By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Did Play Station made home console gaming the standard ?

Ka-pi96 said:
LivingMetal said:

For a while, Japan, North America, and Europe (which included Australia) were considered the three major territories for the console gaming market.  I placed "untapped" in quotes because before the advent of the PlayStation, console gaming as a whole in North America was still viewed as a child's activity while console gaming in Japan was simply another form of recreation for most demographics.  So the "untapped" market in this context was the young to middle aged adults who possesses a more disposable income in North America.

Europe has a population of over 700 million and before the PS only had console sales of around 15 million. Not only was it not a major territory at the time, it was also undoubtedly untapped.

Console gaming may have been viewed as a child's activity in the US, but it was barely even viewed as anything at all in Europe.

Indeed.  When Nintendo first planned to expand the Famicom outside of its successful home of Japan into other regions, they sought out a partner with an established reputation and distribution network to handle the release.  Initially, Nintendo sought out Atari as the reigning market leader of console gaming.  A few things ended up getting in the way of this, for the better.  For one, there was a kerfuffle at the 1983 Summer Consumer Electronics Show.  Atari witnessed their rival Coleco running a prototype of "Donkey Kong" on their upcoming Coleco Adam Computer.  Coleco had tremendous success selling their Colecovision system by featuring "Donkey Kong" as their exclusive pack-in game.  However, Atari held the exclusive home computer rights for "Donkey Kong" on their 8-bit line of Atari 400 and 800 computers.  This led to Atari insinuating that Nintendo was some how double-dealing with Coleco behind their backs, even though it was Coleco who programmed the Adam version of "Donkey Kong" without Nintendo's consent.  Soon after, the North American Video Game Crash of 1983 started to take effect.  With Atari suffering heavy losses, CEO Ray Kasar was fired/forced to resign.  Since Kasar was the driving force on Atari's side behind the negotiation, the deal collapsed from there.  Which I mentioned as being for the best, because during the negotiations, Atari was still banking behind the scenes on pushing their own 7800.  The exclusive worldwide distribution contract with Nintendo actually would have enabled Atari to handicap the NES outside of Japan by limiting orders to the minimum amounts required in the contract.

With Atari out of the picture, Nintendo sought out other partners to set up a distribution network.  In North America, they partnered up with Worlds of Wonder.  The company, which came to be known for its Laser Tag & Teddy Ruxpin properties, had been founded by ex-Atari employees and executives.  They ended up working very aggressively and successfully for Nintendo in NA.

Nintendo was not so lucky with their choice of distribution partners for Europe.  I have read in different books/articles that Mattel, who secured distribution rights for the NES in the UK and Italy, specifically bungled the European distribution by treating it primarily as a toy and limiting it to boutique shops where its sales would be confined to small numbers.



Around the Network
hinch said:
LivingMetal said:

Do you realize that almost everything you said proved my point...?  If there were no PlayStation, there would be no PlayStation, and the problems and issues you mentioned would have stinted console gaming growth.  Even YOU implied that.  But in reality, there is PlayStation which solved the issues you mentioned.  So wrapping things up, what Sony did was give the consumers and developers WHAT THEY WANT.  So call that "nothing" if you will.  Because those who see "nothing," perceive NOTHING out of denial when there is something.  Or if it makes you feel better, maybe it can be argued that Sony made console gaming "standard" because Nintendo and Sega FUCKED IT UP! Better?  So would you rather go with a MORE PROVISIONAL OPTION or the FUCK UPS? Either way, it's history.  Reality.  Life.  Get one.

Hypothetically if we say SEGA and Nintendo were the only ones in play today, we would have even less competition. Video games would most likely be even more expensive games as they are now. Games back in 5th gen were expensive even without inflation taken into consideration. Iirc PS1 games were around $50 or £45 for new games. SNES games ranged from $60 some going to $100. Megadrive games were around $60. I remember reading somewhere that Nintendo's margins per game on SNES was pretty darn high hence why a lot of publishers jumped ship.

You are comparing cartridge prices to disc prices.  Sega was already moving away from cartridges before the PlayStation.  Sega had created the Sega CD add-on for the Sega Genesis/Megadrive.  Their next console release, the Sega Saturn, was fully disc based.  Nintendo was also taking steps to move away from cartridges, but was taking a much slower, more cautious approach.  Nintendo's first steps towards a disc based system led to the creations of both the Sony PlayStation and the Phillips CD-i.  I don't know why you would assume that Sega in particular would have retained a high price point for disc based media, when we already have historical evidence to the contrary.

Madden 97 SNES:  $59.99 (cartridge)

Madden 97 Sega Genesis:  $59.99 (cartridge)

Madden 97 Sega Saturn:  $47.99 (disc)

Madden 97 PlayStation:  $47.99 (disc)

Prices from 1996 Toys R Us catalouge.

http://segabits.com/blog/2013/10/28/monday-memories-a-look-back-at-toys-r-us-1996-holiday-video-game-catalog/