You're an idiot.
You need to read this thread again. We don't disagree anywhere remotely near as much as you think. So how about I respond to that part again.
I think the biggest disagreement is on the catalog ordering issue, really.
I repeat: it's a fact that the system was available nationwide from several retailers, as opposed to the myth that it was only available in a handful of select cities (or mail order only as you're insisting).
I never said it was mail order only, or only available in a few select cities. It was MORE available in a few markets. Not ONLY available there. But apart from that, of course you're right, it was available nationwide, just in few stores in most of the country.
Don't twist that into an argument that it was as widely available as the SNES or Genesis, because we all know it wasn't.
This is confusing because of course this is a big part of the point. NEC was a large company, much larger than Sega. There is no good reason for the TG16 to have been so comparatively hard to find! I know we agree on this, you've said the same thing.
I know, you're saying that even though it wasn't as available as those other two it wasn't hard to find, but I think that if it was as easy to find as you say, the system would have sold better than it did. Unless we actually agree entirely on this point, which is also quite possible.
I never said that it was ONLY available in a few select cities, just that that's where NEC put the strongest effort into around launch.
By disagreeing with my original assertion, that's
exactly what you were saying, and my original statement had nothing to do with a limited time frame at launch.[/quote]
I didn't disagree with your original assertion, though. Not really. You're already forgetting the actual discussion!
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=17667.msg371491#msg371491 I said that around here, the system was not available in the stores you listed. This shows that it wasn't available in those stores in-store nationwide, nothing more; I never said I thought it wasn't available in those chains anywhere, of course! I'm sure it was. I was just pointing out that it wasn't available in-store
everywhere in those chains you listed, that's all.
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=17667.msg371646#msg371646 This is the closest I can find to me actually saying what you seem to think I'm saying but never did, but even there, I certainly never said that everywhere was like that, only some places! We all know it had poor distribution, there were certainly plenty of places where it was very difficult to find.
On the other hand, you say both
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=17667.msg371975#msg371975 that the system was available nationwide and also
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=17667.msg371583#msg371583 that it was harder to find than "main stream stuff". NEC was a huge company. The TG16 should have been just as mainstream as the SNES or Genesis. That it wasn't shows how shoddy their distribution and marketing efforts were after expanding beyond the initial test-market areas.
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=17667.msg371581#msg371581 Your defense is that people could order it from the store's catalog. This started the debate over whether that counts or not. You do follow that with this:
http://www.pcenginefx.com/forums/index.php?topic=17667.msg371975#msg371975 but still, I probably do consider catalogs less than you do. I know you could get gaming stuff that way, I just don't see the evidence of it a being popular way to buy videogames or consoles specifically. Catalogs were plenty popular for other things, of course.
Of course, to criticize myself, I did use personal experience as a major point, which of course I shouldn't do. Sure, my point was just to show that the system wasn't available in those chains everywhere, but still, it IS personal experience, and those vary too much from area to area to be particularly useful unless you compile a lot of them from different places. It would have been better to focus on what is in the article, the parts about NEC losing interest after the less-than-expected test-market sales, that they never sold through that initial production run of 750k systems, etc.
Did I say you did? I was responding to your assertion that it's reasonable for people to make such claims. Try paying attention.
Attacking me for things others think that I don't agree with makes no sense. That's the point.
Uhhh... first, so you've already forgotten that NEC wasn't focusing on all urban areas, but only a few of them, in the '89 launch? Please remember this.
Neither esteban nor myself limited our arguments to the launch window. Please remember this.
It sure would be nice if NEC had. :p
Seriously, we're discussing this article here, and the article makes it very clear that NEC didn't put nearly as much effort in as they needed to, and should have, after launch.
Irrelevant. The point was that the majority of people live in urban areas and not rural areas, having nothing at all to do with urban density. Face it, you're wrong.
... No, the point was that NEC focused only on a few market areas in the US at first, which were urban markets. It was not that they focused on all of urbanized America. The number of people who live in rural versus urban areas isn't all that relevant. More important is the size difference between the countries! There are so many MORE markets in the US, it costs a lot more to compete in. The article explains this, and says how after the mediocre first-market showing, NEC wasn't willing to put in the money to seriously compete nationwide.
Why look at just the city when you can include bits of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey? Everyone knows that when you say Big Apple you mean Pennsylvania!
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but that's how metro areas work. In Maine, for example, the Portland "metro area" includes almost half of the states' population, that in southern Maine, including some quite rural towns.
Looking only at metro densities corrects this.
You mean 'skews the numbers so you are correct'.
No, the skewing is comparing Tokyo prefecture data which includes thinly inhabited mountains and island chains to NY metro area which includes only populated areas. The US equivalent of the Tokyo prefecture data you list there would be New York state data, and I assure you, its population density would be much lower than Tokyo's!
