Justin222 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) They did that because Sega and Nintendo pulled that card in their advertising of Mega Drive and SNES. When the MD came Sega was all about it being 16-bit instead of the old 8-bit. We swallowed it as basically being twice as good. bits equaled the overall technical power of a system. Nintendo followed suit and mentioned it along with 32000 colors in their ads all the time. First one to do it, as far as I know, was NEC. It called the TurboGrafx 16 a 16-bit system even though it used 8-bit chips. On the opposite end is Mattel which didn't make the fact that the Intellivision had a 16-bit CPU much of an issue. Edited January 30, 2015 by Justin222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Dragon Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 @Agent X:All i can say is watch this space...had THIS in yesterday from another source i'd been after for years: Dear Ross, Thank you for the questions, I will take the time to read and answer them but I could be short of time for answering this week so I will send my replies only on next Monday (sorry about that). And he's one of a few i've questions sat with :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+madman Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 First one to do it, as far as I know, was NEC. It called the TurboGrafx 16 a 16-bit system even though it used 8-bit chips. On the opposite end is Mattel which didn't make the fact that the Intellivision had a 16-bit CPU much of an issue. IIRC, the TG-16/PCE used a 16-bit GPU. The Intellivision existed long before the era of the "bit wars", so the processor was irrelevant. Even during the bit wars, most people had no idea what a bit was. They just thought more bits = better graphics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin222 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 IIRC, the TG-16/PCE used a 16-bit GPU. Right, but it did get a backlash because of the 8-bit CPUs. So, the Jag wasn't the first console to feel the backlash for that type of marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Loguidice Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 "Bits" were definitely a thing at that time and there was no reason for Atari not to start off their marketing campaign with a focus on the 64-bit nature (however much of a stretch of the definition that was) early on in the console's life when there was little else going for it (like a large volume of stand-out software). The messaging needed to evolve though, particularly once Atari had nothing to really back up that qualifier with and the idea of the Jaguar being this powerhouse became a running joke among consumers and the rest of the industry. Atari either didn't have the resource, talent, or will (some combination thereof) to make the change, which is pretty indicative of the company at the time. It's clear the Atari of that time for whatever reason was the opposite of agile and was unable or unwilling to make the changes needed to right the ship. It's telling that the most optimistic language coming out of the company was when they successfully settled with Sega. By the way, speaking of the 64-bit thing, even the Nintendo 64 primarily used its 32-bit mode in its game. True 64-bit pathways were beyond the memory and bandwidth limitations of the time. Nintendo rarely mentioned the 64-bit thing, though, and didn't need to when they had a killer app right out of the box in Super Mario 64. Jaguar needed a Super Mario 64 equivalent out of the box to get people excited. Cybermorph, which was competent, was certainly not it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Loguidice Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 Right, but it did get a backlash because of the 8-bit CPUs. So, the Jag wasn't the first console to feel the backlash for that type of marketing. I'd say it was a nominal backlash, though features like the two button controller and one controller port certainly didn't help it look equivalent to what the Genesis and later SNES were offering. The bigger issue for NEC outside of Japan was the inability or unwillingness to get their best games converted to other markets, as well as an inability to engage the best third parties, like EA, in time (for instance, getting a version of Madden Football a year or so too late). Technologically, even in its base configuration, it was probably sufficiently competitive on a technological level with the Genesis and SNES. Certainly its success in Japan proved that it was a viable product, outselling the Mega Drive there. Anyway, the root cause of quality and volume of software, though far better than what the Jaguar got, was still the same root cause as the Jaguar's lack of success. Quality software has historically trumped all else, though there has been the occasional exception, like with the early success of the PS4. The PS4 though entered into a very different situation than either NEC or Atari with their aforementioned systems. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin222 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) I'd say it was a nominal backlash, though features like the two button controller and one controller port certainly didn't help it look equivalent to what the Genesis and later SNES were offering. I remember quite a bit of hay being made over it not being "truly 16-bit". My impression of it back then was that it didn't have graphics and sound on the same level as the Genesis and SNES. The games on offer also didn't seem to be as compelling. Sam Hart: When the Sega Genesis was released, its dramatically more impressive graphics, sound and gameplay turned the TurboGrafx-16 passé overnight. Ultimately, NEC was to blame for this. Having never produced entertainment software before, NEC designers had taken a casual approach to producing games. Many games had all the flash of a 16-bit title, but with little by way of depth of gameplay. NEC also depended on third-party developers to build a library of games. However, most developers were contractually obligated to Nintendo, and could not produce software for NEC. In addition to all of this, the TurboGrafx was not true 16-bit. While its graphics processor was 16-bit, its main CPU was merely 8-bit (a 6820, to be exact). Edited January 31, 2015 by Justin222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clint Thompson Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I will admit that the controller having only 3-primary buttons didn't see very next-gen to me, despite the numerical keypad and it was quite clear from the onset they weren't the mashable, MK fighting type of buttons or layout you would expect or used to from the SNES. It's clear the 4-button layout is a clear winner, seeing as how we still use it today across the board on consoles. If only Atari could have made Minecraft for the Jag, it would've sold millions or DDR, or Guitar Hero. You know, it still would have failed. Then later, people would just say "Oh, Atari... they were just ahead of their time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 It failed because Atari didn't spent the ONE WEEK necessary to port all the good ST games onto it for launch day. Duh! 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlegamer Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Im a hardcore gaming magazine collector, I have thousands and I read them. EGM in particular, the most popular gaming magazine during the time of the Jaguar, HATED Atari and the Jaguar. I have proof. but the magazine is put away under stacks right now. It was just before the Jag was launched, and Atari was sending letters to EGM about their Lynx kit they had sent EGM, and Atari wanted it back so they could modify it to record images of Jag games, or something... EGM was actually posting the letters Atari had sent them in the magazine, and mocking them, saying stuff like, ya , right, like Atari is really going to send back our kit if we send it back to them... EGM had no trust or like for Atari from the get go and it shows in most of their reviews of Jaguar games. They rated Jag doom below 32x doom, they gave a bad review to AvP, the ONLY mag in the world to do so. So the 2 flagship games for the Jag, EGM told their readers NO, these are no good, 32x version is better and AVP is not good. Another funny thing, around the same time, you saw long articles in their magazine about SEGA and special trips eGM was taking to sega headquarters to try out new games. EGM Was all excited about this and bragging about everything sega and how great the 32x was etc etc. There is no denying egm truly hated Atari and the jag from day one 1993.. EGM was definitely pro-Sega (and anti-Nintendo and everything else) during the Steve Harris/Sendai days, later taking up the Sony banner after Ziff Davis took over. Edited January 31, 2015 by Gentlegamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoGeoNinja Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Atari deliberately designed the controller with only 3-buttons AND a numerical keypad to make up and coming developers think outside of the box and be more creative with games development, instead of just making the 'kiddy' games we'd been playing for years on the MD & SNES. Similar success can currently be seen taking place on the WiiU via the WiiU's tablet... in essence, a distant ancestor of the Jaguar Keypad. Yeah. That's why Atari did it. People just didn't understand. They couldn't see the vision. Wasn't Atari's fault. Just wasn't. Edited January 31, 2015 by NeoGeoNinja 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh3-rg Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Atari deliberately designed the controller with only 3-buttons AND a numerical keypad to make up and coming developers think outside of the box and be more creative with games development, instead of just making the 'kiddy' games we'd been playing for years on the MD & SNES. Similar success can currently be seen taking place on the WiiU via the WiiU's tablet... in essence, a distant ancestor of the Jaguar Keypad. Yeah. That's why Atari did it. People just didn't understand. They couldn't see the vision. Wasn't Atari's fault. Just wasn't. genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
108 Stars Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) This is the best logical explanation I have ever read concerning a design choice by Atari in the Jaguar days.^^ The best part is: it probably did go something like that. "We have this super advanced Interactive Multimedia System. We can elevate us from the 16-bit peasants... finally, the most complex computer games can be enjoyed in the living room!" "But Mr Tramiel, six buttons seems not enough for many of those games. Console games are not played with keyboards." "Six buttons? Where we go we don't need six buttons. Three is plenty for the silly little action games. What will really make a difference is implementing an entire keypad on the controller!" "But sir, where? That's a lot of keys..." "Haha, just put it way below the d-pad and action buttons!" "Mr Tramiel, sir, I fear that people may have trouble even reaching the keys with their thumbs if we do that... let alone get a feeling of what each key does given the arrangement of a keypad." "You lack vision, lad. People will gladly dislocate their thumbs to be able to experience the next generation of games. And for those lacking the intelligence to memorize the keys for each game, we will add overlays. Then they can look at those anytime they wish." "I don't know, sir, dislocating your thumbs may be kind of painful... and if people have to look on the overlay while playing, they could miss what's happening in the game and die because they take too long to figure out how to change their weapon for example." "Look, you must learn to be a team player. My 2 year long experience in the games industry has taught me a thing or two. You now go and bring those notes to the designers, Let's conquer the world!" Edited January 31, 2015 by 108 Stars 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Dragon Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 'Current software for the CD32, Jaguar and 3DO is underprogrammed-to a degree, this reflects those machines (albiet limited) advances in performance.It would be nice to think that the quality of software will improve sufficently to quell the ballyhoo surrounding the arrival of the new systems, but frankly, it's unlikely'. EDGE July'94 in response to a readers letter. Just thought i'd throw it in, to give a UK Magazines viewpoint of the market at the time. And the message it was in effect, sending out to likes of Atari-You've only a short time before the next wave of hardware arrives and if you want a chance of being taken seriousily, your games simply have to deliver the goods. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 "Bits" were definitely a thing at that time and there was no reason for Atari not to start off their marketing campaign with a focus on the 64-bit nature (however much of a stretch of the definition that was) early on in the console's life when there was little else going for it (like a large volume of stand-out software). The messaging needed to evolve though, particularly once Atari had nothing to really back up that qualifier with and the idea of the Jaguar being this powerhouse became a running joke among consumers and the rest of the industry. You're right on the money there. I think it was fine to highlight "64-bit" during the launch period. However, once their showpiece games started rolling in (which, unfortunately, took way too long), they needed to shift the focus to software and "games, games, games". I remember quite a bit of hay being made over it not being "truly 16-bit". My impression of it back then was that it didn't have graphics and sound on the same level as the Genesis and SNES. The games on offer also didn't seem to be as compelling. On the contrary, I thought the TurboGrafx-16 compared very well to the Genesis when they first came out. Without knowing what hardware was actually under the hood, or whether it was "truly 16-bit", I would've placed it on equal footing with the Genesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Dragon Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Also when you read comments like: The Jaguar is beginning to lok like the biggest missed chance since trip Hawkens said consoles were just a passing fad....6 months ago (this in Sept'94 mag) it was a legend, but now it's more like a fairy tale.Atari have totally missed their launch window and unless they get their act together, ship the machine in sensible numbers and get games in the shops, the Jaguar will have the same life expectancy as the species it takes it's name from' And after saying Atari had been given credit at the Jaguar's release '...but only having 6 games avaiable after 7 months is a pityful performance.Never mind rival hardware not appearing until'95;the way things are going it might take that long for Atari to get round to releasing the next Jaguar game' You can see why the press had such a field day with the Jaguar and that 'blame' lay at feet of Atari themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlegamer Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) I think the first batch of launch games (through spring 90) for TG-16 was better than Genesis. Stuff like Ninja Spirit, Blazing Lazers, and R-Type goes head to head with even the best of the Genesis graphically at that time. Edited January 31, 2015 by Gentlegamer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Loguidice Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I remember quite a bit of hay being made over it not being "truly 16-bit". My impression of it back then was that it didn't have graphics and sound on the same level as the Genesis and SNES. The games on offer also didn't seem to be as compelling. My point is you have to separate the magazines and hardcore gamers from what the casual consumer would care about, which is what games are available for the thing. The bit thing wouldn't necessarily make as much of an impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Loguidice Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 You're right on the money there. I think it was fine to highlight "64-bit" during the launch period. However, once their showpiece games started rolling in (which, unfortunately, took way too long), they needed to shift the focus to software and "games, games, games". On the contrary, I thought the TurboGrafx-16 compared very well to the Genesis when they first came out. Without knowing what hardware was actually under the hood, or whether it was "truly 16-bit", I would've placed it on equal footing with the Genesis. I agree. The Turbo-Grafx/16, especially in its PC Engine and related evolved forms (through the Arcade Card), was easily a relative match for both the Genesis and SNES in terms of audio-visual prowess. They even had excellent CD-based games, which were far more colorful than the equivalent on the Genesis/Mega Drive CD side. What failed NEC the most was the lack of key games in the West that would make people who weren't in the know desire the system. Back in the day, I actually got a Turbo-Grafx/16 first (because it was the best value), then a Genesis, then an SNES. I enjoyed the TG-16 a great deal, but never went beyond the cartridge-based stuff until many years later, and mostly lost interest in using it as my main system once I got the Genesis (because of more interesting software being available for the latter). I've since gotten a large collection of NEC stuff (most of the good stuff being Japanese-only), and it's striking how much we either missed out on over here or what was under publicized over here (with NEC and later TTI Technologies no longer having the desire/resources to promote the best stuff the way it should have been once it was clear it was not going to have significant market share). I still say as well that instead of redesigning the US-based system to have a different controller plug size (being otherwise compatible with the Japanese system), they should have built in a Turbo Tap, and, when the time was right, eventually pack in a six button controller. It's all in perception, and again, the two button controller and the fact that you had to buy a separate accessory just to use more than one controller for goodness sake did not make good business sense. With that said, they probably couldn't have done much about the third party software gap, since license restrictions and exclusivity agreements were far more pervasive over here than in Japan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austin Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 You're seriously absolving Atari of any blame for arguably dropping the ball on the hardware design, dev kits, third party relations, marketing, etc.? In your scenario the magazines wielded way too much power over the success or lack thereof of videogames. If that were the case, all of the dreadfully reviewed licensed games would have sold poorly. The average consumer is not the well informed consumer, i.e., they didn't slavishly read all the trade mags. Sorry, but there was no vast print media conspiracy against Atari. They were critical (for the most part, again it wasn't always universal!) because there was a LOT to be critical of, period. Most of that ties back to Atari's failings and no one else's. You're also conflating Sony's post launch success with the pre-launch hype. There was modest buzz for the PlayStation pre-launch, with mediocre marketing from Sony. The launch and post launch were masterful, which immediately put the console on the map and made it the happening system once that momentum got going, but it was by no means a sure thing. Both the Jaguar and 3DO had plenty of time to establish a foothold prior to the releases of both the Saturn and PlayStation. Both the Jaguar and 3DO had self-created issues working against establishing said foothold, not to mention 16-bit competition with late generation software from top developers. Bottom line, the Jaguar wouldn't have sold only around 125,000 units from 1993 - 1995 if there weren't deeper issues than just some bad press. Even some truly miserable, badly reviewed single games on other platforms sold more than that. Bill, with all due respect, it's clear the dude has his head up his rear. It's probably best to not bother responding to him at this point. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAGUAR Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Oh that's nice, anyone who has an opinion has their head up their rear huh? My opinion is well informed, thank you very much. With the money Atari had, they did an excellent job. The industry screwed them. Point blank. Again I have proof. Sam Tramiel sent a letter in ataris defense, to a magazine, and in the letter sam said Atari was trying everything to get the big name developers, and even asked readers of the magazine to send letters to these developers. Atari was trying to get all the big name games, but those big companies, as I said, had THEIR head up THEIR @$$ and only had BIG money on their mind (Saturn, ps1, n64). The Jag was PLENTY capable of 1st gen ps1 and Saturn games, but no big developer would give them a chance cus there wasn't enough money in it for them, NOT because the hardware wasn't up to it, especially with the Jag CD, which DOES make a difference as another poster pointed out. Hoverstrike CD and Iron Soldier 2 and Battlemorph obviously being more technically impressive than their cart predacessors. So its bullshit you people claiming adding Jag CD doesn't make a difference, DUH, sure it does... duh. I mean dang. I do know my stuff here. Hardcore video game fan since the 80s with a particular interest in 1994-1996 time frame. And you cant use Fight For Life as an example, you had one friggen dude who worked in the background on virtua fighter making the game... You give the Sega virtua fighter team a Jag dev system in 1994 and I guarantee you would see an impressive as heck version of Virtua Fighter running on the Jag.. and on the Jag cd you could do virtua fighter remix or Virtua Fighter 2 nearly as impressive as the Saturn versions... Of course ps1 is better than Saturn and Saturn is better than Jag and the JAg is better than 3do at 3d polygon games, BUT all 4 really are not THAT far apart when it comes to 3d polygon performance capabilities... they are all in the same league. N64 is a league above. I forgot, 32x is in the same league as these guys obviously too, I put it a touch behind in the Jag in 3d polygon capability. I don't see the 32x pulling off Iron soldier very well.. A Jag version of Virtua Fighter would look somewhere between the 32X and Saturn version.... lets say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 especially with the Jag CD, which DOES make a difference I mean dang. I do know my stuff here. Mutually exclusive comments destroy your argument in the first paragraph. I'm with Austin on this one. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAGUAR Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Mutually exclusive comments destroy your argument in the first paragraph. I'm with Austin on this one. I didn't see where anyone was talking to you, Mr. EGO ? Go back to porting your crummy ST games. Oh go ahead you guys, go on and bully me, if it makes you feel good. Haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+CyranoJ Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Welcome to my ignore list, don't think I'm missing much. It must have been a whole month since the last new account claiming to know everything appeared. Edited February 1, 2015 by CyranoJ 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAGUAR Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 (edited) Sorry for defending my opinion? lol. All I know is I have always liked my Jaguar and PlayStation equally and never cared for the Saturn... I played the best games for the 3 systems from 1994-1996. Myself and 2 friends had Jags, I bought a PS1 on launch day 1995. Was walking the mall right when Saturn surprise launched, friend got one in early 96. Same friend had a Jag cd late 95. So it doesn't make sense when all these magazines were claiming jag was crap compared to ps1 and Saturn when I saw it as equally as good as PS1 and Saturn was too expensive and not that impressive really.. And I know im not the only one with similar feelings so how did the Jag possibly sell so poorly? Its not from lack of quality titles, it had plenty for the average person who couldn't afford to buy dozens of games a year (that would be 95% of people) It was the MAGAZINES swaying opinion of hardcore AND casual gamers to get PS1 and Saturn (or stick with snes genesis) and NOT get a JAG. Also the video game stores of the time were much like the Magazines, very biased Pro Nintendo sega because that's where the money was from the 16 bit wars so they were sticking with that line and not risking it with Jag. Atari, when you do the research and read about what all they did, they truly did a very good job handling the Jaguar on the whole... They really did give it a great try. the industry mostly blackballed them for the same reason the industry blackballed sega, for their past failings. in the end its ALL about money, everything on earth. and big money always wins. That is why you only see sony Microsoft and Nintendo around, they have all the money. All the little guys got killed back in the 90s. The 90s was the best time for video games and will always be the best. The best 2d games and most innovative awesome 3d games. I cant stand most of the new crap. I don't care how pretty the graphics are. 95% of it is a rehash of something done before it, that was better and more innovative, just not as pretty of graphics. good night Edited February 1, 2015 by JAGUAR 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