Agente42 said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:
Only we actually do have data and history. The US had a few years where the console market died. During those years the home computer market filled in the void, especially the C64. The C64 sold about 1/4 of what the NES sold a few years later. Sure, I am speculating, but my speculation is based on what actually did happen.
There are also examples, from other media, that show what happens when a successful medium crashes. During the 30's and 40's, comic books were the most popular medium in the US, more than movies, TV, radio, anything. It started out as a superhero medium, but gradually it started branching out to other genres, especially as kids grew up and wanted more mature content. In the 50's, the government imposed heavy regulation on comic books via the Comics Code Authority (because of the mature content). The comic book market tanked. It did recover somewhat in the 60's with Marvel and Stan Lee, but it was never nearly as popular as it was before the government regulation, and the main genre has always been superheroes since the 60's. Contrast this with comics in Japan. They never had anything that seriously tanked their market. The result is they have a very robust manga market that represents a variety of genres. There actually can be key moments in the history of a medium that determine its fate permanently.
This idea that consoles would still exist, no matter what, is speculation that is not based on data. The easiest way to answer the "what would have happened" question is to ask "what actually did happen". In the absence of console gaming, computer gaming became the new norm. Consoles were seen as a fad, much like motion controls are seen today. Computer gaming was doing just fine. Why wouldn't it become the permanent standard?
The real question is, "why do consoles have to exist?" In a world without the NES, why would they have to exist. Someone please make an argument more compelling than "it has to be this way", or "consoles totally wouldn't exist, yeah right". Gaming would still exist, but it would find another medium. Outside of Japan, most gaming in the 80's was being developed for a computer. In Germany during the 80s, they were actually building a new board game market. Gaming would still exist. Why would it always have to be on consoles, when the console market appeared so unreliable?
|
your hypothesis is better than Hynad. Consoles gaming maybe go niche and arcade maybe flourish. Sega, Namco will rule the arcade market and UK computer games will reign the home market. German moderns boardgames maybe go before.... but is a better proposition than consoles will exist without Nintendo in US. Not the same size and not the same way.
|
You value his hypothesis because it sings the song that you like to sign to yourself.
Regardless, nobody mentioned anything about size or “way”. That is not what is being discussed. Of course things would have been different, bigger or smaller, if history had been different. No shit, Sherlock. The NES propelled the console industry in a clear observed direction, no question about it.
What is argued is how the NES somehow saved an industry on the sole account that the US side of the market was struggling. As if the US was the only reason video games are a thing right now. That argument ignores every other regions in the world, as if the US was the center of it all. And without it, nothing can possibly exist. Your lot imply that because the market in the US was struggling, it means it can’t possible improve later on because of a console made by Sega or any other console makers, and none other could have ever achieved anything other than Nintendo?
Even if speculative, my argument relies on what the situation was outside of the regions affected by 83’s US crash. When despite the situation with the US console manufacturers, many companies elsewhere continued releasing new and improved consoles in regions where the market wasn’t in the same predicament. And you can be sure that consoles gaining traction in Japan meant that inevitably companies were always going to eventually bring them to the US market. Nintendo just happened to be the first to do it.
Just because history has the NES as the console that made the biggest impact of its era in no way means the other console makers had to go out of business if not for its success. That’s utterly ridiculous and comes from an obvious position of blinding bias that disregards any and all rationality.
Last edited by Hynad - on 07 February 2021
