Why didn't the Game Gear do better?

[Cmtz]

I never really understood why the Game Gear did not beat the Gameboy. I know the batteries were drained quickly, but besides that why did it lose to the Gameboy?

[demen999]

I dont think it had a vast variety of games to compete. It also didn't have the nintendo "magic" sort of. You know the appealing characters to any age bracket thing.

EDIT: Same thing with the turboexpress, look how hot it looks till this day. Whenever I play it, it's a pretty amazing screen too.

[Snapple]

Better games always wins out over better hardware. Simple as that.

Although, the battery thing was a big deal to me. Four batteries that last me for days, or six battles that last like two hours. Grrr.

Anyway, I owned both, but my Gamegear library doesn't even compare to my Gameboy library.

Yeah, there were a couple good Sonic games, but they still didn't have the replay value of Tetris or Mario Land or Final Fantasy Legend or a good sports game.

[SRC]

My own quote from another forum: (Nothing new)

"Game Gear, Nomad, Lynx, and Turbo Express can all take their superior power and shove it. Not that they're bad systems, but calling them portable is almost an exaggeration. They take a lot of batteries, and there isn't much battery life in return. Some of them probably won't even fit in pockets! But I think the main reason Nintendo dominated with their handhelds is their excellent games and plenty of 3rd party support, maybe not the systems themselves."

[Leroy]

This is rather simple. First of all is the obvious twenty D batteries needed to power the machine for half an hour. Second was the extremely poor visibility of the screen. You spend 15 of the 30 minutes you've got battery life for trying to angle your head and the machine prefect to see what's on the screen and once anything MOVES it just all becomes blur.

[demen999]

The lynx screen wasn't that bad right? The only time i have seen one of these on, was when I was 12-14 (dont remember) in a airport. Some kid was playing it, and I wanted it lol

[Snapple]

Oh, that's a good point. I HATED the blur. It's been so long since I played my GG, I nearly forgot about that. It made some games just a downright chore to play.

[SRC]

I have a Lynx, and it has a good screen.

Almost every good game on it is an Atari/Midway arcade port, can't really say if that's a good or bad thing. :/

[Gamereviewgod]

Talk about the Game Gear/Lynx blur, sure. But you seriously can't ignore how bad it was on the Game Boy.

[Daria]

My own quote from another forum: (Nothing new)

"Game Gear, Nomad, Lynx, and Turbo Express can all take their superior power and shove it. Not that they're bad systems, but calling them portable is almost an exaggeration. They take a lot of batteries, and there isn't much battery life in return. Some of them probably won't even fit in pockets! But I think the main reason Nintendo dominated with their handhelds is their excellent games and plenty of 3rd party support, maybe not the systems themselves."

The Gameboy brick fit into any pocket just as easily as the Gamegear. As for battery life, that was easily remedied with a power pack and ac adaptor. I don't see why anyone would pay for handheld batteries when they could use a rechargable. And as for games... Sonic to Mario, Columns to tetris, Defenders of Oasis to Final Fantasy Legends. The games were there, in color, I don't think the Gameboy library was drastically larger until after the gamegear had already flopped.

I do think however the fact that the gameboy was so much cheaper then the gamegear hurt sales. That and Sega's always sucked at marketing. Parents see the comercials, and they think with their wallets. And then you have the name recognition thing. Nintendo was already the better seller in the US, it's natural anyone who was used to an NES would buy a Gameboy too. Or something like that.

[slownerveaction]

I can think of two major reasons:

1. Nothing to counter Tetris. I bet half of all Game Boys sold during its first 5 years were primarily used for playing Tetris.

2. Sega was too distracted with other things -- competing in the 16-bit wars, misallocating resources to the Sega CD and 32X, and getting ready for the 32-bit wars -- to put their full weight behind it.

Not to mention the screen and battery problems...

[RetroYoungen]

It came down to the titles. I enjoy playing my Game Gear sure, but there honestly aren't any games that keep me coming back (and maybe that's because I just don't have the right games). The various incarnations of the Game Boy has that appeal, whatever it is, that keeps players coming back for more; the Game Gear, for whatever reason, doesn't.

[Leroy]

Talk about the Game Gear/Lynx blur, sure. But you seriously can't ignore how bad it was on the Game Boy.
Huh? Gameboy was LCD based and perfect visiblity from any viewing angle.

[Gamereviewgod]

Huh? Gameboy was LCD based and perfect visiblity from any viewing angle.
_________________

I said blur, not visibility.

[scooby105]

1. Nothing to counter Tetris. I bet half of all Game Boys sold during its first 5 years were primarily used for playing Tetris.


this is the reason most people had a game boy

[SRC]

My own quote from another forum: (Nothing new)

"Game Gear, Nomad, Lynx, and Turbo Express can all take their superior power and shove it. Not that they're bad systems, but calling them portable is almost an exaggeration. They take a lot of batteries, and there isn't much battery life in return. Some of them probably won't even fit in pockets! But I think the main reason Nintendo dominated with their handhelds is their excellent games and plenty of 3rd party support, maybe not the systems themselves."

The Gameboy brick fit into any pocket just as easily as the Gamegear. As for battery life, that was easily remedied with a power pack and ac adaptor. I don't see why anyone would pay for handheld batteries when they could use a rechargable. And as for games... Sonic to Mario, Columns to tetris, Defenders of Oasis to Final Fantasy Legends. The games were there, in color, I don't think the Gameboy library was drastically larger until after the gamegear had already flopped.

I do think however the fact that the gameboy was so much cheaper then the gamegear hurt sales. That and Sega's always sucked at marketing. Parents see the comercials, and they think with their wallets. And then you have the name recognition thing. Nintendo was already the better seller in the US, it's natural anyone who was used to an NES would buy a Gameboy too. Or something like that.

Final Fantasy and Tetris are simply much better known names than Defenders of the Oasis and Columns, the overall library on the Gameboy just can't be beat by competitors, which is thousands of titles.

[Zilla]

Biggest concern for me ,and more importantly my parents, was the price. Gameboy was cheaper end of story. I'm sure my parents weren't the only one that thought that.

[neuropolitique]

I actually wrote a paper about this (kinda) this past semester. It was focaused on the Game Boy's success, rather than the Game gears failure, but the point is the same.

Basically, the Game Boy succeeded because of it's screen. Choosing that screen allowed Nintendo to keep it small, cheap, and long lasting. Those three points overcame any advantages of the color screens of it's competitors.

I got an A on that paper so I must be right.:D

[Chuplayer]

I didn't play my Game Gear as much as my Game Boy because it sucked down all six batteries in one sitting of Sonic the Hedgehog, and it made my hands smell funny.

[-hellvin-]

Tetris. It's probably the best selling game of all time across many multiple platforms and the fact that people could have an excellent hand held version on the go, well, it just helped the GB kick extreme ass.

[Vlad]

Bulky system.
Batteries were swallowed like hell.
Mario
Tetris

[Elusive]

Kid sees box on shelf.

Kid sees 'Nintendo' logo.

Kid buys product.

Repeat as appropriate.


Personally, I preferred the Game Gear, if only for the excellent sound, and small-but-cute games: The Game Gear ports of OutRun, Shinobi and Sonic the Hedgehog were all fantastic.

The Game Gear also had the advantage over the Game Boy in that Master System games and a TV & LW/FM radio tuner could be used.

As for size: The original model of the Game Boy was just as difficult to carry around. The Game Gear felt more comfortable to hold for a while than the Game Boy's literal edgy design.

As for battery consumption: Rechargable battery packs > *. That and the plug-in power supply ensured I could keep on playing into the wee hours, heh.

[chrisbid]

it really was tetris that sold the game boy when it was first released, but gameboy sales were kindof flat during the 16-bit wars. It took Pokemon to propel the gameboy to its current popularity.

the game gear and lynx were more expensive, didnt have the addictive puzzle game, and just werent very portable compared with even the brickboy

[Raedon]

You have to remember the Game Gear came out at a time when kids loved the NES but had never heard of the SMS. Sega wasn't a name like Nintendo was.

and the battery life sucked.

[anagrama]

Bear in mind also, that despite all it's relative failings, it was still the most sucessful GB competitor we've seen.
Sure, it got nowhere close to the GameBoy's overall sales figures but, in the UK at least, the GameGear held it's ground in the early years, and did well enough to be supported until around '97. Not exactly a Virtual Boy-style flop.

[goatdan]

I always find it interesting to hear everyone say things like Sega wasn't a household name at the time... The Genesis was performing wonderfully at the time, and Sonic was just as hot if not more hot than Mario during the lifespan of the system.

The Game Gear died because it came out after Nintendo had much too big of a grip on the consumer (who didn't want to shell out another bunch of money for another system) and the screen blurred so much it was hard to play a lot of games.

The Lynx would have performed much better if Atari had brought out more top-notch games for it and marketed better. Remember, it came out within a few weeks of the GameBoy, not a few years later.

The GameBoy was a success because of genius marketing, great games and - in my opinion - great battery life. Also, the fact that the GameBoy could truly be played anywhere -- both the Lynx and Game Gear get horrible screen glare if you have them in the sund -- meant that the GameBoy was ready to take with you right out of the box.

[fishsandwich]

The Game Gear was the only handheld (besides the PSP maybe) to put a dent in the G-Boy empire. I remember there was a time for a year or two when most 3rd party games were ported to both systems. Codemasters made a number of games only for the Game Gear, and while the Game Gear library is small compared to the GB and all its evolutions, it's still over 200 games plus all those SMS games that can be played on the convertor.

I've been playing a lot of Game Gear lately, and it's actually got some good games on it. I'd pay good money for a Super Game Boy-style thingie that would let me play GG games on my TV (no emulation, please.)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y249/goatmeal/gg2.jpg

[Slimedog]

In addition to most of the completely valid points on both sides, Its worth remembering that the original green brick had pleny of blur problems of its own. Sure Super Mario Land looks great on the SP or even the GB pocket, but it was pretty rough on the original GB. Pretty quickly developers learned to get around this by using thicker lines. Anyway lack of killer aps and the Nintendo marketing juggernaut killed the GG. I think it would have fared better if the SMS had done better though. Since they have basically the same hardware, any really good SMS games would have been easy, perfect ports to GG and helped its library.

[googlefest1]

compaling about the the blur on a GG -- the gameboy had a horendis blur too

no games ? - i think the GG has many great titles

seems like its mostly fan boy talk in this thread becasue i cant see any other reason the gameboy is rated better - i can speak neutraly since i had both starting from the same day - got them used at funcoland back in the day

i had both - and i was mostly disapointed all the time with the game boy - i always felt the games looked like crap and were cheasy (im not including gameboy color here just the abysmal original yellow and green screen one)

i played more and purchased more games for the GG when i had it

the battery issue was never a problem for me - i actualy didnt notice it - i thought that both died quickly

anyways - the GG and others all fit the bill as a portable device in my book --

to me you dont by a portable game device to play at home on bateries -- if your at home you use a power brick

my GG always lasted more than 4 hours for me on bateries - i know this since my main purpose was for useing it on train rides that were about 1.5 hours in length and the bateries would last the round trip

also for car rides -- so i dont see any batery issue with any of these devices

if your home thatys what the outlet was for



back to the games -- my expereice with the gameboy was bad - i hated the screen and the way many of the games played -- i was disapointed with many of the games i got my favotire was bat man - but the when you moved the screen was blury as hell

the GG yes the screen blured but becasue obects could be distingushed by thier color it was less blurry to me - also i felt that the games were bigger -- like they had bigger worlds and longer games and that they were of higher quality

that was my expereice with both systems

i was very happy with my GG and my game boy collected alot of dust

i feel there were jems on both systems and crap on both systems but over all i felt there was more crap on the game boy

yes the gameboy had a ton of games but how many were actualy good - there is so much crap for that system

my 2 cents

[goatdan]

seems like its mostly fan boy talk in this thread becasue i cant see any other reason the gameboy is rated better - i can speak neutraly since i had both starting from the same day - got them used at funcoland back in the day

But we weren't rating the systems. We were talking about why the GameBoy won and the Game Gear failed. This isn't fanboy speak -- the Game Gear failed. The GameBoy succeeded. Why? It's up to each person do decide.

Personally, while the GameBoy did blur too, it wasn't as bad as the Game Gear games in my opinion. The Game Gear games were unplayable, while I thought that the GameBoy ones weren't.

[chrisbid]

i dont think you can call the game gear a failure, it wasnt a runaway success, but it did fare better than any other handheld that was not made by nintendo. 200+ games and at least a five year shelf life made it halfway decent

[goatdan]

i dont think you can call the game gear a failure, it wasnt a runaway success, but it did fare better than any other handheld that was not made by nintendo. 200+ games and at least a five year shelf life made it halfway decent

On the other hand, Sega didn't feel confident enough in the success of the Game Gear to release a second portable system, which in itself speaks volumes about what Sega considered it to be.

If Sony decides that the PSP is the last portable game / movie player they want to make because Nintendo is so dominant, I think that it too could be considered a failure.

[BrokenFlight]

I'd pay good money for a Super Game Boy-style thingie that would let me play GG games on my TV (no emulation, please.)


That's what I was thinking today. I was staring at my super gameboy, thinking how hilarious "super gayboy" was (the humour's worn off a little now) and it just popped into my head that they should have made a mega game gear.

[fishsandwich]

oops--- double post

[fishsandwich]

seems like its mostly fan boy talk in this thread becasue i cant see any other reason the gameboy is rated better - i can speak neutraly since i had both starting from the same day - got them used at funcoland back in the day

But we weren't rating the systems. We were talking about why the GameBoy won and the Game Gear failed. This isn't fanboy speak -- the Game Gear failed. The GameBoy succeeded. Why? It's up to each person do decide.

Personally, while the GameBoy did blur too, it wasn't as bad as the Game Gear games in my opinion. The Game Gear games were unplayable, while I thought that the GameBoy ones weren't.

Are you saying that ALL Game Gear games are unplayable? Seriously... I know some suffer from excessive blurring, but I have a big stack of GG games and many of them are quite fun and completely playable.

The Game Gear certainly wasn't a huge success, but to call it a failure is a bit of a stretch. It debuted in 1991, its last game was released in late 1996/early 1997, and Majesco re-released the system and some games. It was around in some form for 5 years... that's not a bad lifespan.

There are 243 games for the American Game Gear... that's a pretty respectible library. That's not countiung the oddball Japanese and UK exclusives or the games Master System games you can play on the Game Gear (admittedly, a can't name three people who ever played SMS games on their Game Gears.)

I remember reading a lot of gaming magazines from the 1990's, and the Game Gear got a lot of coverage. Like I said, there was a time when many developers did a game for both the GG and the GBoy at the same time.

The Game Gear is somewhat like the Nintendo 64... it ran a distinct 2nd in the market, yet it ended up with a decent library of nearly 250 games plus it made money for its parent company.

The Game Gear wasn't a failure... it was just a small success. The Gameboy certainly overshadowed the Game Gear, but the amount and variety of 3rd-party games for the GG speak volumes... 3rd party developers don't continue to produce games for a system if they don't sell.

:/

[Cmtz]

I never understood it. I had a Gameboy and a Game Gear. I had Mortal Kombat for the Gameboy. The characters did not jump, they were slow, they had crapy fatalities, did not have blood, and the sound sucked. The Game Gear had better sound ( including the voice), the characters actually jumped, there were better fatalities, there was a blood code (11212 start), the game was faster and it was in color.

[Slimedog]

On the other hand, Sega didn't feel confident enough in the success of the Game Gear to release a second portable system, which in itself speaks volumes about what Sega considered it to be.

If Sony decides that the PSP is the last portable game / movie player they want to make because Nintendo is so dominant, I think that it too could be considered a failure.

This is kind of odd. Sega made the Nomad after they made the Game Gear. They also developed the VMUs for the Dreamcast, which while not being a cartridge based system, do qualify as a venture into the portable sector for that generation of hardware. So its not like the Gameboy scared them away from portables. Also, a system is not a failure if the company does not produce a followup to that system. That says nothing about the success/profitability about the original system, just on the market conditions at the time when the successor was proposed. At any rate, I would not call the Game Gear a failure, but I would say the Gameboy was a success of epic proportions.

[boatofcar]

The Game Gear is somewhat like the Nintendo 64... it ran a distinct 2nd in the market, yet it ended up with a decent library of nearly 250 games plus it made money for its parent company.

:/

Excellent, excellent comparison. Some people would say that there are N64 games that are unplayable because of fog, draw in, etc. Very insightful, fishsandwich!

[googlefest1]

i want to ask a question to all the people complaining about the bluryness of the GG games -- especialy calling them unplayable because of it

have you even played the original honking brick gameboy - the one that was around with the early running of the GG the one that took 4 bateries and had that yellow and green screen?

that sucker was more blurry than the GG - at least in the GG all the various things were in color so even if you had a problem with the blurryness you could still make out what was going on becasue of the color

some gameboy games had a big green blur and you could tell what the F was going on and had to stop your sprite all the time to get a bearing

sure im a fan of nintendo and thier games but im not going to praies a nintendo product just becasue its from nintendowhen there is or was a superior alternative

at the time they came out i coulndt afford either - it was only after a while i was able to get both (used) and was able to compare both at the same time in the same time period (what im trying to say im not playing the GG in 2005 for the first time after being spoiled by the GBA) -- sure in this case playing the GBA snd then the GG is a liitle shock and you have to get re used to it

man i have skewed from my original goal

so back to my question - are you comparing the GG with the "original" gameboy the 4 battery yellow and green screen version

-- i know i havent aswered the question this original poster asked so here is my answer

someone mentioned nintendo magic - thats exactly what it was -- sega was fighting the voodo nintendo had cast back in the day and it was a tough battle -- the nes created alot of ravenous fanboys/girls and it was tough to win them over -- thats what killed the game gear - superior marketing from the nes

the game gear had to have been somewhat sucessful other wise there wouldnt have been so many games

damn my typos

[goatdan]

Are you saying that ALL Game Gear games are unplayable? Seriously... I know some suffer from excessive blurring, but I have a big stack of GG games and many of them are quite fun and completely playable.

Crap, no... but my comments looked like it. I definitely feel that the more marquee titles though (the Sonic games, specifically) fell into this problem. And with Sonic being the hottest property that Sega had, I think that the games that had the best chance of selling the system were horribly blurry, and that was a big problem.


This is kind of odd. Sega made the Nomad after they made the Game Gear.

The Nomad was a completely different style of system, considering it was essentially just a portable version of the Genesis. It already had a huge library in place. In other words -- it wasn't a standalone system.


They also developed the VMUs for the Dreamcast, which while not being a cartridge based system, do qualify as a venture into the portable sector for that generation of hardware.

Counting the Dreamcast's VMUs as a portable is a really big stretch. You had to have a Dreamcast to get them to work. You couldn't just buy a VMU, turn it on and play it by itself. You had to download the games for it, of which there weren't very many.

If you look at portable as "thing that you can put into your hands and play" I guess that both the Nomad and the VMU qualify. As a standalone portable gaming system, the Game Gear stands by itself in my opinion.


Also, a system is not a failure if the company does not produce a followup to that system. That says nothing about the success/profitability about the original system, just on the market conditions at the time when the successor was proposed.

I don't know. If the Game Gear couldn't penetrate the market enough to pave the way for a follow-up system, I can't see it as a success. Hearing about the game counts and things like that don't make me feel any more like it was a success. The Dreamcast had a nearly identical number of games released for it, had some HUGE sales numbers very quickly, and I doubt that I could find many people would would declare it a success.

[Cmtz]

Am I the only one that thought the Mega Man games on Gameboy kicked ass? Were there any games that were better on the gameboy than the Game Gear?

I think one would be Samurai Showdown.

[chrisbid]

i dont think you can call the game gear a failure, it wasnt a runaway success, but it did fare better than any other handheld that was not made by nintendo. 200+ games and at least a five year shelf life made it halfway decent

On the other hand, Sega didn't feel confident enough in the success of the Game Gear to release a second portable system, which in itself speaks volumes about what Sega considered it to be.

If Sony decides that the PSP is the last portable game / movie player they want to make because Nintendo is so dominant, I think that it too could be considered a failure.


the gamegear was retired, when sega was putting all of their effort into developing the dreamcast. in other words, you can blame the failure of the saturn for not seeing a sequel to the gamegear

[goatdan]

i want to ask a question to all the people complaining about the bluryness of the GG games -- especialy calling them unplayable because of it

have you even played the original honking brick gameboy - the one that was around with the early running of the GG the one that took 4 bateries and had that yellow and green screen?

I had an original GameBoy, and I think it was easier to see the most popular games on it. Tetris was a breeze to play.

Maybe I'm tougher on the Game Gear's blurryness because it is worse than the Lynx, which came out before the Game Gear did. I don't understand why the screen that EPYX developed was so many light years ahead of the Game Gear when it was released later.

If Sega had released the Lynx, I think that there is a good chance it could've gone much further. The Lynx had the best hardware, the GameBoy had the best game support. The Game Gear was a mix between the two. Some very good software and some pretty good hardware, but it came out at a point when the GameBoy was already strangling the market.


sure im a fan of nintendo and thier games but im not going to praies a nintendo product just becasue its from nintendowhen there is or was a superior alternative

I'm personally not praising it as much as I am saying that it won the "war" for many reasons, one of which was the fact that the Game Gear seemed to have a lot of games that were overly blurry... especially the system-sellers.


someone mentioned nintendo magic - thats exactly what it was -- sega was fighting the voodo nintendo had cast back in the day and it was a tough battle -- the nes created alot of ravenous fanboys/girls and it was tough to win them over -- thats what killed the game gear - superior marketing from the nes

I really don't believe that Nintendo had this stranglehold on the American consumer, considering the Genesis was outselling the NES at the time. The Game Gear came out in 1991, while the GameBoy was out in 1989. The Game Gear therefore started two years later than the Game Boy, and the Lynx was already on the market. The Lynx couldn't gain any market share when it was released -- within a few weeks of the Game Boy with only a $40 price difference -- and while the Game Gear fared much better than the Lynx (probably due in large part to a blue hedgehog), it still didn't make much of a dent in the GameBoy Empire.

That isn't fanboy speak. It's true.


the game gear had to have been somewhat sucessful other wise there wouldnt have been so many games

Do you consider the Dreamcast a success?

[goatdan]

the gamegear was retired, when sega was putting all of their effort into developing the dreamcast. in other words, you can blame the failure of the saturn for not seeing a sequel to the gamegear

But if the Game Gear had made tons of money for Sega and the Saturn made them nothing, why wouldn't Sega focus on a successor to the Game Gear instead of the Dreamcast?

Not that I'm complaining, of course. I'd rather have the DC any day ;)

[klausien]

After reading through this thread, I have to add one more comment to the whole blur thing. If you think the GG's screen is worse than the GB's, find a classic green-screen GB and play something like Donkey Kong Land. Unplayable. The GB Pocket improved things some, but the original was much worse than the GG.

Now, the Nomad however...

[googlefest1]

edit: quoteing didnt work i was trying to quote goatdan

[quote]I had an original GameBoy, and I think it was easier to see the most popular games on it. Tetris was a breeze to play.[quote]

sure a game like that would even look clear on and LED screen


[quote]Maybe I'm tougher on the Game Gear's blurryness because it is worse than the Lynx, which came out before the Game Gear did. I don't understand why the screen that EPYX developed was so many light years ahead of the Game Gear when it was released later.[quote]

i thought the GG came out before the lynx - my mistake - sega went with what was cheaper and probbaly felt that is the GB screen was blurry they could be too


[quote]If Sega had released the Lynx, I think that there is a good chance it could've gone much further. The Lynx had the best hardware, the GameBoy had the best game support. The Game Gear was a mix between the two. Some very good software and some pretty good hardware, but it came out at a point when the GameBoy was already strangling the market.[quote]

i disagree i think blurryness was not an issue back then - at least i never heard any complaints - only once and that was for the GB - i think the fate would be exactly the same - i belive it was what i said about the marketing

[quote]I really don't believe that Nintendo had this stranglehold on the American consumer, considering the Genesis was outselling the NES at the time. The Game Gear came out in 1991, while the GameBoy was out in 1989. The Game Gear therefore started two years later than the Game Boy, and the Lynx was already on the market. The Lynx couldn't gain any market share when it was released -- within a few weeks of the Game Boy with only a $40 price difference -- and while the Game Gear fared much better than the Lynx (probably due in large part to a blue hedgehog), it still didn't make much of a dent in the GameBoy Empire.[quote]

[quote]That isn't fanboy speak. It's true.[quote]

im not saying your argument is fanboy speak - i was just saying that anyone saying something is better when its not is fanboy speak - and i was using my self as an example of a nintendo fan that will admit sega was better - but I totlay disagree with you about the stranglehold – at least where I lived anything concerning games was yeay Nintendo –and sega sux – I realy don’t think you can compare sales of nes systems to genesis – the genesis provided arcade looking games whereas the nes didn’t – AND the system was already out for years and in many homes – ofcouse a beuty like the genesis would outsell an old system . I think the lynx failed just because it was from Atari – a name considered “old” and that it had no special titles (only way I could describe it) titles like Mario or sonic – it didn’t have anything you could realy say only on lynx and it meant something – I have a lynx now and I realy like it but the lynx is a good example of a system that was technically superior but had a lack of notable games – come on – whos going to pick the cover of a nerd over a bad arse hedge hog or a plumber everyone is used to – the lynx was like the 7800 of the handhelds (not considering technical aspects)

every where I turned the nintedo name was a strong presence – and the occasional fanatical sega fanboy/girl or the bashing of the sega name - Nintendo held a stranglehold in my eyes where I was

[quote]the game gear had to have been somewhat sucessful other wise there wouldnt have been so many games[quote]

[quote]Do you consider the Dreamcast a success?[quote]

Ok you got me there

[goatdan]

sure a game like that would even look clear on and LED screen

Well, yes. But that was part of my point. Tetris was simple, looked great and was the system seller. Sonic was the big Game Gear system seller, and it was very hard to see. I do think that came into account.

I'm not denying that some of the platformer type GameBoy games weren't blurry -- they were. But then again, most of those weren't the games Nintendo was pushing the most.


i thought the GG came out before the lynx - my mistake - sega went with what was cheaper and probbaly felt that is the GB screen was blurry they could be too

The Lynx was released at a price point of $149.00, which was the same price point as the Game Gear two years later. While it could very well be that Sega just wanted to go with something cheaper, then I think their overly-cheapness really helped lead to their demise.

Had the Game Gear had the Lynx's screen, I think that we would've seen a much bigger competition.


im not saying your argument is fanboy speak - i was just saying that anyone saying something is better when its not is fanboy speak - and i was using my self as an example of a nintendo fan that will admit sega was better - but I totlay disagree with you about the stranglehold – at least where I lived anything concerning games was yeay Nintendo –and sega sux – I realy don’t think you can compare sales of nes systems to genesis – the genesis provided arcade looking games whereas the nes didn’t – AND the system was already out for years and in many homes – ofcouse a beuty like the genesis would outsell an old system.

The point though is that the Genesis was outselling the NES at a huge rate that was just about impossible for Nintendo to overcome. When they finally brought out the SNES, the two companies were competing at a pretty much even rate for years.

Sega had what Nintendon't, and it was working very well for them. Nintendo didn't get blown away by the Genesis thanks to some late rallying by the SNES, but it isn't like everyone waited for the SNES... or everyone waited for the Playstation. Gamers wanted to, and still want to play the games on the system with the best games (and the best hype). Sega delivered that with the Genesis (the Turbografx-16 never came close to the amount of popularity Sega had, even though it came out at nearly the same time). It wasn't just an issue of people wanting a new game system, Sega had been doing something right. And something that Atari obviously wasn't doing with the Lynx -- providing lots of titles people really wanted to play.


I think the lynx failed just because it was from Atari – a name considered “old” and that it had no special titles (only way I could describe it) titles like Mario or sonic – it didn’t have anything you could realy say only on lynx and it meant something – I have a lynx now and I realy like it but the lynx is a good example of a system that was technically superior but had a lack of notable games – come on – whos going to pick the cover of a nerd over a bad arse hedge hog or a plumber everyone is used to – the lynx was like the 7800 of the handhelds (not considering technical aspects).

Yes, yes it was.

[googlefest1]

sure a game like that would even look clear on and LED screen

Well, yes. But that was part of my point. Tetris was simple, looked great and was the system seller. Sonic was the big Game Gear system seller, and it was very hard to see. I do think that came into account.

I'm not denying that some of the platformer type GameBoy games weren't blurry -- they were. But then again, most of those weren't the games Nintendo was pushing the most.


i thought the GG came out before the lynx - my mistake - sega went with what was cheaper and probbaly felt that is the GB screen was blurry they could be too

The Lynx was released at a price point of $149.00, which was the same price point as the Game Gear two years later. While it could very well be that Sega just wanted to go with something cheaper, then I think their overly-cheapness really helped lead to their demise.

Had the Game Gear had the Lynx's screen, I think that we would've seen a much bigger competition.


im not saying your argument is fanboy speak - i was just saying that anyone saying something is better when its not is fanboy speak - and i was using my self as an example of a nintendo fan that will admit sega was better - but I totlay disagree with you about the stranglehold – at least where I lived anything concerning games was yeay Nintendo –and sega sux – I realy don’t think you can compare sales of nes systems to genesis – the genesis provided arcade looking games whereas the nes didn’t – AND the system was already out for years and in many homes – ofcouse a beuty like the genesis would outsell an old system.

The point though is that the Genesis was outselling the NES at a huge rate that was just about impossible for Nintendo to overcome. When they finally brought out the SNES, the two companies were competing at a pretty much even rate for years.

Sega had what Nintendon't, and it was working very well for them. Nintendo didn't get blown away by the Genesis thanks to some late rallying by the SNES, but it isn't like everyone waited for the SNES... or everyone waited for the Playstation. Gamers wanted to, and still want to play the games on the system with the best games (and the best hype). Sega delivered that with the Genesis (the Turbografx-16 never came close to the amount of popularity Sega had, even though it came out at nearly the same time). It wasn't just an issue of people wanting a new game system, Sega had been doing something right. And something that Atari obviously wasn't doing with the Lynx -- providing lots of titles people really wanted to play.


I think the lynx failed just because it was from Atari – a name considered “old” and that it had no special titles (only way I could describe it) titles like Mario or sonic – it didn’t have anything you could realy say only on lynx and it meant something – I have a lynx now and I realy like it but the lynx is a good example of a system that was technically superior but had a lack of notable games – come on – whos going to pick the cover of a nerd over a bad arse hedge hog or a plumber everyone is used to – the lynx was like the 7800 of the handhelds (not considering technical aspects).

Yes, yes it was.


yes i agreee with everything you said -- i was thinking it but you said it much better -

man i re-read my long posts - i am such a bad typist. damn - slap my hands for using dashes

i agree with what you said just that i would add in the timing of the genesis - i do think that if the snes and the genesis came out at the same time - snes would have been king and wiped out sega - personaly, i feel sega made thier name with the genesis - so the few fans sega had with the sms wouldnt have carried the genesis too far

sure, sega had what nintendon't - compareing the nes to the genesis - but that was developed years later - in that time period a product that aproached what arcade games looked and sounded like would of course take over

one thing ill disagree with you - menitoned people didn't wait for consoles to come out -- yes they did - i was one of them - i waited for all my choices to come out then i choose
- and i knew many others that had the same mentality -- especialy when money was a major factor

[ubersaurus]

You have to remember the Game Gear came out at a time when kids loved the NES but had never heard of the SMS. Sega wasn't a name like Nintendo was.

and the battery life sucked.

Uh. what?

I recall the game gear coming out when the Genesis had picked up speed and was the big console to beat, in like 92, 93? If Sega was ever a big name in gaming, that was the time.
Sega had some major franchises behind the game gear, too. I mean, look at some of these:

11(!) Sonic games, many of which were not released on the Genesis or SMS(stateside).
Streets of Rage
an Eternal Champions spinoff
Ristar
Ecco
Columns
Panzer Dragoon
Shining Force
Virtua Fighter
arcade games, like Space Harrier, and a sequel to Outrun
Gunstar Heroes(fantastic port, BTW)
the sega sports line, which cannot be discounted by any stretch

and of course, some serious 3rd party support. I remember plenty of ads of games coming out on both platforms. Mega Man and Fatal Fury Special were both pretty damn good on the GG, I remember that much. And the master gear convertor was a nice touch, even though SMS games were never exactly popular.

Battery life was definitely a problem, I'd wager, as was it's higher price point. I would definitely mark Tetris as the major selling point of the Game Boy, however, and what allowed it to get that initial lead on the game gear that ultimately killed Sega's foray. At least in Japan, I would wager the release of Pokemon is what really finished off the Game Gear. In the states, though, I think it was just a matter of Sega stretching themselves too thin, and Nintendo capitalizing with their own franchise players.

[sharp]

I think Teris played a big role in the success of the GB. Personally I got a Game Gear soon after Sega got some market share in the Netherlands and I never felt sorry about that, as for my the library of games of the GG was suprior over the one of GB (I only like the really early GB games as some of them have great gameplay). People saying the screen of the GG is shit, it was anyway multiple times better then the crappy GB screen. And abattery life wasn't a issue to me as I bought it 13 years ago for playing games in the car and I got a free AC-adaptor for at home.

Sorry but anyone who says GB is better is just a fanboy in my opinion (even though tertis beats Columns espcially while it was almost impossible to die in the GG version). OOh yes and maybe I'm a fanboy also on this issue (but I wouldn't be this hard when it was about GG vs Lynx).

just my 0.02$

[goatdan]

Sorry but anyone who says GB is better is just a fanboy in my opinion (even though tertis beats Columns espcially while it was almost impossible to die in the GG version). OOh yes and maybe I'm a fanboy also on this issue (but I wouldn't be this hard when it was about GG vs Lynx).

No one was saying that the Game Gear wasn't a technically superior system to the GameBoy, just that the Game Gear didn't sell as well as the GameBoy did. And you would have to be insane to try to claim that the Game Gear outsold the GameBoy...

[neuropolitique]

I guess I'm a FanBoy (http://videogamecollectors.com/gallery/neuropolitique)

I'm not saying the Game Boy has superior technology, just that it is better(although it did have a faster proccessor). It fits in my pocket, the GG does not. Mario blurs when he runs, Sonic dissapears. The Game Boy sips electricity, the Game Gear guzzles it.

I've had AC adapters for almost all my portables, but I never used them much. The whole idea of a portable is it's portable. If you sit down on the couch, and later decide to move to a chair, or even the other side of the couch, you have to unplug, and search for another plug near where you want to sit. That is if your game allows you to save. Other wise you're ther for the duration. I've always found that inconvienient. With batteries you can pause, move, and continue playing. That's how I always played, anyway. So battery life was important to me.

[Cmtz]

I guess I'm a FanBoy (http://videogamecollectors.com/gallery/neuropolitique)

I'm not saying the Game Boy has superior technology, just that it is better(although it did have a faster proccessor). It fits in my pocket, the GG does not. Mario blurs when he runs, Sonic dissapears. The Game Boy sips electricity, the Game Gear guzzles it.

I've had AC adapters for almost all my portables, but I never used them much. The whole idea of a portable is it's portable. If you sit down on the couch, and later decide to move to a chair, or even the other side of the couch, you have to unplug, and search for another plug near where you want to sit. That is if your game allows you to save. Other wise you're ther for the duration. I've always found that inconvienient. With batteries you can pause, move, and continue playing. That's how I always played, anyway. So battery life was important to me.

neuropolitique your saying the gameboy had a faster processor than the GG?

[Cmtz]

Is the psp the next game gear?

[evildead2099]

How many batteries does the Neo Geo Pocket (or the NGP Colour, for that matter) take, and how much life does it give back?

I'm rather disappointed by how poorly the Neo Geo Pocket Colour fared against the Game Boy Colour.

Save for Pokemon-mania and backward compatibility with old school Gameboy games, GBC had little to offer besides craptastic ports or remakes of popular 32 / 64-bit games (i.e. Tony Hawk, Tomb Raider, Perfect Dark, etc). Neo Geo Pocket Colour, on the other hand, had some damn fine games in its library.

[xfrumx]

I got a Game gear when the blue edition came out with world series baseball, for christmas from my paents. All of my friends had original Game Boys and i could never find a good baseball game it seems all my friends played Tetris(and thats it). I had Sonic, Choplifter, Mortal Kombat, Shining Force, and my favorite when i was a kid Strider Returns.


The batteries for my GG never gave me a problem I have some 3rd party ones and the you put where the battery went and i thought it made it much more comfortable for me i thought portable games were always to thin. (yes even when i was a kid) but the batteries lasted me about 6 hours at a time!

GB never did it for me until GBA (actually GBC player for GCN) now I find myself buying GB and GBC games all the time. I think my main problem with the GBC was no backlit screen it was really hard to see, but the afterburner kit for GBA and the SP itself fixed that problem.

I think Sega could do another handheld and make it a succesful one.

[Hammy]

i've had a gameboy and a game gear, and i always prefered the gamegear. the games were better, they were in color! and more importantly, they were all pick up and play arcade type games, unlike the gameboys rpg and endless puzzle games :P

[attilathehun]

Better games always wins out over better hardware. Simple as that.

Although, the battery thing was a big deal to me. Four batteries that last me for days, or six battles that last like two hours. Grrr.

Anyway, I owned both, but my Gamegear library doesn't even compare to my Gameboy library.

Yeah, there were a couple good Sonic games, but they still didn't have the replay value of Tetris or Mario Land or Final Fantasy Legend or a good sports game.Game Gear solution rechargeable batteries.

Better games on gameboy? lol! Play MK, RR, DS on both systems and get back to me which is better.

The big N's 3rd party monopoly is gonna to kill the competitors support for similar sized library.

I played both and the gg is much more superior quality and back in the day the games were the same price just the sega hardware more expensive. Heck with a adaptor you can even watch tv on it.

Sony's big money has knocked the bully down from his perch.

[Lothars]

I think mainly two factors 1. price and 2. no killer titles for the system compared to even tetris on the gameboy.

[donkeykong1]

I'm surprised no one mentioned that you can play game gear in the dark and gameboy you can't.

Eitherway I think the GB was better. It fit in my pocket and GG did not. GG also drains batteries quick.

The funny thing is that I have over 100 titles for GG and less than half of that for GB. You can thank Game Crazy for those titles though :D

[attilathehun]

.

Eitherway I think the GB was better. It fit in my pocket and GG did not. GG also drains batteries quick.

Not the 1st 1 unless you had some really big pockets. Like I said b4 recharge.

[DDCecil]

Save for Pokemon-mania and backward compatibility with old school Gameboy games, GBC had little to offer besides craptastic ports or remakes of popular 32 / 64-bit games (i.e. Tony Hawk, Tomb Raider, Perfect Dark, etc). Neo Geo Pocket Colour, on the other hand, had some damn fine games in its library.

True, but when it comes to portable RPGs, Dragon Warrior 3 GBC beats the crap out of the NGPC's RPG line up all by itself. Give me DW3 over the Dive Alert games and Fal-cheesy anyday!

[Zadoc]

Thre games on the Game Gear are every bit as good, and if not better, than any Game Boy game at the time.

What it came down to was price. If Game Gear were the same price as the Game Boy (and in color) then it would've at least matched Nintendo in sales.

[donkeykong1]

.

Eitherway I think the GB was better. It fit in my pocket and GG did not. GG also drains batteries quick.

Not the 1st 1 unless you had some really big pockets. Like I said b4 recharge.
My pockets were big enough for the old brick but not for the Game Gear. :)

[Ed Oscuro]

Thre games on the Game Gear are every bit as good, and if not better, than any Game Boy game at the time.
wtf is this? Three games on the GG are every bit as good, you say? LOL

Operation C, hell, I'll take The Castlevania Adventure over G-Loc, the Sonic game I've got (either 1 or 2), and whatever else I have on the GG (outside of the import title, the Shinobi games, which I don't have, and some other stuff like Dynamite Headdy).

[Jorpho]

Even if neither the old Game Boy nor the Game Gear fit in your pocket, the Game Gear was still a whacking big device. In my experience, holding it just isn't as comfortable.

[Aussie2B]

Better games on gameboy? lol! Play MK, RR, DS on both systems and get back to me which is better.

Dude, I think I speak for most everyone when I say that I have no clue what games you're talking about. o_O We need some sort of frame of reference before you start naming every game by initials. My brain wants to read that as "Mario Kart, Ridge Racer, Nintendo DS". :P I assume the first is Mortal Kombat (which stunk on either handheld), but I'm clueless on the other too.

I think few will argue that most games on both were often better on Game Gear, but the whole "better games" argument is about their libraries as a whole and Game Boy exclusives versus Game Gear exclusives.


Sony's big money has knocked the bully down from his perch.

Bully? O_o They're a bully just because consumers happened to prefer the Game Boy? You could call Nintendo a bully for a lot of other things, but not because Game Boy was the better seller. If anything, Sega was being the "bully" in the handheld war. They constantly attacked the Game Boy in their marketing, while Nintendo prefered to just pretend that their competition didn't exist and try to sell their products on their own merits.

Anyway, I just recently got into Game Gear myself a few months ago, and I'm very happy to add the handheld to my collection. Unfortunately, I haven't even touched it in months. I greatly enjoyed Shining Force, but after that none of the games really caught my interest (I was kind of excited to play Defenders of Oasis until I discovered that, instead of being a Zelda-style adventure game, it's just a generic traditional RPG). However, I have recently made it a goal to beat all my Game Boy games, which I've been having a blast doing (admittedly, some aren't so thrilling). The Game Gear just doesn't have anything that can touch stuff like Wario Land, Castlevania 2: Belmont's Revenge, the Kirby titles, Metroid 2, Zelda: Link's Awakening, and many others. Color or not, most of the games just aren't as fun.

And of course, the Game Gear can be quite a pain to play after awhile. The blur and color shifting of the screen can strain the eyes, holding the big honking thing can strain the arms and hands, and just being stuck in place tethered to an outlet because it drains batteries like a mofo can cause stiffness and soreness.

Of course, the brick Game Boy can cause many of the same problems, but well, there's a reason why I never use my brick Game Boy anymore. I'll happily use the Game Boy Pocket, but no way am I using the brick.

[attilathehun]

Even if neither the old Game Boy nor the Game Gear fit in your pocket, the Game Gear was still a whacking big device. In my experience, holding it just isn't as comfortable.Actually the GB controller lay out just leads to carpel tunnel syndrom. The GG had a ergonomic button design. Way more comfortable.

[attilathehun]

Better games on gameboy? lol! Play MK, RR, DS on both systems and get back to me which is better.

Dude, I think I speak for most everyone when I say that I have no clue what games you're talking about. o_O We need some sort of frame of reference before you start naming every game by initials. My brain wants to read that as "Mario Kart, Ridge Racer, Nintendo DS". :P I assume the first is Mortal Kombat (which stunk on either handheld), but I'm clueless on the other too.

I think few will argue that most games on both were often better on Game Gear, but the whole "better games" argument is about their libraries as a whole and Game Boy exclusives versus Game Gear exclusives.


Sony's big money has knocked the bully down from his perch.

Bully? O_o They're a bully just because consumers happened to prefer the Game Boy? You could call Nintendo a bully for a lot of other things, but not because Game Boy was the better seller. If anything, Sega was being the "bully" in the handheld war. They constantly attacked the Game Boy in their marketing, while Nintendo prefered to just pretend that their competition didn't exist and try to sell their products on their own merits.

Anyway, I just recently got into Game Gear myself a few months ago, and I'm very happy to add the handheld to my collection. Unfortunately, I haven't even touched it in months. I greatly enjoyed Shining Force, but after that none of the games really caught my interest (I was kind of excited to play Defenders of Oasis until I discovered that, instead of being a Zelda-style adventure game, it's just a generic traditional RPG). However, I have recently made it a goal to beat all my Game Boy games, which I've been having a blast doing (admittedly, some aren't so thrilling). The Game Gear just doesn't have anything that can touch stuff like Wario Land, Castlevania 2: Belmont's Revenge, the Kirby titles, Metroid 2, Zelda: Link's Awakening, and many others. Color or not, most of the games just aren't as fun.

And of course, the Game Gear can be quite a pain to play after awhile. The blur and color shifting of the screen can strain the eyes, holding the big honking thing can strain the arms and hands, and just being stuck in place tethered to an outlet because it drains batteries like a mofo can cause stiffness and soreness.

Of course, the brick Game Boy can cause many of the same problems, but well, there's a reason why I never use my brick Game Boy anymore. I'll happily use the Game Boy Pocket, but no way am I using the brick.The Bully was Nintendo's total monopoly of the hand held market.

Anybody that thinks the GB is better then the GG are colorblind, have an IQ of less than twelve and drinks from the toilet.

My Nero is messed up so here's your point of reference.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/mortal-kombat/screenshots

Anyways the GB MK had no fatalities. :/

[Aussie2B]

The Bully was Nintendo's total monopoly of the hand held market.

Having your product do much better, based on the choice of the consumers, is NOT a monopoly. A monopoly is when a company tries to eliminate all competition with means other than just having a product that people like. Any competitor was free to come along and try to take a piece of Nintendo's pie (and many did try), and Nintendo just went along and pretended like the competition didn't exist. Even if they hypothetically had a monopoly, they sure as hell weren't taking advantage of it considering their product cost LESS than the competitors.


Anybody that thinks the GB is better then the GG are colorblind, have an IQ of less than twelve and drinks from the toilet.

And anybody who says something like that is a complete and utter fanboy. :/ I'm sure your stay at this board is going to go well...


My Nero is messed up so here's your point of reference.
http://www.mobygames.com/game/mortal-kombat/screenshots

Anyways the GB MK had no fatalities. :/

By point of reference I mean SPELL OUT the names of the games. Not everybody remembers the initials of every game ever made, so if you're going use that shortcut, at least spell out the names of the games once in your post before you do so. I still don't know what those other two games are supposed to be.

[CRV]

By point of reference I mean SPELL OUT the names of the games. Not everybody remembers the initials of every game ever made, so if you're going use that shortcut, at least spell out the names of the games once in your post before you do so. I still don't know what those other two games are supposed to be.

Well, the link does say "Mortal Kombat."

[Ed Oscuro]

Even if they hypothetically had a monopoly, they sure as hell weren't taking advantage of it considering their product cost LESS than the competitors.
Another possibility: this is just an illusion. More licensing fees for companies producing titles, possibly. Certainly more restrictions (think Ultra releasing Operation C). I won't say anything for certain because I don't know what GG titles cost in comparison to GB releases, but the price of the systems (and probably the games) would've been influenced by the cost of materials. The GB was a much cheaper machine to make.

[Ed Oscuro]

Anybody that thinks the GB is better then the GG are colorblind, have an IQ of less than twelve and drinks from the toilet.
Yeah. I'm blind because of the Game Gear's screen. The only way I can play that system is with the Wide Gear, and even then the colors are simply unpleasant to look at.

As somebody wittier than I said before, "Mario blurs when he runs, Sonic dissapears."

[attilathehun]

Having your product do much better, based on the choice of the consumers, is NOT a monopoly. A monopoly is when a company tries to eliminate all competition with means other than just having a product that people like. Any competitor was free to come along and try to take a piece of Nintendo's pie (and many did try), and Nintendo just went along and pretended like the competition didn't exist. Even if they hypothetically had a monopoly, they sure as hell weren't taking advantage of it considering their product cost LESS than the competitors.

And anybody who says something like that is a complete and utter fanboy. :/ I'm sure your stay at this board is going to go well...[code]I couldn't agree more. That's obviously you. Even planetnintendo admits the monopoly. Maybe you would feel more comfortable at http://www.mariorules.com[/quote][code]


By point of reference I mean SPELL OUT the names of the games. Not everybody remembers the initials of every game ever made, so if you're going use that shortcut, at least spell out the names of the games once in your post before you do so. I still don't know what those other two games are supposed to be.[/quote][code]Gee whiz I only listed a few games no need to get bent all out of shape.
MK=Mortal Kombat RR=Road Rash DS=Desert Strike There are you happy now?[code][/code]

[Ed Oscuro]

easy there with the code tags, they don't work for what you're doing. Quote is all you need.