Street Fighter 2 Champion Edition

[esteban]

...if the NES/Famicom had died out early in the face of the worldwide success of the TG-16/PCE. They might not have even bothered with the SNES at all.

I don't think Nintendo, coming from the lucrative dominance of Famicom/NES, would have given up. Heck no! They would have been more determined to carve out a place in the market (as they always have, even in the face of competition).

I actually like how Nintendo competes, but in many ways, they compete on their own terms. They don't worry (too much) about the "arms race" (technical specifications) that competitors are obsessed with.

So, even in an NEC-dominant alternate universe, Nintendo is still going forward with SNES!

As far as the NEC vs. Sega vs. Nintendo stuff goes: I think it was Sega's opportunity to seize 1989/1990...and they did! Sega, I believe, had learned valuable lessons about marketing/competing in North America (via Sega Master System tribulations). Nintendo was content to milk the NES (it was a smart move, really...why kill off the gravy train prematurely?) and was confident they would reclaim any lost ground with launch of SNES. This provided Sega with some breathing room.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: NES was crushing TG-16 and Genesis for quite some time. People didn't stop buying NES simply because 16-bit consoles appeared. Existing NES consumers didn't stop buying software. There was an interesting transition period where NES did not crumble instantly, but continued to be a vital, lucrative market for publishers.

It is a misconception that the brutal 16-bit wars began with the launch dates of specific consoles. In 1989/1990, the 16-bit skirmishes amongst the new consoles was not nearly as significant as the 8-bit NES vs. 16-bit war.

Or, maybe not .

 

[Necromancer]

Have you EVER seen an add on TV for a Ferrari? I'm pretty sure they don't exist, yet they sell every car they make, often times before they are even built. Chrysler on the other hand has to pay Eminem to be in their ad, and still people aren't happy with the things.

And yet Chrysler sold 700 vehicles for every single Ferrari sold in the US..... you're comparing apples and oranges.

And before some a$$hole accuses me of hating NEC systems, I'm not saying the TG was bad, but it really wasn't what people here wanted, not after the SNES was released.

And if they'd handled things completely differently, they'd still have sold the exact same lineup of games?  Your logic does not compute.

[motdelbourt]

I honestly believe that the Turbo Grafx 16 was totally f*cked from day one. Nothing could have saved it.

I agree %100 that the earlier marketing attempts had much more impact. The later stuff was bush league crap. In all seriousness though, you don't need a shitload of ads to sell a good product to an audience that is willing to buy it. You can just brainwash them for a while, but eventually they will move on if wasn't something they really wanted.

Have you EVER seen an add on TV for a Ferrari? I'm pretty sure they don't exist, yet they sell every car they make, often times before they are even built. Chrysler on the other hand has to pay Eminem to be in their ad, and still people aren't happy with the things.

And before some a$$hole accuses me of hating NEC systems, I'm not saying the TG was bad, but it really wasn't what people here wanted, not after the SNES was released. Sega had EA, Sonic, and the f*cking "blood code", the SNES had Mario and F Zero and Contra III, NEC had...I don't even know. What could NEC have done that would have possibly been as interesting to Americans in the early 90s and those things? I just wasn't going to happen.

And think, while the PCE was much bigger in Japan, the Mega Drive was a huge failure. If the MD was as big in Japan as it was here (ie: if they loved Hockey and really shitty fighting games as much as Americans did) would the PCE have done as well? There are only so many fans, and so many dollars to go around. Perhaps two successful systems was just the maximum possible.

If things were done differently from day one, then everything would be different. Your fantasy scenarios always include the TurboGrafx-16/Genesis/SNES as being the exact same if things were done different. But if things were done different, then Sega and Nintendo and the rest of reality would have been altered. If the TurboGrafx-16 had been handled as well as possible, Sonic would not exist because the Genesis/Mega Drive would not have lasted long enough. Sega might have continued their work towards Sonic and published for PC Engine. The SNES would have totally bombed, since Contra III, Turbo Ghouls 'n Ghosts, Street Fighter II, Dragon Warrior V - VII, Final Fantasy IV - VII and all the other big third party games would have all been on TurboGrafx-16. Plus, the SNES games would look pretty weak against HuCards that used the TURBO FX chip to do the kinds of 3D graphics you'd never see in SNES games. Super Mario All Stars would be Nintendo's first PCE game, released in 1995, after they existed the hardware business.

A successful from the start TurboGrafx-16 would have radically altered the 32-bit generation, since the Saturn and Nintendo 64 would not exist as Sega and Nintendo would only be software publishers who stuck by the TurboGrafx-32 after supporting the TG-16 through 1998. Sony's botched attempt to sell a console (with no previous input from Nintendo) would bomb so bad that Sony got out of the video game business altogether and hasn't even published games ever since.



Sega was broke compared to NEC/Hudson. If the Genresis didn't take off and the TG-16 quickly pulled ahead of the NES, then Sega would be out the hardware business very quickly. Nintendo would immediately lose its grip on third parties long before the SNES was released in our timeline, if the NES/Famicom had died out early in the face of the worldwide success of the TG-16/PCE. They might not have even bothered with the SNES at all.

It is very easy to see how the TG-16 could have dominated the market. All that rich NEC had to do was beat the poor Sega and everything else would have played out in NEC's favor.

This is a fun mindf*ck, but not 100% crazy. NEC was a large company 20 years ago, and if they really poured their resources into games the way Sony did a few years later, it's possible that we would be talking about Nintendo, Microsoft, and NEC as the three main hardware manufacturers today. Or even NEC, Sony, and Microsoft (ugh). Sega is doomed in all scenarios.

What you're forgetting though is how early the PCE came out. No amount of popularity could have kept it going past 1994, 1995; the hardware was just too old. It had a good run.

[SignOfZeta]

Have you EVER seen an add on TV for a Ferrari? I'm pretty sure they don't exist, yet they sell every car they make, often times before they are even built. Chrysler on the other hand has to pay Eminem to be in their ad, and still people aren't happy with the things.

And yet Chrysler sold 700 vehicles for every single Ferrari sold in the US..... you're comparing apples and oranges.

No shit, Sherlock. That's my point. The Turboduo *was* the Ferrari. Failure comes when you try to sell it as if it were a Chrysler. The Turbo Duo had a lot more in common with the Neo Geo than the Genesis/SNES when it comes to the US market.

And before some a$$hole accuses me of hating NEC systems, I'm not saying the TG was bad, but it really wasn't what people here wanted, not after the SNES was released.

And if they'd handled things completely differently, they'd still have sold the exact same lineup of games?  Your logic does not compute.

TTI was in no position to develop games, despite this they did release a few and..they didn't exactly make the system. Overall they were bound to what had been released Japan-side. What they decided to localize didn't work like they had hoped. If they had picked different/more games from Japan it would have cost more money that they didn't have and it still wouldn't have won over Americans. They were f*cked no matter what.

Back in the day I often thought, "Gee, if only they had put out Spriggan/Drac X/Street Fighter/Arcade Card/whatever." but in the last 20 years I've thought a lot about what they did and what else they could have done and I really don't blame TTI anymore at all (except for Darkwing Duck). I guess I've grown up (a little). Only hardcore mofos like us wanted a $300 machine that played games they knew nothing about and %99 of the time couldn't rent or play test in any situation. I had friends that enjoyed my Turbo Duo, but I'm pretty sure not a single one of them ever said, "Hey, maybe I should get one of these." They were content with me being the guy with the weird game machine while they had Sega/Nintendo stuff, systems you could buy 10x as many games in 20x as many stores.

Most game customers in 1992 didn't read EGM, they bought their games at stores that didn't carry the Duo, and they wanted to be able to rent. Even if they knew about the Duo the $300 price would have shocked the hell out of them anyway. Nintendo and Sega sold the most systems when they were $100-120, and that's with a killer game they actually knew. You might not believe this, but a lot of kids only ever had the pack-in game with their Genesis/SNES and that was it. Forever.

I really don't think that in the early 90s there was room for three popular machines plus handhelds.

Likewise, these posible scenarios here of NEC possibly doing SO well that they completely kick Sega/Nintendo out of the console business in a single generation are ridiculous. Even nowadays with 10x as much money in the industry and all sorts of back room deals, things don't move that fast, and they moved even more slowly back then.

[Necromancer]

No shit, Sherlock. That's my point. The Turboduo *was* the Ferrari. Failure comes when you try to sell it as if it were a Chrysler. The Turbo Duo had a lot more in common with the Neo Geo than the Genesis/SNES when it comes to the US market.

So they sold every TurboDuo they wanted to sell, and at a substantial profit?  Yep, just like Ferrari.

TTI was in no position to develop games, despite this they did release a few and..they didn't exactly make the system. Overall they were bound to what had been released Japan-side. What they decided to localize didn't work like they had hoped. If they had picked different/more games from Japan it would have cost more money that they didn't have and it still wouldn't have won over Americans. They were f*cked no matter what.

There's some logic to saying TTi was f*cked no matter what, as anything they could do would've been too little too late, but you said the TurboGrafx was f*cked no matter what.  Pick an argument, for Christ's sake.

[DragonmasterDan]

There's some logic to saying TTi was f*cked no matter what, as anything they could do would've been too little too late, but you said the TurboGrafx was f*cked no matter what.  Pick an argument, for Christ's sake.

The biggest thing to note about TTI was that they were aiming at a different audience. By the time TTI had taken over the reigns for US distribution the goal wasn't to put a TurboGrafx in every household in America like Nintendo and Sega were trying to do (or like NEC Home Electronics USA had dreamed of). The goal was to try and make a profit catering to a niche market of mostly hardcore gamers and to market the TurboGrafx and specifically the Duo has a more niche focused platform for serious games enthusiasts.  Yes some general audience content like Darkwing Duck and Madden did come out under TTIs watch, but it was already in the pipeline.

[SamIAm]

When talking about what-if scenarios for the TG16's success, I think it's hard to over-emphasize how important it is that most gamers back then were pre-teen kids. Where they went, third parties followed. Console makers had to win that demographic over or die.

First of all, the CD-ROM unit and the Duo were far too expensive for kids. Those games are a nice bonus, but they can't be part of the solution.

NEC needed a game that could compete with Mario in terms of both character and quality on the base TG16, and they needed it early. They knew it, they attempted it with Bonk, but they failed. It was a nice try.

Call me crazy, but I think that those killer apps were the most important factor back then. Prices being otherwise competitive, they had more influence on the decision making process of the kids actually choosing the product than anything else.

The single most interesting part of Sega's history IMO is that they desperately needed that killer app, and they got it.

[DragonmasterDan]

When talking about what-if scenarios for the TG16's success, I think it's hard to over-emphasize how important it is that most gamers back then were pre-teen kids. Where they went, third parties followed. Console makers had to win that demographic over or die.

First of all, the CD-ROM unit and the Duo were far too expensive for kids. Those games are a nice bonus, but they can't be part of the solution.

NEC needed a game that could compete with Mario in terms of both character and quality on the base TG16, and they needed it early. They knew it, they attempted it with Bonk, but they failed. It was a nice try.

Call me crazy, but I think that those killer apps were the most important factor back then. Prices being otherwise competitive, they had more influence on the decision making process of the kids actually choosing the product than anything else.

The single most interesting part of Sega's history IMO is that they desperately needed that killer app, and they got it.

I'm not so sure that the killer app was the main cause so much as it was the marketing. They made Sonic a counter-culture character at a time when rebellion was in style. The old woman complaining about Sonic having too much tude while cheesey today was a brilliant marketing ploy aimed at America's youth in the early 1990s. If NEC had used a similar commercial for Bonk and advertised it as widely I think the results might have been a bit different.

Here's the Sonic commercial I'm reffering to.

[SamIAm]

I can certainly agree that marketing played a huge role in "making" the killer apps. As you say, Sega's marketing pretty much hit that ball out of the park.

At the risk of making myself unpopular, though, I'm skeptical that Bonk the character and Bonk the game(s) alike quite had the mojo to back it up like Sonic did.

[DragonmasterDan]

At the risk of making myself unpopular, though, I'm skeptical that Bonk the character and Bonk the game(s) alike quite had the mojo to back it up like Sonic did.

I'll agree he didn't have the 90's tude that made Sonic so popular. For goodness sakes, Sonic would get irritated when you didn't move look at the screen and tap his feet.

But yeah, Sega did an excellent job marketing Sonic which I think is more responsible for his, the game, and the Genesis's popularity than the actual product itself.

[Necromancer]

At the risk of making myself unpopular, though, I'm skeptical that Bonk the character and Bonk the game(s) alike quite had the mojo to back it up like Sonic did.

Agreed.  They used Zonk and his cheap sunglasses (ZZ Top!) to bring the attitude. 

[esteban]

At the risk of making myself unpopular, though, I'm skeptical that Bonk the character and Bonk the game(s) alike quite had the mojo to back it up like Sonic did.

I'll agree he didn't have the 90's tude that made Sonic so popular. For goodness sakes, Sonic would get irritated when you didn't move look at the screen and tap his feet.

But yeah, Sega did an excellent job marketing Sonic which I think is more responsible for his, the game, and the Genesis's popularity than the actual product itself.

Sonic and Zonk and Mario lived in peace and harmony. Sonic's attitude notwithstanding:

[SamIAm]

I know this is getting far off the original topic, but I can't resist.

When it came to making Sonic into a killer app, Sega's marketing staff certainly helped a lot. In fact, it probably couldn't have happened without them. But there is a lot more to Sonic than a few clever advertisements. I think it comes down to two big things.

One is that Sonic the character set a trend. Marketing can give a product all kinds of presence, but they can't make it set a trend unless the product itself really is something special. Sonic the character was solidly designed and the perfect new thing for that particular time. On the TG16, Bonk does strike me as lovable, if not mega-hit material. On the other hand, I'm actually less impressed with Zonk as a character because all he's doing is following a trend. He also came in pretty late.

Two is the game of Sonic itself, and how much more you can say about it. Sonic may not have been your cup of tea, but I think most would agree that if nothing else, it was instantly distinguishable. The look of the game, in stills and in motion, and the feel of the gameplay itself really stood out at the time. Bonk and Zonk were a totally decent games, but you couldn't say much more about them than that.

That's why I think that if neither Sonic nor Bonk/Zonk had been put in the mascot spotlight, Sonic would still be remembered more.

Once Sonic made the entrance that it did, essentially rebelling against the Mario establishment and striking a chord with western kids, that generation was pretty much set as a fight between Sega and Nintendo. The only way NEC/Hudson was going to not get edged out was to be the one to come up with the anti-Mario first.

[esteban]

I know this is getting far off the original topic, but I can't resist.

When it came to making Sonic into a killer app, Sega's marketing staff certainly helped a lot. In fact, it probably couldn't have happened without them. But there is a lot more to Sonic than a few clever advertisements. I think it comes down to two big things.

One is that Sonic the character set a trend. Marketing can give a product all kinds of presence, but they can't make it set a trend unless the product itself really is something special. Sonic the character was solidly designed and the perfect new thing for that particular time. On the TG16, Bonk does strike me as lovable, if not mega-hit material. On the other hand, I'm actually less impressed with Zonk as a character because all he's doing is following a trend. He also came in pretty late.

Two is the game of Sonic itself, and how much more you can say about it. Sonic may not have been your cup of tea, but I think most would agree that if nothing else, it was instantly distinguishable. The look of the game, in stills and in motion, and the feel of the gameplay itself really stood out at the time. Bonk and Zonk were a totally decent games, but you couldn't say much more about them than that.

That's why I think that if neither Sonic nor Bonk/Zonk had been put in the mascot spotlight, Sonic would still be remembered more.

Once Sonic made the entrance that it did, essentially rebelling against the Mario establishment and striking a chord with western kids, that generation was pretty much set as a fight between Sega and Nintendo. The only way NEC/Hudson was going to not get edged out was to be the one to come up with the anti-Mario first.

Sonic was the perfect storm: excellent game, with replay value, striking visual aesthetics and amazing attention to detail (controls, graphical flourishes), a mascot with attitude that did NOT seem overly contrived, full support of Sega USA to be *the* face of Sega.

Mario, as a mascot, developed organically and slowly. I liked that slow evolution.

But Sega didn't have the luxury of time. Sega needed something instantly. Sega could easily have struck out with Sonic, but, thankfully, they handled everything properly. INSTA-BLOCKBUSTER GAME! INSTA-FRANCHISE! INSTA-MASCOT! INSTA-DIFFERENTIATION FROM COMPETITION! INSTA-BRANDING OF SEGA'S IDEALS.

Sadly, Bonk and Zonk didn't get a chance to fully develop into characters steeped in a rich world. Bonk is the closest we got...but it was FERTILE enough to be more fully developed and expanded (the dreaded cross-over game where Bonk & Co. star in a golf game?)

Bottom line: Bonk (and especially Zonk) are runners-up, at best, in the Mascot War. Mario has a long, rich history in 1990. Sonic is the Young Turk, the breakout upstart. While Bonk was very much a mascot like Mario, he was decent enough. Bonk was the loveable, low-budget mascot.

I love Bonk for what he is.

[BigusSchmuck]

I know this is getting far off the original topic, but I can't resist.

When it came to making Sonic into a killer app, Sega's marketing staff certainly helped a lot. In fact, it probably couldn't have happened without them. But there is a lot more to Sonic than a few clever advertisements. I think it comes down to two big things.

One is that Sonic the character set a trend. Marketing can give a product all kinds of presence, but they can't make it set a trend unless the product itself really is something special. Sonic the character was solidly designed and the perfect new thing for that particular time. On the TG16, Bonk does strike me as lovable, if not mega-hit material. On the other hand, I'm actually less impressed with Zonk as a character because all he's doing is following a trend. He also came in pretty late.

Two is the game of Sonic itself, and how much more you can say about it. Sonic may not have been your cup of tea, but I think most would agree that if nothing else, it was instantly distinguishable. The look of the game, in stills and in motion, and the feel of the gameplay itself really stood out at the time. Bonk and Zonk were a totally decent games, but you couldn't say much more about them than that.

That's why I think that if neither Sonic nor Bonk/Zonk had been put in the mascot spotlight, Sonic would still be remembered more.

Once Sonic made the entrance that it did, essentially rebelling against the Mario establishment and striking a chord with western kids, that generation was pretty much set as a fight between Sega and Nintendo. The only way NEC/Hudson was going to not get edged out was to be the one to come up with the anti-Mario first.

Sonic was the perfect storm: excellent game, with replay value, striking visual aesthetics and amazing attention to detail (controls, graphical flourishes), a mascot with attitude that did NOT seem overly contrived, full support of Sega USA to be *the* face of Sega.

Mario, as a mascot, developed organically and slowly. I liked that slow evolution.

But Sega didn't have the luxury of time. Sega needed something instantly. Sega could easily have struck out with Sonic, but, thankfully, they handled everything properly. INSTA-BLOCKBUSTER GAME! INSTA-FRANCHISE! INSTA-MASCOT! INSTA-DIFFERENTIATION FROM COMPETITION! INSTA-BRANDING OF SEGA'S IDEALS.

Sadly, Bonk and Zonk didn't get a chance to fully develop into characters steeped in a rich world. Bonk is the closest we got...but it was FERTILE enough to be more fully developed and expanded (the dreaded cross-over game where Bonk & Co. star in a golf game?)

Bottom line: Bonk (and especially Zonk) are runners-up, at best, in the Mascot War. Mario has a long, rich history in 1990. Sonic is the Young Turk, the breakout upstart. While Bonk was very much a mascot like Mario, he was decent enough. Bonk was the loveable, low-budget mascot.

I love Bonk for what he is.

Bonk would have been cooler if he was mario, sonic combined into a new character: Baronic!
I know this has been discussed about a billion times, but if we saw a Super Duo at a discounted price with the power of the Supergrafx and arcade card and it came out in 92 maybe it would have justified the $200-300 price range. Or just sell it at a loss like Sony did with the Playstation and make your money back via software. Anyway, enough being off topic I think if NEC/TTI advertised more the less that you can play Street Fighter 2 on the go probably would have sold a lot more Turbo Expresses and probably would have given the Gameboy and Gamegear a run for their money if it was priced cheaply enough though...