Incredibly Stupid Marketing Decisions

[Kid Ice]

3 Stooges for the PSX? Who, exactly, is this marketed to? Who is going to buy this (besides collectors like myself)? 100 year olds who haven't updated their console since the late 1990s? Amiga fans?

Some other marketing disasters:

_Steel Battalion - Oh, it's awesome...but I ain't buyin' it!

_32X - let us just subvert OUR OWN new hardware launch, shall we?

_NUON - we'll set the world on fire with, I don't know, maybe 5 or 6 games.

_Atari 7800 - let's just try to sell that console we've had laying around here for about 4 years.

_free Dreamcasts - What, you think the public will perceive a problem if we give our hardware away for NOTHING?

the kid

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

3 Stooges for the PSX? As in the old arcade game version? If so, where can I get one? :D

If you want marketing disasters, let's go back to the dawn of home video games, and the "Odyssey will only work on Magnavox TVs!" debacle.

[scooterb23]

Wait, they brought out Three Stooges for the PSX?!?!?!

*runs to Best Buy*
*gets to end of driveway before realizing nearest Best Buy is 28 miles away*
*goes back to car*
*car runs out of gas before making it to the end of driveway*
*resumes running to Best Buy*

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

Hey Scott, if that's anything like the old coin-op, get one for me too, eh? LOL

[scooterb23]

* now realizes game may not be available at Best Buy...*

Been out for two months?? Huh???

http://www.cinemaware.com/3stoogeps1_main.asp

And who's seen these???


http://www.cinemaware.com/news.asp?news=3stoogeremaster

[scooterb23]

I wouldn't mind seeing a port of the arcade game...but I think they are remakes of the old computer games...I have the GBA version, it is VERY good.

[ubersaurus]

7800 could have done moderately well if not for a few basic things...the 2600 was marketed still, with it, not much money was ever put into development, nor did they have a good lineup til 89 or so. Damn shame too, I love that console.

[Arqueologia_Digital]

3 stooges!!!! woooooo!!!! long life to this guys!!!!!!!

[zmeston]

3 Stooges for the PSX? Who, exactly, is this marketed to? Who is going to buy this (besides collectors like myself)? 100 year olds who haven't updated their console since the late 1990s? Amiga fans?

Ouch! I guess people just aren't as fond of men with harsh haircuts beating the hell out of each other as they used to be.

Cinemaware ported/updated Stooges to modern consoles for a bunch of reasons: they're exploiting their back catalog, they believe the Stooge license still has some juice, and it was (as much as anything can be in the world of game development) a quick and dirty project.

That being said, I don't think Stooges has held up at all, because its gimmick is digitized graphics and sound -- a big deal 15 years ago, not so big now.


_Steel Battalion - Oh, it's awesome...but I ain't buyin' it!

I don't understand your complaint about this one. How would you have handled it differently? I think Capcom's done a brilliant job.


_32X - let us just subvert OUR OWN new hardware launch, shall we?

Heh. Sega hasn't made a proper marketing decision in a decade.


_NUON - we'll set the world on fire with, I don't know, maybe 5 or 6 games.

The idea behind the Nuon technology was kind of clever, but the people behind the technology (including vets of Atari's pathetic Jaguar era) were hapless.

-- Z.

[scooterb23]

That being said, I don't think Stooges has held up at all, because its gimmick is digitized graphics and sound -- a big deal 15 years ago, not so big now.

It was a gimmick maybe back then...but it's the gameplay that has kept the Three Stooges (and all the Cinemaware titles for that matter) one of the absolute best games I've ever played.

And those graphics are still darn impressive in my book.

Maybe it's just me showing my age... :/

It's one of those games that I'd like to own all possible versions for...

[zmeston]

That being said, I don't think Stooges has held up at all, because its gimmick is digitized graphics and sound -- a big deal 15 years ago, not so big now.

It was a gimmick maybe back then...but it's the gameplay that has kept the Three Stooges (and all the Cinemaware titles for that matter) one of the absolute best games I've ever played.

And those graphics are still darn impressive in my book.

Maybe it's just me showing my age... :/

It's one of those games that I'd like to own all possible versions for...

Don't get me wrong, I'm as big a Cinemaware fan as you'll ever find; I recently donated a very rare promo calendar for the never-released Rollerbabes to the new C-Ware's president, and I was scheduled to write a strategy guide on C-Ware games "back in the day," before the company's first incarnation went under. I just feel that Stooges is C-Ware's weakest effort, that's all. C'est la vie.

I've also heard (but not seen for myself yet) that the PS1 version of Stooges is essentially a port of the GBA version from last year. Ouch.

On a barely-related note, the upcoming Robin Hood: Defender of the Crown is pretty sweet -- I got to spent some quality time with a preview version. (http://www.gamespy.com/previews/february03/rhdotcps2/)

[Lady Jaye]

@Ubersaurus: Aside from the marketing no-no's that happened with the 7800, let's not forget that Atari (and Sega) had to deal with the fact that Nintendo held most third party developments in a stranglehold with their total exclusivity contracts. Of course, Sega did show more creativity on that situation than Atari did (look at the games released for the SMS; not bad for a company with basically no third party support, except for one or two developers!). Then again, we're talking the Tramiel Atari, not exactly the greatest era that Atari had experienced.

Frankly, had the 7800 been released in 84 or even 85, it would have stood a chance. Provided that Atari would have made more original titles instead of just porting most of the 2600 catalog. Fortunately, Absolute was there to help them a bit. :)

[hamburgler]

Sounds kinda cool.But i wonder if it's worth the money to buy.

[Aswald]

2600 E.T. It was a boneheaded project, a guaranteed failure from the beginning. Atari lost millions on it.

"Heyyy, let's make 5 million of these crummy cartridges! Yes, there are only 1 million 2600 owners out there (tops), but I'm sure 4 million people will rush out and buy a 2600 in order to play this game! What? 'ColecoVision' is out, and we're releasing the 5200? I'm SURE that that won't affect my prediction!"


One reason why I do not tolerate any Baby Boomer or WW2 Generation member saying that our younger generations are screw-ups.

[bargora]

Some other marketing disasters:

_Steel Battalion - Oh, it's awesome...but I ain't buyin' it!
I generally agree with you, sir. However, I am afraid that this item may fit better in the "incredibly stupid purchasing decisions" thread.

[Chunky]

that looks exactly like the GBA version. that that isn't that much upgraded from the NES version.

[MarkM2112]

[quote="zmeston
Ouch! I guess people just aren't as fond of men with harsh haircuts beating the hell out of each other as they used to be.

-- Z.[/quote]

Oh yeah? Then why is Pro 'rasslin' so popular? :P LOL

[zmeston]

Ouch! I guess people just aren't as fond of men with harsh haircuts beating the hell out of each other as they used to be.

-- Z.

Oh yeah? Then why is Pro 'rasslin' so popular? :P LOL

Heh! Point taken. The Three Stooges were the prototypical WWE.

So does anyone here know a woman who enjoys, or even tolerates, the Stooges?

-- Z.

[zmeston]

Some other marketing disasters:

_Steel Battalion - Oh, it's awesome...but I ain't buyin' it!
I generally agree with you, sir. However, I am afraid that this item may fit better in the "incredibly stupid purchasing decisions" thread.

I'm still trying to understand why the original poster thinks this game was a marketing disaster. How could Capcom have handled it any differently? I think they did a brilliant job in marketing and selling a big-ticket niche item, keeping the supply low and the demand high.

Also, I'm not entirely shocked to learn that I'm incredibly stupid for having purchased it. Heh.

-- Z.

[tynstar]

I dont get how Steel Battalion was market bad either. As far as it beening a stupid buy I paid only 60 bucks for it (plus I had some trade credit). Not to dumb in my book.

[zmeston]

2600 E.T. It was a boneheaded project, a guaranteed failure from the beginning. Atari lost millions on it.

"Heyyy, let's make 5 million of these crummy cartridges! Yes, there are only 1 million 2600 owners out there (tops), but I'm sure 4 million people will rush out and buy a 2600 in order to play this game! What? 'ColecoVision' is out, and we're releasing the 5200? I'm SURE that that won't affect my prediction!"

One reason why I do not tolerate any Baby Boomer or WW2 Generation member saying that our younger generations are screw-ups.

While I'm talking out of my ass when it comes to the Atari era, I wouldn't call E.T. a boneheaded project or a guaranteed failure. What's boneheaded about releasing a game that ties into the highest-grossing film of all time at that point?

Yes, HSW's design sucked, but he had a remarkably short amount of time, even in the 2600 era, to come up with something.

if anything, the game was a guaranteed success; Atari merely overestimated (by a very large margin) the extent of that success, and paid an enormous price.

Would E.T. have sold millions more copies if it had been a better game? That's a damn tough call, as the industry was already ailing when it was released, but I don't think it would have.

I don't know that WWII vets and baby boomers will be much affected by the retort "Oh, yeah?! Well, at least my generation didn't overproduce the E.T. cartridge!", but it's worth trying anything to put those old bastards in their place.

-- Z.

[bargora]

HOLY CRAP--YOU ALL HAVE IT BACKWARDS.

It is the "not buyin' it" that is the, ahem, unwise purchasing decision.

STEEL BATTALION ROCKS THE HOUSE!!!111!

I will pilot a Prominence M1 this evening (after doing the taxes) and cut down legions of Jaralaccs with my awsum plasma torch.

I am a PRF Army of one.

[tynstar]

OK if it is not about buying it then explain how the marketing was bad.

[bargora]

OK if it is not about buying it then explain how the marketing was bad.
Oh, I disagree with Kid Ice that the marketing was bad. So, I agree with you. I really don't know how the marketing could have been better.

I will go shut up now, as I seem to be having difficulties with this "forum" medium.

[Kid Ice]

Some other marketing disasters:

_Steel Battalion - Oh, it's awesome...but I ain't buyin' it!
I generally agree with you, sir. However, I am afraid that this item may fit better in the "incredibly stupid purchasing decisions" thread.

I'm still trying to understand why the original poster thinks this game was a marketing disaster. How could Capcom have handled it any differently? I think they did a brilliant job in marketing and selling a big-ticket niche item, keeping the supply low and the demand high.

Also, I'm not entirely shocked to learn that I'm incredibly stupid for having purchased it. Heh.

-- Z.

OK, "disaster" might be a little strong. But I can 't see the angle in this from a money-making perspective. I imagine those things are quite expensive to produce, and you would have to sell a lot of them to make a profit. It's not something that can potentially catch fire like those Samba things; how many people (BESIDES ALL OF US) are looking for a full-on mecha set up like that? And as DP has pointed out in the past, only works with one game? One X-box game.

Tynstar - if you paid 60 bucks for it, then that's not such a hot deal on Capcom's end, is it?

the kid

ET sure was a disaster, but I don't know that it had to be one or it was stupid or anything. If you can remember at the time, anything w/ ET was golden.

[Tom61]

_32X - let us just subvert OUR OWN new hardware launch, shall we?

A result of mis-communication Sega of Japan and Sega of America.


_NUON - we'll set the world on fire with, I don't know, maybe 5 or 6 games.

It was killed by the 'Divx' (the buy the disc then pay for it Circuit City crap, not the video encoding codec). Nuon wasn't compatable with Divx discs, and consumers were worrying about Divx at that time. As far as I can tell, Divx was made just to kill Nuon. Nuon was set to rule the set top world, since they could potentually sell the chips at a loss, and get the cost back by selling licenses for games. Sadly, all the other DVD chip manufactures had to try and kill it.

[zmeston]

Some other marketing disasters:

_Steel Battalion - Oh, it's awesome...but I ain't buyin' it!
I generally agree with you, sir. However, I am afraid that this item may fit better in the "incredibly stupid purchasing decisions" thread.

I'm still trying to understand why the original poster thinks this game was a marketing disaster. How could Capcom have handled it any differently? I think they did a brilliant job in marketing and selling a big-ticket niche item, keeping the supply low and the demand high.

Also, I'm not entirely shocked to learn that I'm incredibly stupid for having purchased it. Heh.

-- Z.

OK, "disaster" might be a little strong. But I can 't see the angle in this from a money-making perspective. I imagine those things are quite expensive to produce, and you would have to sell a lot of them to make a profit. It's not something that can potentially catch fire like those Samba things; how many people (BESIDES ALL OF US) are looking for a full-on mecha set up like that? And as DP has pointed out in the past, only works with one game? One X-box game.

Tynstar - if you paid 60 bucks for it, then that's not such a hot deal on Capcom's end, is it?

the kid

ET sure was a disaster, but I don't know that it had to be one or it was stupid or anything. If you can remember at the time, anything w/ ET was golden.

Capcom knew it wasn't going to make much of a profit with Steel Battalion, which was mostly a vanity project of one of their Japanese developer-gods, whose name slips my mind. That's why, as I mentioned earlier, the company kept the production runs at or below consumer demand, so as not to get stuck with tons of expensive and unwanted inventory. (Kind of the opposite of what Atari did with E.T.)

Remember that Capcom has Resident Evil and Onimusha and many other franchises on which it can depend for profit; it's a strong enough company that it can "gamble" a bit with something like SB. (If Capcom was struggling for survival, then yes, releasing a game with such a massive price point and limited audience would be suicide.)

Capcom profited by scoring massive points with hardcore gamers and by making its developer-god happy. Everybody won.

I'd love to know the manufacturing cost per unit of SB; maybe I can get someone at Capcom to squeal during E3, although I doubt it.

-- Z.

[zmeston]

_32X - let us just subvert OUR OWN new hardware launch, shall we?

A result of mis-communication Sega of Japan and Sega of America.

I have to agree with the original poster here; the 32X was ill-conceived and should never have been released. What makes you say it was a miscommunication between SoJ and SoA? You mean, SoA thought the Saturn wasn't coming out until '96, so they launched the 32X in '94 as a stopgap? Please explain.



_NUON - we'll set the world on fire with, I don't know, maybe 5 or 6 games.

It was killed by the 'Divx' (the buy the disc then pay for it Circuit City crap, not the video encoding codec). Nuon wasn't compatable with Divx discs, and consumers were worrying about Divx at that time. As far as I can tell, Divx was made just to kill Nuon. Nuon was set to rule the set top world, since they could potentually sell the chips at a loss, and get the cost back by selling licenses for games. Sadly, all the other DVD chip manufactures had to try and kill it.

"Set to rule the set-top world"?! Um, NO. Nuon came and went and nobody gave a tinker's damn. There was never any measureable buzz about the technology, and the people behind it (ex-Atari people from the shameful Jaguar era) were incompetent. DivX didn't kill Nuon; Nuon committed suicide.

Please cite the sources from which you've derived your Nuon theory, because it's in the grassy-knoll category until you do.

-- Z.

[Mr Mort]

The biggest flop IMO werer the releases of the 32X and the Saturn.

Not only did Sega oversaturate the market by releasing 2 systems and confusing its supporters, but they completely took any momentum and customer awareness away from the Saturn by releasing it early with no fanfare.

Instead of building up steam and hype for the Saturn, Sega released it early with no marketing or hype behind it, with what I believe to be an unfinished launch lineup. No one new the system was out, and by the time they did, they were hearing all of the PSX...

I love Sega and the Saturn (my fave system of all time), but that was the biggest blunder of 'em all...

[zmeston]

The biggest flop IMO werer the releases of the 32X and the Saturn.

Not only did Sega oversaturate the market by releasing 2 systems and confusing its supporters, but they completely took any momentum and customer awareness away from the Saturn by releasing it early with no fanfare.

Instead of building up steam and hype for the Saturn, Sega released it early with no marketing or hype behind it, with what I believe to be an unfinished launch lineup. No one new the system was out, and by the time they did, they were hearing all of the PSX...

I love Sega and the Saturn (my fave system of all time), but that was the biggest blunder of 'em all...

Sega also pissed off all the third-party developers who thought they had another six months to get their games ready, and all the retailers they stiffed by playing favorites and shipping the early Saturn allotments to certain chains, and the gamers who'd invested in the now-obsolescent 32X, and on and on. As you say, the Saturn launch was the biggest marketing blunder in videogame history.

[chadtower]

Except that it didn't come out near the movie. And the game was horrible. And they produced enough carts that if every 2600 owner bought a cart they still would have 2 million unsold. And they didn't advertise it. And IMO it was a great contributor to the crash, seeing as how people were paying $50 a pop for THAT game and then immediately suddenly no one was paying for games at all.

[Aswald]

2600 E.T. It was a boneheaded project, a guaranteed failure from the beginning. Atari lost millions on it.

"Heyyy, let's make 5 million of these crummy cartridges! Yes, there are only 1 million 2600 owners out there (tops), but I'm sure 4 million people will rush out and buy a 2600 in order to play this game! What? 'ColecoVision' is out, and we're releasing the 5200? I'm SURE that that won't affect my prediction!"

One reason why I do not tolerate any Baby Boomer or WW2 Generation member saying that our younger generations are screw-ups.

While I'm talking out of my ass when it comes to the Atari era, I wouldn't call E.T. a boneheaded project or a guaranteed failure. What's boneheaded about releasing a game that ties into the highest-grossing film of all time at that point?

Yes, HSW's design sucked, but he had a remarkably short amount of time, even in the 2600 era, to come up with something.

if anything, the game was a guaranteed success; Atari merely overestimated (by a very large margin) the extent of that success, and paid an enormous price.

Would E.T. have sold millions more copies if it had been a better game? That's a damn tough call, as the industry was already ailing when it was released, but I don't think it would have.

I don't know that WWII vets and baby boomers will be much affected by the retort "Oh, yeah?! Well, at least my generation didn't overproduce the E.T. cartridge!", but it's worth trying anything to put those old bastards in their place.

-- Z.


Except that, back in those days at least, most stores had a very "consumer friendly" policy- you could just bring back a game for a refund, as long as you had the receipt. Sure, Atari SOLD a lot of those cartridges, but what you WON'T hear is that most (or at least a significant percentage) of them were RETURNED. Come on, now- didn't anyone realize that the game stank? Did anyone really believe that 4 MILLION people would buy 2600s just for that piece of garbage? Did they so underestimate my generation that they actually thought we would swarm to buy a piece of garbage like that, and then keep it? That we would sooner spend our money on it, rather than the new ColecoVision, or even the 5200?

Overestimate? I'm sorry, but assuming a 100% selling rate (did even Tomb Raider, Super Mario 3, or Sonic get that?) would mean that all 1 million 2600 owners would buy it, so how did they think that they could sell another 4 million? There was no way that was ever going to happen, but when you figure in the extra labor, materials, etc...they lost millions more.

And this was the year of the eagerly awaited ColecoVision. We were awed by the photos of Ladybug, Cosmic Avenger, Zaxxon...it was the year of the Third Generation console, not a pathetic, half-baked, rushed out movie game that everybody said "sucked." I know that the programmer only had 6 weeks or so to program it (accounts vary), but that doesn't matter- a terrible game is a terrible game, no matter what.

As for the generation thing- yes, E.T., on top of the needless 1984 fall of the multi-million dollar home console industry, Trickle-Down Economics, the Farming Fiascos of the 1970s, the Savings and Loans scandal, Supply-Side Economics, and all of the other things that have left this country with a shattered economy, which we are told to "just fix."

[Bratwurst]

I have to agree with the original poster here; the 32X was ill-conceived and should never have been released. What makes you say it was a miscommunication between SoJ and SoA? You mean, SoA thought the Saturn wasn't coming out until '96, so they launched the 32X in '94 as a stopgap? Please explain.


From what I've read at Sega Base the impression given is that SoJ kept SoA in the dark about what the 32X was ultimately supposed to be. SoA thought it would be a full fledged system with heavy support, SoJ was never really enthusiastic with the peripheral to begin with and cut production for it, ultimately.

Most of the bad decisions on Sega's part seem to stem from SoJ's higher ups ignoring the advice and experience of their American counterpart and using traditional marketing tactics in Japan that just didn't pan out in America. If the 32X had been made more powerful and Sega took more of a loss on the hardware to lower the price point it would have really taken off imo because the massive user base (Genesis owners) were already there. SoA was counting on a smart tactic that seemed sound but was unfortunately without a solid foundation they couldn't see.

[Keir]

Another marketing disaster... the Commodore CDTV

customers: "Is it a computer?"
Commodore: "No."
customers: "Is it a video game system?"
Commodore: "No."
customers: "Well, what the hell is it?"
Commodore: "It's the latest in interactive multimedia technology! Please buy it for $700."
customers: "No."

[zmeston]

Except that it didn't come out near the movie.

How much of a delay was there between the release of the movie and the game?

I don't think the delay is especially relevant; tie-in games are released all the time for aged properties (The Three Stooges, to name one that's gotten some discussion in the forum) if those properties are considered viable. Back in 1982 and 1983, I would have considered E.T. extremely viable.


And the game was horrible. And they produced enough carts that if every 2600 owner bought a cart they still would have 2 million unsold. And they didn't advertise it.

Agreed with the first. How did videogame magazines of the era write it up, I wonder? Did they pan it?

Wasn't aware of the second. Does that stat include every ACTIVE Atari 2600 owner, or every single 2600 owner to that point, period? I'm confused (as usual).

I'm unaware of the third, but Atari likely presumed that a game based on the biggest movie ever didn't need too much in the way of promotion, wrong though they were.


And IMO it was a great contributor to the crash, seeing as how people were paying $50 a pop for THAT game and then immediately suddenly no one was paying for games at all.

From what I've read about the era, the industry was already slumping at the time, but E.T. was the nadir.

-- Z.

[zmeston]

2600 E.T. It was a boneheaded project, a guaranteed failure from the beginning. Atari lost millions on it.

"Heyyy, let's make 5 million of these crummy cartridges! Yes, there are only 1 million 2600 owners out there (tops), but I'm sure 4 million people will rush out and buy a 2600 in order to play this game! What? 'ColecoVision' is out, and we're releasing the 5200? I'm SURE that that won't affect my prediction!"

One reason why I do not tolerate any Baby Boomer or WW2 Generation member saying that our younger generations are screw-ups.

While I'm talking out of my ass when it comes to the Atari era, I wouldn't call E.T. a boneheaded project or a guaranteed failure. What's boneheaded about releasing a game that ties into the highest-grossing film of all time at that point?

Yes, HSW's design sucked, but he had a remarkably short amount of time, even in the 2600 era, to come up with something.

if anything, the game was a guaranteed success; Atari merely overestimated (by a very large margin) the extent of that success, and paid an enormous price.

Would E.T. have sold millions more copies if it had been a better game? That's a damn tough call, as the industry was already ailing when it was released, but I don't think it would have.

I don't know that WWII vets and baby boomers will be much affected by the retort "Oh, yeah?! Well, at least my generation didn't overproduce the E.T. cartridge!", but it's worth trying anything to put those old bastards in their place.

-- Z.


Except that, back in those days at least, most stores had a very "consumer friendly" policy- you could just bring back a game for a refund, as long as you had the receipt. Sure, Atari SOLD a lot of those cartridges, but what you WON'T hear is that most (or at least a significant percentage) of them were RETURNED. Come on, now- didn't anyone realize that the game stank? Did anyone really believe that 4 MILLION people would buy 2600s just for that piece of garbage? Did they so underestimate my generation that they actually thought we would swarm to buy a piece of garbage like that, and then keep it? That we would sooner spend our money on it, rather than the new ColecoVision, or even the 5200?

Overestimate? I'm sorry, but assuming a 100% selling rate (did even Tomb Raider, Super Mario 3, or Sonic get that?) would mean that all 1 million 2600 owners would buy it, so how did they think that they could sell another 4 million? There was no way that was ever going to happen, but when you figure in the extra labor, materials, etc...they lost millions more.

And this was the year of the eagerly awaited ColecoVision. We were awed by the photos of Ladybug, Cosmic Avenger, Zaxxon...it was the year of the Third Generation console, not a pathetic, half-baked, rushed out movie game that everybody said "sucked." I know that the programmer only had 6 weeks or so to program it (accounts vary), but that doesn't matter- a terrible game is a terrible game, no matter what.

As for the generation thing- yes, E.T., on top of the needless 1984 fall of the multi-million dollar home console industry, Trickle-Down Economics, the Farming Fiascos of the 1970s, the Savings and Loans scandal, Supply-Side Economics, and all of the other things that have left this country with a shattered economy, which we are told to "just fix."

Has E.T.'s designer/programmer ever commented about the design, if he (or anyone else) realized the game was terrible, or does he defend it as the best he could do, given his limited timeframe?

I'll take your word that gamers of that era were more buzzed about third-generation consoles than 2600 carts, but it makes sense, knowing what we know now about the five-year sales lifespans of videogame hardware; the 2600 was already near the end of its cycle when E.T. shipped.

I'm probably willing to give E.T.'s designer the benefit of the doubt because, having spent some time in game development myself, I can relate to the crushing pressures of the process. I doubt anyone could've done much better than what he was able to accomplish in an incredibly limited timeframe. Also, he had a solid track record with two million-plus-selling games; if I'd been at Atari, I wouldn't have doubted his ability to conjure up a third.

-- Z.

[zmeston]

I have to agree with the original poster here; the 32X was ill-conceived and should never have been released. What makes you say it was a miscommunication between SoJ and SoA? You mean, SoA thought the Saturn wasn't coming out until '96, so they launched the 32X in '94 as a stopgap? Please explain.


From what I've read at Sega Base the impression given is that SoJ kept SoA in the dark about what the 32X was ultimately supposed to be. SoA thought it would be a full fledged system with heavy support, SoJ was never really enthusiastic with the peripheral to begin with and cut production for it, ultimately.

Most of the bad decisions on Sega's part seem to stem from SoJ's higher ups ignoring the advice and experience of their American counterpart and using traditional marketing tactics in Japan that just didn't pan out in America. If the 32X had been made more powerful and Sega took more of a loss on the hardware to lower the price point it would have really taken off imo because the massive user base (Genesis owners) were already there. SoA was counting on a smart tactic that seemed sound but was unfortunately without a solid foundation they couldn't see.

Interesting reading at Sega Base, and it sums up Sega's managerial incompetence very well, although it's only natural the SoA veterans (who come off as quite arrogant) would look to cast blame upon SoJ. For what it's worth, I think SoJ was in the right, and I disagree with you that the 32X would have taken off. The great majority of hardware add-ons have flopped, and American consumers had already proved their apathy to SoA with their rejection of the Sega CD, which was a much more remarkable and game-enriching device than the 32X.

-- Z.

[Bratwurst]

Indeed, I concede that historically :D add-on peripherals rarely fare well- my chief reasoning is precisely behind the price points both sported when they debuted. Prohibitively expensive.

[Eternal Champion]

Has E.T.'s designer/programmer ever commented about the design, if he (or anyone else) realized the game was terrible, or does he defend it as the best he could do, given his limited timeframe?

Interview with Howard Scott Warshaw, on this site:
http://www.digitpress.com/archives/arc00131.htm

Why was it that, although E.T. was a best-seller, many considered it a failure?

HSW: It sold around a million and a half copies, but Atari had over-produced the game, making something like 4 million, and then ended up dumping all these carts. It’s still the 8th all-time best-selling Atari cart. It probably wouldn’t have sold as many if it weren’t E.T., but then again I would have had more time. All 3 of my games are in the top 20, and they’ve all sold over a million.

[zmeston]

Indeed, I concede that historically :D add-on peripherals rarely fare well- my chief reasoning is precisely behind the price points both sported when they debuted. Prohibitively expensive.

I concur about the price point, but Sega couldn't have afforded to make the 32X -- which was exactly the stopgap hardware hack that everyone perceived it to be -- more powerful (thus increasing manufacturing costs) AND cheaper (thus increasing the loss per unit) at the same time. Yes, you gotta sell the razors before you can sell the blades, but Sega would've had to sell a LOT of blades to make up for the enormous financial losses suffered by distributing a more powerful, less expensive 32X.

The 32X was a bad idea, poorly executed. I doubt that Sega could have made it a success if they'd decided to give the thing away.

-- Z.

[zmeston]

Has E.T.'s designer/programmer ever commented about the design, if he (or anyone else) realized the game was terrible, or does he defend it as the best he could do, given his limited timeframe?

Interview with Howard Scott Warshaw, on this site:
http://www.digitpress.com/archives/arc00131.htm

Why was it that, although E.T. was a best-seller, many considered it a failure?

HSW: It sold around a million and a half copies, but Atari had over-produced the game, making something like 4 million, and then ended up dumping all these carts. It’s still the 8th all-time best-selling Atari cart. It probably wouldn’t have sold as many if it weren’t E.T., but then again I would have had more time. All 3 of my games are in the top 20, and they’ve all sold over a million.

Thanks for the info, EC!

-- Z.

[Tom61]

_NUON - we'll set the world on fire with, I don't know, maybe 5 or 6 games.

It was killed by the 'Divx' (the buy the disc then pay for it Circuit City crap, not the video encoding codec). Nuon wasn't compatable with Divx discs, and consumers were worrying about Divx at that time. As far as I can tell, Divx was made just to kill Nuon. Nuon was set to rule the set top world, since they could potentually sell the chips at a loss, and get the cost back by selling licenses for games. Sadly, all the other DVD chip manufactures had to try and kill it.

"Set to rule the set-top world"?! Um, NO. Nuon came and went and nobody gave a tinker's damn. There was never any measureable buzz about the technology, and the people behind it (ex-Atari people from the shameful Jaguar era) were incompetent. DivX didn't kill Nuon; Nuon committed suicide.

Please cite the sources from which you've derived your Nuon theory, because it's in the grassy-knoll category until you do.

-- Z.[/quote]

Nuon wasn't aimed traditional 'gamers' it was targeted at 'casual gamers', that thought playing Blackjack on a TV was cool. Hence, why I said set to rule the set-top world, not the gaming world. When you could sell a DVD decoding chip for less than anybody else, with more features than anybody else, wouldn't you become the dominant supplier? I'm not sure what other factors where involved, but the lack of Divx support cuased uncertianty with consumers, and those few magazines that did cover it, hence low early adopters.

If Divx wasn't for killing off Nuon, it certianly qualifies as an 'incredibly stupid marketing decision' then. Buying a disc, then paying to watch it... nuts

[zmeston]

_NUON - we'll set the world on fire with, I don't know, maybe 5 or 6 games.

It was killed by the 'Divx' (the buy the disc then pay for it Circuit City crap, not the video encoding codec). Nuon wasn't compatable with Divx discs, and consumers were worrying about Divx at that time. As far as I can tell, Divx was made just to kill Nuon. Nuon was set to rule the set top world, since they could potentually sell the chips at a loss, and get the cost back by selling licenses for games. Sadly, all the other DVD chip manufactures had to try and kill it.

"Set to rule the set-top world"?! Um, NO. Nuon came and went and nobody gave a tinker's damn. There was never any measureable buzz about the technology, and the people behind it (ex-Atari people from the shameful Jaguar era) were incompetent. DivX didn't kill Nuon; Nuon committed suicide.

Please cite the sources from which you've derived your Nuon theory, because it's in the grassy-knoll category until you do.

-- Z.

Nuon wasn't aimed traditional 'gamers' it was targeted at 'casual gamers', that thought playing Blackjack on a TV was cool. Hence, why I said set to rule the set-top world, not the gaming world. When you could sell a DVD decoding chip for less than anybody else, with more features than anybody else, wouldn't you become the dominant supplier?

I'm not sure what other factors where involved, but the lack of Divx support cuased uncertianty with consumers, and those few magazines that did cover it, hence low early adopters.

If Divx wasn't for killing off Nuon, it certianly qualifies as an 'incredibly stupid marketing decision' then. Buying a disc, then paying to watch it... nuts

Not if the chip didn't noticeably add to the DVD experience, and if the people attempting to promote that chip were incompetent. Nuon wasn't low-profile; it was NO-profile.

And if Nuon were aiming at casual gamers, they missed the mark by several light-years. Of the whopping seven games that made it out, only two were mainstream franchises -- Space Invaders XL and The Next Tetris -- and all of them except Tempest 3K were mediocre at best. (Even T3K has some problems, such as the mega-blurriness and totally overdone effects.)

I agree that DivX was a wretched idea. I was at Working Designs during that time, and I remember our company president lobbying our message-board users to write emails of protest and boycott Circuit City. Our company president was a high-strung individual. Heh.

-- Z.

[Kid Ice]

Wow, I can't believe I left the botched Saturn launch of the list. That was just terrible. Sega just constantly does stupid things.

As if we weren't generating enough conversation, how about that Virtual Boy? What was the big N doing there?

@Zach - you worked at Working Designs? Any idea why they haven't brought over Radiant Silvergun?

the kid

[zmeston]

Wow, I can't believe I left the botched Saturn launch of the list. That was just terrible. Sega just constantly does stupid things.

As if we weren't generating enough conversation, how about that Virtual Boy? What was the big N doing there?

@Zach - you worked at Working Designs? Any idea why they haven't brought over Radiant Silvergun?

the kid

The Virtual Boy, like Steel Battalion, was a vanity project for a Japanese developer-god -- in this case, the creator of the Game Boy, the late Gunpei Yokoi. Nintendo of America knew the VB was doomed, and they gave it just enough promotion to make Yokoi happy before washing their hands of it. (I give NoA credit for keeping the VB low-profile and burying it as soon as they could; unlike Sega's damaging failures with the Sega CD and 32X, the bombing of the VB barely dented Nintendo.)

As I recall, virtually everyone in the game industry, and especially my fellow cynical game journalists, knew the VB was doomed from the get-go; it was goofy-looking, it was terribly awkward to play, and it was eye-destroying. But, hey, when a guy has made a company a few billion dollars, I feel that company kind of owes him the opportunity to spectacularly fail.

There was an early PlayStation version of Radiant Silvergun floating around WD's "offices" (at the time of Silvergun, a converted upstairs bedroom with about 400 square feet of floorspace) for a while -- but Treasure gave up on making the game work on the PS1, and Victor had given up on the Saturn by then, since his ego and Bernie Stolar's ego were unable to coexist.

Checking out Japanese works in progress was one of the coolest aspects of being at WD. A Japanese "agent" for Game Arts and several other Japanese developers/publishers would visit the "office" two or three times a year, demonstrating a batch of games for Victor to evaluate.

Before one such visit, I was really excited when I heard the agent was bringing a PS1 sequel to Septentrion, the "Poseidon Adventure" SNES game renamed S.O.S. in the States; I was really unexcited when I saw how terrible the game was. In fact, the demo visits often turned into Mystery Science Theater 3000 riffing sessions, and we were merciless with our criticisms.

I also remember the session in which I first saw Epica Stella, which we picked up and renamed Vanguard Bandits; of all the games we checked out that day, ES/VB was the only one we didn't tear a new asshole. Any game that could withstand our initial verbal barrage was a candidate for localization.

There were so many games we came close to doing but eventually passed on, I can't remember 'em all. I do remember Victor expressing interest in Remote Control Dandy, the prequel to last year's Robot Alchemic Drive (which was Enix America's last title). RCD was very good fun, and I was very bummed that we didn't do it.

-- Z.

[Aswald]

2600 E.T. It was a boneheaded project, a guaranteed failure from the beginning. Atari lost millions on it.

"Heyyy, let's make 5 million of these crummy cartridges! Yes, there are only 1 million 2600 owners out there (tops), but I'm sure 4 million people will rush out and buy a 2600 in order to play this game! What? 'ColecoVision' is out, and we're releasing the 5200? I'm SURE that that won't affect my prediction!"

One reason why I do not tolerate any Baby Boomer or WW2 Generation member saying that our younger generations are screw-ups.

While I'm talking out of my ass when it comes to the Atari era, I wouldn't call E.T. a boneheaded project or a guaranteed failure. What's boneheaded about releasing a game that ties into the highest-grossing film of all time at that point?

Yes, HSW's design sucked, but he had a remarkably short amount of time, even in the 2600 era, to come up with something.

if anything, the game was a guaranteed success; Atari merely overestimated (by a very large margin) the extent of that success, and paid an enormous price.

Would E.T. have sold millions more copies if it had been a better game? That's a damn tough call, as the industry was already ailing when it was released, but I don't think it would have.

I don't know that WWII vets and baby boomers will be much affected by the retort "Oh, yeah?! Well, at least my generation didn't overproduce the E.T. cartridge!", but it's worth trying anything to put those old bastards in their place.

-- Z.


Except that, back in those days at least, most stores had a very "consumer friendly" policy- you could just bring back a game for a refund, as long as you had the receipt. Sure, Atari SOLD a lot of those cartridges, but what you WON'T hear is that most (or at least a significant percentage) of them were RETURNED. Come on, now- didn't anyone realize that the game stank? Did anyone really believe that 4 MILLION people would buy 2600s just for that piece of garbage? Did they so underestimate my generation that they actually thought we would swarm to buy a piece of garbage like that, and then keep it? That we would sooner spend our money on it, rather than the new ColecoVision, or even the 5200?

Overestimate? I'm sorry, but assuming a 100% selling rate (did even Tomb Raider, Super Mario 3, or Sonic get that?) would mean that all 1 million 2600 owners would buy it, so how did they think that they could sell another 4 million? There was no way that was ever going to happen, but when you figure in the extra labor, materials, etc...they lost millions more.

And this was the year of the eagerly awaited ColecoVision. We were awed by the photos of Ladybug, Cosmic Avenger, Zaxxon...it was the year of the Third Generation console, not a pathetic, half-baked, rushed out movie game that everybody said "sucked." I know that the programmer only had 6 weeks or so to program it (accounts vary), but that doesn't matter- a terrible game is a terrible game, no matter what.

As for the generation thing- yes, E.T., on top of the needless 1984 fall of the multi-million dollar home console industry, Trickle-Down Economics, the Farming Fiascos of the 1970s, the Savings and Loans scandal, Supply-Side Economics, and all of the other things that have left this country with a shattered economy, which we are told to "just fix."

Has E.T.'s designer/programmer ever commented about the design, if he (or anyone else) realized the game was terrible, or does he defend it as the best he could do, given his limited timeframe?

I'll take your word that gamers of that era were more buzzed about third-generation consoles than 2600 carts, but it makes sense, knowing what we know now about the five-year sales lifespans of videogame hardware; the 2600 was already near the end of its cycle when E.T. shipped.

I'm probably willing to give E.T.'s designer the benefit of the doubt because, having spent some time in game development myself, I can relate to the crushing pressures of the process. I doubt anyone could've done much better than what he was able to accomplish in an incredibly limited timeframe. Also, he had a solid track record with two million-plus-selling games; if I'd been at Atari, I wouldn't have doubted his ability to conjure up a third.

-- Z.


In those days, Atari was itself owned by Warner Communications. If I recall correctly, Steve Ross of Warner told Ray Kassar, who was head of Atari back then, to get a 2600 version of E.T. out within 6 weeks (accounts vary). Kassar, trying not to cry, asked the programmer of "Yar's Revenge" to do this. Note that Warner Communications spent millions to get the videogame rights.
So he did.
This had a number of disasterous results. The game itself stank, Atari lost millions, consumers felt ripped off, and- worse than that- the fact that the game WAS turned out told ignorant "higher ups" that they could make such unreasonable demands, and actually get their way. So you cannot blame the programmer, or even Kassar, really, but the higher-ups in Warner Communications. Unfortunately, it's always "the little guy" who gets the blame.

[chadtower]

HSW: It sold around a million and a half copies, but Atari had over-produced the game, making something like 4 million, and then ended up dumping all these carts. It’s still the 8th all-time best-selling Atari cart. It probably wouldn’t have sold as many if it weren’t E.T., but then again I would have had more time. All 3 of my games are in the top 20, and they’ve all sold over a million.

Sure, I remember when ET came out. It started at $45, was $25 in a month, then was $2.50 in like 3-4 months. Of course it sold over a million copies, they cost less than a happy meal.

And for the person who said that stores had a 'liberal return policy' back then, that's just completely incorrect. It was consumer backlash against paying $50 for a completely unplayable (as many 2600 games were) game and being unable to return it that caused the crash in the 80s. If people had been able to return their games the crash may never have happened. Back then you could only return games for the identical title and that's precisely why you can return games now the way you can.

[Kid Ice]

There was an early PlayStation version of Radiant Silvergun floating around WD's "offices" (at the time of Silvergun, a converted upstairs bedroom with about 400 square feet of floorspace) for a while -- but Treasure gave up on making the game work on the PS1, and Victor had given up on the Saturn by then, since his ego and Bernie Stolar's ego were unable to coexist.

Checking out Japanese works in progress was one of the coolest aspects of being at WD. A Japanese "agent" for Game Arts and several other Japanese developers/publishers would visit the "office" two or three times a year, demonstrating a batch of games for Victor to evaluate.

Before one such visit, I was really excited when I heard the agent was bringing a PS1 sequel to Septentrion, the "Poseidon Adventure" SNES game renamed S.O.S. in the States; I was really unexcited when I saw how terrible the game was. In fact, the demo visits often turned into Mystery Science Theater 3000 riffing sessions, and we were merciless with our criticisms.

I also remember the session in which I first saw Epica Stella, which we picked up and renamed Vanguard Bandits; of all the games we checked out that day, ES/VB was the only one we didn't tear a new asshole. Any game that could withstand our initial verbal barrage was a candidate for localization.

There were so many games we came close to doing but eventually passed on, I can't remember 'em all. I do remember Victor expressing interest in Remote Control Dandy, the prequel to last year's Robot Alchemic Drive (which was Enix America's last title). RCD was very good fun, and I was very bummed that we didn't do it.

-- Z.

Interesting. Do you think it's possible they would do it now? WD made some incredible choices for PSX games, but their PS2 games haven't exactly bowled me over. Would you agree that Silvergun would be more viable commercially, than sayy Gungriffon Blaze or Silpheed? Or is it just absolutely out of the question since Treasure would have to actually redo the game for PS2? I just find it shocking that we're getting Ikaruga for the Gamecube, and still no Silvergun.

the kid

PS I'm a big fan of your 3DO books.

[zmeston]

There was an early PlayStation version of Radiant Silvergun floating around WD's "offices" (at the time of Silvergun, a converted upstairs bedroom with about 400 square feet of floorspace) for a while -- but Treasure gave up on making the game work on the PS1, and Victor had given up on the Saturn by then, since his ego and Bernie Stolar's ego were unable to coexist.

Checking out Japanese works in progress was one of the coolest aspects of being at WD. A Japanese "agent" for Game Arts and several other Japanese developers/publishers would visit the "office" two or three times a year, demonstrating a batch of games for Victor to evaluate.

Before one such visit, I was really excited when I heard the agent was bringing a PS1 sequel to Septentrion, the "Poseidon Adventure" SNES game renamed S.O.S. in the States; I was really unexcited when I saw how terrible the game was. In fact, the demo visits often turned into Mystery Science Theater 3000 riffing sessions, and we were merciless with our criticisms.

I also remember the session in which I first saw Epica Stella, which we picked up and renamed Vanguard Bandits; of all the games we checked out that day, ES/VB was the only one we didn't tear a new asshole. Any game that could withstand our initial verbal barrage was a candidate for localization.

There were so many games we came close to doing but eventually passed on, I can't remember 'em all. I do remember Victor expressing interest in Remote Control Dandy, the prequel to last year's Robot Alchemic Drive (which was Enix America's last title). RCD was very good fun, and I was very bummed that we didn't do it.

-- Z.

Interesting. Do you think it's possible they would do it now? WD made some incredible choices for PSX games, but their PS2 games haven't exactly bowled me over. Would you agree that Silvergun would be more viable commercially, than sayy Gungriffon Blaze or Silpheed? Or is it just absolutely out of the question since Treasure would have to actually redo the game for PS2? I just find it shocking that we're getting Ikaruga for the Gamecube, and still no Silvergun.

the kid

PS I'm a big fan of your 3DO books.

WD couldn't do it now, as the PS1 version of Silvergun was never finished, as WD's relationship with Treasure dissolved after the disastrous localization of Silhouette Mirage, and as Treasure has moved on. Enjoy Ikaruga, as it's the closest to Silvergun we'll ever get in the States.

I think it was OPM that just did a brief article about the death of the shmup, and how it's a minor miracle that the PS2 is getting a couple of 'em soon.

Gungriffon Blaze and Silpheed were picked up 'cause they were the only games available to WD for the PS2's launch; Capcom had passed on them, and Victor all but begged for them. Both of them bombed, alas; GG Blaze was the second-worst-selling PS2 launch title, and the twice-delayed (at least) Silpheed came and went in a nanosecond.

I'm glad you enjoyed the 3DO books. I'm proud of the second volume in particular, although a couple of the chapters (BladeForce comes to mind) were sloppy rush jobs. Even the worst 3DO games, and there were many, were fun to write about.

I really got into Immercenary during the writing of that book, and thought it was one of the best 3DO games in the library. I haven't gone back to see if it holds up, and probably won't, because I'm surely wrong. Heh.

-- Z.

[Kid Ice]

I'm glad you enjoyed the 3DO books. I'm proud of the second volume in particular, although a couple of the chapters (BladeForce comes to mind) were sloppy rush jobs. Even the worst 3DO games, and there were many, were fun to write about.

I really got into Immercenary during the writing of that book, and thought it was one of the best 3DO games in the library. I haven't gone back to see if it holds up, and probably won't, because I'm surely wrong. Heh.

-- Z.


Yes, the 2nd book. I recently reread the M2 press release for...well for no particular reason. I was actually referencing your book for something about Dragon Lore, which I never even heard of until I saw it (and bought it) on ebay.

If I remember correctly, your review of Immercenary wasn't exactly glowing. I could never figure that game out.

the kid

[Aswald]

I must've lived in an unusually consumer-friendly area, because I was able to actually exchange one game for another numerous times; and, except for Zaxxon, or Slither and Turbo (for obvious reasons), none of the cartridges ever went over $35.00 (that included tax). In fact, most store were like this within a 50-mile radius of where I lived.

[chadtower]

That never would have happened at any of the major chains in New England. In fact, many of them won't let you exchange a game NOW.

[Aswald]

That never would have happened at any of the major chains in New England. In fact, many of them won't let you exchange a game NOW.

But it did- of course, this was from the late 1970s through the mid-1980s. I'm not surprised that you can't do it now; many things have gotten worse over the years. So it's actually the reverse of what you're saying!
Even in 1986, I was able to exchange Buck Rogers for Bump `N Jump.

[chadtower]

But it did- of course, this was from the late 1970s through the mid-1980s. I'm not surprised that you can't do it now; many things have gotten worse over the years. So it's actually the reverse of what you're saying!
Even in 1986, I was able to exchange Buck Rogers for Bump `N Jump.

So read the many great videogame histories that are available. The one I recommend most would be Leonoard Herman's Pheonix. I'm sure it's mentioned all over this forum and it's a GREAT book that details the reasons for the crash very well.

[zmeston]

But it did- of course, this was from the late 1970s through the mid-1980s. I'm not surprised that you can't do it now; many things have gotten worse over the years. So it's actually the reverse of what you're saying!
Even in 1986, I was able to exchange Buck Rogers for Bump `N Jump.

So read the many great videogame histories that are available. The one I recommend most would be Leonoard Herman's Pheonix. I'm sure it's mentioned all over this forum and it's a GREAT book that details the reasons for the crash very well.

Phoenix was the first game-history book, but there are several much more worthy ones now: Steven Kent's "The Ultimate History of Video Games" is the one I'd suggest.

-- Z.

[Kid Ice]

I'm sure you've all seen the news about Capcom's losses on the front page.
A quote from the article:

"Capcom vice president Heiji Oshima said that one of the reasons for the decline in sales was some of its titles simply didn't suit the market's demand. "

Gee, you don't think maybe one of those titles was, ohh, I don't know, sayyyy STEEL BATTALION?

the kid

[zmeston]

I'm sure you've all seen the news about Capcom's losses on the front page.
A quote from the article:

"Capcom vice president Heiji Oshima said that one of the reasons for the decline in sales was some of its titles simply didn't suit the market's demand. "

Gee, you don't think maybe one of those titles was, ohh, I don't know, sayyyy STEEL BATTALION?

the kid

Nope, because Steel Battalion was manufactured in limited quantities, and sold through those limited quantities. With that particular title, at least, Capcom played it perfect. The article correctly lays the blame on flat GameCube sales (Capcom's kicking itself over that ill-advised RE exclusivity deal) and underperforming PS2 sequels (DMC2 was roundly panned, so no shocker there, and Clock Tower 3 was a second-string survival-horror game with zero buzz).

-- Z.

[Dahne]

Ah, the Virtual Boy. Nintendo learned an important lesson with that one - People don't like things that make them go blind. There was even something about how young children shouldn't play it because it could damage their retinas.

Damn, I want one.

[Kid Fenris]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: The Virtual Boy isn't all that bad. Vertical Force, Wario Land, and Jack Bros. are all good games, and the system might actually have gotten somewhere if Nintendo had funded a Metroid or Zelda title for it. Too bad it was doomed from the start.

[Aswald]

A while back, I gave an often-unmentioned reason for the crash of 1984- the self-absorbed behavior of the Baby Boomers.

Consider this- it is the year 2003. That is almost 60 years since the end of World War 2. It is generally held that the Baby Boomers started in the mid-1940s.

Now, no matter which variation you use (e.g. is a generation 18 years or 20?), almost 60 years have come and gone. All you hear about are the Baby Boomers and, to a lesser extent, so-called "Generation X."

But wait- at the most, 2 generations can only add up to 40 years, thus up to the mid-1980s. But again, this is the year 2003. Therefore...


THERE ARE THREE POST-WORLD WAR 2 GENERATIONS, NOT TWO!!!!!!!!


If you were born from 1964/1966 through the mid-1980s, then you are a member of the "Nameless Generation." This is the smaller generation that came before so-called "X," but after the Baby Boomers. The only reason we are getting any attention now is because the older generations are looking for someone to blame for the state of things today, not that they ever seemed to care about anything we had to say before.

So it was with video games.

Back then, it was the "Nameless Generation" that played the games, but the Baby-Boomer decision makers never really considered this. One of the best examples is the "proof" that "nobody" liked Vector games: an anecdote that some repairman somewhere said that "anything vector can do, raster can do- usually better." This actually appeared 3 times in one of my 1984 game magazines. And, based on this, it was "common knowledge" that vector was "dead."

Yet, we loved Star Wars, Star Trek, Star Hawk, Asteroids, Space Fury, Omega Race, and, of course, Tempest.

In other words, a key decision was arrived at not by rational analysis (color vector monitors were in fact hard to maintain), but by a single, meaningless anecdote, which, straight out of "Dilbert," was repeated among the marketers so often that it became a sort of pseudo-fact. Just as it was "common knowledge" that computers would take over gaming (anybody here own a Playstation 2, Gamecube, or X-Box? Of course not, consoles died in 1984! Genesis, NES, SNES, Saturn, 3DO, TurboGrafx...none of it ever existed.).


There are countless other examples of this, such as the failed "Star Comics" line (Top Dog, Royal Roy, Ewoks, etc.). They didn't sell well, but what did Marvel expect? They were comics for kids from, oh, 5 to maybe 11 (tops). This is a small portion of a small generation, so of course you weren't going to sell that many, even if the target group had a 100% buying rate.

In short, if you want to sell something, you must first properly identify your consumer group, and then FIND OUT WHAT IT WANTS! To do this, you ask THAT GROUP what it wants. You could not find out what my generation wanted by having Baby Boomer marketers sitting around talking to each other any more than I, at 36, am going to really know what kids under 16 are going to want- if I'm running a company, I'll find out by ASKING THEM.

In short, the most spectacular boneheaded marketing decision in video gaming was not considering that there was a younger generation, and that was the generation into video gaming. But, that would be an admission that they were getting "old," certainly older than 30...

[kainemaxwell]

I think Sega's Saturn ploy was probably one those ideas that were better on paper then actually done.

[chadtower]

The ultimate bad marketing decision was when not a single game development company would send me free copies so I could review them in my school newspaper. That led to some scathing bad press read by at least 15 2nd graders throughout Horace Mann North Elementary. The damage was extensive.

[Neonsolid]

Gone.