Support NeoGAF

[Celine]

Sega bombed as they never had a great handheld business.

A good chunk of Nintendo sales and profits for 30 years came from handhelds. So when their consoles didn't do great, Gameboys and DS systems did probably 3x what their consoles did.

I disagree that handheld business is the only reason Nintendo survived.
I know that yours is a common belief likely due to the increasing difficulties Nintendo had in the home console segment back then while in the handheld console space Nintendo was virtually uncontested (at least until PSP but even in that case Nintendo finished on top big time).
However there is a lot of data related to Nintendo that proves that Nintendo was profitable in both segments.
For instance not many knows that while N64 sold less hardware and total software than SNES, it actually sold more first-party games than SNES (and that is where the big money are made).
Nor everyone knows that in US many N64 games dominated the software charts.
Here the top 20 games by year in US (dollar sales) recently published by NPD for the period 1996-2000 (when N64 was active):

The other factor, that I've already briefly touch on previously, which promoted profitability for Nintendo is that they rarely have sold their hardware at loss (except with 3DS/WiiU).
Take as an example this costs analysis made in 1997 between PS1 and N64.

All of this to say that if you look at the second half of the nineties the typical generational "bell curve" of Nintendo's profits (chart above) remained consistent with the "bell curve" of the previous cycle.
Under that aspect Nintendo seemed unfazed by PlayStation.
I say "seemed" because in reality Nintendo was hit hard by Sony cause PlayStation cast doubts if Nintendo (and the Nintendo's way to manage the consoles) was still needed as console manufacturer, it endangered Nintendo's own raison d'être.
Took Nintendo two generations to correctly respond.

For anyone interested in a lot of Nintendo data.

Returning to Sega.
I reinstate that if Sega wanted to survive as a console manufacturer it had to
1) Be more smart business wise so that the company had the required financial resources to develop new projects with suitably funds.
2) Finding something unique that would attract a large consumer base to their consoles.
They had to find a way to to break away from selling 10M-15M consoles (all Sega consoles except Mega Drive) because that was too small of a install base to keep the console business afloat.
At the same time they needed to not compete directly with Sony and Microsoft (and even Nintendo) bigger resources and money.
The arcade experience was definitely Sega console's recognizable trait but that clearly wasn't enough (sadly).
A key component to bringing something only you thought or could made is to have the software to back it up and Sega should have strengthen their software development to produce more popular and durable hits (this one is probably the argument of the thread).

 

[Orta]

 

[Afro Republican]

There really isn't much defense for the N64, it was saved by the 3D hype in America for the first few years of it's life than crashed like Radioshack. If it wasn't for that period the N64 would have been a big loss and Nintendo may have changed how they went about things with he gamecube, heck there may not have even been a gamecube, Nintendo was panicking internally during that one so seeing that kind of mismanagement years earlier would have been devastation.

Also Sonic will never sell as much as Sonic Heroes likely ever again, let alone Sonic 2 or Sonic 1. Sega never really treated the franchise as a bridge to their other IPS and overtime completely dismantled Sonics reputation so it's no longer possible. That luck ship sunk years ago.

 

[009EspadaSageJay]

Greatly disagree if we combine Sega's home console, arcade machines/arcade only games and now there 3rd party support they are still one of the most creative bunch from the AAA publisher side. Look at some of the obscure arcade only games they have made or stuff they funded those decisions werent playing it safe. Nintendo is almost the same way even in the way they design there consoles and games take an equal amount of risk as well 1 stick n64, 3d in a handheld, motion control only console ect. In terms of what company makes fad games out of all of them Microsoft and current sony could be tied.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

No, Nintendo are the kings of "fad" games.

 

[TaroYamada]

Yeah this is a fat no from me.

You're completely ignoring their RPG output on Saturn, furthermore arcade games often have some of the deepest mechanics in the industry. Particularly fighting games -- which Saturn dominated that generation, shmups also have a high skill ceiling and a lot of depth -- another genre mostly associated with arcades and which Saturn dominated.

I don't agree on Shenmue but whatever, that's an IP that folks click with or don't. I didn't get around to beating it until 2005 though so I don't have nostalgia goggles, and I just rebeat the first two games late last year on a vacation binge session that took about 35-40 hours. They're phenomenal games and have held up super well via the HD re-releases.

Jet Set Radio is frankly one of the best 3D platforming games ever made (and yes, it's a 3D platformer).

There's a fat list -- but what's important to note with Dreamcast is its reduced lifespan, compare it's 9/99-3/2001 lifespan to any other console that generation, none can compare to that release list.

 

[StormCell]

There really isn't much defense for the N64, it was saved by the 3D hype in America for the first few years of it's life than crashed like Radioshack. If it wasn't for that period the N64 would have been a big loss and Nintendo may have changed how they went about things with he gamecube, heck there may not have even been a gamecube, Nintendo was panicking internally during that one so seeing that kind of mismanagement years earlier would have been devastation.

Also Sonic will never sell as much as Sonic Heroes likely ever again, let alone Sonic 2 or Sonic 1. Sega never really treated the franchise as a bridge to their other IPS and overtime completely dismantled Sonics reputation so it's no longer possible. That luck ship sunk years ago.

I don't really get this sentiment, though. It's kind of like saying the old '90s Cowboys were only good because they had some good players on their team and without them they would have sucked! Well, isn't that precisely the reason why N64 was so successful? It had games! It had the best games! It revolutionized gaming. It sold incredibly well while it was well-supported. The PS1 didn't sell 100-million console units in 4 years, so it's pointless to continue to drum up these comparisons.

What the N64 failed to show Nintendo was that their often-limiting (and frustrating) hardware decisions would lead to their dethroning. The N64's carts drove away third party development. The GameCube's mini-disc hurt their efforts to attract third parties, and then the laughably small memory cards left sports publishers doubting the GameCube would even be profitable for their titles.

And this is still a lesson that Nintendo is learning today. At least, at least, Nintendo took Capcom's advice on giving the Switch more memory. That is a disaster averted.

 

[EightBit Man]

Jet Set Radio is frankly one of the best 3D platforming games ever made (and yes, it's a 3D platformer).

I absolutely don't know what genre I placed it in. It was really fresh stylistically, it had interesting environments I explored and challenges to overcome, it had a great, overall upbeat soundtrack... I think the game is a genre on its own; there still hasn't been a game (outside of its sequel) that is really comparable.

SEGA really took risks. I really miss that in the current climate of the industry.

 

[Bootzilla]

I think this is a little confused in the points it's making.

I think Sega's close relationship with arcade gaming was a big part of their rise and also part of their fall, and that became pretty evident in the Dreamcast era where Sega was SO dominant in arcades but struggling to make that translate to the home outside of fighting games and a few big outliers like Crazy Taxi.

But the other dimension here is Sega's reliance on new IP as opposed to leveraging the same IP over and over, and that is controversial, but it's something Sega did very very well. They totally reinvented their stable of IP each gen, and then tossed it out and built something new and suited to it's moment the next gen. Sega was brilliant about this and it's something they have lost over the years as they came to rely on things like Yakuza.

 

[TaroYamada]

I think this is a little confused in the points it's making.

I think Sega's close relationship with arcade gaming was a big part of their rise and also part of their fall, and that became pretty evident in the Dreamcast era where Sega was SO dominant in arcades but struggling to make that translate to the home outside of fighting games and a few big outliers like Crazy Taxi.

But the other dimension here is Sega's reliance on new IP as opposed to leveraging the same IP over and over, and that is controversial, but it's something Sega did very very well. They totally reinvented their stable of IP each gen, and then tossed it out and built something new and suited to it's moment the next gen. Sega was brilliant about this and it's something they have lost over the years as they came to rely on things like Yakuza.

It's not feasible once you're no longer a first party. Really, it wasn't feasible even as a first party, because it meant most of their IP never had the name recognition it could have otherwise. Gamers clamor for creativity and original content, Sega delivered as you stated, but it's not a particularly sustainable business model.

 

[Dane]

The main problem wasn't the "fad" games, these actually sold well and were well received.

The problem was the Japanese branch, they were envy of Sega of America sucess in the west (yes, they did the European operations too) and started to fuck up with the Saturn, as the hardware was tough to program for 3D (ever wondered that Saturn is more popular in Japan for its plethora of 2D games?) which became the industry standard overnight, they meddled in Kalinske successful management and forced into a sooner than planned release at E3 95 by surprise, which also meant that developers didn't know it and neither the biggest store chains that didn't received.

What happened next is that these chains like Toy R' Us boycotted every Sega product and helped the prospect of sales down, the poor documentation and overcomplicated hardware made tough for third party developers, which in turn meant that the console received the worst version with varying degrees (from good to abhorrent ones).

Basically the Dreamcast was the emergency replacement, except that Sega discontinued the Saturn in the west around april to june 98 and they were left without a replacement for one and half year, which killed their rep in the market.

 

[Afro Republican]

I don't really get this sentiment, though. It's kind of like saying the old '90s Cowboys were only good because they had some good players on their team and without them they would have sucked! Well, isn't that precisely the reason why N64 was so successful? It had games! It had the best games! It revolutionized gaming. It sold incredibly well while it was well-supported. The PS1 didn't sell 100-million console units in 4 years, so it's pointless to continue to drum up these comparisons.

What the N64 failed to show Nintendo was that their often-limiting (and frustrating) hardware decisions would lead to their dethroning. The N64's carts drove away third party development. The GameCube's mini-disc hurt their efforts to attract third parties, and then the laughably small memory cards left sports publishers doubting the GameCube would even be profitable for their titles.

And this is still a lesson that Nintendo is learning today. At least, at least, Nintendo took Capcom's advice on giving the Switch more memory. That is a disaster averted.

This hand-waiving doesn't work. The N64 would have been a major financial flop if it wasn't for ONE country during a certain period of time. The only reason why the N64 is even brought up in conversation is because of the popularity on the US, that partially spread to a few european countries.

Everything else you said is irrelevant and dismisses that fact. That money helped Nintendo advertise the console more, I doubt the N64 would have sold 10 million if it flopped in the US early like it did nearly everywhere else after the launch honeymoon period.

PS1 comparison is also bogus, yeah, the PSX didn't sell 100 million in 4 years, but it sold like 3000x what the N64 sold in 4 years, you don't even have a point there. Even the Saturn likely would have ended up selling more than the N64 if it wasn't for 3D Hype in America. Because that hype didn't really cling to the Saturn there like the N64 did. Also "so successful"? You're giving the N64 way too much credit and more of a platform than it actually had.

Revolutionized gaming apparently needed to sell over half it's units in one territory releasing at the right time while flopping everywhere else. Not much of a revolution.

I don't have an issue with the N64 but people really believe it was much stronger than it actually was. It was a clear sign to analysts at the time of a massive decline, and the GameCube showed this with it doing worse in sales, still having a massive sales glut in one territory, and they actually tried to market the machine and deal with third-parties, but having worse performance and even less of a platform.

I believe that retrospection is being seen by modified rose tinted glasses.

 

[BlackTron]

There was nothing wrong with the games.

It's the public that were the problem.

This. I had a Dreamcast before I even had a PS1, and clung on to Sega for dear life. Obviously, the entire public was wrong, except for me.