Gap between new system release and last game for previous system.

[boatofcar]

Is it just me, or does this number get smaller every generation?

For example, after the SNES was launched, the NES was still supported for about 3 years, right?

After the N64 launched, how long was the SNES supported? A year?

Then with the GC, how long was the N64 still supported?

These number of years gets smaller with every generation, right?

This is just my opinion, maybe I'm totally off base with this.

[lynchmcgahee]

I do not know the actual number of years, but Sony has supported the PS2 pretty deep into the PS3 lifespan, and the PS1 was supported well into the PS2 era.

Pretty much as long as a console continues to make a good amount of money it doesn't make a ton of sense to discontinue production.

[NayusDante]

I think that the developers have their own methods. Nintendo has had very mixed approaches to generational transitions. NES continued strong, like you mentioned. and SNES was to a lesser degree. Rockman and Forte was released in 99 I believe, but then again, Capcom did the same thing earlier by releasing Rockman 6 after X (at least in the US, if I'm not mistaken).

I didn't follow Sega quite as much, but they seemed to push the latest. When they saw that a competitor was gaining, they HAD to do so. To do otherwise would mean getting left behind and losing market share. Had they not tried to be first so often, perhaps they could have enjoyed more regular and sustained success. Instead, systems like Dreamcast were early to release and early to drop out. Technically, Sega could release a game late this generation and see success with it well into the next, preventing themselves from skipping a generation (current).

In the current generation, the PS2 is much like the NES and the PSX before it. This may be because they all shared the position of highest market share in their respective generations. Where the PSX enjoyed support until the PS3 launch neared (there was a Madden 05, I believe, and many PSX titles are STILL sold NEW on Amazon directly), the PS2 may enjoy continued success until the PS3 wanes.

Microsoft, being a software company, is in a funny position. Because a software provider must provide a degree of legacy support, I'm sure that original XBox games will continue to be published sporadically. However, because the hardware itself never saw a radical design revision like the PSX and PS2 did, it HAD to be discontinued. Intel isn't going to make Celeron 700mhz chips marked as P3s or whatevers forever. Original XBox Live service is supposedly going to see discontinuation, but we'll just have to see how things play out.

What I'm really interested in is how Games For Windows is going to play out. What they should have done is pick a set of specs and require adequate performance on that, then revise it every console generation for faster hardware so that users can follow regular upgrade cycles. They're trying to market it as a platform like any console, so it should follow console life cycle formula.

In short, the "shelf life" of a console is 5 years. However, shelf life ends with a successor console, and the expiration date is whenever the developer chooses, not necessarily when the previous console loses commercial viability.

[zektor]

I personally do not like how some companies "do it" (meaning, kill their systems). Take the Nintendo of today and the Gamecube. No real press releases or anything (at least none I saw), just the Gamecube sitting on the shelf and the old games in the cases in all of my local stores. Prices still exactly the same, and no new releases. We all know it is completely dead at this point, but it is almost like they are sitting there in hopes that some shmuck that doesn't know any better will pick up the system and games at full price and believe that they have just purchased a system that has life in it. Then, one day, it will just disappear. They could have continued it a little longer, considering the Wii backward compatibility...

[zektor]

<Oops, double post>

[NayusDante]

We all know it is completely dead at this point, but it is almost like they are sitting there in hopes that some shmuck that doesn't know any better will pick up the system and games at full price and believe that they have just purchased a system that has life in it.

I asked the guys at one of my local GameStops about what's happening to GCN, and this is what they told me:

They were told to open everything that was still "new" and mark it "used." They're still taking trade-ins on GCN stuff, but I can't say for how much longer. Aside from a few accessories, everything is marked used. I don't think they have any new systems, and the used ones are only $30 now. It's worth it just to get the controller and spare cables, but no one has used memory cards. There's a $20 two-pack of memcards at one, but that's about it.

Does anyone remember when GameStops put out a bin of Dreamcast stuff, some PSX, some N64? Then, there was no more DC, just PSX and N64. PSX still had a regular rack. I think there's a few copies of Pokemon Snap and a bunch of Madden in that rack now, if it's even still there. At any rate, that's where Gamecube either is now, or will be by the end of this year.

[Ed Oscuro]

Is it just me, or does this number get smaller every generation?

I think you're talking about "support" in terms of "gets new game releases."

Much of the reason for that is in market response; when the SNES came out people perhaps weren't conditioned to go run out and buy the new stuff. A lot of the buyers also had the death of Atari on their minds; nobody wanted a system that would end up dead.

The other question is in actual console support, i.e. repairs and manufacturing of old systems. The Famicom kept being produced well into this decade, I think. I also think this number is going down with newer systems.

[murdoc rose]

I think its because of the major jumps systems make today and the market has changed. On the topic of jumps I think we can all agree 8 bit to 16 bit isn't a huge jump where N64 to GC is or at least more of a jump. Another thing is systems aren't marketed just for kids anymore besides kids have more money now than in the 80s. Any way whatever the reason you have a point and its kind of sad but it gives us all time to work on the game library that are more important to us.

[boatofcar]

Let me restate my question.

How many years passed between the release of the SNES and the last game released for the NES?

Now, replace the systems with any two from the same company.

What is the longest time? As time goes on, does the time between a new system released and the last game for the system before it get shorter?

[Ed Oscuro]

We understand the question, boat, we were just answering it for you.

[boatofcar]

We understand the question, boat, we were just answering it for you.

Ok, just wanted to make sure it was clear enough~sometimes I manage to confuse myself

[NayusDante]

SFC was released in Japan November 21, 1990. Wario's Woods was released for NES February 19, 1994 in Japan.

[outofkeyslightly]

I don't think the gaps are getting smaller, I just think that different companies have different reasons (profit) which can influence their decision to offer support into the next generation.

Nintendo had sold 60 million NES consoles, and customers were still buying games for the aging system (maybe not Wayne's World) so it would be foolish to not continue. Plus there was the Genesis to contend with.

In the transition between the 16 and 32 bit era, Sega was forced into a corner financially and commercially. At its worst, Sega was offering the customer a Genesis, 32X, Sega CD, CDX, Nomad, Game Gear, arcade games and an effin' Pico. Nevermind the the problem of promoting all these different things, and the obvious backlash to an onslaught of ill supported, expensive systems. Sega also had to spread itself thin software-wise as second string teams were forced to churn out bad first party games. In order to actually make the Saturn a contender, which was very expensive to produce and purchase, Sega had to concentrate all of their resources. In retrospect Sega should have continued to support the Genesis a little more, but Nintendo took advantage of this as the Super Nintendo reigned supreme almost without competition for a time. Too bad "Project Reality" took so damn long to come out..

You can expect to see the pattern of console popularity determining afterlife support in the future. As noted earlier in the thread, the PS2 is only now starting to lose some steam, which makes sense since Sony sold 117 Million ps2's so far, even besting their record breaking sales of the Playstation. Microsoft on the other hand was the underdog coming off a decent rookie second in the last Generation. Taking Sega's example to heart, they beat everyone to the punch and pushed as many resources into their new system as possible.

If the console is popular, keep selling the games. If its a niche system, force your fans to upgrade if they want to keep playing...

[sabre2922]

The length of time a "last gen" console is supported after its predecessor is released has DEFINITELY shortened within the last 10 to 15 years that much is certain.

I agree with what the others have stated in that when a previous console is popular and has sold well then it is usually supported far longer than a low selling console.

Both the N.E.S. and the PS2 were supported long after their predecessors were released and MUCH longer than just about any other game consoles in history.

Even though Microsofts Xbox 1 was in a distant second place last gen they cut off support for it the day that the 360 was released even though 3rd party publishers still put out a few games long after Microsoft announced that it was no longer supporting the Xbox 1 in any way.

There are a few exceptions to the rule though like Nintendo releasing Twilight Princess for the Gamecube when they really didnt have to which was a nice gesture for GC owners I think.

The thing is a gamer can stil find accessories and games for the more successful of game consoles like the NES and PS2 looooong after their in store shelf life has expired.

In more recent years I have noticed that it is almost impossible to find new controllers and other accessories for the Xbox 1 but if one searches the net and sometimes certain stores you can still find a lot of stuff for the Gamecube including new controllers , 3rd party memory cards and even still new games.

So there are exceptions for the "lesser" selling consoles or the ones that the Mainstream general public didnt buy into i.e. CASUAL.

I mean hell just look at how long the hardcore Dreamcast fans around the world kept the good ol DC "alive" for a perfect example of how GAMERS can keep a console alive -in a way- long after it is off of store shelves.

[k8track]

And how about the very few weird examples of where the previous generation actually outlasted its successor?

1. The Atari 2600 outlasted the 5200.
2. Gameboy outlasted Virtual Boy.
3. I assume the Genesis outlasted Sega CD and 32x, right? How about Sega Saturn?

[NayusDante]

And how about the very few weird examples of where the previous generation actually outlasted its successor?

1. The Atari 2600 outlasted the 5200.
2. Gameboy outlasted Virtual Boy.
3. I assume the Genesis outlasted Sega CD and 32x, right? How about Sega Saturn?

SCD and 32X were add-ons to the Genesis, so I'm not sure if thats a true example, but I can't think of a better way to describe it.

By the time Saturn came out, Genesis manufacturing had slowed down and eventually was outsourced to Majesco. In my view, this is what should happen. Last generations consoles can still enjoy modest sales when sold at lower costs in a cheaper hardware revision.

The way that GBA and DS are playing out is definitely interesting. Originally, DS was meant to be separate from the Game Boy line, but recently it would seem that Game Boy is being phased out. However, the previous platform live on inside the new one, much like the Gamecube does in the Wii.