Viewing Thread:
"The success of a console is dependant on games"

Since the birth of consoles, for the system to sell well there has to be a reason and that reason is usually the games. Many console’s futures are decided not by the power of the machine but the quality and quantity of the software. If the games at the start don’t live up to expectations it’s life could be decided before it even gets started.

This is the reason why it is so important to have the back up from companies. They’re the people who are going to provide the games, and if you don’t have enough support the machine will fail because it is the games that sell the machine. I mean the company that designs the system can’t produce the games and expect there to be enough for the consumer to be happy.

Just think how many games there would be on the PlayStation if they didn’t have the back up from the big companies, and made all they games themselves, there would be a very small percentage of the games on the shelf today. So without Namco, Polyphony and Konami, we wouldn’t have Tekken, GT or MGS, and these games were a major selling point for the PlayStation and without them I don’t think the PlayStation would be where it is today.

For Instance has anyone heard of the Atari Jaguar released in 1993 it was the worlds first 64bit machine (nope the N64 wasn’t the first) and way ahead of its time. But at this time also was the SNES and Megadrive, but they were 16bit. But because they both had a huge library of games, including Mario on the SNES and Sonic on the Megadrive it meant that no matter how good the Jaguar was it wasn’t going to sell very well because of the limited amount of games. So in time the jaguar with very few games (made mainly by Atari) failed, and was pushed out of the fight by Nintendo and Sega.

But the biggest dominating product on the gaming market has fought off every competition for over 10 years and is still going, and again it owes its success to the games and promotion. I’m talking about the legendary Gameboy, It’s fought of the Sega Gamegear, Atari Lynx and the recent NeoGeo. It first advertising itself as the games machine you can fit in your pocket, with the one of the all time greatest selling games Tetris. This time not even Sega’s colour carry around could fight it off in the early days, and the relatively new NeoGeo with much better graphics didn’t have the huge list of games that the Gameboy had. Also when the NeoGeo first came out it was around the lunch of Pokemon so it didn’t really give the NeoGeo a chance. Also with the new advance it looks like it will be with us a long time, and it owes its success to games.

So concluding this I can safely say that every system needs great games. So no matter how good the system is, if the games companies don’t make the games and walk through the doors that the machine has opened then the machine will suffer. So it is going to be very interesting to see in the next year or so especially with the entry of Microsoft to the gaming world, how important the games are going to be in the four way war with Microsoft v Nintendo v Sony v Sega. So out of these what’s going to do the best?

Hi

Sony advertised buying a PS2!

Ha! I told you it would win gameaday. This sort of stuff always has a good chance

I seem to remember Sega's dreamcast advert was taken off the air because it advertised online gaming, which was not yet working as claimed. This left no TV advertising. That, coupled with the fact that 90% of the population didn't have a clue what that advert was on about in the first place, could well have hindered sales of the dreamcast.

It's all about marketing. Damn you Sony!

The Game wrote

You tell
> him Mate, I agree with you, I posted on the same topic about a week
> ago, (long time in SR days!) nut no-one really took to it but I
> agree, take that for what you will

Cheers aleast someone realises that this subject has to be taken really seriously and that it isn't just a case of bring out any old console with very few games.

P.S. Mouldy chesse i am not the genie from aladdin

Genie wrote:
> azzido wrote:
>he's only telling us what we all know

Maybe i
> am and i know that you know it is only repetition but perhaps if we
> stress it enough companies will prosper and not conseed defeat at
> the first hurdle

You tell him Mate, I agree with you, I posted on the same topic about a week ago, (long time in SR days!) nut no-one really took to it but I agree, take that for what you will

The Game

Genie, are you from Aladian, coz that film is great!

Dan2K1 wrote:
> If this was the case (your title statement) then don't you think the
> Dreamcast should have been more successful?

Yes because there is some truely great games on the Dreamcast but perhaps it was more to do with the fact that the PS2 was on the horzion and many people were keen on keeping their money for the PS2, i know i was. But there was also the fact that the online access was a bit dodgy at the start. But although games are very important the advertising and the console is very important, and perhaps sega have lost their touch, it's happened to their last two consoles. But that's why i think that Sega are right by going from the hardware to software and i am sure that there will be some great Sega titles on the PS2.

If this was the case (your title statement) then don't you think the Dreamcast should have been more successful?

Maybe Sega should have worked out that sponsoring football teams for obscene amounts of money wouldn't hide the fact that there are no good football games on Dreamcast. Hmmm. Worldwide Soccer? NO THANK YOU.

azzido wrote:
>he's only telling us what we all know

Maybe i am and i know that you know it is only repetition but perhaps if we stress it enough companies will prosper and not conseed defeat at the first hurdle