Author Topic: Why is the TG-16 way fatter than the PC-Engine? (Read 1416 times)

rtdzign · « **on:** January 09, 2004, 06:57:00 PM »

Why would they make the system bigger and fatter? Arent they the same thing? Wouldn't it cost more for shipping?

esteban · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2004, 09:54:00 AM »

companies redesign products for various reasons. in the U.S. the FCC requires electronic devices to be shielded to prevent interference with other devices. but NEC didn't have to make the tg16 huge-- so maybe they thought that a "bigger console" would make U.S. consumers feel that they were getting their money's worth.

sometimes a product is redesigned to fix design flaws in the original product.... i doubt this is the case with the pc engine, since it was a great console design.

NEC Avenue · « **Reply #2 on:** May 17, 2004, 07:14:16 PM »

Well at launch the TG-16 was competing with the Genesis which was much bigger than a PC Engine. I guess at the time most consumers weren't really into the technology side of game consoles. If you had told the average Joe that the PC Engine had comparable graphics processing power to the Genesis even though it was much smaller in size, they probably wouldn't believe you so IMO that's why the TG-16 was made bigger to compete with the Genesis because to the average Joe bigger is better.

NEC is just really good at semiconductor technology among other things, that's why they can pack so much processing power into such a small device like the PC Engine.

Even today when people see the Game Cube which is really small and looks like a toy with a handle, they automatically think it's a weaker non-serious system than PS2 when in fact it's more powerful in many ways even though it's so small.

theoakwoody · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2006, 05:44:43 PM »

Sorry if this has been answered before but where can I find pics of the tg16's guts? I know that on gamesx they show chip info and stuff but I am just interested to see how much case space was wasted without having to buy the special tool to open up the case myself.

Ninja Spirit · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2006, 06:27:17 PM »

Back in 1985, there were similar feelings like that toward the Famicom and why the NES looks the way it does. The Famicom does look like a toy.

D-Lite · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2006, 06:34:20 PM »

Quote from: "theoakwoody"

Sorry if this has been answered before but where can I find pics of the tg16's guts? I know that on gamesx they show chip info and stuff but I am just interested to see how much case space was wasted without having to buy the special tool to open up the case myself.

I'll try to get some up soon.

But the PCB fills the entire case. The whole system was redesigned for the US. They didn't simply plop a PCE inside the US case.

Black Tiger · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2006, 04:23:15 AM »

What I don't get is why did they go and make it with an empty shell for the back end?

Why not just design it so that it was big + solid and compatible with a CD unit?

Although they might've thought that they didn't want to redesign the actual interface port, they went ahead and made a TG sized bed for it to sit on, so why not make that part a big shell and stick a full sized TG into it instead of the T-shaped one? Then the combo wouldn't have had to be T-shaped either.

They could've just used a little plastic band-aid size cover for the TG like on the PC Engine systems.

I still like the TG-16's design(I'll never be able to judge it completely objectively though), but its not as sleak as the PCE units.

And one more thing, why the hell did they make the Turbo Booster so damn big? Have you seen the PCE version? Its like and inch long. Even the Booster Plus didn't need to be so long. It transforms the TG into a surf board.

I'm just glad that they left the Turbo Express and Duo alone. I wouldn't want to see Americanized versions of them(of course I would, but you know what I mean).

esteban · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2006, 06:33:26 AM »

Quote from: "Black_Tiger"

What I don't get is why did they go and make it with an empty shell for the back end?

Why not just design it so that it was big + solid and compatible with a CD unit?

Although they might've thought that they didn't want to redesign the actual interface port, they went ahead and made a TG sized bed for it to sit on, so why not make that part a big shell and stick a full sized TG into it instead of the T-shaped one? Then the combo wouldn't have had to be T-shaped either.

They could've just used a little plastic band-aid size cover for the TG like on the PC Engine systems.

I still like the TG-16's design(I'll never be able to judge it completely objectively though), but its not as sleak as the PCE units.

And one more thing, why the hell did they make the Turbo Booster so damn big? Have you seen the PCE version? Its like and inch long. Even the Booster Plus didn't need to be so long. It transforms the TG into a surf board.

I'm just glad that they left the Turbo Express and Duo alone. I wouldn't want to see Americanized versions of them(of course I would, but you know what I mean).

Yeah, I love the Americanized hardware as well

. To continue the discussion...

TG-CD
I think the T-shaped design was used for stability (i.e. you can pick up the entire TG-CD + TG-16 combo and it's solid, no worries about putting stress on the expansion port junction). So the "problem", really, is that the TG-16 is so wide. If TG-16 was only slightly wider than a PC-Engine, then the TG-CD could have used a vertical I-shaped design, instead of the suitcase design used in Japan. Personally, I think I'd still want it to be a "double-decker I-shape" (like the Japanese Super CD-Rom drive that slips on the PCE), though the TG-CD unit could have easilly remained on the same horizontal plane as the TG-CD (as the Japanese suitcase did).

So, in a sense, the design of the TG-16 dictated that a T-shape be used for the TG-CD. A front-loading design would have cost too much (motorized tray), and engineered from scratch (no Japanese models to draw from)... So I doubt NEC would have seriously considered a front-loader. While a front-loader would have been neat for the TG-CD (think of the first Sega CD + Genesis combo), I fear that the motorized tray / arm would be giving us problems today...

TurboBooster (Plus)
All right, this thing effectively doubled the size of a TG-16. You're right, it's a surfboard (although TG-16 + Booster was as graceful as a floating dock). I had a TB Plus before eventually getting TG-CD. It was pretty expensive (hmmmm... at least $40-50 back in 1990) and I always felt that the size was used to justify the expense. They could have easily* designed the Booster hardware to fit into the empty spaced in the expansion port cover. Just imagine how rad it would have been to pop-off the old cover and stick an identical looking item that had A/V and RAM... This would have justified the orginal TG-16 cover for being so big.

Thank goodness...
I agree, it wasn't necessary to alter the TE or Duo design. We should also be grateful that NEC didn't muck around with the design of the HuCard.

In fact, here is a working prototype that I own:

This jumbo-sized HuCard (short for "Humungous Card"), would have been packaged in the same jewel cases, thankfully.

Apparently, NEC was considering a different name for this format ("HuTray" and "HuPancake" come to mind) before deciding to stick with the original term.

As you can see in the photo, NEC would have kept the PCB and pin design the same... but they were experimenting with different ways to thicken / widen / elongate the plastic card (just as Nintendo inflated the famicom cartridge design for the NES).

Since the TG-16 was so wide, doubling the width of the HuCard slot on the front of the TG-16 would have easilly accomodated this card without messing up the overall aesthetics.

According to legend, the jumbo-sized HuCard was going to be green-lighted for North America when an NEC engineer sent out a memo saying, "Dudes, the mock-up HuCards are too friggin' huge. Let's stick with the original specifications."

And the rest, as they say, is history.

* I don't really know, since I'm not technically inclined, but it certainly seems feasible.

D-Lite · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2006, 06:45:37 AM »

Quote from: "stevek666"

In fact, here is a working prototype that I own:

This jumbo-sized HuCard (short for "Humungous Card"), would have been packaged in the same jewel cases, thankfully.

Apparently, NEC was considering a different name for this format (HuPancake comes to mind) before deciding to stick with the original term. [/img]

Holy crap that's cool. I'm curious of where you got it, how you knows it's working, and if you'll sell it

KingDrool · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2006, 10:27:43 AM »

Steve, you have just made me faint from your coolness. Where in the hell did you get that?

rolins · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2006, 10:32:21 AM »

Quote from: "stevek666"

In fact, here is a working prototype that I own:

This jumbo-sized HuCard (short for "Humungous Card"), would have been packaged in the same jewel cases, thankfully.

That picture is for real?!

SNKNostalgia · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2006, 01:28:55 PM »

Why is the sky blue? Why are titties great? I dunno they just are!!!

Keranu · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2006, 01:37:53 PM »

Man, I don't think you've ever even mentioned this before Steve, or even show this picture! Why didn't you show us this a long time ago!?!?

theoakwoody · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2006, 02:12:25 PM »

Sweet photoshop job. I'm surprised you didn't go with the Dracula X Hucard which I just happen to have in my personal collection. Unfortunately my digital camera is busted so I can't take a pic but it's incredible.

Ninja Spirit · « **Reply #14 on:** January 30, 2006, 02:50:25 PM »

Dracula X Hucard?! lol awesome.