Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Did Nintendo save gaming with the NES?

Did Nintendo save gaming with the NES?

Yes 54 72.00%
 
No 21 28.00%
 
Total:75
Doctor_MG said:
DragonRouge said:
I find the "Nintendo saved gaming" to be a too much US centric statement. Gaming was doing fine outside the US at the time of the crash.

The US, and more specifically NA, is the largest territory for video game console sales both right before the crash happened and even to this day. Every single generation North America proves to be the most lucrative when it comes to console sales.  You can bet that a crash in the most lucrative area of video games would have found it's ripples affecting other territories.   

Besides, I wouldn't say that gaming was doing fine outside of NA. Gaming in Europe was very niche in particular, and the Famicom literally created a market surge when many analysts in Japan were wary about the viability of video games after the "Atari Shock". Also, while it hit NA the worst, globally video game sales were at an all time low at the time of the crash. 

I don't agree with your statement that NA is THE most important market for gaming, at least not nowadays. Europe is where Sony sells the most units and Japan sure is a shadow of its former self but many franchises still reach huge numbers over there.

For games in a broader sense, considering mobile, PC and MMOs (that I believe should be a category of its own even if they are predominant on pc) China takes the crown nowadays. 



Around the Network

And when talking about "pc gaming declining In early 2000's due to piracy" a complete new genre was rising meteorically by that time, MMORPGs. This genre alone made PCs have something consoles couldn't offer until ps2/gc/Xbox, even so, mmos on consoles weren't a fraction of the behemoth they were on pc.

EDIT: OK, mmos already existed before, but early 2000's were when home internet access was really on the rise. 



Conina said:
Doctor_MG said:

"Sega was pushing tech to enable its arcade games into the living room and would have continued to do so"

Again, the only reason they started to was because they saw that the gaming market was lucrative. In fact, the only reason they developed the SG-1000 was because they heard Nintendo was creating a gaming only console (they were just working on a PC at the time), and the Master System is a direct successor to the SG-1000. Also, if Nintendo had never gone into the North American market in the first place Sega likely wouldn't have attempted to either, at least not for a long while. Most analysts were saying that Nintendo's move into North America was an extremely bad move.

Sega was never going to be the replacement for Nintendo. 

"the only reason they started to was because they saw that the gaming market was lucrative."

And Nintendo had a different reason`?

"In fact, the only reason they developed the SG-1000 was because they heard Nintendo was creating a gaming only console"

Citation needed.

"Also, if Nintendo had never gone into the North American market in the first place Sega likely wouldn't have attempted to either, at least not for a long while."

Pure speculation.

"Sega was never going to be the replacement for Nintendo."

Prove it.

"And Nintendo had a different reason?"

No, but it was Nintendo who directly influenced Sega's view point about the potential success the home console market could have. Which leads us to:

"Citation needed."

Okay:Marley Scott "Q&A with Yu Suzuki" Retro Gamer December 2016, p. 61

"Pure speculation."

This entire board is speculation. Your comments regarding Sega coming into the home console market and filling the void of Nintendo is based off of complete speculation too. This is a completely unnecessary comment. 

"Prove it."

That's what I'm discussing right now. 



invetedlotus123 said:

I don't agree with your statement that NA is THE most important market for gaming, at least not nowadays. Europe is where Sony sells the most units and Japan sure is a shadow of its former self but many franchises still reach huge numbers over there.

For games in a broader sense, considering mobile, PC and MMOs (that I believe should be a category of its own even if they are predominant on pc) China takes the crown nowadays. 

Sony is the only console manufacturer that sells more in Europe than in North America. Here is the data taken from this website for the last few consoles:

Platform         North America         Europe

Xbox One             31.22                 12.03

Playstation 4        36.86                 46.44

Switch                 22.32                 15.23

Wii U                   6.23                    3.24

PS3                    29.42                  34.99

360                    49.11                  25.87

Wii                     45.51                  33.88

We can get into PC and mobile markets if you'd like. Both of those are incredibly hard to quantify though. You can't really look into units sold. Do you look at revenue? I suppose you can with PC, but mobile has a starkly different way to get revenue than consoles do. I prefer to do like for like comparisons regarding consoles, personally. 



Jumpin said:
Conina said:

"the only reason they started to was because they saw that the gaming market was lucrative."

And Nintendo had a different reason`?

"In fact, the only reason they developed the SG-1000 was because they heard Nintendo was creating a gaming only console"

Citation needed.

"Also, if Nintendo had never gone into the North American market in the first place Sega likely wouldn't have attempted to either, at least not for a long while."

Pure speculation.

"Sega was never going to be the replacement for Nintendo."

Prove it.

He can’t. The guy is just one of these fanatical Nintendo boys who wants to make everything about Nintendo. I’m an ultra-fan if Nintendo myself, but these sorts who try to make up all these fake narratives “The mere word that Nintendo was making a console was what moved Sega to do the same!” just make me cringe. The problem is that these sorts tend to over-emphasize these mythological versions of history, and often downplay the real successes influences of Nintendo.

Eveb if that’s even true and Sega said “Ah! I just heard Nintendo is making a console, I guess that means we definitely MUST make one too... not because of any of those other consoles out there!” is a self defeating argument because Nintendo specifically cites ColecoVision as the reason they got into the console industry, thus you can use his logic to argue that ColecoVision is what really caused Sega to move to the living room.

Sega moves to home consoles because of a declining arcade industry. There is absolutely no reason to suggest that they needed Nintendo to somehow see the light! As well, they launched two consoles, one featuring a joystick, another featuring a keyboard. It wasn’t until later that they began making a d-pad console like Nintendo. If the guy wants to make an argument of how the NES influenced Sega, it’s the d-pad, that thing was revolutionary.

Fanboy is a term that is specifically not allowed on the forums. Fanatical Nintendo boy is essentially the same thing, so that's also a no go. 

As you did in the second two paragraphs, focus on addressing the actual arguments being made, not on your perceptions of the person making them.



Around the Network

Of course they did. No question about it. If you disagree you’re revisionist.



SvennoJ said:
Nautilus said:

For everywhere, really.

First of all, it's not just the "US market', but rather The Americas market. The whole continent.

Second of all, Nintendo proved with the NES that gaming was more than just a "toy" and thus not a fad. The market in the Americas had died, and the European one and Japanese would soon follow after, at the very least the home console(which is like 70% of the market as of right now, give or take), since most big players would not exist without Nintendo. Sega probably wouldn't make the genesis, since that was an answer to the NES, and Sony would also never going to enter the market as a result. And since MS created the XBox only to compete with Sony, that would be a no go.

Plus, like I said, most gaming staples were created by Nintendo and it's 3rd and 4rd gen consoles. Without them, I have no idea how many decades of gaming techniques and design behind we would all be.

Actually MS was behind the MSX platform which is the birthplace of Metal Gear Solid. The MSX did well in Japan and in parts of Europe, but for some reason failed in the USA.

Nintendo on the other hand was seen as the kiddie console where I lived with expensive cartridges and crappy conversions. NES and the 50hz curse... Sony dragged consoles away from the games are for kids stigma back to where they were with Atari, Commodore and Amiga.

Anyway, I was born in '74, been playing games since 1980 and never heard of the video game crash until I moved to NA. Apparently I lived through it without ever noticing it, happily gaming away.

Who played The Legend of Zelda and Metroid is not kids, and the sports games too. The marketing of Sega is too good, and perceive a teenager console only and die with this.(besides the marketing) The marketing saying something, the data say another thing. The neutral aspect of Nes and Gameboy says this console for everyone. Sales wise demonstrate this. Nintendo kids game myth is applied, in some way, true for worst selling Nintendo console and not for the best selling, when Nintendo sells for a niche core fans and the kids ( Wiiu, Gamecube,SnEs[ in part], 2ds). 



Doctor_MG said:
invetedlotus123 said:

I don't agree with your statement that NA is THE most important market for gaming, at least not nowadays. Europe is where Sony sells the most units and Japan sure is a shadow of its former self but many franchises still reach huge numbers over there.

For games in a broader sense, considering mobile, PC and MMOs (that I believe should be a category of its own even if they are predominant on pc) China takes the crown nowadays. 

Sony is the only console manufacturer that sells more in Europe than in North America. Here is the data taken from this website for the last few consoles:

Platform         North America         Europe

Xbox One             31.22                 12.03

Playstation 4        36.86                 46.44

Switch                 22.32                 15.23

Wii U                   6.23                    3.24

PS3                    29.42                  34.99

360                    49.11                  25.87

Wii                     45.51                  33.88

We can get into PC and mobile markets if you'd like. Both of those are incredibly hard to quantify though. You can't really look into units sold. Do you look at revenue? I suppose you can with PC, but mobile has a starkly different way to get revenue than consoles do. I prefer to do like for like comparisons regarding consoles, personally. 

Numbers without context meaning almost nothing. Sony, and have today, more countries penetration. In Nes Era, All de computers, in EUR market is niche when you comparte to the US market, at the same time. The European market expansion becomes major only when having someone with the distribution installed in the EUR countries. Sony has all distribution channels already, only supplied with videogames. Famiclones, in Russia and East countries, is bigger before Sony arrived there too. 



javi741 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Not even close

Only in North America did the videogame market crash. Outside of it, videogames were not just healthy, but a growing force even before Nintendo arrived.

What it did, was resurrect the North American Console market. Nothing more, but also nothing less.

Global gaming revenues significantly dropped between 1983-1985, so it wasn't growing and was far from growing. 

It dropped during that time because the revenue from the US broke away, which was by far the biggest market. Take the US out of the statistic, and it would have been steadily growing instead.



As I cba to read the entire thread what I say now has allready been said.

Nintendo saving gaming is a very USA centric point of view, and even that isn’t true. Nintendo might have saves the home console market in USA. But at east in Europe gaming was alive and not really effected by the Atari crash, he difference is that in Europe people played on home computers like Commodore VIC-20/64, Amstrad, ZX Spectrum etc