Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What If? from EGM

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 6:55:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Electronic Gaming Monthly did this article in the December issure, and
I thought it would be an interesting thing to post. I'll shorten
their answers for the sake of length.

What if...

....Nintendo teamed up with Microsoft to take on Sony?
Most agreed the partnership would fail, but if they managed to pull it
off...

....the game biz hadn't crashed in the early 80's?
Instead of the GC, we'd have the Atari 96000, complete with faux-wood
paneling.
Not so sure about this one

....the PlayStation had never existed?
We wouldn't be enjoying gaming's mainstream success, and as a result
Microsoft wouldn't have brought out the Xbox. So Sega and Nintendo
would still be top dogs in the console wars, perhaps the 3DO and
Jaguar would have even had a bit more success. I agree with it,
except "3DO," "Jaguar," and "success" just can't possibly be in the
same sentence without a negative in there somewhere.

....Xbox never had Halo?
Project Gotham Racing would be their "killer app" and they would have
pulled a Sega Saturn. Definitely see that happening, except I don't
know if they would have given up so easily.

....Nintendo had joined Sony in making the PlayStation?
They were actually scheduled to let Sony make a CD add-on to the SNES
to compete with Sega CD. They might have even partnered up in future
generations, which again would have put Sega in a world of hurt. They
were screwed either way!

....publishers of mature-rated titles lost the violent-games lawsuits?
This would open the floodgates; movies, music, and all other forms of
creative expression would be at risk. I can see that happening; let's
just hope it never does.

....EA had made a console?
3DO ring a bell? The founder left EA to make it, it failed miserably,
and the director of corporate communications at EA goes so far as to
say, "there would be no EA." Smart move EA, smart move.

These are the short, short answers, so you'll have to pick up the
magazine for the full explanation.

More about : egm

Anonymous
November 21, 2004 3:04:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"FenceSitter" <ucphenom82@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:71b335e.0411201555.5a53d061@posting.google.com...
> Electronic Gaming Monthly did this article in the December issure, and
> I thought it would be an interesting thing to post. I'll shorten
> their answers for the sake of length.
>
> What if...

What if EGM offered a free subscription and never sent it, and
when you emailed them 3 times they ignored you?
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 3:15:05 AM

Archived from groups: (More info?)

> ...Xbox never had Halo?

This started out as a game for the Mac in it's early development. Microsoft
thought it would be a great game for their console launch. So they bought
Bungie and changed the direction of the team. No Microsoft and Mac users
would have had a Mac only great game.
Related resources
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 8:45:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

What if Sega had never introduced its failed add-ons, and had designed the
Saturn with 3D gaming in mind?
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 9:08:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

ucphenom82@hotmail.com (FenceSitter) wrote in message news:<71b335e.0411201555.5a53d061@posting.google.com>...
> Electronic Gaming Monthly did this article in the December issure, and
> I thought it would be an interesting thing to post. I'll shorten
> their answers for the sake of length.
>
> What if...
>
> ...Nintendo teamed up with Microsoft to take on Sony?
> Most agreed the partnership would fail, but if they managed to pull it
> off...

Yeah, or Sega or Nintendo, or all three. Either way, if it lasted,
the system would at least be doing better in Japan. Not sure about
the States though.

> ...the game biz hadn't crashed in the early 80's?
> Instead of the GC, we'd have the Atari 96000, complete with faux-wood
> paneling.
> Not so sure about this one
>
> ...the PlayStation had never existed?
> We wouldn't be enjoying gaming's mainstream success, and as a result
> Microsoft wouldn't have brought out the Xbox. So Sega and Nintendo
> would still be top dogs in the console wars, perhaps the 3DO and
> Jaguar would have even had a bit more success. I agree with it,
> except "3DO," "Jaguar," and "success" just can't possibly be in the
> same sentence without a negative in there somewhere.

"No mainstream success" for the gaming industry?! It's certainly
arguable that the VG Industry's explosion in the 90's has to do with
the shift to 3D gaming from 2D gaming. Trying to argue that having
Sony on the label, or Sony marketing, did it alone is just silly.
Sony's marketing for the PS1 was identical to Sega's for the Genesis,
Sega just decided to drop it in the Saturn years. Sony didn't
"create" 3D gaming either, that's a popularly accepted myth, which is
apparently still being propagated by the biased media.
The mainstream success of the VG industry in the States has been
attributed to the emergence of 3D gaming, the original NES crowd,
followed by the Genesis crowd, becoming college age and actually
holding on to their gaming habits rather than dropping them, and the
bulk of these "new" games were made, not by Sony, nor funded by or
directly published by Sony, but by 3rd parties. Many of which had
made arcade and console titles in 3D long before "Playstation" meant
'video game' to the ever-loving masses.

*steps off*

Just to recap all of that, in case there's any confusion. My gripe is
with the myth that Sony is solely responsible for the gaming Industry
being what it is today, and that without them it just wouldn't have
caught on the way it did. My claim is not, in any way, a claim that
Sony has made no difference, isn't a valid competitor, or any
variation thereof, in said gaming Industry. That claim is silly, as
Sony did much in the way of revolutionizing the relationship between
3rd parties and hardware manufacturers, for one, which nobody can deny
them.



> ...Xbox never had Halo?
> Project Gotham Racing would be their "killer app" and they would have
> pulled a Sega Saturn. Definitely see that happening, except I don't
> know if they would have given up so easily.

Yup, no bias there, no-sir-e-bob.

> ...Nintendo had joined Sony in making the PlayStation?
> They were actually scheduled to let Sony make a CD add-on to the SNES
> to compete with Sega CD. They might have even partnered up in future
> generations, which again would have put Sega in a world of hurt. They
> were screwed either way!

It might have meant the Sega CD (which did sell well into 1994)
would have been supported longer by 3rd parties (who also might have
considered actually *using* the extra hardware therein), which would
mean that it wouldn't have been just Sega, Working Designs, Core
Design, and Digital Pictures making games for it. Imagine the Sega CD
with Super Star Wars, Super Street Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat 2-3, and
so on and so forth, and you'll see that Nintendo getting into the fray
years after the Sega CD's release would have changed the outcome of
nearly everything.
It's also possible that both add-ons would have flopped, because
these same game magazines, that love to give Sony sole credit for the
popularization of gaming, claim that no add-on console would ever
work, and was a stupid idea to begin with (as if they didn't actually
print at the time that they were awesome ideas). Except, apparently,
when Sony's on the label, then it's a great idea even without any
indication of the system specs or which 3rd parties were going to make
what for the system. *derisive snort*


> ...publishers of mature-rated titles lost the violent-games lawsuits?
> This would open the floodgates; movies, music, and all other forms of
> creative expression would be at risk. I can see that happening; let's
> just hope it never does.
>
> ...EA had made a console?
> 3DO ring a bell? The founder left EA to make it, it failed miserably,
> and the director of corporate communications at EA goes so far as to
> say, "there would be no EA." Smart move EA, smart move.
>
> These are the short, short answers, so you'll have to pick up the
> magazine for the full explanation.

Unless these abreviated versions somehow greatly exaggerate their
absolute state of being sold out to Sony, I think I'll save my cash
for a cheap cartridge game or something.

--
Scott - who actually did wake up on the wrong side of bed, and in a
different city today. ;) 

Game Pilgrimage
http://users4.ev1.net/~sheath
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 9:20:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Gooserider" <noway@mousepotato.com> wrote in message news:<qYVnd.49272$6w6.22207@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>...
> What if Sega had never introduced its failed add-ons, and had designed the
> Saturn with 3D gaming in mind?

The media would have ragged on them for *not* releasing the
add-ons, claiming that they would have made all the difference in the
war against the gaining Snes, and undeterminable numbers of gamers who
bought the Sega CD in particular would have bought an Snes instead,
creating a greater gain for Nintendo. The later one implies that they
didn't design the Saturn for 3D gaming, which is actually false. The
Saturn having awesome 2D hardware, and games that take advantage of
it, does not automatically support the Industry rumor turned myth that
it had no 3D hardware before Sony came into play. The facts on that
are that Sega "revamped" the Saturn's 3D, and nobody has ever known
(though they love to speculate) how the specs were changed during this
revamp.

Think the SegaCD or 32X ripped anybody off?

http://users4.ev1.net/~sheath/Consolehistory.htm#Scdand...

...Saturn didn't do 3D, what?

http://users4.ev1.net/~sheath/Consolehistory.htm#Saturn...

All the internal politics you can handle, plus press releases and a
great overall history of things.

http://www.eidolons-inn.net/segabase/SegaBase-Saturn(Part1).html

--
Scott

Game Pilgrimage
http://users4.ev1.net/~sheath
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 7:30:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

menu boy wrote:
> "FenceSitter" <ucphenom82@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:71b335e.0411201555.5a53d061@posting.google.com...
>
>>Electronic Gaming Monthly did this article in the December issure, and
>>I thought it would be an interesting thing to post. I'll shorten
>>their answers for the sake of length.
>>
>>What if...
>
>
> What if EGM offered a free subscription and never sent it, and
> when you emailed them 3 times they ignored you?


And then they kept sending you subscription renewal invoices, even
though you never got a single issue?
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 7:30:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

<T.Turner@edswax.com> wrote in message
news:5p3od.6597$182.3369@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
>
> menu boy wrote:
> > "FenceSitter" <ucphenom82@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:71b335e.0411201555.5a53d061@posting.google.com...
> >
> >>Electronic Gaming Monthly did this article in the December issure, and
> >>I thought it would be an interesting thing to post. I'll shorten
> >>their answers for the sake of length.
> >>
> >>What if...
> >
> >
> > What if EGM offered a free subscription and never sent it, and
> > when you emailed them 3 times they ignored you?
>
>
> And then they kept sending you subscription renewal invoices, even
> though you never got a single issue?

....and they sent someone elses subscription to the wrong address, and when
you notify them they don't care?
Anonymous
November 21, 2004 7:59:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Joe Ottoson" <grover@landfill.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95A8A2218CCFjaottosonfortlewised@130.133.1.4...
> ucphenom82@hotmail.com (FenceSitter) wrote in
> news:71b335e.0411201555.5a53d061@posting.google.com:
>
> > ...the PlayStation had never existed?
> > We wouldn't be enjoying gaming's mainstream success, and as a result
> > Microsoft wouldn't have brought out the Xbox.
>
> I'm not so sure that gaming would've remained bottled up. It was one of
> the fastest growing industries in the 16-bit era, and there's no great
> reason that Sony's absence would've stifled the market when the main
> players remained the same.
>
Sony's marketting was probably their most brilliant move with the
Playstation. Here's just one example: playstations started appearing in
various tv shows and had normal/cool adults playing them. Before that it
always seemed only geeky adults and kids played them. Sony also marketted
heavily to girlfriends/wives of males between 20-30 telling them that a
playstation with sports game,etc was what their boyfriends wanted. In so
many more ways they made it cool to play videogames, just look at the number
of stars that now freely admit to gaming. Of course many of them are posers
but it's still different from when it was considered uncool and the majority
of stars who actually played them either denied it outright or tried to hide
that fact. By making gaming appear cool and acceptable for people in their
20's and above they opened up the floodgates and expanded the market and
basically dominated it by doing so.

As for Microsoft, before Sony's entrance into the gaming market Nintendo and
Sega were solely focused on games and nothing more. Even to this day
Nintendo still says they're in it just for the games. When Sony entered the
market they had plans from day one to eventually have the Playstation evolve
into the media hub of the livingroom. Since they never tried to hide that
fact they showed up on Microsoft's radar and became seen as a threat.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 12:47:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"menu boy" <ilmobixMYLIFE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GYQnd.2957$hJ6.34@trndny01...
>
> "FenceSitter" <ucphenom82@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:71b335e.0411201555.5a53d061@posting.google.com...
> > Electronic Gaming Monthly did this article in the December issure, and
> > I thought it would be an interesting thing to post. I'll shorten
> > their answers for the sake of length.
> >
> > What if...
>
> What if EGM offered a free subscription and never sent it, and
> when you emailed them 3 times they ignored you?
>
I've had Gamepro and EGM show up unrequested and unpaid for 3 years now. I
receive a notice every year informing me of my free subscription. I don't
know where they come from....
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 2:23:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

On 20 Nov 2004 15:55:11 -0800, ucphenom82@hotmail.com (FenceSitter)
wrote:

>...Nintendo teamed up with Microsoft to take on Sony?
>Most agreed the partnership would fail, but if they managed to pull it
>off...
Definitely a doomed partnership. Neither company works well with
others, especially on a level basis.

>...the game biz hadn't crashed in the early 80's?
>Instead of the GC, we'd have the Atari 96000, complete with faux-wood
>paneling.
>Not so sure about this one
The wood-paneling thing is definitely nonsense. Companies ultimately
bow to the shifting tastes of the consumer, so odds are that the Atari
96000 would look more-or-less like the other consoles (sleek stylish,
with clean lines, probably black, maybe silver.) Ultimately, I don't
thinks would be terribly different. It would just be companies with
different names making the games.

>...the PlayStation had never existed?
>We wouldn't be enjoying gaming's mainstream success,
Total nonsense. Gaming's mainstream success is due to exactly one
thing, which is that the kids who grew up playing video games have
kept playing video games as adults.

>and as a result Microsoft wouldn't have brought out the Xbox.
It may have sped up the XBox's release by a bit, but ultimately MS
would have entered the console business sooner or later no matter
what. Microsoft sees the console business as a way to control
people's access to entertainment content, and that's predominately
where they've been positioning themselves for the past 10 years now.

>So Sega and Nintendo
>would still be top dogs in the console wars, perhaps the 3DO and
>Jaguar would have even had a bit more success. I agree with it,
>except "3DO," "Jaguar," and "success" just can't possibly be in the
>same sentence without a negative in there somewhere.
Sega MAY have managed to survive through the Dreamcast. Maybe. I
think its far from certain, though, because Sega's problems were
mostly of their own making. Its possible that either 3D0 or the
Jaguar would have managed to make it into the mainstream (not both,
but possibly one or other other), though that's far from certain.
Nintendo would be the virtually undisputed king of the console market,
with the possible exception of if EA threw their hat in the ring (but
that's later...)

>...Xbox never had Halo?
Not much of anything. Microsoft would simply have put their
marketting power behind another game (lets face it, Halo is nothing
special. Its a decent game, but there's at least 20 other XBox games
that are just as good.)

>...Nintendo had joined Sony in making the PlayStation?
Again, insanely unlikely, just like the previously mentioned
Microsoft/Nintendo alliance. Sony is better at working with others,
but Nintendo's arrogance would have still doomed the endeavor to
failure (the reason the SNES CDROM drive project failed.) Even if it
somehow managed to happen, Nintendo would have dropped out after the
original PS and made their own console once again, and we'd still be
at the 3-console-market we're at now.

>...publishers of mature-rated titles lost the violent-games lawsuits?
>This would open the floodgates; movies, music, and all other forms of
>creative expression would be at risk. I can see that happening; let's
>just hope it never does.
It'll happen eventually. These things go in cycles.

>...EA had made a console?
>3DO ring a bell? The founder left EA to make it, it failed miserably,
>and the director of corporate communications at EA goes so far as to
>say, "there would be no EA." Smart move EA, smart move.

With Sony in the market, it would be a massive failure. I find it
doubtful that it would kill EA, though - they're a pretty big company.
If Sony weren't in the market, though (as per previous 'what ifs'),
they may have found some success. We'd then be in a market with
Nintendo leading, followed by Microsoft and EA tied roughly for
second.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 3:18:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Gooserider wrote:

> What if Sega had never introduced its failed add-ons, and had designed the
> Saturn with 3D gaming in mind?
>
>

Ah yes! Saturn was based off of Sega's arcade "System 32" ( with few
modifications ). None of the arcade System 32 games featured true 3-D
polygon until Sega's MODEL 1 system which debuted Virtua Racing and then
later Virtua Fighter. It also explains compromises had to be made in
getting Virtua Fighter onto the Saturn.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 5:43:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

weaponx013@yahoo.com (Scott H) wrote in
news:7fd53a09.0411210620.16355ba2@posting.google.com:

> "Gooserider" <noway@mousepotato.com> wrote in message
> news:<qYVnd.49272$6w6.22207@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>...
>> What if Sega had never introduced its failed add-ons, and had
>> designed the Saturn with 3D gaming in mind?
>
> The media would have ragged on them for *not* releasing the
> add-ons, claiming that they would have made all the difference in the
> war against the gaining Snes, and undeterminable numbers of gamers who
> bought the Sega CD in particular would have bought an Snes instead,
> creating a greater gain for Nintendo.

I doubt it. Nintendo doesn't get much grief for canceling the SNES CD,
the 64DD and so on.

The later one implies that they
> didn't design the Saturn for 3D gaming, which is actually false.

The Saturn's roots were firmly 2d. If they'd designed the hardware from
the group up speficically to do 3d with a focus on the big features back
then, it would've been a much different system bearing the Saturn name
that appeared.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 5:43:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Joe Ottoson wrote:

> weaponx013@yahoo.com (Scott H) wrote in
> news:7fd53a09.0411210620.16355ba2@posting.google.com:
>
>
>>"Gooserider" <noway@mousepotato.com> wrote in message
>>news:<qYVnd.49272$6w6.22207@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>...
>>
>>>What if Sega had never introduced its failed add-ons, and had
>>>designed the Saturn with 3D gaming in mind?
>>
>> The media would have ragged on them for *not* releasing the
>>add-ons, claiming that they would have made all the difference in the
>>war against the gaining Snes, and undeterminable numbers of gamers who
>>bought the Sega CD in particular would have bought an Snes instead,
>>creating a greater gain for Nintendo.
>
>
> I doubt it. Nintendo doesn't get much grief for canceling the SNES CD,
> the 64DD and so on.

Nintendo indeed got grief from all sources when they decided
to continue with the cartridge format on the N64.
>
> The later one implies that they
>
>>didn't design the Saturn for 3D gaming, which is actually false.
>
>
> The Saturn's roots were firmly 2d. If they'd designed the hardware from
> the group up speficically to do 3d with a focus on the big features back
> then, it would've been a much different system bearing the Saturn name
> that appeared.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 7:46:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Joe Ottoson wrote:
> weaponx013@yahoo.com (Scott H) wrote in
> news:7fd53a09.0411210620.16355ba2@posting.google.com:
>
>
>>"Gooserider" <noway@mousepotato.com> wrote in message
>>news:<qYVnd.49272$6w6.22207@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>...
>>
>>>What if Sega had never introduced its failed add-ons, and had
>>>designed the Saturn with 3D gaming in mind?
>>
>> The media would have ragged on them for *not* releasing the
>>add-ons, claiming that they would have made all the difference in the
>>war against the gaining Snes, and undeterminable numbers of gamers who
>>bought the Sega CD in particular would have bought an Snes instead,
>>creating a greater gain for Nintendo.
>
>
> I doubt it. Nintendo doesn't get much grief for canceling the SNES CD,
> the 64DD and so on.

Nintendo wasn't competing with a company with more mindshare and the
percieved hardware edge either. Game mags made add-ons sound like the
best thing since sliced cheese until they had two examples of add-ons,
that failed to catch on, to run with.

> The later one implies that they
>
>>didn't design the Saturn for 3D gaming, which is actually false.
>
>
> The Saturn's roots were firmly 2d. If they'd designed the hardware from
> the group up speficically to do 3d with a focus on the big features back
> then, it would've been a much different system bearing the Saturn name
> that appeared.

Ah, solely 3D, yeah, that would have done something, that much is
certain. ;) 

--
Scott

Game Pilgrimage
http://users4.ev1.net/~sheath
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 9:12:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

weaponx013@yahoo.com (Scott H) wrote in message news:<7fd53a09.0411210608.42455d8f@posting.google.com>...

> > ...the PlayStation had never existed?
> > We wouldn't be enjoying gaming's mainstream success, and as a result
> > Microsoft wouldn't have brought out the Xbox. So Sega and Nintendo
> > would still be top dogs in the console wars, perhaps the 3DO and
> > Jaguar would have even had a bit more success. I agree with it,
> > except "3DO," "Jaguar," and "success" just can't possibly be in the
> > same sentence without a negative in there somewhere.
>
> "No mainstream success" for the gaming industry?! It's certainly
> arguable that the VG Industry's explosion in the 90's has to do with
> the shift to 3D gaming from 2D gaming. Trying to argue that having
> Sony on the label, or Sony marketing, did it alone is just silly.
> Sony's marketing for the PS1 was identical to Sega's for the Genesis,
> Sega just decided to drop it in the Saturn years. Sony didn't
> "create" 3D gaming either, that's a popularly accepted myth, which is
> apparently still being propagated by the biased media.
> The mainstream success of the VG industry in the States has been
> attributed to the emergence of 3D gaming, the original NES crowd,
> followed by the Genesis crowd, becoming college age and actually
> holding on to their gaming habits rather than dropping them, and the
> bulk of these "new" games were made, not by Sony, nor funded by or
> directly published by Sony, but by 3rd parties. Many of which had
> made arcade and console titles in 3D long before "Playstation" meant
> 'video game' to the ever-loving masses.
>
> *steps off*
>
> Just to recap all of that, in case there's any confusion. My gripe is
> with the myth that Sony is solely responsible for the gaming Industry
> being what it is today, and that without them it just wouldn't have
> caught on the way it did. My claim is not, in any way, a claim that
> Sony has made no difference, isn't a valid competitor, or any
> variation thereof, in said gaming Industry. That claim is silly, as
> Sony did much in the way of revolutionizing the relationship between
> 3rd parties and hardware manufacturers, for one, which nobody can deny
> them.


You're right that Sony doesn't deserve all the credit for gaming's
mainstream success, but they played a pretty large part in it. In
fact, I knew quite a few people whose first console was a PlayStation,
and a whole lot more people started talking about video games in
school. I was somewhere in middle school at the time. One old
girlfriend's father even bought a PlayStation for himself and we
played a game of Madden or NBA Live now and then (I suspect he liked
me better than she, but that's another story). He hadn't played a
video game before that since Galaga.

I suppose that's why I originally agreed with what they said, because
of my personal experience. Perhaps it makes more sense to speculate
that gaming's mainstream success wouldn't have happened as quickly
without the PlayStation. I do believe you're right though; gamers
holding on to their habits and the emergence of more lifelike games
certainly had much to do with it. In any case, I'm just glad it's
there.


> > ...Xbox never had Halo?
> > Project Gotham Racing would be their "killer app" and they would have
> > pulled a Sega Saturn. Definitely see that happening, except I don't
> > know if they would have given up so easily.
>
> Yup, no bias there, no-sir-e-bob.


I accidentally made it sound worse then they did. EGM actually said
that Project Gotham Racing was the second best selling game for Xbox
at its launch, so they lacked a "killer app" just like the Saturn did.
Another poster said Halo is nothing special, but the sales numbers
would tell quite a different story. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in
speculating that I wouldn't even own an Xbox if it weren't for Halo.
I know, I'd have missed out on Crimson Skies and KotOR (I wouldn't
have bought it for PC). As much as I enjoy them, I don't think they
alone would have been enough to convince me to buy an Xbox, even
though practically all the cross-platform games look the best on it.
In fact, my Xbox game library is catching up to my PS2's and
GameCube's because of it.

Anyway, the point was the Xbox launch would not have been nearly as
successful if Halo didn't exist, and only the most diehard Xbox fans
could refute that.


> > These are the short, short answers, so you'll have to pick up the
> > magazine for the full explanation.
>
> Unless these abreviated versions somehow greatly exaggerate their
> absolute state of being sold out to Sony, I think I'll save my cash
> for a cheap cartridge game or something.


I can do that too since I got this subscription for free :)  (it's one
of those e-Magazine subscriptions). I don't know, maybe it was just
the writer of the article who is biased, I didn't seem to notice any
tilt towards the PS2 in game reviews or anything. Still, I'll keep a
more watchful eye on my next readthroughs.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 12:04:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

"Union Kane" <vnion_kane_03_nospam@telvs.net> wrote in message news:<d6Rnd.196311$9b.18022@edtnps84>...
> > ...Xbox never had Halo?
>
> This started ovt as a game for the Mac in it's early development. Microsoft
> thovght it wovld be a great game for their console lavnch. So they bovght
> Bvngie and changed the direction of the team. No Microsoft and Mac vsers
> wovld have had a Mac only great game.

I remember Apple talking abovt entering the console market. Had Halo
been a lavnch title for their system instead of Microsoft, things
covld have been very interesting.
Anonymous
November 22, 2004 5:17:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

ucphenom82@hotmail.com (FenceSitter) wrote in message news:<71b335e.0411201555.5a53d061@posting.google.com>...

> Electronic Gaming Monthly did this article in the December issure, and

> ...the game biz hadn't crashed in the early 80's?
> Instead of the GC, we'd have the Atari 96000, complete with faux-wood
> paneling.

I'm not convinced that the industry crashed in the early 80s. I think
the problem is that nobody was counting games and hardware sold by
Apple and Commodore. We all know those were primarily games machines.

- Jordan
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 1:49:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

FenceSitter wrote:
> weaponx013@yahoo.com (Scott H) wrote in message news:<7fd53a09.0411210608.42455d8f@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>>>...the PlayStation had never existed?
>>>We wouldn't be enjoying gaming's mainstream success, and as a result
>>>Microsoft wouldn't have brought out the Xbox. So Sega and Nintendo
>>>would still be top dogs in the console wars, perhaps the 3DO and
>>>Jaguar would have even had a bit more success. I agree with it,
>>>except "3DO," "Jaguar," and "success" just can't possibly be in the
>>>same sentence without a negative in there somewhere.
>>
>>"No mainstream success" for the gaming industry?! It's certainly
>>arguable that the VG Industry's explosion in the 90's has to do with
>>the shift to 3D gaming from 2D gaming. Trying to argue that having
>>Sony on the label, or Sony marketing, did it alone is just silly.
>>Sony's marketing for the PS1 was identical to Sega's for the Genesis,
>>Sega just decided to drop it in the Saturn years. Sony didn't
>>"create" 3D gaming either, that's a popularly accepted myth, which is
>>apparently still being propagated by the biased media.
>> The mainstream success of the VG industry in the States has been
>>attributed to the emergence of 3D gaming, the original NES crowd,
>>followed by the Genesis crowd, becoming college age and actually
>>holding on to their gaming habits rather than dropping them, and the
>>bulk of these "new" games were made, not by Sony, nor funded by or
>>directly published by Sony, but by 3rd parties. Many of which had
>>made arcade and console titles in 3D long before "Playstation" meant
>>'video game' to the ever-loving masses.
>>
>>*steps off*
>>
>>Just to recap all of that, in case there's any confusion. My gripe is
>>with the myth that Sony is solely responsible for the gaming Industry
>>being what it is today, and that without them it just wouldn't have
>>caught on the way it did. My claim is not, in any way, a claim that
>>Sony has made no difference, isn't a valid competitor, or any
>>variation thereof, in said gaming Industry. That claim is silly, as
>>Sony did much in the way of revolutionizing the relationship between
>>3rd parties and hardware manufacturers, for one, which nobody can deny
>>them.
>
>
>
> You're right that Sony doesn't deserve all the credit for gaming's
> mainstream success, but they played a pretty large part in it. In
> fact, I knew quite a few people whose first console was a PlayStation,
> and a whole lot more people started talking about video games in
> school. I was somewhere in middle school at the time. One old
> girlfriend's father even bought a PlayStation for himself and we
> played a game of Madden or NBA Live now and then (I suspect he liked
> me better than she, but that's another story). He hadn't played a
> video game before that since Galaga.
>
> I suppose that's why I originally agreed with what they said, because
> of my personal experience. Perhaps it makes more sense to speculate
> that gaming's mainstream success wouldn't have happened as quickly
> without the PlayStation. I do believe you're right though; gamers
> holding on to their habits and the emergence of more lifelike games
> certainly had much to do with it. In any case, I'm just glad it's
> there.

My point of view on it is by no means absolutely correct, but
absolutely every account I've heard of why this happened was credited to
a short list of games, all of which were made by 3rd parties like EA,
Namco, Psygnosis and others, with 989 and Polyphony Digital usually in
the group somewhere as well. Therefore, if it was about the games, the
console didn't matter, Sony just managed to get the bulk of them
exclusive to their system, and therefore stole the bulk of the market
increase as well.
Since nobody's ever come up with any numbers for marketing dollars
spent, numbers of commercials, specific or ad-campaign tactics that
they'd attribute as solely responsible for the Industry's increase in
size, it seems logical to go with the personal testimonials that it was
about the games, which would have come out on which ever system sold the
best, so long as it was using the CD-ROM medium.

>
>
>>>...Xbox never had Halo?
>>>Project Gotham Racing would be their "killer app" and they would have
>>>pulled a Sega Saturn. Definitely see that happening, except I don't
>>>know if they would have given up so easily.
>>
>>Yup, no bias there, no-sir-e-bob.
>
>
>
> I accidentally made it sound worse then they did. EGM actually said
> that Project Gotham Racing was the second best selling game for Xbox
> at its launch, so they lacked a "killer app" just like the Saturn did.
> Another poster said Halo is nothing special, but the sales numbers
> would tell quite a different story. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in
> speculating that I wouldn't even own an Xbox if it weren't for Halo.
> I know, I'd have missed out on Crimson Skies and KotOR (I wouldn't
> have bought it for PC). As much as I enjoy them, I don't think they
> alone would have been enough to convince me to buy an Xbox, even
> though practically all the cross-platform games look the best on it.
> In fact, my Xbox game library is catching up to my PS2's and
> GameCube's because of it.
>
> Anyway, the point was the Xbox launch would not have been nearly as
> successful if Halo didn't exist, and only the most diehard Xbox fans
> could refute that.

I'd never had the impression that the Xbox launch or even 1st year
sales were all that spectacular at all. I'm pretty sure the PS2 beat it
5:1, and the Dreamcast definitely had a better first 90 days. The Xbox
has gotten better in sales gradually over time, from what I've seen. I
see this as possibly due to the library reaching a certain size, or
public perception that it'll be a good long term console, or possibly
due to perceived versatility as a second console.

>
>
>>>These are the short, short answers, so you'll have to pick up the
>>>magazine for the full explanation.
>>
>> Unless these abreviated versions somehow greatly exaggerate their
>>absolute state of being sold out to Sony, I think I'll save my cash
>>for a cheap cartridge game or something.
>
>
>
> I can do that too since I got this subscription for free :)  (it's one
> of those e-Magazine subscriptions). I don't know, maybe it was just
> the writer of the article who is biased, I didn't seem to notice any
> tilt towards the PS2 in game reviews or anything. Still, I'll keep a
> more watchful eye on my next readthroughs.

They're not nearly as bad as Game Informer or Gamepro, but I've got a
few of their reviews on my site under Factoids-> The Media that show a
slant in the direction of giving better than merited review scores
because of a game's perceived popularity, rather than on the game's own
merits. I call that bias, though it's not necessarily console specific.

--
Scott

Game Pilgrimage
http://users4.ev1.net/~sheath
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 1:51:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

lanstrider wrote:
>
>
> Gooserider wrote:
>
>> What if Sega had never introduced its failed add-ons, and had designed
>> the
>> Saturn with 3D gaming in mind?
>>
>>
>
> Ah yes! Saturn was based off of Sega's arcade "System 32" ( with few
> modifications ). None of the arcade System 32 games featured true 3-D
> polygon until Sega's MODEL 1 system which debuted Virtua Racing and then
> later Virtua Fighter. It also explains compromises had to be made in
> getting Virtua Fighter onto the Saturn.
>

The project for a successor console, way back in '92 if I recall, was a
modified System 32 architecture on paper, just like the Genesis was a
modified System 16. This does not have anything to do with the Saturn
architecture however.

--
Scott

Game Pilgrimage
http://users4.ev1.net/~sheath
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 4:11:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Willie D <williedynomite@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I remember Apple talking about entering the console market. Had Halo
> been a launch title for their system instead of Microsoft, things
> could have been very interesting.

Apple DID enter the console market with the Pippen. It was an a joint
project with a Japanese company. I don't know if it ever got released,
but I know some of the folks at Apple who worked on it, and they still
have some of the prototype hardware.
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 5:23:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 TLB <tlb@tlb.tlb> wrote:

> Sony's marketting was probably their most brilliant move with the
> Playstation. Here's just one example: playstations started appearing in
> various tv shows and had normal/cool adults playing them. Before that it
> always seemed only geeky adults and kids played them. Sony also marketted
> heavily to girlfriends/wives of males between 20-30 telling them that a
> playstation with sports game,etc was what their boyfriends wanted. In so
> many more ways they made it cool to play videogames, just look at the number
> of stars that now freely admit to gaming. Of course many of them are posers
> but it's still different from when it was considered uncool and the majority
> of stars who actually played them either denied it outright or tried to hide
> that fact. By making gaming appear cool and acceptable for people in their
> 20's and above they opened up the floodgates and expanded the market and
> basically dominated it by doing so.

I think the larger factor is that the crowd that played games back in the
2600, NES and SNES days had grown up, and here comes the Playstation with
a bevy of "M"ature titles - something that hadn't been seen before in
videogames outside of the PC market.

If you look at the game market until the PS1 came out, there really wasn't
a whole lot out there for older casual gamers. RPGs were too long and
involved, platformers were too difficult, sports games looked awful, and
most games just looked too juvenile (remember, most people still think
cartoonish == childish)
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 5:59:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 drocket <drocket@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The wood-paneling thing is definitely nonsense. Companies ultimately
> bow to the shifting tastes of the consumer, so odds are that the Atari
> 96000 would look more-or-less like the other consoles (sleek stylish,
> with clean lines, probably black, maybe silver.) Ultimately, I don't
> thinks would be terribly different. It would just be companies with
> different names making the games.

I think the 'wood paneling' comment was meant as a joke. Especially since
the 5200 and 7800 looked more like a modern console as opposed to a piece
of cheesy 70s furniture.

> >...the PlayStation had never existed?
> >We wouldn't be enjoying gaming's mainstream success,
> Total nonsense. Gaming's mainstream success is due to exactly one
> thing, which is that the kids who grew up playing video games have
> kept playing video games as adults.

Yes, but even as the first generation of video game children grew up,
there really weren't any companies marketing to them. This isn't to say
that only Sony could have had this idea, but if you look at the stuff that
was being put out by Sega and Nintendo, it was still largely aimmed at the
under-16 crowd.

> >and as a result Microsoft wouldn't have brought out the Xbox.
> It may have sped up the XBox's release by a bit, but ultimately MS
> would have entered the console business sooner or later no matter
> what. Microsoft sees the console business as a way to control
> people's access to entertainment content, and that's predominately
> where they've been positioning themselves for the past 10 years now.

Overall, Microsoft's positioning has changed a LOT over the past 10
years. Heck, just over 10 years ago, Bill Gates claimed that this
internet thing was a passing fad that Microsoft could ignore. After being
shown how wrong he was, Microsoft licensed Mosaic, and renamed it Internet
Explorer, releasing it for Windows 3.11. Microsoft looked to Win95 to expand
the PC gaming platform with their DirectX API, which provided a standardized
set of functions that would operate across countless combinations of hardware.
This allowed the game makers to just make games, instead of having to
write drivers as they did back in the DOS days. Microsoft didn't care
about the console market as 3DO had already tried - and failed miserably.

Personally, if Sony didn't enter the market, and Sega and Nintendo
remained aimmed at the youth market, Microsoft might have remained in the
PC world, pushing more mature titles on its existing Windows platform.
Looking back at the early 90s, I would certainly agree that consoles were
for kids, but PC games were already tapping into the older market.

Over the past decade, the two have certainly diversified somewhat, but the
biggest strides were in the console area with the Playstation, and later,
the XBox. By the time that Microsoft was interested in getting into the
video game market, it was a no-brainer to go in as a console as the market
was easily 10x that of the PC game market.

> >...publishers of mature-rated titles lost the violent-games lawsuits?
> >This would open the floodgates; movies, music, and all other forms of
> >creative expression would be at risk. I can see that happening; let's
> >just hope it never does.
> It'll happen eventually. These things go in cycles.

It'll be a sad, sad day for the constitution if it ever does...

It'll also just about doom the current market as I'm guessing gamers over
the age of 16 make up the majority of the market now.
Anonymous
November 23, 2004 12:20:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

lundj@earthlink.net (Jordan Lund) wrote in message news:<92dbefbe.0411221417.16cb5168@posting.google.com>...
> ucphenom82@hotmail.com (FenceSitter) wrote in message news:<71b335e.0411201555.5a53d061@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Electronic Gaming Monthly did this article in the December issure, and
>
> > ...the game biz hadn't crashed in the early 80's?
> > Instead of the GC, we'd have the Atari 96000, complete with faux-wood
> > paneling.
>
> I'm not convinced that the industry crashed in the early 80s. I think
> the problem is that nobody was counting games and hardware sold by
> Apple and Commodore. We all know those were primarily games machines.
>
> - Jordan

The Apple and Commodore had other uses to fall back on when the VG
market collapsed. They had online pre-internet capabilities plus you
could type and do your accounting on them. They weren't 100 percent
dependant on new titles for survival like consoes were and ingenious
computer owners could even make their own games and other software
straight out the box without having to get some expensive development
kit.
Anonymous
November 25, 2004 2:42:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.video.nintendo.gameboy.advance,alt.games.video.nintendo.gamecube,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2,alt.games.video.xbox (More info?)

Doug Jacobs <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote:

> In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 Willie D <williedynomite@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I remember Apple talking about entering the console market. Had Halo
> > been a launch title for their system instead of Microsoft, things
> > could have been very interesting.
>
> Apple DID enter the console market with the Pippen. It was an a joint
> project with a Japanese company. I don't know if it ever got released,
> but I know some of the folks at Apple who worked on it, and they still
> have some of the prototype hardware.

Yeah, it was released (and failed almost immediately). If you ever find
a working machine and a copy of Bungie's Marathon (Halo predecessor) for
Pipin I'll kill you in envy! :-)

Regards,
Jamie Kahn Genet
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
!