The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I grew up in the priveledged days when the Atari consoles first hit the market. I remember the short lived careers of many of the wannabes in the gaming industry. I saw the rise and fall of Commodore, Amstrad, Sinclair, and Atari in the quest to be the ultimate leader in the console world. However, Commy, Amstrad, and Sinclair designed no follow up gaming machines to their tape-based microcomputers. Perhaps this was because console gaming was the way forward. Quicker loading was likely a large determinant in this trend. I accept Commodore had the Amiga, which was a revolutionary system, but in my opinion, it is better laid besides the PC as a business machine.
However, in the gaming sector, Atari held out, with the 2600, as the leader of all the games consoles. That was, until Sega and Nintendo hit the scene. Two companies keen to monopolise this niche of the market. Nintendo hit the consumer with the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), and Sega hit back with the Master System.
Atari's 2600 rightfully flopped in comparison to these gaming systems. It simply could not handle the power being pushed out by these next-gen machines. As a result, Sega and Nintendo ruled the gaming market. Over a short period of time, each company had formed a seperate stronghold on the gaming economy. Nintendo had developed a gaming world set in the realm of Mario and Luigi, While Sega had created Sonic The Hedgehog. This was the beginning of the console wars. However, despite the wars, each console was always judged on it's games, thus there was never a winner. As a result, a kind of joint monopoly had formed over the gaming market - Sega and Nintendo.
This 'joint monopoly' took a new turn as handheld gaming systems were introduced. Nintendo were first past the post again, with the Gameboy, and Sega quickly on the heels with the GameGear. Atari snook in for another try with the Atari Lynx, but flopped again. Now out of all of the systems, which one was the better handheld? In terms of specifications, the Lynx was the best machine. So why did it flop? The answer lies in the monopoly Sega and Nintendo had over the gaming market, there simply were few good games being made for the Lynx. Lynx aside, Sega and Nintendo had each released a handheld system, and of the two, the GameGear had the better specifications. Yet the Gamegear was outselling it in the market - and again, the reason for this lies in the quality of games on the platform. Albeit, Sega had Sonic, and the Gamegear was full colour, but the novelty of Nintendo's games won the handheld gaming world over.
Sega slipping slightly behind, but all was made up with the release of the next generation consoles. Sega launched the Mega Drive, and Nintendo launched the SNES. Like earlier efforts, both were seperate machines, and really couldn't be compared. Each sold like hot cakes, the public could not get enough of these new powerful gaming systems. Sega continued upholding the Sonic empire, while Nintendo widened the Mario world, to encompass driving games (Mario Kart) and the like. This was perhaps a major factor for the next releases, the Sega Saturn and the Nintendo 64.
It was a turbulent time for Sega with the Saturn release, as the N64 was pipping it at the post. Atari peered it's retro head back in for one final stab with the Jaguar, but it was outdone by the competition. Nintendo had created an empire within it's games. It had titles like Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda, all based around a colourful friendly world which appealed younger buyers. The Saturn quickly flopped and was rapidly replaced by the Dreamcast. A truly innovative piece of kit that could outdo the N64 in terms of all gaming power. However, this seemed irrelevant, as a major factor in the upturn of Sega were an electronics company, Sony.
During this period, Sony had released the Playstation. It promised better games than Nintendo and Sega, and appealed to an older audience. Plus it had the corporate backing of the largest consumer electronics producer in the world. Video games had just grown up, and Sega and Nintendo were left shaking in their boots. Due to the competition, Sega were left with no option but to never make any more computer gaming systems.
Since then, the largest company in the world, Microsoft, have released a console, the XBox. In addition, Sony have released the next-generation Playstation, the PS2. Each of these consoles are no longer aimed at children, but young adults. The 5th May this year will see the release of the new Nintendo console, the GameCube, but will it have any market left? The likely answer will be yes, as the Mario empire is still strong today. But the long-term question is how long will Nintendo be able to continue making games systems in the shadow of large corporations? How long until they give up the game and simply make games, as per Sega. Perhaps this will never happen, in fact this is highly possible due to the child niche that is left gaping wide at this moment in time.
Only the future will answer these questions. But computer games have grown up, and the market has shown a huge reversal of fortune.
However, in the gaming sector, Atari held out, with the 2600, as the leader of all the games consoles. That was, until Sega and Nintendo hit the scene. Two companies keen to monopolise this niche of the market. Nintendo hit the consumer with the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), and Sega hit back with the Master System.
Atari's 2600 rightfully flopped in comparison to these gaming systems. It simply could not handle the power being pushed out by these next-gen machines. As a result, Sega and Nintendo ruled the gaming market. Over a short period of time, each company had formed a seperate stronghold on the gaming economy. Nintendo had developed a gaming world set in the realm of Mario and Luigi, While Sega had created Sonic The Hedgehog. This was the beginning of the console wars. However, despite the wars, each console was always judged on it's games, thus there was never a winner. As a result, a kind of joint monopoly had formed over the gaming market - Sega and Nintendo.
This 'joint monopoly' took a new turn as handheld gaming systems were introduced. Nintendo were first past the post again, with the Gameboy, and Sega quickly on the heels with the GameGear. Atari snook in for another try with the Atari Lynx, but flopped again. Now out of all of the systems, which one was the better handheld? In terms of specifications, the Lynx was the best machine. So why did it flop? The answer lies in the monopoly Sega and Nintendo had over the gaming market, there simply were few good games being made for the Lynx. Lynx aside, Sega and Nintendo had each released a handheld system, and of the two, the GameGear had the better specifications. Yet the Gamegear was outselling it in the market - and again, the reason for this lies in the quality of games on the platform. Albeit, Sega had Sonic, and the Gamegear was full colour, but the novelty of Nintendo's games won the handheld gaming world over.
Sega slipping slightly behind, but all was made up with the release of the next generation consoles. Sega launched the Mega Drive, and Nintendo launched the SNES. Like earlier efforts, both were seperate machines, and really couldn't be compared. Each sold like hot cakes, the public could not get enough of these new powerful gaming systems. Sega continued upholding the Sonic empire, while Nintendo widened the Mario world, to encompass driving games (Mario Kart) and the like. This was perhaps a major factor for the next releases, the Sega Saturn and the Nintendo 64.
It was a turbulent time for Sega with the Saturn release, as the N64 was pipping it at the post. Atari peered it's retro head back in for one final stab with the Jaguar, but it was outdone by the competition. Nintendo had created an empire within it's games. It had titles like Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda, all based around a colourful friendly world which appealed younger buyers. The Saturn quickly flopped and was rapidly replaced by the Dreamcast. A truly innovative piece of kit that could outdo the N64 in terms of all gaming power. However, this seemed irrelevant, as a major factor in the upturn of Sega were an electronics company, Sony.
During this period, Sony had released the Playstation. It promised better games than Nintendo and Sega, and appealed to an older audience. Plus it had the corporate backing of the largest consumer electronics producer in the world. Video games had just grown up, and Sega and Nintendo were left shaking in their boots. Due to the competition, Sega were left with no option but to never make any more computer gaming systems.
Since then, the largest company in the world, Microsoft, have released a console, the XBox. In addition, Sony have released the next-generation Playstation, the PS2. Each of these consoles are no longer aimed at children, but young adults. The 5th May this year will see the release of the new Nintendo console, the GameCube, but will it have any market left? The likely answer will be yes, as the Mario empire is still strong today. But the long-term question is how long will Nintendo be able to continue making games systems in the shadow of large corporations? How long until they give up the game and simply make games, as per Sega. Perhaps this will never happen, in fact this is highly possible due to the child niche that is left gaping wide at this moment in time.
Only the future will answer these questions. But computer games have grown up, and the market has shown a huge reversal of fortune.
Nice response, and very true. I would also like to add that the XBox and Playstation 2 appeal to identical markets. And in my mind, only one will company will truly suceed. I guess it may be hard to comprehend Sony giving up on the games market, but again, it's the old Sega paradox again. XBox v Sony - Who will win? At the minute surely the smart money is on Sony....
Good post
It is strange that Sony are market leaders now considering that newcomners to the industry always seem to fail. I wait in anticipation to see if Xbox follows suit. Who knows, maybe in 10 years time Sony will be struggling for survival. You might laugh, but so would I if someone told me 10 years ago Sega didn't make consoles anymore. Think about it.
It is strange that Sony are market leaders now considering that newcomners to the industry always seem to fail. I wait in anticipation to see if Xbox follows suit. Who knows, maybe in 10 years time Sony will be struggling for survival. You might laugh, but so would I if someone told me 10 years ago Sega didn't make consoles anymore. Think about it.
I grew up in the priveledged days when the Atari consoles first hit the market. I remember the short lived careers of many of the wannabes in the gaming industry. I saw the rise and fall of Commodore, Amstrad, Sinclair, and Atari in the quest to be the ultimate leader in the console world. However, Commy, Amstrad, and Sinclair designed no follow up gaming machines to their tape-based microcomputers. Perhaps this was because console gaming was the way forward. Quicker loading was likely a large determinant in this trend. I accept Commodore had the Amiga, which was a revolutionary system, but in my opinion, it is better laid besides the PC as a business machine.
However, in the gaming sector, Atari held out, with the 2600, as the leader of all the games consoles. That was, until Sega and Nintendo hit the scene. Two companies keen to monopolise this niche of the market. Nintendo hit the consumer with the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), and Sega hit back with the Master System.
Atari's 2600 rightfully flopped in comparison to these gaming systems. It simply could not handle the power being pushed out by these next-gen machines. As a result, Sega and Nintendo ruled the gaming market. Over a short period of time, each company had formed a seperate stronghold on the gaming economy. Nintendo had developed a gaming world set in the realm of Mario and Luigi, While Sega had created Sonic The Hedgehog. This was the beginning of the console wars. However, despite the wars, each console was always judged on it's games, thus there was never a winner. As a result, a kind of joint monopoly had formed over the gaming market - Sega and Nintendo.
This 'joint monopoly' took a new turn as handheld gaming systems were introduced. Nintendo were first past the post again, with the Gameboy, and Sega quickly on the heels with the GameGear. Atari snook in for another try with the Atari Lynx, but flopped again. Now out of all of the systems, which one was the better handheld? In terms of specifications, the Lynx was the best machine. So why did it flop? The answer lies in the monopoly Sega and Nintendo had over the gaming market, there simply were few good games being made for the Lynx. Lynx aside, Sega and Nintendo had each released a handheld system, and of the two, the GameGear had the better specifications. Yet the Gamegear was outselling it in the market - and again, the reason for this lies in the quality of games on the platform. Albeit, Sega had Sonic, and the Gamegear was full colour, but the novelty of Nintendo's games won the handheld gaming world over.
Sega slipping slightly behind, but all was made up with the release of the next generation consoles. Sega launched the Mega Drive, and Nintendo launched the SNES. Like earlier efforts, both were seperate machines, and really couldn't be compared. Each sold like hot cakes, the public could not get enough of these new powerful gaming systems. Sega continued upholding the Sonic empire, while Nintendo widened the Mario world, to encompass driving games (Mario Kart) and the like. This was perhaps a major factor for the next releases, the Sega Saturn and the Nintendo 64.
It was a turbulent time for Sega with the Saturn release, as the N64 was pipping it at the post. Atari peered it's retro head back in for one final stab with the Jaguar, but it was outdone by the competition. Nintendo had created an empire within it's games. It had titles like Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda, all based around a colourful friendly world which appealed younger buyers. The Saturn quickly flopped and was rapidly replaced by the Dreamcast. A truly innovative piece of kit that could outdo the N64 in terms of all gaming power. However, this seemed irrelevant, as a major factor in the upturn of Sega were an electronics company, Sony.
During this period, Sony had released the Playstation. It promised better games than Nintendo and Sega, and appealed to an older audience. Plus it had the corporate backing of the largest consumer electronics producer in the world. Video games had just grown up, and Sega and Nintendo were left shaking in their boots. Due to the competition, Sega were left with no option but to never make any more computer gaming systems.
Since then, the largest company in the world, Microsoft, have released a console, the XBox. In addition, Sony have released the next-generation Playstation, the PS2. Each of these consoles are no longer aimed at children, but young adults. The 5th May this year will see the release of the new Nintendo console, the GameCube, but will it have any market left? The likely answer will be yes, as the Mario empire is still strong today. But the long-term question is how long will Nintendo be able to continue making games systems in the shadow of large corporations? How long until they give up the game and simply make games, as per Sega. Perhaps this will never happen, in fact this is highly possible due to the child niche that is left gaping wide at this moment in time.
Only the future will answer these questions. But computer games have grown up, and the market has shown a huge reversal of fortune.
However, in the gaming sector, Atari held out, with the 2600, as the leader of all the games consoles. That was, until Sega and Nintendo hit the scene. Two companies keen to monopolise this niche of the market. Nintendo hit the consumer with the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES), and Sega hit back with the Master System.
Atari's 2600 rightfully flopped in comparison to these gaming systems. It simply could not handle the power being pushed out by these next-gen machines. As a result, Sega and Nintendo ruled the gaming market. Over a short period of time, each company had formed a seperate stronghold on the gaming economy. Nintendo had developed a gaming world set in the realm of Mario and Luigi, While Sega had created Sonic The Hedgehog. This was the beginning of the console wars. However, despite the wars, each console was always judged on it's games, thus there was never a winner. As a result, a kind of joint monopoly had formed over the gaming market - Sega and Nintendo.
This 'joint monopoly' took a new turn as handheld gaming systems were introduced. Nintendo were first past the post again, with the Gameboy, and Sega quickly on the heels with the GameGear. Atari snook in for another try with the Atari Lynx, but flopped again. Now out of all of the systems, which one was the better handheld? In terms of specifications, the Lynx was the best machine. So why did it flop? The answer lies in the monopoly Sega and Nintendo had over the gaming market, there simply were few good games being made for the Lynx. Lynx aside, Sega and Nintendo had each released a handheld system, and of the two, the GameGear had the better specifications. Yet the Gamegear was outselling it in the market - and again, the reason for this lies in the quality of games on the platform. Albeit, Sega had Sonic, and the Gamegear was full colour, but the novelty of Nintendo's games won the handheld gaming world over.
Sega slipping slightly behind, but all was made up with the release of the next generation consoles. Sega launched the Mega Drive, and Nintendo launched the SNES. Like earlier efforts, both were seperate machines, and really couldn't be compared. Each sold like hot cakes, the public could not get enough of these new powerful gaming systems. Sega continued upholding the Sonic empire, while Nintendo widened the Mario world, to encompass driving games (Mario Kart) and the like. This was perhaps a major factor for the next releases, the Sega Saturn and the Nintendo 64.
It was a turbulent time for Sega with the Saturn release, as the N64 was pipping it at the post. Atari peered it's retro head back in for one final stab with the Jaguar, but it was outdone by the competition. Nintendo had created an empire within it's games. It had titles like Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda, all based around a colourful friendly world which appealed younger buyers. The Saturn quickly flopped and was rapidly replaced by the Dreamcast. A truly innovative piece of kit that could outdo the N64 in terms of all gaming power. However, this seemed irrelevant, as a major factor in the upturn of Sega were an electronics company, Sony.
During this period, Sony had released the Playstation. It promised better games than Nintendo and Sega, and appealed to an older audience. Plus it had the corporate backing of the largest consumer electronics producer in the world. Video games had just grown up, and Sega and Nintendo were left shaking in their boots. Due to the competition, Sega were left with no option but to never make any more computer gaming systems.
Since then, the largest company in the world, Microsoft, have released a console, the XBox. In addition, Sony have released the next-generation Playstation, the PS2. Each of these consoles are no longer aimed at children, but young adults. The 5th May this year will see the release of the new Nintendo console, the GameCube, but will it have any market left? The likely answer will be yes, as the Mario empire is still strong today. But the long-term question is how long will Nintendo be able to continue making games systems in the shadow of large corporations? How long until they give up the game and simply make games, as per Sega. Perhaps this will never happen, in fact this is highly possible due to the child niche that is left gaping wide at this moment in time.
Only the future will answer these questions. But computer games have grown up, and the market has shown a huge reversal of fortune.