '88 iirc) And again, if they took said 32k and actually restricted it to 28k mapped to the cart address space, they could use a single 32kx8-bit SRAM onboard the system for all later 7800s (7800+) and save space with a single 28-pin DIP vs 2 24-pin ones. (making more room for POKEY onboard) An external RF modulator? Nobody did that until Nintendo (and only TI in the computer market officially used external modulators; Apple and Commodore users almost always used dedicated monitors), and one big reason was that TV sets only had RF inputs up to that time. Composite video inputs were only in the newest of TV sets, and game consoles in the day traditionally were used on hand-me-down TV sets. Another reason was that they were comfortable with the FCC approval process for an internal RF modulator; separating them would have been too radical, especially during the crash. Huh? Nintendo? Nintendo didn't use external RF until 1996 with the N64. The VIC20 used external RF standard back in '81 in addition to the TI as you mention (Apple II too, but that was to skate FCC regs). The first production game console to use RF 100% external as standard was the 1988 Sega Mega Drive in Japan, no Mega Drive released in Japan ever had internal RF, just as Sega switched to in the US with the 1993 Genesis model 2. Nintendo was the first to have a console out with composite video support stock. (1985 with the NES test market -famicom in Japan was RF only) Nintendo was also the first to offer an automatic switchbox that was powered through the RF port (unlike the 5200 doing the opposite with the AC adapter supplying the switch which then sends the power to the console multiplexed in the RF cable -NES multiplexes it too, but a weak 5V signal to power a simple switch, not the 9V signal to power the system) I hardly see how it would have been too radical for 1983/84, it was less strange/radical than the 5200's mechanism (albeit RCA had sone it earlier without the auto switch). Computers had been using external RF boxes for 1/2 a decade or more by the time GCC was designing the 7800, so I really don't see the problem. In any case, it may not have really been cheaper than putting POKEY (or the RF modulator for that matter) on a riser board in the 7800, but it would have meant added flexibility for new high-end TVs with composite video, use with computer monitors, and a much cleaner route for a powered RF switchbox than the 5200's method. (prior to the NES style power multiplexed with RF output for the small amount of current to drive the external switch box) On the sound and RAM issues though, they COULD have opted for an add-on (like a mid 80s flavor of the XM -like a POKEY with 32k of SRAM or DRAM -in 1987 you say the first games to use POKEY or RAM those Epyx games had full 32kx8-bit SRAM chips inside), and then add those features standard to later 7800 models. (ie 7800 Plus or something) Hell, they could have introduced that module along with a keyboard add-on instead of the XEGS. Add-ons (for new functionality, not backwards compatibility) fragment your market. They would NOT have been done, especially then. Even changing the base console fragments your market, and Atari was way too cheap, and it's just not done for a console that isn't taking the world by storm. It would NOT make sense, period, full stop. No add-on has ever been successful except for CDs (and the N64 memory), and CD expansions basically create a whole new system. Were there ever any cartridge games made specifically for the Sega CD? Nope. You can get away with incremental improvements in a computer system, but not in a ROM-based console. I highly disagree, it's just that add-ons have been extremely poorly executed in far too many cases and not followed through. One huge point is to totally discontinue the non-enhanced models and offer the add-on for early users only. (the add-on needs to be low cost, affordable, and attractive -and also affordable to embed into the overall system -hence limiting to 32k total RAM addressing) And again, rolling that all together with the standard for a computer add-on would have been even more substantial. (the new, 7800+ models could have had the expansion port for the keyboard+SIO module that was built into the expansion module) Such add-ons would fail if there's already 3rd party alternatives and/or a breadth of on-cart enhancements (a la Famicom -and to lesser extent NES -ie there's no common standard that could have embedded a single mapper+sound+RAM chip for the NES's expansion port -or the SNES for that matter), but if it's not too expensive, highly standardized, and avoids such alternate conflicts, an add-on can be ideal for such. The RAM Expansion on the N64 comes close, but leaves out standardization as later N64 models were not 8MB standard internally. In contrast, Nintendo was a financially-stable company that could afford to take their time and come up with a good design. In fact, they screwed up a chip and did a complete and totall recall of the first production run of Famicom consoles. Would Atari ever have done that in any era? No, Nintendo was brand new to LSI too, a very small japanese company (albeit with a fair successful PONG clone and Game & Watch niche with a couple hit arcade games) and they were making a massive investment with the Famicom in 1983 that would have ruined them if it wasn't a huge seller. They invested heavily in an extremely integrated low-cost embedded chipset with newly added/trained engineers and a very tight development timescale (not unlike that of GCC) and a HUGE investment in a 3 million unit order with Ricoh to keep net costs down. (it could have bankrupt Nintendo if it failed -or close to it, and they were more or less betting the farm on the Famicom -it paid off as they got it right with the right hardware, software, and price with weak competition -Sega's more conservative route and the general lack of earlier systems having any significant sales at all -especially due to the VCS failing to do well in the way they licensed it out for distribution: too expensive, not marketed as needed, and a bit late at that iirc, though the 2800 was even later... a shame Atari didn't have a strong Japanese subsidiary/division or at least license the VCS to a capable distributor in Japan) OTOH, Atari Inc was so screwed up to even need GCC to step in with hardware, it's rather sad. (so many bigger issues that hurt Warner/Atari -like the flawed distribution network- but they DID have the 3200 in development back in '80/81 with a design that actually appears more cost effective than the 7800 with compatibility more integral -of course the 5200 could have strongly benefited as well if designed to cheaply add compatibility externally and be far more consolidated in general, but they even messed that up) Also, they did have one important limitation: the 2600 cartridge slot and backwards compatibility. They added 8 signal lines. There wasn't enough width in the plastic shells to go for an extra 4 pins (don't forget the 2600 door pins), and they needed those notches to keep 2600 carts from being inserted incorrectly. (And yes there was an IRQ line, and nothing ever used it.) Actually I was wrong, the 7800 cart slot does have IRQ and everything else I was already thinking of, so nothing else needed. (it has MORE features than the 5200's 36 pin slot with so many unused and redundant pins) It seems like GCC engineered the 7800 without really any direct contact with Atari Corp (all through Warner), but I still don't see why they wouldn't have pushed for POKEY from the start. That's because they did indeed build it without much if any contact from Atari. And there really wasn't room for a full Pokey on that board. Pokey may have been a nice sound chip, but half its pins were for I/O functions that wouldn't be needed. And there wasn't any "inheritance" (like the 5200 had) that would make the Pokey better than another chip. Atari may have had thousands of them just lying around, but there's still a cost associated with them. A PSG would have been best, just from the smaller size alone. No, POKEY itself would have been instrumental to the computer add-on planned (an expansion port with the SIO and keyboard lines included), but short of that: I was also suggesting GCC use the POKEY sound logic design as a shortcut and/or push that off to a collaborative effort from AInc's side to produce a cut-down POKEY derivative with a small package and die. (if you didn't need I/O and since IRQ was rather useless with MARIA as it was, they probably could have cut it down to an 18 or maybe even 16 pin DIP with it hardwired to write only, no I/O, no IRQ, single clock input, etc) Or for that matter, if the redesign took too long, use POKEY's logic for a low cost on-cart option instead. (that would be a trade-off with an add-on though, especially since a full POKEY+RAM add-on could have been instrumental in a good computer/keyboard add-on as well -let alone rolling the high score cart in with that too) Everything else you mention is mainly tied to Warner's poor transition: even some outright mistakes made by Tramiel may have been avoided with a proper transition supported by Warner. It's kind of difficult to get a "proper transition" when getting rid of a hot potato. Video games were considered dead (even if for the wrong reasons), and it wasn't just overstock that was being dumped. No, that was the definitive issue and Curt and Mart have both summarized it well. Warner made a huge mess of things and ruined a company that was turning around in an extremely positive manner: James Morgan was making huge strides in early 1984 and Atari had every sign of turning around (if not becoming stronger than ever with the management they'd needed back in 1980-82), albeit Warner's bureaucracy was still slowing things a bit and Morgan had a ton of red tape to cut through. Assuming Warner management did see this progress, they still had the issue of shareholders and market image with the massive debt tied to Atari and thus spinning off the company/selling it was highly attractive to get the debt off the books. They initially wanted to sell it as a intact, and that's what Morgan knew about and wasn't worried over (since he'd keep going either way). The split changed all that, and while there was potential to salvage most of the reorganization efforts with a normal transition, Warner screwed that up on so many levels it's not funny at all. (the timing of it was ironic though, with 4th og July meaning hapless staff coming back to utter chaos and confusion) It was something that hurt Warner almost as much as it did Atari and was one of the worst mistakes they ever made, ironically at a time when Atari was finally under management pushing to correct those mistakes that had driven them to the crash. (and the market along with them) A repackaging of the 65XE in a gaming bundle should have been cheaper, and could have been positioned better as a "games and educational computer" and marketed as an entertainment/educational/entry level computer not overlapping quite as heavily with the 7800 as the XEGS did. (the one change should have been moving the cart slot to the top of the machine -composite outputs is a moot issue, the monitor port is no more difficult to use than the Master System AV port -and there's S-video ) Actually, there wasn't S-video. The connector was first introduced in 1987 and wasn't widespread until big screen sets in the late '90s, though Commodore had been using a form of it in dedicated monitors for the C-64. (Dedicated monitor = extra $$$ = not the console market.) And basically nobody used a brand new TV for video game consoles back in the '80s anyhow. Umm, none of that matters for a monitor. A Y/C monitor could have been released in 1979/1980 for the 800. It's true that S-video (via SVHS) wasn't standard until 1987 on TVs, but were're talking computer monitor options, not TVs. (it wasn't even until the late 80s that mid-range TVs started getting composite video jacks -and not until the mid/late 90s that S-video became a common mid-range standard -the low end standard stayed as RF up into the late 90s if not beyond that) Y/C was on the 800 from the start with the same pinout as the later C64 iirc, but AFIK Atari never marketed monitors for such -I'm not even positive they had their own line of composite monitors for the A8. S-video would have been a bonus for users with higher end TVs or those who wanted to use nice, sharp monitors. (especially for the high res mode) Edited February 14, 2011 by kool kitty89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) they had dev teams that were among the best in the industry (if not the best as far as amount and range of quality output). I think Sega still has this claim today. Ignoring their weaker moments (Shadow the Hedgehog for example) that were necessary after they nearly died (yeah Shadow sucked, but how much did it make compared to what it cost), they still have one of, if not the, most diverse lineups in games. The consensus in the Sega fan community is that Sega declined rather heavily post Dreamcast in most areas including the arcades. (which were ever declining anyway) As for Shadow, it's no Sonic Adventure 2 (the best 3D sonic done IMO -some prefer SA1, but it's FAR less polished in all respects- and some don't like any of Sega's 3D sonic stuff), but Shadow the Hedgehog (on the GC) is probably the 2nd best example after SA2 and the best after the Dreamcast/ports in general. It actually feels like a less polished SA2 with 3rdps (a ala MDK) elements added. (of course, the GC version, not the buggy PS2 game -Xbox might be OK). Heroes was more annoying overall and a bit less polished, the Wii on-rails motion controlled games are horrible and annoying, Unleashed was OK but not up to the same gameplay quality and balance of Shadow IMO (some liked how they tried to push the day levels a bit like the old 2D games, but that doesn't work for me at all -and I like the 2D games-). Shadow is probably the closest to a proper sequel to Sonic Adventure 2 that Sega has ever published. I agree it's an acquired taste, and those who didn't care for SA2 will be even less likely to enjoy it (and I can see why a lot of people wouldn't care for it), but that's also true for a ton of other games. (including Unleashed -keeping on the Sonic topic- or the Sonic Adventure games in general) Sonic 4 has been a big disappointment, rather sad that it falls short of what the fan community has been (and is) doing, let alone some of Sega' handheld games. (the DS ones not so much, but some of the Sonic Advance games are decent -nothing has beat Sonic 3&K as far as pure sidescroller in the franchise though IMO and I know a ton of people who agree) The thing is, Atari never, ever had this kind of output. Even in their glory days, many of their best games were conversions of someone else's stuff. Atari didn't have the chance to expand into those years. In the early 80s, they kicked the crap out of Sega in the arcade, let alone Sega's nonexistent home market, and who knows how that could have evolved under the right management. Sure, Atari had Space Invaders as their first definitive killer app, but they also had a massive number of in-house titles from the arcade to console exclusives. (and of course, some killer 3rd parties pushing great games likes Activision and Imagic -even the clones often had improvements over the originals) Plus a TON of the best Genesis games were 3rd party releases, the SMS was deprived of 3rd party support to any significnat extent so that has no comparison. On top of that, Sega had some great 2nd parties as well as some close 3rd parties they often collaborated with (or fully outsourced to in some cases) as well as STI's fast growing development on top of Japan's teams. (in some cases, infused with Japanese developers as well -Sonic 2, 3, and Knuckles were developed at STI by a combination of Japanese staff and US STI staff -more so for the latter 2). And in general, Sega had a lot more good 1st party games than Nintendo, but also far more broadly distributed Sales (fewer million+ sellers as such), though the weak position on the Japanese market played a role there as well. (plus SBW lasting as a pack-in standard for MUCH longer than any any 1 Genesis game -plus there were core systems with no games included at all) 1) Virtua Fighter 5. Sega Rally. Outrun Online Arcade. After Burner Climax. Sonic's Genesis Collection. Sonic Colours. Sonic 4. All Star Racing. Super Monkey Ball. Yakuza. Phantasy Star Universe. Valkyrai Chronicles. Virtua Tennis. House of the Dead Overkill. Empire Total War. Etc....2) Shut up. The Virtua Tennis series was on the Dreamcast. And yes, as an active member of the general retro community (including Sega-16), that's all well and good, but by and large a HUGE step down from what they were doing 10 years ago. Also, they don't do much in the way of in-house development anymore, mainly just publishing outsourced games. (which they did back in the 90s to a small extent compared to the in-house releases -let alone 2nd party collaboration) Some of those you listed are still considered rather disappointing in general (Sonic 4, Sonic Colors -for pretty much anyone who disliked the say levels in Sonic Unleashed, etc), while many of the others are outsourced and/or rehashes/compilations of old games that are BETTER emulated on PC thanks to Fusion and MAME. Most of this has been discussed at length on multiple threads on Sega 16 (let alone elsewhere), and bear in mind that Sega-16 isn't full of just sega-exclusive fans, but fairly balanced with a mix of general retro fans and others who like modern gaming as much as classic gaming (like myself) and many who didn't grow up with Sega at all, but got into it after the fact as part of general retro interests (again, like me, unless you include the Sega PC released I had back in the late 90s). How many games can you name that were developed and published by Sega in the last 4 years that were truly great games? (I mean significant with long lasting appeal that will likely break beyond this generation) Or for that matter, how many after the Sammy merger in general? It's rather ironic that they learned to keep milking the Sonic franchise when that was one of their bigger mistakes back in the mid 90s. (could have kept milking sonic games and spinoffs on the Genesis late gen -albeit not TOO late like the huge gap from late 1994 to late 1996, 1995 was a big screw up- and more importantly on the Saturn with a mix of filler games that were OK and sold well, plus definitive games in the franchise that kept it going -on top of the various hardware and marketing conflicts, lack of the right software -1st party at that- hurt the Saturn and even the late-gen Genesis though they at least kept Sports games right on the Genesis though they botched that along with Sonic on the Saturn -and even some other significant franchises including the Phantasy Star games, even more so with JRPGs coming into main stream bigger than ever ) But let's not get into Sega' history here, there's enough of that over at Sega-16 if you actually care to discuss it. (though there's a point where there's just too little info to do anything but speculate: we need some Curt Vendel and Marty Goldberg counterparts for Sega history ) Edited February 14, 2011 by kool kitty89 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynxpro Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Atari would have flattened Nintendo and Sega if it hadn't been for Warner's horrible management of the split. I was speaking in the context of Atari Games being an insignificant facet of the problems caused by the split. (ie the 7800 would have launched in 1984, Morgan's continued plans would have meant for very organized downsizing in the final steps in reorganization -part of that would mean retaining the most integral console programming staff, Atari Games would could have had very friendly relations -or still been part of AInc if Warner hadn't found any buyer at all or sold off AInc intact, the Rainbow Chipset may have been adapted over the ST and ATG may have been properly folded into Atari Corp R&D, the 8-bit computers would have been marketed better in '84 and the planned peripherals would have been released, etc, etc -and more revenue/funding with diminshing debt much sooner so the company would be healthier on all accounts) I think Atari would've flattened both Nintendo and Sega had Warner retained James Morgan at the head of NATCO. If Warner wanted to get rid of the company, they should've spun it off to the shareholders instead of selling it piecemeal on-the-cheap to Tramiel. Having seen what the Tramiels did with Atari Corp., I think we can honestly speculate that NATCO would've been a greater success in terms of video games [at the very least] and computers. A TTL only company that never acquired Atari's assets probably would've cratered on its own. It wouldn't have had any of the existing inventory to sell off to make cash in that regard. Jack would've had to pour more of his own money into the enterprise or competed against Amiga in trying to find a larger company to buy the "ST"... Edited February 15, 2011 by Lynxpro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kool kitty89 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I think Atari would've flattened both Nintendo and Sega had Warner retained James Morgan at the head of NATCO. If Warner wanted to get rid of the company, they should've spun it off to the shareholders instead of selling it piecemeal on-the-cheap to Tramiel. Yes, ideally they should have kept Morgan's plans going and built any other plans around that. I'm not sure about the spin-off to shareholders idea, though there were probably a variety of possibilities for separating the company from Warner as such (to get the debt off the books) while retaining some stake in it. (again, perhaps even Morgan could have taken over the company if he was willing -spin it off with loans in a similar manner as Atari Corp but without the sloppy split and change in mangement, liquidation of Atari Inc, etc -and total layoffs by Warner, etc) Having seen what the Tramiels did with Atari Corp., I think we can honestly speculate that NATCO would've been a greater success in terms of video games [at the very least] and computers. Perhaps, but what he did historically is hardly indicative of what he may have done under a proper transition: let alone a sale that held specific conditions that forced a trasition even if Tramiel wanted to take control right away and allow Morgan to smooth things over and at very least have the new management close to 100% aware of all Atari operations and existing plans for reorganization. (and of course properly map out the split on top of all that) And it's obvious that either case (properly managed sale or unadulterated NATCO plans) would have been considerably better than what happened with Atari Corp. (the 7800 and 2600 Jr would have launched as planned, A8 computers and peripherals would continue as planned, Amiga would be sued more decisively, ATG's designs would be considered/reviewed, all staff downsizing would have been much cleaner -Warner wouldn't lay off 100% of staff immediately but give proper notice to find new jobs with Atari Corp or elsewhere, the hiring process would be much smoother, Atari Corp would have a better relationship with Atari Games, there would be more revenue earlier on, etc, etc) I do think that Tramiel may have pushed the pricing a bit too aggressively for optimal health of the company. There's a point where dropping the price won't generate significantly greater sales, especially considering the low profit margins. (aggressive pricing is important and there's cases where Warner/Atari didn't push that far enough, but the 800XL price drop was probably a bit steeper than necessary -especially given the limited supplies they had to work with and apparently limited production capacity at the time; the 7800 game prices were also probably a bit too low unless it was only the older games that were moved down to $10 and the newer/larger ones at a fair bit more though the hardware pricing was probably right on for such a razor and blade market -for the computers it probably should have been $150 for the 800XL and $99 for the 600XL in '84 since the C64 was placed around $200 retail at that point) A TTL only company that never acquired Atari's assets probably would've cratered on its own. It wouldn't have had any of the existing inventory to sell off to make cash in that regard. Jack would've had to pour more of his own money into the enterprise or competed against Amiga in trying to find a larger company to buy the "ST"... Maybe, maybe not, who knows? For that matter, maybe it would still have been significant in Europe depending on how Morgan tackled that market. Tramiel's name alone was quite strong in the indusrty and may have been able to generate some hype by that alone. He wouldn't have been selling the ST to another company (the ST was still only on paper in mid '84 anyway), he was trying to bring the computer to market at the low cost he felt the market needed. Likewise, I doubt Amiga would have been a factor: they were already going with Commdore at the time and as far as CBM getting the Amiga out any sooner, they'd have had to deal with Morgan suing their asses over breech of contract (with a stronger and cleaner case than Tramiel had), so the Amiga may have been even more heavily set back by that. TTL would have had to do all the same engineering for the logic design, wirewrap, LSI design, building on the prototype GEMDOS obtained from DRI, work on establishing contracts with manufacturers for the LSI chips, PCBs, final assembly and packaging, etc, and also get a distribution network put together. Distribution could have been built-up in-house, or (far more likely) a combination of that and outsourcing to various 3rd party licensees. Hell, maybe even license the system/chipset as a standard among several international 3rd party manufacturers (sort of like MSX), but short of that you'd probably have a royalties based licensed distribution system more like some game consoles did (and retain more control over distribution), or more of a hybrid model like 3DO did. (except that model fits a computer far better than the game console market ) Such licensing (especially the all around licensed standard) could have actually made the ST far MORE successful than it was and promote a broader licensed/clone market on the level of PCs. (especially in Europe where PCs were virtually nonexistent) As it was, Atari Corp (and CBM) should have pushed licensing of their designs for a broader market standard if they wanted any real chance in long term competition against PCs. (so they'd both aim at being the leading manufacturers of a broadly licensed standard -as IBM could/should have done with the PC but failed to in the long run including missed opportunities like the PCJr and PS/2) The alternative to such licensing from the start would be drumming up investor capital in other ways (ie not from companies licensing the chipset or planning on licensed distribution) and trading stock would probably only address some of that. Jack's name in the industry would have gone some ways in securing confidence for investment, but probably not far enough. (the ongoing hardware and OS developments would have been determining factors for sure) Given the ST's relatively simple and low-cost design and a relatively small company, it's somewhat parallel to Sinclair's machines in Europe. (in that sense, the ST is more like what the QL should have been in the general concept of what Sinclair was pushing -though they'd probably have been more successful with a further development of the Spectrum -not something basic like the 128, but more like the jump from the CoCo to the CoCo III) There was literally no low-cost contemporary to the ST, no high performance low-cost 16/32-bit computer on the market, let alone in Europe where the price was even more important. (Commodore wasn't going that direction until much later -in large part because of the ST- so it would more be up to what Morgan was pushing with the ATG designs, how low-cost those would be, and how he handled things in Europe -where Atari's position was quite weak and TTL would have had a far bigger opening in general) Of course, there's also the issue of what would have happened to TTL with CBM's lawsuit without the Amiga countersuit. (though CBM would have had their hands full with Atari Inc litigation over Amiga anyway, so that complicates things) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarifever Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) How many games can you name that were developed and published by Sega in the last 4 years that were truly great games? (I mean significant with long lasting appeal that will likely break beyond this generation) Or for that matter, how many after the Sammy merger in general? A ton, but you obviously won't agree. Sonic 4 and Colours reviewed very strongly, as did all Stars racing and the Ultimate Genesis collection. However, you wrote those off because, if I understand it right, it isn't 1991. And what is it with "retro fans" that they have to be so backward looking that the only way we can appriciate something like All Stars Racing, or Sega Rally, or Monkey Ball is if it is better than, say, Nights? Here's a question, if the Dreamcast and Saturn were so great, why doesn't sega still make hardware? Answer: because although the games they made there may have appealed to you, apparently they didn't do it for most people. Every retro person goes on and on about the Saturn and Dreamcast being incredible. However, how many of you bought one new back then? It's like the games journalists who talk about how great they were, but if you read reviews in their publications from back then they were completely negative. Sega had 1, count them, 1 successful console. That's it. That is why you are still hanging out on a forum dedicated to that system. Judged on just their output of developed or published games over the last couple years, Sega is fine. Stop wishing it were 20 years ago. You are also making the mistake of thinking Sega fans are on Sega-16. They are not. That is Genesis fans, and maybe Sega hardware fans. If you want to talk Sega with Sega fans please join us over at Sega-addicts. We were quite pleased with Sonic 4, Colours, Phantasy Star, etc. And why shouldn't published games count? That is part of their business, and choosing and getting the right games to publish is important too. They could be publishing junk, but they are smart enough to get stuff like Bayonetta. They are on the list of Metacritics top 10 reviewed publishers. That's a decent accomplishment. Why should that be ignored or held against them? I think you're handicapping them just so you can be disappointed by them. The time from the launch of the Genesis to the launch of the Dreamcast was 10 years. The time from the death of the Dreamcast to today is ten years. Perhaps it is time you judged Sega on the company and business they are today. Edited February 15, 2011 by Atarifever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Here's a question, if the Dreamcast and Saturn were so great, why doesn't sega still make hardware? Answer: because although the games they made there may have appealed to you, apparently they didn't do it for most people. In the case of the Dreamcast, they didn't have money to compete in the new markeplace that saw Microsoft itself lost $ 4 billion on the first XBox. Between the crazy hardware costs, the game costs shooting through the roof and Sega's financial position, it became an issue of them not being able to afford to compete under these new conditions. Really, had Microsoft not been Microsoft, they too would have had to bail on the industry. Sony's PS2 sales were bolstered initially by strong PS1 sales (while they lost money out of the gait) and Nintendo was bolstered by handhelds and a stronger lineup of first party games. Dreamcast is the only system I can think of with a strong library of games out of the gate that sold reasonably well yet had to close because the manufacturer couldn't afford it. However, how many of you bought one new back then? It's like the games journalists who talk about how great they were, but if you read reviews in their publications from back then they were completely negative. Don't remember any "completely negative" reviews on Dreamcast. I had one back then too and lots of pubs. You sure you aren't mistaking it for Jaguar? The only negativity I saw was a distrust of Sega after the Saturn/32X/Sega CD debacle. I did see quite positive reviews of the hardware and games in pubs. This was a stark contrast to the Jaguar I had before it. Now THOSE were negative reviews! Sega had 1, count them, 1 successful console. That's it. What defines "success" and where? The Master System was an also ran in the US and Asia Pacific but did well in Europe and Latin America. There's a far larger library of Master System games than any Atari system except the 2600. And it reportedly sold over 10 million units worldwide. Master System was still getting games 8 years after the fact. The Dreamcast? In two years, it sold almost 11 million units (likely more than 5200, 7800, XE, Lynx and Jaguar combined) and had a few hundred games published ... including many classics and a number of million selling titles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarifever Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Here's a question, if the Dreamcast and Saturn were so great, why doesn't sega still make hardware? Answer: because although the games they made there may have appealed to you, apparently they didn't do it for most people. In the case of the Dreamcast, they didn't have money to compete in the new markeplace that saw Microsoft itself lost $ 4 billion on the first XBox. Between the crazy hardware costs, the game costs shooting through the roof and Sega's financial position, it became an issue of them not being able to afford to compete under these new conditions. Really, had Microsoft not been Microsoft, they too would have had to bail on the industry. Sony's PS2 sales were bolstered initially by strong PS1 sales (while they lost money out of the gait) and Nintendo was bolstered by handhelds and a stronger lineup of first party games. Dreamcast is the only system I can think of with a strong library of games out of the gate that sold reasonably well yet had to close because the manufacturer couldn't afford it. Still, it didn't manage to survive, so whatever it did right, it didn't manage to do everything it needed to. However, how many of you bought one new back then? It's like the games journalists who talk about how great they were, but if you read reviews in their publications from back then they were completely negative. Don't remember any "completely negative" reviews on Dreamcast. I had one back then too and lots of pubs. You sure you aren't mistaking it for Jaguar? The only negativity I saw was a distrust of Sega after the Saturn/32X/Sega CD debacle. I did see quite positive reviews of the hardware and games in pubs. This was a stark contrast to the Jaguar I had before it. Now THOSE were negative reviews! Not comppletely negative, but there were a lot of "until the PS2 comes out we can't judge" or "we reccomend waiting for the PS2" etc. type stuff. And for the Saturn, just look into the Blue Shadows thing to see how negative it was reviewed. Sega had 1, count them, 1 successful console. That's it. What defines "success" and where? The Master System was an also ran in the US and Asia Pacific but did well in Europe and Latin America. There's a far larger library of Master System games than any Atari system except the 2600. And it reportedly sold over 10 million units worldwide. Master System was still getting games 8 years after the fact. The Dreamcast? In two years, it sold almost 11 million units (likely more than 5200, 7800, XE, Lynx and Jaguar combined) and had a few hundred games published ... including many classics and a number of million selling titles. Now let's not split hairs. The system, as stated above, clearly set them up for later success, but the SMS was an also ran almost everytwhere, and in 90% of the overall market. The Saturn lost money just to finish a distant third. The 32X and Sega CD never lit the world on fire. The Dreamcast was great but died early (for the reasons you stated). Compared to the Genesis, all of those look pretty sad overall. I love all those systems, but again, we're just talkig reality versus "retro" Sega fans' beliefs. And, while I've sidetracked the thread, Sega fans should be most ashamed of missing Sega's best game of the last decade by the way: Pocket Kingdom:OTW. Don't believe any negative reviews. That's just because it was an NGage game. How many here besides me own that one I wonder? How many besides me bought it new? And yet they will talk about how Sega releases nothing good. For shame. As pretty and deep, and ahead of its time as any game I have ever seen. While PSP fans were amazed at playing online at hotspots, N-Gage Sega fans were fighting each other across the world while riding the bus. Edited February 15, 2011 by Atarifever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 and in 90% of the overall market. Our friends in Europe and Latin America may find that a tad ethnocentric ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Laird Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 and in 90% of the overall market. Our friends in Europe and Latin America may find that a tad ethnocentric ... Indeed. The Master System destroyed the NES here was really well supported indeed. Hell its still being sold in Brazil! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarifever Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) and in 90% of the overall market. Our friends in Europe and Latin America may find that a tad ethnocentric ... Indeed. The Master System destroyed the NES here was really well supported indeed. Hell its still being sold in Brazil! Not ethnocentric. I'm from Canada (like you), and we didn't even see some of the U.S. systems and had a major retailer selling pirate 2600 stuff. We also still pay a mark-up on everything, despite having a dollar on pairity with the U.S., much of the development happening here, free trade, and all shipments being simple by land deals. I am not part of either of the two markets I am claiming make up the 90% of the console market at that time (a fact you should be aware of, seeing as you even live on the same part -- the good part-- of this Country). However, to argue that Europe was a big part of the console market in 1986-1990 is being a tad revisionist. I'd argee if we were talking computers, but between Japan and the U.S.A. (again, excluding Canada, as we didn't even get the 5200 and had very limited 7800 access for the early to mid 80s period we are talking about for example), you had the bulk of CONSOLE sales and programming. And to argue that Brazil used to be a big market, when it was so small a market the SMS was still basically viable until the year 2000 is to want it both ways. If the 2600 were still one of our main consoles here in Canada, while the rest of the world was on to the 360 and Wii, I doubt I'd be using it as proof of how major a market we were. It was a small market, full of piracy which made it even less important to the overall industry. Edited February 15, 2011 by Atarifever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Not ethnocentric. I'm from Canada (like you), and we didn't even see some of the U.S. systems and had a major retailer selling pirate 2600 stuff. Depends on where you live in Canada, I guess. I saw all the same systems that were in the US in Canada, though not as frequently or all the games. I am not part of either of the two markets I am claiming make up the 90% of the console market at that time This was the claim that I had a problem with. You're essentially saying that US and Japan make up "90% of the market", which essentially says 'all other countries are table scraps' I don't think you have financial data top back that up - markets outside of those two countries might be quite a bit bigger than you think. If the Master System sold 2 million in the US but 11 million elsewhere, judging it a failure only on the US sales is not really fair, IMO. Likewise, if it had 80-100 games in the US and Japan but 300-400 in Europe and Latin America, judging it on the basis of US only vs. global is not really fair either. (a fact you should be aware of, seeing as you even live on the same part -- the good part-- of this Country). Having not visited many other parts of the country, I'm in no position to judge if maritimes or better or worse. However, to argue that Europe was a big part of the console market in 1986-1990 is being a tad revisionist. Of the glboal console sales, what was the revenue break down between North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and Latin America between those time periods? you had the bulk of CONSOLE sales and programming. Show me the market data. And to argue that Brazil used to be a big market, when it was so small a market the SMS was still basically viable until the year 2000 is to want it both ways. Show me the market data on the size of the market...? before making assumptions about it's size. Edited February 15, 2011 by DracIsBack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarifever Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) Show me the market data. Think about the very numbers you gave there. 2 million Master Systems in the U.S. 11 million between the rest of the world, including Japan. The Master system ate the NES for breakfast in Europe. The NES sold over 61 million, with very few sold in Europe, where it has been admitted the SMS completely dominated. Think for a second now. What do those numbers tell you. I am not saying Europe isn't a much bigger console game market now. In fact, they were very likely the biggest computer game market at that time. What I am saying is that they weren't that much of the world console market before the Genesis. I have never seen anything to make me think otherwise. Edited February 15, 2011 by Atarifever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 2 million Master Systems in the U.S. 11 million between the rest of the world, including Japan. The Master system ate the NES for breakfast in Europe. The NES sold over 61 million, with very few sold in Europe, where it has been admitted the SMS completely dominated. Think for a second now. What do those numbers tell you. It tells me you made up a statistic about US and Japan accounting for 90% of global video game console sales, with no market data from the time to back it up ... only your 'gut feel'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarifever Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 2 million Master Systems in the U.S. 11 million between the rest of the world, including Japan. The Master system ate the NES for breakfast in Europe. The NES sold over 61 million, with very few sold in Europe, where it has been admitted the SMS completely dominated. Think for a second now. What do those numbers tell you. It tells me you made up a statistic about US and Japan accounting for 90% of global video game console sales, with no market data from the time to back it up ... only your 'gut feel'. I'm sorry, but did I catch you at that time of the month or something? I don't think the context I threw that number out in implied statistical analysis had been conducted by me to arrive at a number accurate at alpha = .05 or anything. That very sentence started with "lets not split hairs" and yet here you are, splitting the tiniest piece of a split end. Imagine if this argument ran its course to just the exact conclusion you are hoping would come out on top. Let us imagine it is shown that Europe and Brazil made up 30 entire, gigantic percent of the entire world console market at that time. It didn't, but let us be completely silly and pretend it did. Now let us further assume that this means the U.S. and Japan alone each had 30% as well. And then let's be real silly and give 5% to Canada and 5% to the lost city of Atlantis. Now, the point is still that in a market making up only 30% of the world market in total, the Master system was a smash hit, but not the only game playing system doing well there (home computer sales were really good). In the other 70% it was at best an also ran, selling only a small fraction of the amount the NES did. Hooray. Exactly what I said before that you have been splitting hairs over this entire time. At best the system was the best selling system in a third of the world market. That was my entire point, and the difference between Europe being 10% or 30% of the market does nothing to change that. Is the hair split far enough now or would you like to get out the scanning electron microscope and a particle beam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krewat Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I see last-word-itis runs rampant on almost every Internet forum I visit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atarifever Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) I see last-word-itis runs rampant on almost every Internet forum I visit Wouldn't it be lastwordophilia? I think last-word-itis would be something like getting sick from having the last word. Heh. There it is again. Edited February 15, 2011 by Atarifever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DracIsBack Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry, but did I catch you at that time of the month or something? Nice - the ladies must love you. I don't think the context I threw that number out in implied statistical analysis had been conducted by me to arrive at a number accurate at alpha = .05 or anything. Sorry dude, but whether you meant to or not, you came across as to me as suggesting that markets that weren't US or Japan were 'miniscule and irrelevant' in an effort to prove your point. The world is a big place, with lots of users, some of which do actually play video games. i'm assuming you didn't mean it the way it came across. Reality was, Sega sold a LOT of MASTER SYSTEMS in Europe. Millions upon millions of them. Several times the number sold in North America, in fact. So on that basis, I don't call MASTER SYSTEM a failure or the European game market as minuscule. The SMS was quite successful in some regions, while not others. Likewise, the Genesis was REALLY popular in the US but utterly tanked in Japan. Does that make it a success or failure? It sold many millions in one, not another. North Americans would remember it as a big console. Japanese would probably remember it as "that system which did far worse than the Super Famicom and PC Engine". On a global basis, it still sold quite a bit less than the Super NES/Famicom. the gap wasn't as wide as with NES vs. SMS but there was still a pretty big gap if 50 million Super Nintendo's to 29 million Genesis systems is to be believed. When I look at Sega, I see a company that was never the global leader in consoles, but - did have moments where they led specific markets (US with Genesis, Europe with Master System) - have several systems that sold more than 10 million units (Master System, Genesis, Dreamcast and I believe GameGear) ... so lots of fans - Several systems with libraries that comprised of hundreds of games. So successful enough, if not really ever a global leader. Edited February 15, 2011 by DracIsBack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.