I guess my age is apparent. The 3 I missed were from 2011, 2012, and 2013. Never even heard of the Vita, and I think the only time I heard of Wii U was the last time I took this quiz- but I had forgotten about it since then.
The Vita's a good little handheld and it's too bad it never went anywhere outside of Japan. Wonderful way to play PSX/PSP titles and ports of graphically simple PS2-4 titles, and it streams from PS4.
My age is apparent, too. First time I took it I got three - Atari, Sega, and Nintendo. My children grew up and bought their own after those. (I should have gotten Wii, though. Our daughter bought us a Wii which is only used for Wii Fit or when the grandkids visit.)
I got all PSP and TurboGrafx-16. I have no idea what TurboGrafx-16 and for PSP I kept on typing Playstation portable and never got the idea to write PSP.
@DeadJuice6M, the GameBoy Color was an evolutionary adaptation of the GameBoy, and maintained backwards (and for the most part, forward) compatibility with the original, meaning that the same game cartridges could be used in both. The GBA, on the other hand, was as different from them as SNES was from the original NES, both in capacity and processing, and truly was a separate console.
As enormously successful as the original GameBoy was there was big incentive for Nintendo to make future GameBoys backwards-compatible. The GameBoy Color was 99 or 100% backward compatible, and wasn't that big of a depature. Same goes for the Game Boy Pocket. Further, the original GameBoy could play many games that were made for the GameBoy Color (but not all). The systems were very close in design. Nintendo wanted to tweak it a little bit, add color to the boring green screen since all the other handhelds had color, but they didn't want to make any drastic changes because the original so sooooo successful and they did not want to abandon that market.
The GameBoy Advance was also backward compatible and could play many GB and GB Color games, but it was much much more powerful than the original GameBoy. The GB and GB Color could not play ANY GB Advance games. It was a significant departure in hardware, and therefore classified as a separate system.
And what exactly is the "reliable source" that you are referring to? Your say so? If you had played them all you would clearly know that the only difference between game boy and GBC is the color. Everything else is almost exactly the same.
The difference is if you put a GBA cartridge into a Game Boy it won't work. If you put a Game Boy Color cartridge into a Game Boy then it will work (albeit in black and white).
If you're going to accept Mega Drive then maybe you should also accept Famicon and Super Famicon for NES and SNES? Those were the original Japanese names.
Also, which Atari is that? Is it all Atari systems lumped together? I think the 2600 sold by far the best, but there was also the 7800, 5200, XE, and several systems before the 2600 that were not as popular.
I got it but that surprised me, too. I thought that thing barely sold at all. I would have guessed Neo Geo or Jaguar before TurboGrafx. Though the TurboExpress was awesome for the day... a 16-bit handheld released at around the same time as the original GameBoy. It blew the GB away in terms of technology (as did the Lynx and GameGear) but never really caught on.
Still, I never knew anyone who had either Turbo system. I played it only when I went to Toys R Us.
before any ubernerds try to correct me I'm aware that the TurboGraphx had two 8-bit processors running in parallel and was therefore technically not a true 16-bit system, even though it was advertised as such.
Guess I was right to pass on getting a Colecovision in 1982. Great graphics for the time, but the unit and every cartridge for it were obsolete within a couple years.
For anyone interested, there's a book called Console Wars, and it really details the battle between Sega and Nintendo during the mid 80s-early 90s. It really details what happened, and it seems a number of commentors have misinformed ideas of what happened between the Master System, NES, Genesis, SNES, Saturn, and Playstation.
Like what? I used to work in the industry, have gone to CES and E3, read all the dailies back then and knew pretty much everything about whatever was going on. What information here do you think was wrong?
Reading the synopsis on Amazon, it's obvious the book is trying very hard to tell a certain type of story. One where Sega is the good guy and "scrappy underdog" and Nintendo is the bad guy, and one where Sega revolutionized the industry and won the battle. None of that is really true so I would guess that the book sacrifices truth for the sake of telling the story that it wants to tell, and maybe it's the people who have read it that have been misled.
Nintendo undoubtedly dominated the entire video game market, controlling about 90% of it. With good marketing, Sega eventually took over 50% during the time of the Genesis. Internal conflict between Sega of Japan and Sega of America led to the failure of the Saturn and Dreamcast. The book ends as the Saturn is released. It follows the story of the CEO of SOA. It had nothing to do with rushing consoles, SOJ just didn't cooperate. SOA attempted to work WITH Sony on the Playstation, but that was shut down by SOJ. It wasn't really the consoles themselves that were the problem.
I read through many of the reviews and it seems the author of the book spoke with nobody really at Nintendo, and spent a lot of time talking to the marketing guys at Sega of America. He also didn't speak to anyone at Sega of Japan. He makes up a whole bunch of crap to try and make the book read like a movie script because apparently he's trying to push it to be made into a movie, and therefore is also, as I guessed already, pushing hard for the narrative that I described above. So the book ends up with a myopic, heavily distorted, and very inaccurate and one-sided account of things. The Genesis dominated the 16-bit market for a long time because it made it there first. The SNES had much better technology, better games, more innovation, and more 3rd party support. Genesis was able to hold on for a while because of Sega's very slick, clever, and often downright dishonest marketing... but eventually they lost the 16-bit wars.
They got to market second with the SMS and even though it was technologically superior, it lost to the NES. So they were sure to get to the 16-bit market first, but they failed to realize the true reason the NES prevailed was because of better games and support. The Genesis had a TWO YEAR headstart on the SNES. Of course they were winning for a while. But they still had worse games. Eventually they lost due to this, not because of Sega of Japan. They learned the wrong lessons and doubled down on their strategy of being first to market with Dreamcast and Saturn... getting in even sooner, but even more unprepared and with less 3rd party support. Exactly. As. I. Said. Sega rushed Saturn out the door so they could beat Playstation (and did so just barely, by a month), and were 2 years ahead of Nintendo again. But the system wasn't ready, the games weren't ready. Saturn died and Sega abandoned it just 4 years after release, pissing off their fans.
So what did they do? Make the same mistake again, only worse. They pushed Dreamcast out as soon as they could, years ahead of the PS2, and this time THREE years before the GameCube. They could do this because they had so quickly scrapped the Saturn that nothing was stopping them from refocusing. But this is obviously not how you build a loyal fanbase. Saturn never caught on, in part because it was too soon on the heels of the previous generation of systems, and again because it lacked adequate support. Then of course it was absolutely crushed by the PS2 when it came out.
If the book fails to mention this very important aspect of how things unfolded, then it is a poor representation indeed. From all the reviews I read it seems like it's really kind of just an ego piece about Tom Kalinske at SOA Marketing. If an author relies too much on testimony from one person and those close to him he's going to end up with an incomplete picture.
and re: Sony, originally the PlayStation was going to be the SNES CD-ROM system, and Sony was working with Nintendo on that. But that was also shut down. Maybe Sony just doesn't play well with others, or maybe they realized that they could do better on their own, which eventually of course they did. If the author only talked to SOJ guys then you'd probably be saying it was the fault of SOA that the Saturn failed...
The partnership between Nintendo and Sony fell through because Nintendo opted for a different partner, Philips Electronics. Sega just flat out declined Sony. Games were just as good on the Genesis as they were on SNES. Sonic was the flagship game, and as they dubbed it, the "Mario-killer". Sega targeted an older audience, marketing Sonic as cool. Fast forward to the end of the Genesis lifespan, and you can look at the first Mortal Kombat, released for both SNES and Genesis, but Nintendo heavily censored their version. For a few years the Genesis dominated the top 10 games sold, holding 5-7 of the top 10. The games on the Genesis were good enough to compete with those made by Nintendo.
The book doesn't mention much about the Saturn and it's eventual failure because the book ends slightly before that, shortly after the weak release. It's hard to argue that it's an ego piece for Tom Kalinske, because the work he did, even before Sega, is just as good. Formerly high ranking at Mattel (eventually CEO), he brought Barbie to prominence. Regardless of what the book says, he does know how to turn a product into a dominant one, as long as the product itself is good enough. Clever marketing was part of that, but it also brought forward many things that are taken for granted in the game industry today. Sonic 2 was the first game to be released on a set date worldwide - Sonic 2sday. Except in Japan, where SOJ opted to release it on the Saturday prior. Sega created the first ratings board (in coordination with Nintendo, but Nintendo was originally against it).
There's no denying that SOJ takes much of the blame for Sega's collapse. Japan believed that no one outside Japan could make good video games - and that went for all companies, not just Sega. But since we're on the topic of Sega, SOJ was the creator, all SOA was was the marketer for the USA. Consoles, characters, and their games were developed in Japan. Early on, SOJ was slightly more open to making changes for SOA, but as SOA became more prominent, taking over the American market (the Japanese market still belonged totally to Nintendo, about 85%-15%) SOJ become less cooperative. SOA still had to market the stuff, but had less of a say in what that stuff was going to be.
The author did speak to far more than just Kalinske and a select few SOA members. That was the viewpoint of the story, so yes, I would expect a lot of dialogue between Harris (the author) and Kalinske, Nilsen, and Fornasier. However, there was a number of others, including many from Nintendo - Howard Lincoln, Peter Main, Bill White, Howard Phillips, Olaf Olafsson (Sony), Steve Race (Sony). There are some chapters of the book where it is told from a different view - Nintendo at times, where it's evident that that information could only have come from one of the Nintendo people. On the flaps of the cover, it says over 200 interviews with former Nintendo and Sega employees. He did his research, no doubt about that.
Little of this response is accurate. Check out reviews that were written at the time by multi-system magazines. Compare scores for Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario World, and Mario 64 to Sonic, Sonic 2, or Sonic Adventure. Compare scores for Zelda: A Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, or Final Fantasy 3 (FFVI) to any Phantasy Star game. Compare MK2 or SF2 Turbo on SNES to MK2 or SF2 CE on Genesis. Sega's games were *not* just as good. They were worse. Yes, Sega had a different, less honest, probably superior approach to their advertising. I mentioned this. It's the only thing along with the 2 year head start that let them hang on as long as they did. Because the hardware and software were straight up worse. And it seems pretty obvious my description of the book as a Kalinske ego piece is accurate since it apparently turned you into a fanboy of his. The Genesis was failing in the US and had failed in Japan. It makes sense that SOJ wanted to move on. But they learned the wrong lessons.
I think my original series of comments that Symmetrik was replying to is lost now. Short version: Someone was asking what the Dreamcast and Saturn were, I think, and I explained everything that I went over again above.
I don't think this falls under "being silly" since "famicom" was the original name for it? Not to mention more than 1/3 of them ever sold were sold as "famicom"s (Japan) and perhaps even more.
...or maybe I'm biased since I'm from SK and the name more common here is famicom not nes
The Nintendo SP (GameBoy Advance SP) was incredibly popular. You cannot convince me that was not a top selling system. It introduced us to to the idea of a DS!
Wow... I thought I would do better. 15/26 I forgot about gameboy series and I tried "Play Station Handheld" couldnt think of the title for the life of me. I forgot about super nintendo and N64 as well... all the others I missed I wouldn't have gotten. I'm disappointed in myself.
Actually, the Switch has now had the best worldwide first year sales in the history of gaming consoles. I can't find figures for the full first year, but given we've just gotten there, they are probably still coming. Nonetheless, the first 9 months (14.7 million) already saw it pass the first year sales of the Wii (13.7 million) and the PS4 (13.5 million). It also means it took less than 9 months to beat lifetime sales of the Wii U.
I am not much of a game player, but I had a friend who had a Turbo Graphics. I remember the only good game was a one player game, sort of like Mario but with a caveman characater. I had no idea it was so rare.
I think that going forward consoles will sell less and less well as the world turns more and more to mobile gaming and other forms of entertainment like tablet computers and smart TVs, in addition to the fact that entertainment markets continue to get increasingly fractured and niche. I doubt that any future system will ever outsell the PS2.
Interesting. I had the perception that the opposite was true, with console gaming becoming more popular, especially due to the pandemic when everyone was rushing to buy one. Now that I think about it though, I guess mobile gaming definitely has an advantage in affordability and access though, especially in developing countries.
Regardless of what's more popular in the next few years, I'm guessing that several decades from now, everything will be VR.
No but it was called the PC-Engine in Japan and Europe. There was also a handheld version called the Turbo Express, or PC Engine GT. It sold better in Japan than anywhere else.
The PC Engine GT was a very expensive console. It was called "the rolls royce of the handheld consoles". Actually, with it, we were able to play to all the game of the classic PC Engine, but without a TV. A bit like with the Sega Nomad for the Genesis.
Yeah.. but damn.. it came out only a year after the original Nintendo Game Boy and it SO completely outclassed the Game Boy in terms of graphics and technology. I really wanted one. But $250 for a handheld console was a lot in 1990.
It might be a good idea to update this quiz sometime in the near future. Nintendo Switch sales have absolutely exploded since the beginning of the pandemic, and the Wikipedia article used as the source said they've sold 84.6 million copies now--just below PS3.
Just missed out on the Game Gear. Can't say I'm surprised or disappointed. I think I've played a grand total of 1 Game Gear game emulated and never seen the console.
Come now, some of us here had NES and one of those hand held little boxes with all included (screen, joystick..) & just the big stupid monkey throwing barrels. I even forget what that thing was called. You're spring chicken in comparison.
I remember when the PSX was being advertised for pre-release in Game and HMV here in the UK. It looked so modern and fancy, thought it was going to be the biggest thing ever... It wasn't...
Rip the Turbografix 16, no joke, I wrote Coleco, Intelivision, Nomad, Playdate, Pippin, Sg1000, and Commodore 64. Had I had more time, I feel like I would have said Lynx before it.
Can be had cheap nowadays, and I recommend it.
The GameBoy Advance was also backward compatible and could play many GB and GB Color games, but it was much much more powerful than the original GameBoy. The GB and GB Color could not play ANY GB Advance games. It was a significant departure in hardware, and therefore classified as a separate system.
Here I am, commenting on a six-year-old comment... I really must have better things to do
Also, which Atari is that? Is it all Atari systems lumped together? I think the 2600 sold by far the best, but there was also the 7800, 5200, XE, and several systems before the 2600 that were not as popular.
Still, I never knew anyone who had either Turbo system. I played it only when I went to Toys R Us.
If the book fails to mention this very important aspect of how things unfolded, then it is a poor representation indeed. From all the reviews I read it seems like it's really kind of just an ego piece about Tom Kalinske at SOA Marketing. If an author relies too much on testimony from one person and those close to him he's going to end up with an incomplete picture.
It was getting hard, but in the end I remembered TurboGrafx-16 as one if my random guesses.
<(^_^)>
...or maybe I'm biased since I'm from SK and the name more common here is famicom not nes
Regardless of what's more popular in the next few years, I'm guessing that several decades from now, everything will be VR.
for 5 answers