WI the Nintendo Entertainment System failed?

I've noticed we've had some video game threads here, implying we have gamers on this forum. I'm no different but I'm more into the older consoles like the Atari and the NES - newer consoles like the Wii U, PS3 & 4, etc aren't my cup of tea. But I digress.

For those of us who are into the retro consoles or old enough to remember, the Great Video Game Crash of 1983-1984 really changed the face of the video game industry. It not only ended the Golden Age and killed many of the classic consoles (Atari 2600, Atari 5200, Intellivision, and so on), but ended American dominance in the industry. Enter the Famicom from Japan or, as we knew it here in the USA, the Nintendo Entertainment System. When this was being shopped around to vendors, there was a lot of hostility to video games due to the losses taken from the crash. Nintendo of America got them to take the equipment by offering to buy back unsold merchandise (a risky move). After being released through Worlds of Wonder, it was successfully test-marketed in New York City in 1985 and then released nationwide in 1986. The rest is history.

Given vendor reluctance to stock video games and the above fact about buying back unsold merchandise, here comes the big question - what if the NES flopped here?

Buying back unsold merchandise was risky for NOA and may have simply ruined them. Had this console failed, there may be some likely results:

1. Computer gaming replaces console gaming.

2. Another system comes along later, succeeds and resurrects the North American video game industry.

The first scenario may not be far-fetched. The crash was partly caused by the proliferation of home computers which were popular for playing games on. In the UK, this did happen - the NES failed, the Sega Master System had limited success and cheap home computers like the Sinclair Spectrum was the choice for many who wanted to play video games.

But what about the second scenario? Would anyone have even tried to sell another console if the NES flopped?

Thoughts?
 
More likely scenario 1. It would be quite some time before anyone was willing to gamble on an 80s fad that had failed twice.

The Commodore 64 had some great games. Even if they don't survive, Apple and IBM will. The computer has business and academic applications and the gaming side would be a bonus. Plus developing software is cheaper than trying to make a device just for gaming.

As PCs grew in capability, you'd see sports sims, first person shooters, and strategy games develop. Gaming would be tied to computers, as it would be too risky to challenge that market with a console.
 
Nintendo will hire a new distributor, Sony. And Sony looking for new IPs now that they have Columbia Pictures says yes. And Columbia Pictures produces a proper Super Mario Bros. movie in 1994.
 
You're perhaps aware of the Robot Operating Buddy, ROB, the silliest NES accessory ever (and something I always wanted to have). That was intended to make the NES look like an educational system and not a "video game." Because -- and I'm sure you know about this -- this was the era of the Great Video Game Crash, and nobody wanted to market a video game console. Which is why the WI is so plausible -- NES could very well have failed. Just rig the release date so it's a couple of weeks after Christmas.

I actually think Option 2 is very plausible, even likely. Even though video games had a crash in the early 80s, video arcades and arcade games did not. In the mid 80s when the NES was released, arcade games had substantially better graphics than anything else. People naturally want to be able to play their favorite arcade games at home. So there is definitely a market for 256+-color graphics, sound and joysticks, none of which you get in an average 80s PC. It might have taken a few more years (it might even have taken as long as the dawn of the 16-bit era OTL), but someone would have made a "home arcade" that was definitely, definitely not a video game. The advertising might have simply showed the generations-ahead graphics of the home arcade compared to old 2600 games.

Until PCs had VGA graphics and sound cards, which was the late 80s or very early 90s, PC gaming was quite limited. It was things like frustrating Sierra adventures. The hardware was not designed for gaming, and that's why I think Option 2 is more plausible than Option 1.
 
This was the first thing that popped into my mind:
No NES? Well, there'll be no AVGN.

I am dead freakin' serious.

Back to the question, I think ,like Roches, that Option N°2 would be likely.
 
I think you may have got Apple involved in the console market, and Microsoft more involved earlier, at least in the US, in a TL where the NES fails. Maybe without the NES you would have had a more successful MSX or similar.

As has been said, getting "PC" gaming to take off in the 80s is non-trivial for hardware reasons.
 
Then the glorious supreme PC gaming race takes over sometime in the mid 90's. Eventually a major electronics company will bring consoles to the mainstream in the US, maybe Atari again.
 
Then the glorious supreme PC gaming race takes over sometime in the mid 90's.

Since you bring that up...

latest


Alexis and his memes strikes again. God help us all!
 
Top