Nintendo's relationships with Atari

[Agent X]

They left them with piles and piles of inventory that they couldn't sell in 1983.

 

That's not Atari's fault. It's the *customer* that screwed the stores by not making purchases. The exact same thing is happening now with cars. Is it Ford or Dodge's fault that dealers' lots are full of unsold cars?

 

Atari didn't screw the retailers. The customer did. You shouldn't blame Atari for the crash. That's just dumb.

 

I wouldn't blame customers for "screwing" retailers. The truth is that retailers probably screwed themselves more than either Atari or customers did. If retailers ordered such huge numbers of video game cartridges while the trend in late 1983 was quite evidently shifting towards home computers (trust me, I was there in 1983--every kid in the sixth grade wanted to step up from a video game to a "real computer"), then the retailers only had themselves to blame for poor sales forecasting. Nobody held a gun to the retail buyers' heads and said they had to buy so many cartridges. When this happens in business, the decision-makers who make such massive blunders are usually fired. You can't blame the manufacturers for producing so much, when retailers were placing order after order for the product.

 

Also, some video game historians--again, usually those with a pro-Nintendo and anti-Atari slant--pin the blame on Atari for "allowing a glut of inferior games to be produced." If Atari was the sole culpable party here, then why didn't another competitor such as Coleco or Mattel rise to the occasion and grab Atari's dwindling market share? It's because Atari's market share wasn't dwindling. Rather, the entire home video game market was shrinking because of the home computer revolution.

[DracIsBack]

Wow Troy - Thank you for reminding me that there are those who favour insults and ignorace. in lieu of intelligent discussion.

 

Your lack of knowledge of the retail channel, marketing and the industry in general shows in this single statement:

 

"Atari didn't screw the retailers. The customer did. You shouldn't blame Atari for the crash. That's just dumb."

 

Yes - the consumers are absolutely to blame ... they personally caused Atari's bad forcasting, channel stuffing, deregulated gaming and lack of quality in games. They personally thought it would be great for Atari to fill the channel with more ET games than there were Atari 2600's and for Atari not to take back what couldn't be sold. They personally made sure that Atari didn't do proper forecasts on their cartridges with NPD data, previous sales records and customer focus to compare. And they made sure that Atari had no methods of clearing out the channel when inventory levels got so high. Yes - that makes sense. And if you believe that, I have a nice bridge for sale in Brooklyn. The price is cheap!

 

"We don't want to have to plow through a pile of disorganized trash like your last message was."

 

What's the matter, Troy - unable to come back with a solid argument to prove your point, so you have to resort to childish insults?

 

Might I recommend that you read a few books on channel marketing 101. Also read a few books on the history of the industry:

 

Try:

 

ZAP: THE RISE AND FALL OF ATARI

PHOENIX

THE ULTIMATE HISTORY OF VIDEOGAMES

GAME OVER

 

When you're done reading all of those books, wander back to this thread, and let's continue the debate. Until then, I have better things to do with my time.

[Joey Kay]

I don't want to get too involved in this "battle", but...

 

Actually, Atari made stores pre-order games for the entire year in 1983, so, yes, it was Atari's fault by giving retailers no flexibility and sticking them with unsaleable stock when the bottom fell out.

 

Cheers!

 

Joey

[Agent X]

Actually, Atari made stores pre-order games for the entire year in 1983, so, yes, it was Atari's fault by giving retailers no flexibility and sticking them with unsaleable stock when the bottom fell out.

 

Ah, interesting. I had no idea.

 

Still, it doesn't explain what happened with the "glut of inferior third-party games." Atari couldn't have forced retailers to order those games.

[Retro Rogue]

I got my source from The Ultimate History of Video Games by Steven Kent

 

What other sources do you know of?

 

I think you're mishmashing a bunch of different things together with that initial posting of yours. The Atari/Coleco battle was over Donkey Kong, to which Coleco owned the US console rights and the Atari owned the US computer rights. It had nothing to do with the rights for Nintendo titles on the 7800. Coleco had blurred that distinction when they created two versions of it's Adam computer - one a normal computer with a built in Colecovision, and another that functioned as an expansion to an actual Colecovision.

 

By the time the 7800 was marketed and cartridged were actually made ('86-'87), Coleco had long since exited the video game and computer industry.

 

Secondly, while the Ultimate History is certainly a very good book, as people in the industry know - it's chock full of errors and bad information as well. I've had several conversations with Steven about this and basicly the book is out of his hands - he can't do corrections or updates.

[Jasoco]

I agree, can we please use Proper quoting? Or at LEAST put the quoted text im Bold so we can tell it apart. Sheesh.

 

It's called Netiquette. Learn it, use it, love it.

[Retro Rogue]

Actually, the 7800 was shelved because the Tramiels had no interest in video games at first and wanted to focus on computers.

 

Actually, that's not quite true. TTL had plans on keeping Atari in the video game business because they needed the video game sales to keep the company afloat while they finished the ST design. They intended to keep selling the vast ammount of stock they had left. The 7800 was put on hold because they wanted more favorable terms ($$) from GCC for it. They entered in on again/off again negotiations that finally concluded 2 years later. In all fairness, the market had shifted by 1984 either way, and the future of gaming was considered to be in the computer industry at the time. The console market was considered dead, so it makes good business sense to take that in to account and want better terms on a console that may be going in to a dead market already flooded with older consoles and their games.

 

 

Nintendo did approach Atari about selling their Famicom (the NES) system in the US, but Atari said no.

 

After the NES was released, Atari took note of their success and released the 7800.

 

A common assumption, but it's not true. See above.

[Retro Rogue]

That's the only way I've evern heard it, the Tramiles bought Atari, and flushed the company.  Didn't want anything to do with game systems, even though for the fact of the matter, the primary thing atari computers were used for was to play games.  And the NES was a game system at the time Atari turned away from home consoles.

That was so true. Jack Tramiel didn't want anything to do with video games. Not sure why he bought that part of the company unless he just wanted the rights to the game titles or something.

 

Because that's not true. TTL bought Atari for it's manufacturing plants and it's video game operations. They fully took in to account that they'd need the console part of Consumer to keep the company afloat while continuing to finish up it's design and later production of it's ST computers. Secondly, they knew full well that computers were primarily being used to play games (which was the impetus's behind the Vic20 and Commodore64 at Commodore). Even the game publishing industry itself at the time (what was left of it) was moving to the computer platform, which was considered the future of video gaming at the time.

 

And they didn't "flush" the company. The company had already been in a "flushing" state before they bought it with massive layoffs (10,000 down to 3,500 employees) and cancelled projects. The Tramiels inherited an operation with massive losses and debt and appropriately froze everything until they could evaluate everything Atari Consumer had been involved with.

 

 

A story that I heard was about a tour Jack was taking of the company and an employee was showing him the 7800.  Jack basicly be-littled this guy because he didn't want anything to do with video games.  I heard this guy got his revenge later when they needed his help to resurrect the 7800 project.  I wish I could remember it more, its a pretty good story and I'm not giving it much justice here.

 

GCC designed the 7800, that was the only people they'd need to interact with to get technical specifications.

 

 

1.  Atari would not admit to doing something wrong.  It's simply company policy to sweep failures under the mat, it always has been.  And besides, no business is going to admit to a blunder that big.

 

There was never anything serious in negotiation between Warner/Atari and Nintendo. Yes there were meetings and such as reported in Steve Kent's book and Game Over. But Atari was using it as a controlling chip as also was reported and was never seriously considering the console. When the Tramiel's took over a month after the CES fiasco, there was absolutely nothing found regarding any plans for the Famicom.

 

Secondly, hindsight is always 20/20. It could hardly be considered a blunder at the time because a) Nintendo and the Famicom at the time were smalltime players, b) Atari was having massive massive losses through '83 in to '84 and a technicaly inferior product is not something you consider a savior. c) Nintendo itself had the hardest time getting the Famicom over here even after and went through pushing several differen't models of it and approaching several different marketing ploys before finally settling on the one we now know. d) Nintendo had the success it did with the NES not because of it's technology (there were far superior consoles on the market at the time), but because of it's business and marketing practices (which are now legendary). That was not part of the "package" when they came to Atari back in '83.

[Retro Rogue]

NES became dominant because it was first on the market.

 

Certianly not, it became dominant because of it's exclusivity license and it's now legendary Microsoft style business practices of the time. The "first on the market" idea comes in to play because of the exclusivity license - when there's no one else to make games for you sign up with them of course. But then suddenly when there's competitors, you're still locked in to only making games for Nintendo. Hence you have a large library of games that steadily grows and the others are left to their own devices (Atari rehashing older games and porting a few popular computer games, and Sega relying largely on their own in-house games).

 

 The console that is first always has an advantage.

 

Absolutely not. Just look at the Odyssey (first of the "tennis/pong" consoles), ChannelF (first programmable console), Bally Arcade, TurboGrafxCD, Atari Jaguar, Sega Saturn, and Sega Dreamcast for a few. All were first on the market with a next generation console/technology and weren't able to capitalize on it. The largely contributing factor in any success or failure story is the business and marketing practices behind the product and company.

[Retro Rogue]

One of Nintendo's biggest battles was convincing retailers that a) they weren't Atari; and b) they weren't going to screw them over like Atari did..

I can't help laughing when I read that sentence. Nintendo did some serious backstabbing against retailers 86-91.

 

Which has nothing to do with the fact that when they first tried entering the market in '84-'85, they had the problems that Drac said.

 

As for Atari, what did Atari do to retailers?  I have not heard this story before.  Tell it to me.

 

Atari had a huge year in '82 and someone in marketing came up with the bright idea to force retailers to order for the entire coming year (1983) at once, in bulk. And when the entire market instead stalled that year, the retailers were cancelling orders or trying to send products back in bulk. Not to mention the vaporware and dissapearing projects that occured through '83 and '84.

 

 

 

[

(And no, I have not changed my opinion.  I still think 7800 would have sold gangbusters in 84-85 had it been released.  You might as well just give up Drac.  I'm not changing my opinion.)

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but it's apparently based on a lack of understanding of what caused the crash in the first place.

 

Atari, Mattel, Coleco, Milton Bradley, Magnavox, Zircon, Emerson, and Astrocade were all game companies with competing hardware on the market, each with their own libraries of console specific games on the market as well.

That's what caused the crash of '83-'84 (the same thing that contributed to the actual 1st video game crash in '77 - the Pong console crash). To many competing consoles on the market (8 at once?!?!), each demanding not just floor space at retail stores for the consoles but for all the software/games as well. How many retailers can support that? And add to that the slew of 3rd party developers hitting the market as well for Atari, Mattel, and Coleco, and you have a larger nightmare for retailers. And look at everything the consumer had to confuse them as well - 8 consoles, tons of games, some turn out to be real crappy, etc. You'll be prone to hold back and be more prudent on your shopping. And that's exactly what consumers did in '83-'84, and that was the chief problem that lead to the crash.

 

After Atari imploded, retailers had the same problems to deal with the other 7 companies as well - as it was the entire market that had stalled. So if the market is stalled, your sales are dropping considerably and suddenly you see a giant like Atari falling, you'd want to make an exit as well. Which is exactly what happened.

 

And the retailers are now left burned, and with lots of stock to get rid of. So it's discount city the next 2-3 years as they try to unload everything.

 

This is exactly why retailers were hesitant to be involved with anything to do with "video games" during that time, and avoided it like the plague. Likewise why Nintendo (and soon after Sega through a deal with Tonka) had to enter retail stores though the toy departments (thanks largely to the help of the marketing and distribution channels of electronic toy manufacturer Worlds of Wonder - who incidentally was composed of most of the former Atari marketing staff) instead of the traditional consumer electronics departments. Nintendo, as we know, developed the R.O.B. robot expansion to help promote this "Entertainment System, not video game system" mentality to help with it's entrance through toy departments.

It took almost 2 years for Nintendo to find the right way in to stores to re-establish the market. There's no way in 1984 with all the discount stock from 9 consoles (that's including the 5200) that yet another product was going to be allowed in stores let alone make much of a dent. The most Atari could have hoped for is to pump lots and lots of money in to it to keep it afloat in the hopes of the market changing.

[tyranthraxus]

Marty that was a very informative post.

[ElectricTroy]

Wow Troy - Thank you for reminding me that there are those who favour insults and ignorace. in lieu of intelligent discussion.

"Atari didn't screw the retailers. The customer did. You shouldn't blame Atari for the crash. That's just dumb."

Strawman argument (poor debating tactic). If you re-read what I said, you'll see that I did NOT insult you. I attacked your idea and called the *idea* dumb, not you. Criticizing ideas IS an acceptable form of debate.

 

 

 

Anyway, you have failed to convince me. Yeah computers were popular in 1984, but not everyone could afford to spend $1000 just to play a videogame. There was still a market for low-priced console gaming...as Nintendo proved in 1986 (and still exists today).

 

The mistake that Atari (and Coleco and Mattel) made was to abandon the console market. They should have known better.

 

VHS tape and player sales also crashed in 1983-84. Did Sony, Panasonic, et al abandon the market? Of course not. They stayed, because the knew it would bounce back. Atari should have done the same.

[MegaManFan]

VHS tape and player sales also crashed in 1983-84.  Did Sony, Panasonic, et al abandon the market?  Of course not.  They stayed, because the knew it would bounce back.  Atari should have done the same.

 

Atari might have. Jack Tramiel wouldn't. And (though I hate myself for saying this) given the massive losses Atari had already suffered in the last year, who could blame him? From his standpoint it was a sound economic decision. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Joey Kay]

Yeah computers were popular in 1984, but not everyone could afford to spend $1000 just to play a videogame.

 

Remember though, largely due to Tramiel's wild price war at Commodore, 8 bit home computers from Atari and Commodore were selling in the 100 - 200 dollar range (the same price range as a games console). You could play cartridge games right out of the box with these systems.

 

At the time, a computer certainly seemed the way to go.

 

Cheers!

 

Joey

[Retro Rogue]

Yeah computers were popular in 1984, but not everyone could afford to spend $1000 just to play a videogame.

 

Remember though, largely due to Tramiel's wild price war at Commodore, 8 bit home computers from Atari and Commodore were selling in the 100 - 200 dollar range (the same price range as a games console). You could play cartridge games right out of the box with these systems.

 

At the time, a computer certainly seemed the way to go.

 

Cheers!

 

Joey

 

Not to mention helping little Johnny to *gasp* learn, or type up papers for school, etc. For parents they were a much more viable choice at the time - even for a few extra bucks - because they held the promise of being more than just a "game machine". That's also why the market was drastically switching to computers in '84-'86.

 

As far as Troy's comment comparing to the dropout of the VHS industry - that's completely ludicrous at any number of levels. a)The market didn't crash, it went in to a slowed growth period - big difference. A crash means the bottom of a market falling out, manufacturers loose millions, some go out of business, and tons of merchandise is flooded on the market in the hopes of liquidating remaining stock. That did not occur. b)Sony, Panasonic, etc. did not have "VHS Players" as their sole products. They're large consumer electronics companies that had a large catalog of items besides "VHS Players". Cassete players, stereo systems, walkmans, record players, cordless phones, televisions, answering machines etc. etc. etc. as well as CD Players which were first introduced in '83. c) Atari was a subsidiary company that had to answer to it's owner. Sony, Panasonic, etc. are not. Warner was loosing millions every day and it's stock dropping rapidly because of the video game (home console) market dropping out. Atari had two main divisions (not including AtariTel) - Coin-op and Atari Consumer. The arcade market was still somewhat profitable (especially since that wasn't the main area Atari was relying on all it's earnings from) even though it had been sharply declining since '82, hence they held on to that and eventually worked out a deal with Namco to continue running it. Likewise the computer part of Consumer was deemed salvagable, especially with the coming change in the market with consumers and retailers. Hence the deal they worked out with the Tramiels where they retained a percentage of ownership. Unlike the VHS market, most of the video game companies (both hardware and games) were exiting the business at that time, declaring bankruptcy, (or in the case of companies who had video game/electronics divisions such as Mattel) closing down their video game divisions. Because of this there was no justification to look and say at that time the market would bounce back. I think Troy was the one who made the same sort of rediculous comparison with Beta machines in another thread. Quite honestly he should consider moving to another analogy already.

[tyranthraxus]

Yeah computers were popular in 1984, but not everyone could afford to spend $1000 just to play a videogame.

 

Remember though, largely due to Tramiel's wild price war at Commodore, 8 bit home computers from Atari and Commodore were selling in the 100 - 200 dollar range (the same price range as a games console). You could play cartridge games right out of the box with these systems.

 

 

Commodores regular practice was to use the cheap computers as a lure

(I think the 64 itself was under $100 at one point) and then nail them on

the very expensive disk drive in addition to the tape player, monitor &

printer. Much like todays consoles, Sony makes its money selling

memory cards, controllers, dvd remotes, games, etc.

 

Dropping the consoles was a sound decision for Atari at the time but

I think a bigger mistake was laying off all the programmers and

designers. They could have tried to keep at it as a software publisher.

 

John

[ElectricTroy]

Atari XLs and Commodore=64s were still $300 in 1984-85. I know because I wanted one but my parents thought it was too expensive.

 

And, although you COULD use carts, they were just more of the same: Pac-Man, Pole Position, Pitfall, et cetera. If you wanted the more-advanced stuff, you HAD to have a $300 disk drive. So that boosted the TOTAL price to:

 

$600 for computer gaming in 1984-85.

 

That still left a giant gap for cheap consoles...a gap that Nintendo conveniently filled because Atari was sleeping.

[Agent X]

Atari XLs and Commodore=64s were still $300 in 1984-85.  I know because I wanted one but my parents thought it was too expensive.

 

$188.

 

That was the price of the Commodore 64 in Montgomery Ward's Christmas catalog in 1983. I know that price very well, because that's what my mother paid to get me my very first home computer.

[Joey Kay]

I am really enjoying this thread and trying to do my best to stay a safe distance from it, but...

 

When the $140 7800 was first debuted in 1984, Atari told the press that video games and home computers were two seperate markets.

 

read- http://www.cyberroach.com/analog/an21/default.htm

 

However, every department store and catalogue retailer had the game machines racked next to the home computers - the markets really weren't that distinct.

 

And not only was a 600XL the same price as the 7800 that summer, but by November of 1984, Tramiel canned the 600XL and cut the list price of an 800XL to $119.95.

 

It really seems a computer was the way to go then.

 

Cheers!

 

Joey

[Joey Kay]

although you COULD use carts, they were just more of the same: Pac-Man, Pole Position, Pitfall, et cetera.

 

Those "more of the same" games look a lot like the 7800's starting line up.

 

Since Warner Atari put out virtually everything on both the 8-bits and consoles, Atari's software library was (and would continue to be) the same for both consoles and computers.

 

Cheers!

 

Joey

[Big_Mo]

And not only was a 600XL the same price as the 7800 that summer, but by November of 1984, Tramiel canned the 600XL and cut the list price of an 800XL to $119.95.

 

That's what I paid for my 800XL Christmastime in 1984. I bought a 130XE when they first came out, and paid $937.50 for my 520ST, one drive and a color monitor in August 1985.

[DracIsBack]

Anyway, you have failed to convince me.

 

Well, Troy - there's obviously no convincing you of anything, once you've made up your mind. Despite all the facts that we've presented, you believe that Atari releasing releasing the 7800 in 1984, would have automatically meant success. So let's review the arguments Troy has presented in a quick recapt, along with the responses. Since you've been such a turd about my quoting skills, I've taken some pains to ensure that these are the way you like them.

 

The PS1/2600 were number one systems.

 

Except that the 7800 followed the 5200, which was a comparatively poor seller.

 

The PS2/7800 had a large library of games and many of them were decent at launch.

 

Except that the PS2 launched with something like 25 games and had something like 40 on shelves by Christmas. Atari had three. :wink: And the PS2 launched with new titles, the 7800 was launched with older titles that weren't a match for what was on Nintendo.

 

 

You might as well just give up Drac. I'm not changing my opinion

 

Hmm ... with compelling evidence like "I don't want to believe I'm wrong so you won't convince me", I suppose I should give up now!

 

Atari didn't screw the retailers. The customer did. You shouldn't blame Atari for the crash. That's just dumb

 

I notice you haven't responded to Marty's rather extensive explanation of how Atari forced the retailers to buyin a years' worth of inventory or how they wouldn't take it back. And if I might add something of my own, a smart company that deals through a retail channel usually has the foresight to watch their inventory levels and manage them through in-store promotions, flyer advertising, sales-spiffs etc when inventory stops moving. The reason is simple: if product a) isn't moving at retail, why would the retailer agree to carry product b) when it comes along?

 

Yeah computers were popular in 1984, but not everyone could afford to spend $1000 just to play a videogame.

 

As others have noted, many computers at the time were being sold for scarcely the price above a video game console. True, getting a disk drive was expensive, but most consoles could easily handle other cheap formats like cartridges and cassettes. Many companies, including Atari, had released home software on these affordable formats. If you'll read articles on the crash from circa 1984, you'll see the home computer example popping up a lot. The computer market was also glutted with 'cheapie' computers priced within the console price points.

 

 

VHS tape and player sales also crashed in 1983-84. Did Sony, Panasonic, et al abandon the market? Of course not. They stayed, because the knew it would bounce back

 

As Marty noted, there's a difference between a slowdown and a crash. Do you remember VCR's and video tapes going for bargain basement prices in 1983-4? I sure don't. Did the revenue in that industry collapse to a point where revenues were only 1/30th what they were 2 years earlier? Nope.

 

Atari 7800 had some great platformers:  

Donkey Kong and DK Jr.  

Pitfall 1 and 2  

Mario Bros.  

(plus all the 2600 platformers like Montezuma's Revenge, Kangaroo)  

 

Except for the fact that a) these were on other systems; b) many of them were Atari 2600 games, not 7800 games.; and c) none of these games had the sophistication of what was on the NES. :wink:

 

For the longest time, my NES touting best friend thought that the 7800 wasn't capable of playing games like the NES because they all seemed so short and repetitive. He changed his tune when he saw SCRAPYARD DOG, but by then, the 7800 was dead.

 

 

The 7800 would have been as well-supported by Warner's Atari as the 2600 was

 

The 5200 proved otherwise. And the fact that Warner Atari was losing $2 million a day and Warner was so desperate to get rid of it that they gave the company away on promisary notes to Jack Tramiel.

 

 

 

It had a 2 year headstart

 

The 7800 was scheduled to be released in the summer of 1984. The NES was released in the fall of 1985. Do the math.

 

 

Atari was the dominant name in gaming and well-loved by the general population

 

Yes - the $70 million they earned in 1984 from video game revenue really showed that - especially when compared to the nearly 3 billion earned a year earlier ...

 

 

All that Atari had to do was introduce a high-quality, but cheap console to make gamers drool. The Atari 7800 was it.  

 

As Marty noted, being first to market means nothing. Good games are everything. The Intellivision had better graphics than the 2600 and was technically the first 16-bit console ... did it kill the 2600? No. Did the TG-16 kill the NES? No. Did the Jaguar and 3DO kill the Genesis/SNES?

 

It's about the games. That was why Nintendo conquered, why the PSX conquered and why the 2600 conquered. And why the PS2 is conquering now ... there were technically better systems on the market but Nintendo had the games.

 

By 1984 standards, Pole Position 2 looked teriffic. It also had only 4 levels compared to the 32 in Super Mario Brothers. Which has the more compelling packin ... the NES or 7800?

 

You make it sound, Troy, like I hate the 7800. I don't. But Atari had bigger problems to deal with:

 

* They had just burned customers with the 5200. The joysticks were bad, the games weren't as good as what was on the Colecovision, it wasn't backwards compatible with the 2600 and they discontinued the system a mere two years after introducing it.

* They had literally stuffed a channel - courtesy of bad forecasting, poor channel maintenance etc - with inventory that the retailers couldn't sell or return!

* The glut of inventory, both from Atari and 3rd parties, was stuffed with games that they were selling at $1/pop when they were originally intended to go for $40.

* Many 3rd party developers were going bankrupt or losing money. Even the almighty Activision posted a huge loss.

* There was a lot of crap on the 2600 (both from Atari and 3rd parties) which had diluted the system quality.

* Price wars between Commodore, Atari, Tandy and Texas Instruments and a number of smaller players had pushed the price of low-end computers like the Vic 20 and TRS-80 computers to within the same price point as consoles. Even machines like the Vic-20 and MC10 weren't as advanced as the C64, they still did more than the consoles.

* Atari themselves was losing $2 million/day - Warner wanted to get rid of Atari. They most definitely did not have the support of a parent company to do anything - not when they were considered a severed artery for the company.

* Atari had also gone through massive, massive structuring changes to try and stay afloat. How would they have been competitive with anyone with the organization in complete disarray around the time of the 7800 launch?

 

Nintendo, on the other hand:

* Released a system that was advanced like the 7800, but had good games to go with it!

* They had an incredible pack-in title ... not good, great. It changed the face of videogaming.

* They did have to deal with the mess that Atari had left but at least had not caused the mess.

* Offfered liberal incentives to get carried in the channel that had written off video games.

* Had licensed Japanese 3rd party developers making games.

 

I had originally added you to my ignore file, but the sheer lack of substance in your arguments is too amusing to ignore.

 

Here's my challenge to you, Troy: go through the arguments listed 1 at a time and do your best to debunk them. If you are the master debator you claim to be, it shouldn't be a problem.

[NE146]

heh "master debater"

[Jasoco]

heh "master debater"  

Heh heh.. "Cunning Linguist". Heh heh..

 

Shut up, Beavis..

[Agent X]

By 1984 standards, Pole Position 2 looked teriffic. It also had only 4 levels compared to the 32 in Super Mario Brothers. Which has the more compelling packin ... the NES or 7800?

 

I just want to add two things here:

 

1. Super Mario Bros. didn't exist until 1985. If the 7800 were released in 1984, then it would have been out for a year before SMB was available. I don't know what the hypothetical Famicom pack-in would have been if it came out in the US in 1984, but it wouldn't have been SMB!

 

2. The actual original pack-in games for the NES were Gyromite and Duck Hunt. Super Mario Bros. wasn't offered as a pack-in until the Action Set came out in late 1986 or early 1987.

 

I'd rather have Pole Position II than both Gyromite and Duck Hunt. SMB was a more desirable pack-in than PP2, but when I chose to get the 7800 over the NES in 1987, I was looking ahead at other games that were available, not merely the pack-in games.