So if History repeats itself, in a few years Nintendo (back then Sega) will go out of business, Sony (back then Nintendo) will drastically re-think it's business practices, and Microsoft (back then Sony) will pick up the slack, gaining market leadership while a third unnamed company that is known mainly for non-gaming products (back then Microsoft) will step in a year later with a powerhouse game console?
Who would it be? Apple (I know the Pippin, but let's forget that)? IBM? Maybe (shudder) Dell? Infineon Labs?
History doesn't repeat itself, though, otherwise the market would have re-imploded in 1994 the same way it did in '84.
EDIT: Also, Sega was founded in the eighties and was one management fuckup after another. Nintendo was founded in 1889 and has managed to be run by competent people pretty much the whole time.
Daedalus on
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Sony brought some much needed competition into the arena. As already pointed out, Nintendo was pretty draconic in the way they treated developers, and Sega just could never seem to get things really together. Sega may very well have imploded all on it's own, with no help from Sony, as Sega of America and Sega of Japan continued to butt heads. Nintendo would have probably been a lot more successful with the N64, meaning they would have continued to push carts as long as possible, and pushing only so much innovation as to give them an edge against the competition.
Sony also really pushed gaming outside of Japan. Videogames were a niche market in the States, and moreso in Europe, until Final Fantasy 7 advertisements began airing on MTV. If the western market hadn't grown so much, we might not have seen the return of Metroid as a major Nintendo franchise (at least, if my understanding is correct the Metroid games were far more popular in the west than in Japan).
Another thing to consider, Sony was really pushing the 3D gaming angle. Without that influence, and the year head start on Nintendo, it's possible that Sega may have played up the Saturn's 2D strength. It was really unfortunate for them, and for gamers, that they didn't do that anyways, as the Saturn was hands down the most powerful 2D gaming machine at the time.
If Nintendo had retained their prominent place in the market, it's very unlikely that we'd be seeing a console like the Wii today. Nintendo only made such a ballsy move in console design because they really feel they need to. Last generation they released a console with better graphics than Sony, they ditched carts, they priced it reasonably, and they bent over backwards for developers like they never had before...and still couldn't gain ground on Sony.
Personally, I'm pretty happy Sony jumped in when they did. However, currently, Sony is in the place Nintendo was when Sony first arrived on the scene. They're making a lot of the same mistakes, plus a few more. I'm hoping Nintendo and Microsoft can put up enough competition to force Sony into making better decisions for gaming as a whole.
On the whole, this is pretty much why I've always disliked the brand loyalty you see with so many gamers (and people in general, really). If any one company continued having unrivaled success no matter what they or their comeptition did, that company would continue to do less and less, while charging more and more, and gaming as an industry would be nearly stagnant on the hardware end.
I hate to say it, but I have to agree on the note of Sony's rise making the market as popular as it is today(and RPGs by association, no less, thanks to VII's success), I just wish that companies like Sega hadn't needed to be sacrifices for it to happen.
Sony and Nintendo release the SNESCD add on.
This then competes with the SEGACD add on.
Add ons are always rubbish at penetrating market share - and both make little impact, and simply chug on. Square consider FFVII but never finish it in time for the SNES add on, and so transfer the game to 'next gen' platforms. The extended length of this gen hurts Gameboy progress developement but sells as well as ever. The Gamegear is still a huge failure because it needs to be plugged into the wall.
The Saturn and Nintendo CD4 (ho ho) (sans analogue stick) launch against each other about equal power graphically - sony and nintendo fight over the philosophy of games, no loading, fun, bright, happy - vs sonys 90s cool, fmvs and style. Leads to more fractured games. But wider variety leads to larger market share.
FFVII is released for the NCD4 - doesn't make the same mass media break through in the west as before - more true to it roots, its still a great success. Hell it could even go multiformat.
SEGAs flapping leads to them fucking up a little less than before as have less competition. In europe SEGA maintains the stranglehold on the market and pushes into America a lot, whilst the Nintendo/Sony stregthen in Japan.
This East/West split becomes more apparent and SEGA start working with Microsoft (as before) in secret for the next console (Dreamcast).
The Dreamcast (with WinCE on line capabilities) launches again the PlayCube (ho ho!) strenthening the East/West split further. There are large 'subcultures' of 'proper' 'gamers' who perfer the 'more exotic' 'foriegn' consoles but on the whole the two markets seperate further. With 'western style' games going to SEGA and 'eastern' to Nintendo. Because of this focus - it's sega, who have less graphical might who push controller developement with analogue sticks etc. As the current gameboy color/advance is less powerful than in our timeline the low power Dreamcast VMU is far more successful - as is the dreamcasts on line service. With a lot of games and devices backing it.
Because SEGA aren't going bust, Microsoft stick with them rather than go their own way so we have the two super powers streghtening against each other.
The DreamBox (ho ho) launches against the WiiPlay (ho ho) . The Dreambox has a strong online service, primarly western style games (the innovative weird sega of old is limited to a few weird developement houses) and crucially to battle the success of the iPod the VMU2 is a replacable flashmemory player that syncs to the brand new harddrive in the Dreambox. Syncs with your music, and with later versions video (the VMU updates it's line like the iPod - whilst the DreamBox stays constant). Obviously the iPod is still a huge success that dwarfs the VMU II but it does weaken the NSP (PSP in our timestream)
.
Although the WiiPlay has limited online capabilities it doesn't compare to the DreamBox and connectivity to the NSP is limited too. The strong game developement, and wide variety of genres keeps the WiiPlay a formidable opponent. And the only way to play JRPGs and the beautifully innovative 'crazy' japanese games.
And then we are at today. Almost a generation behind development wise - which puts the next gen more insync with HD televisions, and so the chaos of this generation is limited somewhat. The Dream 3 launches in 2008 along with the Vune a touch screen (another first) PDA/MP3/VIDEO player that also syncs to vista. The WiiPlay 360 (Don't want to say 2 - ho ho) launches with a simlar package.
Ironically without trying so hard as here, in this timeline consoles do become home (and away) entertianment centres. DVD players, Hifi music docks and so on.
Are we are in the wrong time line!?
Nintendo have Shigeru Miyamoto, a man who has been lusting after 3D environments in his games since the eight-bit days. For example, the first Zelda game was top-down. The second was side-on, and then it reverted to top down for the third. You could almost feel Miyamoto reaching for that elusive 3D reality. Nintendo would have come out with whatever console was in place of the N64 with a console that had a controller with an analogue stick.
If Sega had played up the 2D capabilities of the Saturn and then had to contend with the N64, Sega itself may very well have gone under. Everyone looked forward to 3D back in those days, after so many years of primarily 2D only games. I'd just like to emphasise the success of the N64 in reality - it didn't have Final Fantasy, it didn't have CD's, and it didn't have the third-parties, and it released late when the PSX had already sold millions. Despite all this, it was a resounding success. Returning now to the timeline where there was no PlayStaton - N64 would have ruled supreme over the Saturn, much as the PS2 did over everything else.
I think Nintendo and Sony would have split anyway, due to their radically different attitudes to gaming and the hardware that pushes it. Perhaps Sony might not have been as successful straight away, or maybe they would have been even more successful with a powerful, "hip" CD or DVD-based console that is released at the end of half a decade of Nintendo dominance with highly-priced cartridge games. Don't get me wrong, I love Nintendo and I despise Sony for their business manner, but Nintendo would likely have remained with this business model until, like in this timeline, they would have been forced onto disc-based media.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
As others have said... it's hard to predict what would have happened.
If Nintendo went on and used the Sony CD add on, one would assume Sega would have designed the Saturn in the same way (as the Nintendo CD add on would have had same/similar 3D capabilities as the origional PSX).
The Saturn probably owuld NOT have been released early, as it would not be trying to beat the PSX to market. So they would not have made that flawed choice that was yet another bad decision in their current past.
Sega made a number of bad choices, I wouldn't put the Sega CD on the list... although the design of it needed more work, so I'd say the concept was fine even if the execution was lacking.
Their ads were also not a problem as some mentioned here, most I knew loved them... they got a kick out of them, and were far from being "all talk", as there were many ads that did show gameplay, etc.
Their real problems started with the 32x and the Saturn development. And it wasn't the designs per se that were the problem. Sega was rife with internal bickering and big ego's. Read some of thesonicretards posts in the "what you didn't know about the games you play" topic to show what kind of damage this did (sonic extreme, we hardly knew you).
The 32x might have been an ok idea with the design flaws of the Sega CD had the Saturn been several years away... but it was released and promptly abandoned as the Saturn was rushed to market.
The Saturn itself was a fine system, it survived quite some time in Japan but was trounced by Sony's easier to work with PSX. Also not forgetting how attractive Sony made working with them.
Sony out of the picture? There would have only been Nintendo to work with. Now... it would depend on the exact capabilities of the Nintendo Add on, or if it even existed at all. If it existed and was as powerfull as the PSX was, then Sega would have had a battle to get the games on the Saturn as opposed to the SnesCD. If it was not very powerfull and/or a pain to actually use... then it might have gone easier for them, as the devs looking forward to the N64 would have eventually become dissalusioned by the Cart format and the delays in its release.
End of it all? Either Sega was the clear winner or were not too far behind the N64/Snescd. Wildcards? Sega themselves... they could easilly destroy their own chances even without Sony coming in and snatching up the devs and afterwards the market... so they could have fallen far far behind Nintendo here even without Sony.
Last gen would have been the tricky one. The Dreamcast would not exist as it stands now... it's design was on the part of a humbled and somewhat desperate Sega... so without that stance, it's hard to say what would have come out of them, and when.
The PS2 would obviously not exist, the Gamecube would also be radically different as they would not be bumping heads with Sony... the gameboy line would have most likely continued much as it did... and The Xbox? Hard to say, would MS have still entered the console arena without Sony? And even if they did, would it have been at the same time?
After the Saturn/PSX/n64 era it gets impossible to predict IMHO, as the entire face of the industry would be radically different. If Nintendo continued its heavy handed tactics and Sega continued its internal bickering... both would still have lasted, but if MS threw their hat in the ring around the time of the Xbox still, they would essentially fill the role Sony did, only one generation later... and who knows how they would have gone about things in that position.
Would we be better off? I don't know. It's not that Sony hasn't made any mistakes till recently. The PS2 was a bear to dev on, when Sony could have designed something easier to work with. They had some pretty low policy issues on the PSX as far as non 3d games went, as well as some of the ways they worked on deals for exclusive or limited exclusive games. And of course their "supply" issues on launch for both the PS2 and PS3. And of course lets not forget their classic overselling of their products capabilities (psx/ps2/ps3 have all been hyped as much more than they eventually wound up being).
So, would we prefer the industry with one big shark in the water (Sony) looking to kill off the other fish when they aren't looking, another big fish (Microsoft) trying to take it's spot, and a crafty fish (Nintendo) keeping itself alive and well... or would we rather have a fish tank where one fat fish is trying to hoard all the food (Nintendo) with a 2 headed fish fighting over the food it has managed to get (Sega)?
If sony didn't try to pull a fat one with the SNES add on...
WHOA WHOA WHOA Back that truck up.
Nintendo screwed Sony. Nintendo agreed to a contract, then later decided that the contract wasn't acceptable, and then let Sony believe they were still in league until they announced that they were going to work on the SNESCD with Phillips at the CES... with Sony still showing some prototype hardware of their version of the SNES Play Station.
Edit: Then, if I remember correctly, Nintendo even tried to sue to stop the release of the PlayStation.
Part of that was Sony's fault too though. Nintendo wanted them use cases of some sort around the CD's, so they could stick a chip in there and keep piracy down. It was a holdover from their old experience with carts. Sony used a software route instead and designed the CD addon without cases. Nintendo retaliated by fucking them over in public at E3. At least that's the story I've heard. Then Sony released the PS1. Piracy was rampant and probably played some part in its success.
Regardless, I think if they hadn't released it, the gaming world would be vastly different. Sega would probably still not be making consoles. Nintendo probably would have gone the CD route with the 64, but dev tools would probably still be shit, and licensing costs would probably be sky high today.
I do take issue with the idea that console gaming was niche in the US until the PS1 was released though. I think the growth of console gaming had more to do with kids growing up with video games than it had to do with consoles appealing to them more. The move to more cinematic games slightly helped, but that movement was in place long before the PS1 came to play. I would guess retaining those gamers was more a function of games like Mortal Kombat though, which were violent enough to keep older gamers interested.
Sony and Nintendo release the SNESCD add on.
This then competes with the SEGACD add on.
Add ons are always rubbish at penetrating market share - and both make little impact, and simply chug on. Square consider FFVII but never finish it in time for the SNES add on, and so transfer the game to 'next gen' platforms. The extended length of this gen hurts Gameboy progress developement but sells as well as ever. The Gamegear is still a huge failure because it needs to be plugged into the wall.
The Saturn and Nintendo CD4 (ho ho) (sans analogue stick) launch against each other about equal power graphically - sony and nintendo fight over the philosophy of games, no loading, fun, bright, happy - vs sonys 90s cool, fmvs and style. Leads to more fractured games. But wider variety leads to larger market share.
FFVII is released for the NCD4 - doesn't make the same mass media break through in the west as before - more true to it roots, its still a great success. Hell it could even go multiformat.
SEGAs flapping leads to them fucking up a little less than before as have less competition. In europe SEGA maintains the stranglehold on the market and pushes into America a lot, whilst the Nintendo/Sony stregthen in Japan.
This East/West split becomes more apparent and SEGA start working with Microsoft (as before) in secret for the next console (Dreamcast).
The Dreamcast (with WinCE on line capabilities) launches again the PlayCube (ho ho!) strenthening the East/West split further. There are large 'subcultures' of 'proper' 'gamers' who perfer the 'more exotic' 'foriegn' consoles but on the whole the two markets seperate further. With 'western style' games going to SEGA and 'eastern' to Nintendo. Because of this focus - it's sega, who have less graphical might who push controller developement with analogue sticks etc. As the current gameboy color/advance is less powerful than in our timeline the low power Dreamcast VMU is far more successful - as is the dreamcasts on line service. With a lot of games and devices backing it.
Because SEGA aren't going bust, Microsoft stick with them rather than go their own way so we have the two super powers streghtening against each other.
The DreamBox (ho ho) launches against the WiiPlay (ho ho) . The Dreambox has a strong online service, primarly western style games (the innovative weird sega of old is limited to a few weird developement houses) and crucially to battle the success of the iPod the VMU2 is a replacable flashmemory player that syncs to the brand new harddrive in the Dreambox. Syncs with your music, and with later versions video (the VMU updates it's line like the iPod - whilst the DreamBox stays constant). Obviously the iPod is still a huge success that dwarfs the VMU II but it does weaken the NSP (PSP in our timestream)
.
Although the WiiPlay has limited online capabilities it doesn't compare to the DreamBox and connectivity to the NSP is limited too. The strong game developement, and wide variety of genres keeps the WiiPlay a formidable opponent. And the only way to play JRPGs and the beautifully innovative 'crazy' japanese games.
And then we are at today. Almost a generation behind development wise - which puts the next gen more insync with HD televisions, and so the chaos of this generation is limited somewhat. The Dream 3 launches in 2008 along with the Vune a touch screen (another first) PDA/MP3/VIDEO player that also syncs to vista. The WiiPlay 360 (Don't want to say 2 - ho ho) launches with a simlar package.
Ironically without trying so hard as here, in this timeline consoles do become home (and away) entertianment centres. DVD players, Hifi music docks and so on.
Are we are in the wrong time line!?
And when do the nues start plying and the aliens invade? Very good job BTW.
SolidusRaccoon on
Yes, sir. I agree completely. It takes a well-balanced individual... such as yourself to rule the world. No, sir. No one knows that you were the third one... Solidus. ...What should I do about the woman? Yes sir. I'll keep her under surveillance. Yes. Thank you. Good-bye...... Mr. President.
I think that one of the biggest reasons that Microsoft got into console gaming was them seeing the ease of development that porting a title from the PC to the DC using Windows CE was. Sure, many of the CE ports paled in comparison to stuff developed natively for the DC (just take a look at the rollercoaster framerate of Sega Rally 2 for instance, compared to the steady framerate of Daytona USA), but it was still a far cry from custom developing for the PS1 or N64, which didn't see many "faithful" PC ports because the process was so damn complicated for those two systems.
So, Bill Gates probably sat in his glorious one of a kind chair made of the untained fur of virgin endangered snow leapoards and wondered how easy it would be to develop for a game console that ran and supported DirectX...
EDIT: Also, Sega was founded in the eighties and was one management fuckup after another. Nintendo was founded in 1889 and has managed to be run by competent people pretty much the whole time.
Actually Sega was founded in the 1940's or so. They didn't really start messing up badly until much later after that point (late 90's). I'd hardly call a business that's been around 50 years or so as one fuckup after another.
Cool - got some really interesting what-if predictions here. Good job, Lave and Eclecticgroove.
There was an interview of sorts that said Yamauchi had been considering a new radical method of input for new generation of consoles - was it because of the N64's or the Gamecube's result at the time?
Basically, where the new input method becomes the DS (the experiment) and Wii (the real deal).
If the Playstation was the next Nintendo system, and they hit it huge, I doubt we would have the Wii. SEGA MAY still have been around, and I imagine the Saturn would have done much better while Nintendo worked on releasing the Playtendo.
If the Playstation was the next Nintendo system, and they hit it huge, I doubt we would have the Wii. SEGA MAY still have been around, and I imagine the Saturn would have done much better while Nintendo worked on releasing the Playtendo.
Atari, NEC, and the 3DO would still have failed.
And Microsoft would still have looked at the blooming console market as a breeding ground for a DirectX competitor and released the Xbox.
If the Playstation was the next Nintendo system, and they hit it huge, I doubt we would have the Wii. SEGA MAY still have been around, and I imagine the Saturn would have done much better while Nintendo worked on releasing the Playtendo.
Atari, NEC, and the 3DO would still have failed.
Well that's the interesting part... what would the final spec's on the SnesCD have been? But the other key factor in the Psx success story was sony themselves, they waved the money and the freedom they could offer under the noses of dev's that were long under the crushing thumb of Nintendo. And for those who would have beenw ith Sega, they offered a more solidified environment with less "No, we are going to do it this way!" back and forth bickering in addition to a smoother and easier dev cycle.
You are correct on the th last statement, Atari, NEC, and 3DO were all flatlining or on critical life support before Sony could even make the smallest ripple in the console waters.
The big question would have been: Could Sega provide enough of a unified front with their internal bickering, and could Nintendo ease up on the draconian rule?
The answers to those questions would shape the entire hypothetical market without Sony.
Given the freedom to create, even on a platform that is a bear to program for, combined with cheaper license arrangements would see the lions share of companies on Sega's side.
On the flip side, no company would put more than a tentative amount of money into a sinking ship, so if Sega was basically advertising to the world "we're fucking ourselves over and taking anyone on board with us" then they would get little to no support.
After the release of the saturn, the death of the 32x, and the retirement of the Genesis and Sega CD, it's quite possible Sega would have "settled down" and become a more competent and healthy company.
In the "real" world we know they got battered down by Sony. Many companies assumed Nintendo was going to come out and spank Sega and Sony both, and threw their support in with Sony "in the meantime" while they waited on Nintendo... and why not? the PSX was easier to create games for, was out around the same time as the Saturn, and Sony not only HADN'T Screwed over people with their BS recently, but was actually offering rather nice incentives to create games for them. By the time Nintendo finally made their move on the field, they had already lost. Sega had failed to bring in the support they needed, and Sony had snatched up all available, they had even managed to pull away support from one of Nintendo's biggest guns (Square) and secure a game that really pushed the playstation line forward into the dominant powerhouse they are now (FF7).
Say what you want about FF, love it or hate it... or both, it's big, and back then it secured Sony firmly in place.
I think that still would have been the case sans Sony as well.
Where would ff7 go?
Would it have stayed with Nintendo, or would they have gone for greener pastures with Sega? Answer that little question and you would go a LONG way with planning what might have happened had things gone differently.
If the Playstation was the next Nintendo system, and they hit it huge, I doubt we would have the Wii. SEGA MAY still have been around, and I imagine the Saturn would have done much better while Nintendo worked on releasing the Playtendo.
Atari, NEC, and the 3DO would still have failed.
And Microsoft would still have looked at the blooming console market as a breeding ground for a DirectX competitor and released the Xbox.
Maybe... I'll agree with you however and say "almost definately". MS has always been looking for new areas to branch into... a company that does not move forward does not increase revinue, and one that does not increase revinue fails.
But the biggest question as far as MS, or any similar company goes is not if they would have entered the console market, but when and how?
Had MS entered it prior to Sony... what would have happened? Or if they had just entered now with the current lineup, or in the next generation, etc... Lots of things are important to concider, and can change the entire layout of a picture with but one small change. What's an inch off center right here could be hundreds of feet off target a mile or so down the road.
Posts
History doesn't repeat itself, though, otherwise the market would have re-imploded in 1994 the same way it did in '84.
EDIT: Also, Sega was founded in the eighties and was one management fuckup after another. Nintendo was founded in 1889 and has managed to be run by competent people pretty much the whole time.
I hate to say it, but I have to agree on the note of Sony's rise making the market as popular as it is today(and RPGs by association, no less, thanks to VII's success), I just wish that companies like Sega hadn't needed to be sacrifices for it to happen.
It's not like i've cried myself to sleep about what SEGA did to itself, and what it could have been or anything.
And anyone who says I have is lying.
Scholar and a Gentleman? Critical of bad science and religion? Skeptobot - Is for you!!
Nintendo have Shigeru Miyamoto, a man who has been lusting after 3D environments in his games since the eight-bit days. For example, the first Zelda game was top-down. The second was side-on, and then it reverted to top down for the third. You could almost feel Miyamoto reaching for that elusive 3D reality. Nintendo would have come out with whatever console was in place of the N64 with a console that had a controller with an analogue stick.
If Sega had played up the 2D capabilities of the Saturn and then had to contend with the N64, Sega itself may very well have gone under. Everyone looked forward to 3D back in those days, after so many years of primarily 2D only games. I'd just like to emphasise the success of the N64 in reality - it didn't have Final Fantasy, it didn't have CD's, and it didn't have the third-parties, and it released late when the PSX had already sold millions. Despite all this, it was a resounding success. Returning now to the timeline where there was no PlayStaton - N64 would have ruled supreme over the Saturn, much as the PS2 did over everything else.
I think Nintendo and Sony would have split anyway, due to their radically different attitudes to gaming and the hardware that pushes it. Perhaps Sony might not have been as successful straight away, or maybe they would have been even more successful with a powerful, "hip" CD or DVD-based console that is released at the end of half a decade of Nintendo dominance with highly-priced cartridge games. Don't get me wrong, I love Nintendo and I despise Sony for their business manner, but Nintendo would likely have remained with this business model until, like in this timeline, they would have been forced onto disc-based media.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
If Nintendo went on and used the Sony CD add on, one would assume Sega would have designed the Saturn in the same way (as the Nintendo CD add on would have had same/similar 3D capabilities as the origional PSX).
The Saturn probably owuld NOT have been released early, as it would not be trying to beat the PSX to market. So they would not have made that flawed choice that was yet another bad decision in their current past.
Sega made a number of bad choices, I wouldn't put the Sega CD on the list... although the design of it needed more work, so I'd say the concept was fine even if the execution was lacking.
Their ads were also not a problem as some mentioned here, most I knew loved them... they got a kick out of them, and were far from being "all talk", as there were many ads that did show gameplay, etc.
Their real problems started with the 32x and the Saturn development. And it wasn't the designs per se that were the problem. Sega was rife with internal bickering and big ego's. Read some of thesonicretards posts in the "what you didn't know about the games you play" topic to show what kind of damage this did (sonic extreme, we hardly knew you).
The 32x might have been an ok idea with the design flaws of the Sega CD had the Saturn been several years away... but it was released and promptly abandoned as the Saturn was rushed to market.
The Saturn itself was a fine system, it survived quite some time in Japan but was trounced by Sony's easier to work with PSX. Also not forgetting how attractive Sony made working with them.
Sony out of the picture? There would have only been Nintendo to work with. Now... it would depend on the exact capabilities of the Nintendo Add on, or if it even existed at all. If it existed and was as powerfull as the PSX was, then Sega would have had a battle to get the games on the Saturn as opposed to the SnesCD. If it was not very powerfull and/or a pain to actually use... then it might have gone easier for them, as the devs looking forward to the N64 would have eventually become dissalusioned by the Cart format and the delays in its release.
End of it all? Either Sega was the clear winner or were not too far behind the N64/Snescd. Wildcards? Sega themselves... they could easilly destroy their own chances even without Sony coming in and snatching up the devs and afterwards the market... so they could have fallen far far behind Nintendo here even without Sony.
Last gen would have been the tricky one. The Dreamcast would not exist as it stands now... it's design was on the part of a humbled and somewhat desperate Sega... so without that stance, it's hard to say what would have come out of them, and when.
The PS2 would obviously not exist, the Gamecube would also be radically different as they would not be bumping heads with Sony... the gameboy line would have most likely continued much as it did... and The Xbox? Hard to say, would MS have still entered the console arena without Sony? And even if they did, would it have been at the same time?
After the Saturn/PSX/n64 era it gets impossible to predict IMHO, as the entire face of the industry would be radically different. If Nintendo continued its heavy handed tactics and Sega continued its internal bickering... both would still have lasted, but if MS threw their hat in the ring around the time of the Xbox still, they would essentially fill the role Sony did, only one generation later... and who knows how they would have gone about things in that position.
Would we be better off? I don't know. It's not that Sony hasn't made any mistakes till recently. The PS2 was a bear to dev on, when Sony could have designed something easier to work with. They had some pretty low policy issues on the PSX as far as non 3d games went, as well as some of the ways they worked on deals for exclusive or limited exclusive games. And of course their "supply" issues on launch for both the PS2 and PS3. And of course lets not forget their classic overselling of their products capabilities (psx/ps2/ps3 have all been hyped as much more than they eventually wound up being).
So, would we prefer the industry with one big shark in the water (Sony) looking to kill off the other fish when they aren't looking, another big fish (Microsoft) trying to take it's spot, and a crafty fish (Nintendo) keeping itself alive and well... or would we rather have a fish tank where one fat fish is trying to hoard all the food (Nintendo) with a 2 headed fish fighting over the food it has managed to get (Sega)?
Regardless, I think if they hadn't released it, the gaming world would be vastly different. Sega would probably still not be making consoles. Nintendo probably would have gone the CD route with the 64, but dev tools would probably still be shit, and licensing costs would probably be sky high today.
I do take issue with the idea that console gaming was niche in the US until the PS1 was released though. I think the growth of console gaming had more to do with kids growing up with video games than it had to do with consoles appealing to them more. The move to more cinematic games slightly helped, but that movement was in place long before the PS1 came to play. I would guess retaining those gamers was more a function of games like Mortal Kombat though, which were violent enough to keep older gamers interested.
And when do the nues start plying and the aliens invade? Very good job BTW.
So, Bill Gates probably sat in his glorious one of a kind chair made of the untained fur of virgin endangered snow leapoards and wondered how easy it would be to develop for a game console that ran and supported DirectX...
And in that instant the DirectX Box was born.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Actually Sega was founded in the 1940's or so. They didn't really start messing up badly until much later after that point (late 90's). I'd hardly call a business that's been around 50 years or so as one fuckup after another.
There was an interview of sorts that said Yamauchi had been considering a new radical method of input for new generation of consoles - was it because of the N64's or the Gamecube's result at the time?
Basically, where the new input method becomes the DS (the experiment) and Wii (the real deal).
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
http://gameads.gamepressure.com/tv_game_commercial.asp?ID=677
I love that commercial. But what can I say?
The PS1 only has 1 processor.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
If the Playstation was the next Nintendo system, and they hit it huge, I doubt we would have the Wii. SEGA MAY still have been around, and I imagine the Saturn would have done much better while Nintendo worked on releasing the Playtendo.
Atari, NEC, and the 3DO would still have failed.
And Microsoft would still have looked at the blooming console market as a breeding ground for a DirectX competitor and released the Xbox.
Well that's the interesting part... what would the final spec's on the SnesCD have been? But the other key factor in the Psx success story was sony themselves, they waved the money and the freedom they could offer under the noses of dev's that were long under the crushing thumb of Nintendo. And for those who would have beenw ith Sega, they offered a more solidified environment with less "No, we are going to do it this way!" back and forth bickering in addition to a smoother and easier dev cycle.
You are correct on the th last statement, Atari, NEC, and 3DO were all flatlining or on critical life support before Sony could even make the smallest ripple in the console waters.
The big question would have been: Could Sega provide enough of a unified front with their internal bickering, and could Nintendo ease up on the draconian rule?
The answers to those questions would shape the entire hypothetical market without Sony.
Given the freedom to create, even on a platform that is a bear to program for, combined with cheaper license arrangements would see the lions share of companies on Sega's side.
On the flip side, no company would put more than a tentative amount of money into a sinking ship, so if Sega was basically advertising to the world "we're fucking ourselves over and taking anyone on board with us" then they would get little to no support.
After the release of the saturn, the death of the 32x, and the retirement of the Genesis and Sega CD, it's quite possible Sega would have "settled down" and become a more competent and healthy company.
In the "real" world we know they got battered down by Sony. Many companies assumed Nintendo was going to come out and spank Sega and Sony both, and threw their support in with Sony "in the meantime" while they waited on Nintendo... and why not? the PSX was easier to create games for, was out around the same time as the Saturn, and Sony not only HADN'T Screwed over people with their BS recently, but was actually offering rather nice incentives to create games for them. By the time Nintendo finally made their move on the field, they had already lost. Sega had failed to bring in the support they needed, and Sony had snatched up all available, they had even managed to pull away support from one of Nintendo's biggest guns (Square) and secure a game that really pushed the playstation line forward into the dominant powerhouse they are now (FF7).
Say what you want about FF, love it or hate it... or both, it's big, and back then it secured Sony firmly in place.
I think that still would have been the case sans Sony as well.
Where would ff7 go?
Would it have stayed with Nintendo, or would they have gone for greener pastures with Sega? Answer that little question and you would go a LONG way with planning what might have happened had things gone differently.
Maybe... I'll agree with you however and say "almost definately". MS has always been looking for new areas to branch into... a company that does not move forward does not increase revinue, and one that does not increase revinue fails.
But the biggest question as far as MS, or any similar company goes is not if they would have entered the console market, but when and how?
Had MS entered it prior to Sony... what would have happened? Or if they had just entered now with the current lineup, or in the next generation, etc... Lots of things are important to concider, and can change the entire layout of a picture with but one small change. What's an inch off center right here could be hundreds of feet off target a mile or so down the road.