Successful "Unsuccessful" Consoles

[Nz17]

Some consoles/handhelds are successful even if the general public doesn't consider them so. For example, the SEGA Game Gear was successful with a long run in the 1990's, but due to the Game Boy line being more popular, most gamers consider the Game Gear unsuccessful. In my opinion, this isn't fair. So I dedicate this thread to all those consoles who were commercial successes even if they weren't the most popular console at their times.

What are your favorite successful consoles that are usually labeled as "unsuccessful?"

[AdamAnt316]

GCE Vectrex: Probably too expensive for most people, small screen, and B&W-only (though a color version was reportedly in the works), but it brought pure vector graphics and arcade-style gameplay into the household.

Atari 7800: Intended for release in 1984, it was shelved due to the Tramiel takeover until it was finally released three years later, whereupon it was buried by the NES juggernaut. However, it offered excellent ports of arcade games, and worked with nearly all Atari 2600 games.

Atari Lynx: Another casualty of the Game Boy, but it offered decent graphics, some good portable ports, and the ability to be used right- or left-handed.

[Mayhem]

Vectrex and N64.

The Vectrex launched at $199, that's $70 less than the Atari 5200 did the same month, so I don't consider that to have been "too expensive".

[AdamAnt316]

Vectrex and N64.

The Vectrex launched at $199, that's $70 less than the Atari 5200 did the same month, so I don't consider that to have been "too expensive".

Could very well be. I figured that the in-built monitor would've pushed the price into the stratosphere. Of course, the Atari 5200 didn't sell terribly well either, so.......

[Emperor Megas]

Of course, the Atari 5200 didn't sell terribly well either...

Because it was garbage.

[Greg2600]

Vectrex, Lynx, even the 5200 are now favorites of mine.

[ccovell]

GCE Vectrex, Atari 7800, Atari Lynx...

Could we clarify with the OP what counts as "successful?" Also, the thread looks like it's about perceived failures which actually were successful, whereas I'd put the posts after the 1st post squarely into the "unsuccessful but I still love it!" category.

So, um, your posts are a bit off-topic? (Understandable since "successful" can mean different things to different people.)

[Nz17]

Could we clarify with the OP what counts as "successful?"

I thought I clarified that.

... those consoles who were commercial successes even if they weren't the most popular console at their times.

[ccovell]

I thought I clarified that.

Specifying a yardstick for what counts as unsuccessful / successful in how many units sold or how many years on the market would be better.

I mean, I understood what you mean (I think), but for example was the Atari 7800 successful, sales-wise, seriously?

[Emperor Megas]

I'll admit, besides notorious ones like the Virtua Boy and the N-Gage, I have no idea what game systems were unsuccessful. Actually, I'm not even sure that the N-Gage was unsuccessful.

[AdamAnt316]

Commercial success is relative. The most successful systems, like the NES, Atari 2600, Game Boy, Sony Playstation, etc. have tended to sell tens of millions of units. After that, there tends to be rather of a drop-off, be it shallow (Super Nintendo, Sega Master System) or steep (Atari 5200, Atari Jaguar, Atari Lynx...). Also, the crashes have put the kibosh on once-successful systems like the Colecovision and Vectrex (which was initially popular enough sales-wise to entice Milton-Bradley to acquire GCE, but was commercially toast less than a year afterwards). I think my listed choices qualify, with the possible exception of the Lynx. Without solid sources of sales figures, it's kinda hard to say...
-Adam

[ccovell]

Yes, and when the topic is about actual success vs. perception of success, that's a bit of a problem...

[celerystalker]

Success is pretty arbitrary. Like the original Xbox... Microsoft did not profit financially directly, but they did learn marketing lessons, develop an infrastructure to build upon, and create a sellable brand. Comparatively, Nintendo remained profitable with the N64, but they did lose faith with third party developers and let their brand become associated with kiddie games, whether it was accurate or not.

[AdamAnt316]

To me, another successful "unsuccessful" console would be the one which started it all, the Magnavox Odyssey. It took Ralph Baer and his team several years to iron out the details of what constituted a "tv game", and turn the concept into something which could be sold commercially. After several false starts (Teleprompter, Sears, RCA, just about every other major TV manufacturer), they finally got Magnavox to agree to market the unit. After another year of turning the "Brown Box" into a sellable product, it hit the market in 1972, initially appearing only in Magnavox's own TV/hifi dealerships. Early ads implied that the Odyssey would only work with Magnavox televisions, which also slowed sales. Even so, after a number of years on the market, the Odyssey managed to sell over 300,000 units, and inspired the very first successful video arcade game, Atari's Pong, not to mention thousands upon thousands of "Pong clones", which dominated the market until cartridge-based systems took over. Not a massive number of sales by modern standards, but it certainly kick-started the video game industry.
-Adam

[kupomogli]

In terms of classic systems, Sega CD for me. It doesn't have too many games, but it's got a lot of quality.

I'd also choose the PSP. The PSP wasn't really unsuccessful, but it's the most recognized (portable) console that has no games, despite having a large amount of quality exclusives The average quality on the PSP is well above the average quality of other consoles.

[goldenband]

for example was the Atari 7800 successful, sales-wise, seriously?

My understanding is that it made a tidy profit for Atari.

[Steve W]

In terms of classic systems, Sega CD for me. It doesn't have too many games, but it's got a lot of quality.

I'd also choose the PSP. The PSP wasn't really unsuccessful, but it's the most recognized (portable) console that has no games, despite having a large amount of quality exclusives The average quality on the PSP is well above the average quality of other consoles.

I'd agree with both of those. I've always had a soft spot for the Sega CD.

I had always wanted to pick up a PSP but I never pulled the trigger. I would go to a game store and look at the PSP racks, and there would be a dozen games mixed in with 80 crappy movies. It always gave me the perception that there were no decent games for the machine when I could never find any on the shelves due to their being tucked behind six copies of the movie Stealth. I've recently gotten into emulating the PSP, and digging through the releases it's pretty amazing how many decent games there were for the system. Phantasy Star Portable is the one I'm fixated on at the moment.

[Tron 2.0]

Turbografx 16 and Sega Saturn both flopped in north america.Sure they did better in japan but that's it.

[tom]

Because it was garbage.

How many Atari 5200 games have you played to come to that conclusion?

[Aussie2B]

The PC Engine. Seems to me that Westerners often look at Japanese systems, if they happened to be released outside of Japan, with an America-centric perspective. So many people see all variations of the TG-16 as unsuccessful, despite the fact that the PC Engine was a solidly performing system in Japan, doing better than the Mega Drive even. Yet people are more inclined to assume that the latter was more successful, on the basis that the Genesis was doing much better than the TG-16 outside of Japan.