[QUOTE="Yo-SUP"][QUOTE="penpusher"]The market was no more much different then the 4th gen market, 3 million is not a lot. You seem to be angred. The atari market saturated with shovel ware outsold the NES the first year and sold over a million the year before after it was selling 5x worse. The NES was not the first to use lock-out chips, or the licensing format. Again, all the launch consoles and the new 2600 models all sold near the same at launch, you keep saying that it brough confidence and more consumers basically by itself which is not true. The 2600, 7800, and 5200 as well as computer atari all went into the 90's. You're acting like Atari was having issues still being in the market. You are again misusing the word dominance, btw, but I have clearly caused frustration for you so let us stop this circular argument as we are going nowhere. It's better if you look up the information then me telling you as that may make it more credible to you and you might think differently about it. Well if you want to bring the 2600, 7800 and 5200 into the 90's as well, then the word dominance is even more appropriate. The NES dominated them all. It out sold them, and carried on out selling as the 90's wore on. I don't understand how you can't see that as dominance. And no, not getting angry at all. I just don't understand how you're trying to say that the NES didn't dominate, when it's sales, to it's reflection in pop culture, to it's legacy generally indicate that it did. As I keep saying, you've picked a camp, and are tying to defend it. I don't understand why you keep using this pick a camp and defend when that's what YOU ARE doing. You don't seem to understand the NES did not "dominate" and continue to fail to understand that. The NES sales were 10 million more than the end of the gen, it won, yes good, how is that domination?There you go again "oh you're using the word wrong". That's all you've really done, just split hairs and attack definitions. Millions is still a lot, especially back then. You also attacked the idea of a 90% market share. Though 90% is most likely just a popular estimation, Nintendo still managed some where near that market share, while Atari just faded out. And how can you say that the NES didn't reassure confidence in the market? (You left that point unanswered) Atari left the market in a complete mess totally over saturated with shovel ware, where as the NES brought with it sensible controls, the lock out chips, the licensing format, even the seal of approval (basically a marketing gimmick, but it worked) which restored sellers confidence, followed by the consumers confidence. Nintendo doesn't have the legacy of returning the market to a decent position, whilst Atari has the legacy of bringing it to it's knee's for nothing, or out of fairy tale. Doesn't matter how you try and split hairs and say what you think definitions should mean, the NES still took the lead and kept it. This stuff isn't made up, it's fact. It doesn't matter which tiny details you go for, or how you nit pick at peoples definitions of words like dominating, the fact is that the NES still achieved dominance and ran with it well into the 90's when Atari just couldn't keep up. I don't really understand what you're trying to achieve. Like I said before, you seem to have picked a camp and are trying your best to defend it.
penpusher
Yo-SUP's forum posts
25 million in total, during the gen it was only 10 million more. It's not really dominating either way. 5 million to 40 million is domination 25 million to 150 million is domination. Using "complete" domination for a mere 10 million or 19 million more is way to excessive. The Nes was clear ahead no doubt, it took them near the end of the gen to get their though.No, the word dominating is most definetly being used correctly here. NES COMPLETELY DOMINATED the competition at the time, until the Sega Genesis came out.
25 Million is waaaaaaayyyyyyy more than 3 million. They dominated.
Emerald_Warrior
the 7800 came out the same year as the NES, there was no NES bandwagon to jump on. The 2600 sold over a million in 85, which is why Atari brought the 7800 out. I also never said the 7800 re-ignited the industry, I said the 2600 sold million before and on the NEs launch year and the all the competitors outside the SMS that had hid numbers, all were not far from each other and the 2600 was the leading selling system with the NES a close second in 86. The industry was out the red that year, so its hard for even me, a person who thinks all the main 3rd gen systems are outdated garbage, to say the NES re-ignited anything because of that fact. This also effects the whole it single-handedly re-started the market. It makes no logical sense. It was just another popular system. Atari only posted results to certain media, and kept quite most of the time. This put all positive spotlight on the NES because the only public knowledge in the media like news and magazines was the 2600 slowly improving its finances not actually knowing what was going down.The 7800 was re-released to jump on the NES bandwaggon.
Something released due to the NES can't really be given credit for re-igniting the US console industry IMO. This thing came out literally because Nintendo had shown the market to be viable again and Atari wanted a share of the re-immerging market.
Most Atari 2600 sales were during the early to mid 80s, before the NES came out. Sure it carried on selling well through the late 80s as a budget machine but it did not compete on a level with the NES.
Sega of America were tiny during this period, and couldn't market or distribute the Master System properly, most of the 2 million SMS sales happened after Sega had given up, when Tonka Toys had taken over sales of the machine from 1988 onwards.
Fact is, as history went, the NES re-started the US console market single-handedly, simple as.
Now thats not the same as saying it "saved the industry" as I personally think that it was only a matter of time before the US regained interest in consoles (the rest of the world was healthy and doing their own things, afterall), if it hadn't been NES, it would've been Master System, or one of the 4th gen systems IMO.
The NES was also damaging for the US market in some ways, their practices were anti-competitive, and the way they forced companies to buy huge bulk amounts of cartridges (for double price) would've made it difficult for new US start-up companies to get their foot in the door.
Domino_slayer
The issue is you use the word dominated without knowing the actual definition. Around 10 million more is not "dominating" please use any other word that makes sense. I am not picking any camps as yo keep saying, it was not the console that is constantly praised, although a bit less now, for revitalizing the industry price when almost all the 3rd gen systems in 1996 (nes, 7800, new model 2600.) were right next to each other. The fact you also consider a 3 million gap domination is even stranger and a even worse misuse of the word. As for the 7800 not taking the U.S. market but still having a good amount of consoles, out, that is more the 2600's fault than the Nes, which practically was closer to the Nes in terms of sales than other systems. I think that if they had cut the 2600 it would have been different. but this also proves my point that gaming was so freaking behind that people just went a brought the 2600 even after it was near obsolete.[QUOTE="Yo-SUP"][QUOTE="penpusher"]
I never said anything about 30 million more. But to the rest of your point, so what? I never said anything about it instantly outselling the 7800. The simple fact is that on the whole your own numbers show that NES dominated the 7800, and Atari generally no matter how you split hairs by talking about which generation ended where. It also did save the market, it was the console that got sellers interested again, (not necessarily the buyers at first). I can't understand how you're trying to say it didn't dominate Atari. It sounds like you've just picked a camp and are trying to defend it against a juggernaut. It sounds like splitting hairs to pick out minute a set of details as possible. You even quoted that the Atari was only behind by 3 million for a while. For the time that still strikes me as domination. The 7800 might have managed to hold ground for a little while, what with a name like Atari behind it, but ultimately it just didn't have what it took to dominate as the NES did in NA, no matter which fine details you pick on.
penpusher
There you go again "oh you're using the word wrong". That's all you've really done, just split hairs and attack definitions. Millions is still a lot, especially back then. You also attacked the idea of a 90% market share. Though 90% is most likely just a popular estimation, Nintendo still managed some where near that market share, while Atari just faded out. And how can you say that the NES didn't reassure confidence in the market? (You left that point unanswered) Atari left the market in a complete mess totally over saturated with shovel ware, where as the NES brought with it sensible controls, the lock out chips, the licensing format, even the seal of approval (basically a marketing gimmick, but it worked) which restored sellers confidence, followed by the consumers confidence. Nintendo doesn't have the legacy of returning the market to a decent position, whilst Atari has the legacy of bringing it to it's knee's for nothing, or out of fairy tale. Doesn't matter how you try and split hairs and say what you think definitions should mean, the NES still took the lead and kept it. This stuff isn't made up, it's fact. It doesn't matter which tiny details you go for, or how you nit pick at peoples definitions of words like dominating, the fact is that the NES still achieved dominance and ran with it well into the 90's when Atari just couldn't keep up. I don't really understand what you're trying to achieve. Like I said before, you seem to have picked a camp and are trying your best to defend it.
The market was no more much different then the 4th gen market, 3 million is not a lot. You seem to be angred. The atari market saturated with shovel ware outsold the NES the first year and sold over a million the year before after it was selling 5x worse. The NES was not the first to use lock-out chips, or the licensing format. Again, all the launch consoles and the new 2600 models all sold near the same at launch, you keep saying that it brough confidence and more consumers basically by itself which is not true. The 2600, 7800, and 5200 as well as computer atari all went into the 90's. You're acting like Atari was having issues still being in the market. You are again misusing the word dominance, btw, but I have clearly caused frustration for you so let us stop this circular argument as we are going nowhere. It's better if you look up the information then me telling you as that may make it more credible to you and you might think differently about it.[QUOTE="Ricardomz"]
Final Fantasy XII.
GreySeal9
Ever since FFXIII released, fans have been admitting that FFXII is awesome.
Whoops misread, It's still not the most talked about game, but FFXIII did make people realize how good the game was after its MMO reputation. I personally think the battle system is flawed, but there are many who like it.The 7800 had sold only a couple hundred thousand less than the NES launch year, and the 2600 outsold the NES launch year and had sold over a million in 85 a year before that. The NES did not have a clear lead until about a a couple years later. The Industry worth was already out of the red in 86 by the end of the year. to say the NES saved the market or that the Nes dominated the Atari consoles instantly is a fairy tales. I think people often look at the NES as a whole instead of the North American market, specifically the U.S.A., and imagine high dominating numbers. The NES did not sell almost 30 million more than the competition in NA.[QUOTE="Yo-SUP"][QUOTE="penpusher"]I also find it bizarre that someone seems to think the NES didn't dominate the Atari consoles of the time, or save the market.penpusher
I never said anything about 30 million more. But to the rest of your point, so what? I never said anything about it instantly outselling the 7800. The simple fact is that on the whole your own numbers show that NES dominated the 7800, and Atari generally no matter how you split hairs by talking about which generation ended where. It also did save the market, it was the console that got sellers interested again, (not necessarily the buyers at first). I can't understand how you're trying to say it didn't dominate Atari. It sounds like you've just picked a camp and are trying to defend it against a juggernaut. It sounds like splitting hairs to pick out minute a set of details as possible. You even quoted that the Atari was only behind by 3 million for a while. For the time that still strikes me as domination. The 7800 might have managed to hold ground for a little while, what with a name like Atari behind it, but ultimately it just didn't have what it took to dominate as the NES did in NA, no matter which fine details you pick on.
The issue is you use the word dominated without knowing the actual definition. Around 10 million more is not "dominating" please use any other word that makes sense. I am not picking any camps as yo keep saying, it was not the console that is constantly praised, although a bit less now, for revitalizing the industry price when almost all the 3rd gen systems in 1996 (nes, 7800, new model 2600.) were right next to each other. The fact you also consider a 3 million gap domination is even stranger and a even worse misuse of the word. As for the 7800 not taking the U.S. market but still having a good amount of consoles, out, that is more the 2600's fault than the Nes, which practically was closer to the Nes in terms of sales than other systems. I think that if they had cut the 2600 it would have been different. but this also proves my point that gaming was so freaking behind that people just went a brought the 2600 even after it was near obsolete.[QUOTE="Yo-SUP"] But your over use of anecdotal evidence is not recommended.Emerald_Warrior
How is a cold hard statistic like 90% of the market share, anecdotal? Anecdotal means cherry picked from a small group. Market share means the ENTIRE U.S. market, hardly anecdotal.
Articles and archives show the NEs selling around 25 million units with the 7800 around 4, and whatever a 500,000 for the Intellivision, and around 4-5 million for the 2600. the SMS is estimated around 2 million. Doing actual math it's ot 90%. it's anecdotal because you said you read it somewhere, and your 1up link has no source, but at the say time, they say "peak of its popularity", which would mean around late 88-89 when the gen was pretty much already over and the Nes kept selling while the 7800 was already being taken off stores preparing for discontinuation, and the 2600 was also after 89, about to do the same thing as it was discontinued in 92. But the thing about that is, the gen was already over. At that point you would be including post gen NA sales, and the TG16 and Genesis already prevented it from reaching 90% as well.I also find it bizarre that someone seems to think the NES didn't dominate the Atari consoles of the time, or save the market.penpusherThe 7800 had sold only a couple hundred thousand less than the NES launch year, and the 2600 outsold the NES launch year and had sold over a million in 85 a year before that. The NES did not have a clear lead until about a a couple years later. The Industry worth was already out of the red in 86 by the end of the year. to say the NES saved the market or that the Nes dominated the Atari consoles instantly is a fairy tales. I think people often look at the NES as a whole instead of the North American market, specifically the U.S.A., and imagine high dominating numbers. The NES did not sell almost 30 million more than the competition in NA.
The 7800 was on the tail of the Nes with the Nes only selling 3 million more for awhile, and the 7800 was selling more per month than the month before. However, the NES managed to block that progression in the later 80's as the 7800 started selling in the hundreds per month. Not to mention, the Nes before it got toward its peak was also not far ahead, and at first was behind, the 2600. The Nes was a fast selling system ad was very popular, but dominating is a word that make no sense. 2600 to its competition was dominating. Not the Nes. (talking about NA.) How big the Nes won depends on when you consider the generation to have ended. Overall, the Nes sold around 25 million to the Atari 7800's around 4 million. if you are talking before the TG16 started the 4th generation, it was 14.5 million to around the high 3 million to 4 million area for the 7800. It's still a big gap, buts it not 20 million+ more than the competition. But your over use of anecdotal evidence is not recommended.Not exaggerating at all. The NES was so dominating in the U.S., that many people even referred to video games in general as simply "Nintendo".
I read somewhere that the NES had something like a 90% market share until the Sega Genesis took off. So I looked it up and I was right on the button, 90%:
http://www.1up.com/features/egm-retro-20-years-nes
When the NES launched, America hated videogames. Well, sort of. The Atari 2600 had upset folks by flooding the market with bad software and, at first, retailers were reluctant to sell another system. But the NES was a hit, controlling a healthy 90 percent of the U.S. home videogame industry at the peak of its popularity.Emerald_Warrior
That's extremely dominating. It's such a large number, that even if there was wiggle room for discrepencies in the report, or a few errors here or there; that if they dropped a few percent because of it they'd still be absolutley dominating. Atari 7800 and Sega Master System didn't even come close to riding Nintendo's coat-tails in the mid-to-late 80s.
And pop-culture reflected it. Mario was everywhere back then. On t-shirts, backpacks, lunch-boxes, posters, pencils, he had his own cartoon show, and they even made 2 movies based around Mario (The Wizard and Super Mario Bros.).
Log in to comment