Why did Snes sold more games than Genesis?

[A Black Falcon]

Well, I really paraphrased the crap out of it. It was more along the lines of that Sonic rejuvenated system sales. We don't have a month to month resolution here, so we don't know if the sales were really lagging/had a sharp drop off until Sonic was released, etc.

Some interesting things; the famicom took a drastic drop in sales for 87 (the year the PCE was released) and kind of slow decay from there. The introduction of the SFC and both decline of the MD and PCE forever onwards. While SFC took a nose drive in '94 and kept on diving. That slight sustain for MD for 1994 is strange. What softs could have produced that? The introduction of the n64 and the drop in saturn sales afterwards.

Also, I graphed the sales data from the other pic to see how it would look:

The one problem with this chart is that the TG16/CD numbers include all HuCard and CD systems, while the Genesis number doesn't include the Sega CD or 32X, right? Or does it? 32X sales were terrible, but the SCD did sell 400k, apparently.

Phantasy Star IV released in Japan in December '93. That has to have helped FY94. Also, great job adding the TG16 to that chart, Tomaitheus! It's helpful. As for the Famicom, yeah, in Japan it peaked from '84 to '87. Then in the US it peaked from '87 to '90, and in Europe it peaked in the early '90s -- so it had this interesting rolling peak over the course of eight or nine years. Unique! We know this from the sales numbers Nintendo has released.

In Japan of course, the PC Engine was a major contributor to the FC's decline -- many people wanted the newer, better system.

Well, from Sega you had Sonic 3, Bare Knuckle III and Virtua Racing been released in the beginning of the year and Sonic & Knuckles in the end.
From Konami you had Vampire Killer and Contra: The Hard Corps.
From Capcom you had Super Street Fighter II.
From Treasure you had Dynamite Headdy and Yuu Yuu Hakusho: Makyo Toitsusen.

There also some other carts released that year which seem to be common on JP ebay sellers (if that's anything to go by) like Fatal Fury 2 and Samurai Shodown.

That's a pretty strong line-up and you still had Langrisser II, Monster World IV and The Story of Thor for the RPG fans.

According to the release dates I've seen, they seem to have been scheduled in a way that you always had at least one great game/big name per month in that year in Japan.

Remember that a fiscal year starts in the spring or summer of the previous year, and ends in the spring or summer of the listed year, depending on when a company issues its reports. Many of those games released in FY95, and didn't help the MD at all, given how sales fell badly that year (understandable, with how Sega was shifting focus). The whole concept makes absolutely no sense -- why in the world does a fiscal year for "1994" actually cover April 1993 to March 1994 -- but that's how it is, weirdly enough.

[Folco]

But yeah, it is interesting that they'd say that Sonic is what pushed it in Japan, when their highest-selling year was FY91, which surely ended BEFORE Sonic's release... in the West that was absolutely true, but as we all know for some reason Sonic wasn't a hit in Japan.

If Sonic 1 sold in the same league as Sonic 2 and 3 in Japan then yeah it didn't do big numbers, at least if the figures I've seen are accurate.

[Barone]

Remember that a fiscal year starts in the spring or summer of the previous year, and ends in the spring or summer of the listed year, depending on when a company issues its reports. Many of those games released in FY95, and didn't help the MD at all, given how sales fell badly that year (understandable, with how Sega was shifting focus). The whole concept makes absolutely no sense -- why in the world does a fiscal year for "1994" actually cover April 1993 to March 1994 -- but that's how it is, weirdly enough.

Thanks for pointing me that, I had totally forgotten.
It doesn't make much sense to me as well. And when you guys talk about spring, summer, etc it's like Greek to me since here we rarely use those seasons to anything else but agriculture or climatic discussions, and they are the opposite ones in this side of Equator for a given period of the year; hehe.

[Barone]

The only thing that is true by all accounts is that Sega never targeted dominance in any console generation, and rarely if ever used similar tactics as Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, EA or Activision have_consistenly used against other game developers.

I think I'll just drop this link here:
http://newsok.com/video-game-makers-...rticle/2364929
http://newsok.com/video-game-makers-...364929/?page=2

*cough* *cough*

"RazorSoft has been trying to protect its continued right to develop, publish and manufacture games for the mature, older consumer," said Michael Brazier, RazorSoft director of marketing.

"We finally reached a point where we could no longer endure Sega's business conduct and their oppressive and discriminatory business tactics," Brazier said.

oppressive and discriminatory business tactics

oppressive and discriminatory business tactics

oppressive and discriminatory

oppressive and discriminatory

oppressive

oppressive

...

In a prepared statement, Sega said: "Sega has established the Sega Genesis system as a leader in the U.S. home video game marketplace. In order to protect the strong brand identification and equity that we have developed in the Sega and Sega Genesis trademarks, it was necessary to bring this action at this time. "

I challenge anyone to find a single quote from any Sega executive or developer that implies they intended to be the only, or the dominant sales wise, game or console developer at any given time. Sega and Nintendo were very different companies, in game development, in console development, in marketing and PR, and especially in their tendency to using anti-competitive business tactics.

[stu]

I think I'll just drop this link here:
http://newsok.com/video-game-makers-...rticle/2364929
http://newsok.com/video-game-makers-...364929/?page=2

*cough* *cough*

"RazorSoft has been trying to protect its continued right to develop, publish and manufacture games for the mature, older consumer," said Michael Brazier, RazorSoft director of marketing.

"We finally reached a point where we could no longer endure Sega's business conduct and their oppressive and discriminatory business tactics," Brazier said.

oppressive and discriminatory business tactics

oppressive and discriminatory business tactics

oppressive and discriminatory

oppressive and discriminatory

oppressive

oppressive

...

In a prepared statement, Sega said: "Sega has established the Sega Genesis system as a leader in the U.S. home video game marketplace. In order to protect the strong brand identification and equity that we have developed in the Sega and Sega Genesis trademarks, it was necessary to bring this action at this time. "

<joke> No no that can't be true, sheath said that "kind and benevolent" Sega never sued anyone or used unfair or oppressive or anti-competitive practices against their 3rd parties and that only the evil anti-competitive "megacorps" like Sony and Nintendo did that, I'm sure the article was written to smear Sega and was obviously written by someone who hates Sega ( they also probably worked for Edge magazine as well) </joke>



That was a great find Barone, I tried to rep you but I apparently I have to give to someone else before I can give it to you. I have been reading through my copy of Game Over, by David Sheff and found an interesting section on page 365/366 in the chapter entitled "Sonic Boom" which I think disproves sheath's argument that Sega never intended to be as dominant as Nintendo.

This is what sheath posted:

Sam Pettus and Steven Kent, and even David Sheff all fail to mention Sega wanting to do anything more than break Nintendo's monopoly and carve out some market share. That is Sega of Japan or Sega of America. These corporate entities truly would have been full of enormously arrogant flying monkeys (as often portrayed here at Sega-16) if they thought they were going to dominate at any given point.

Here's the quote from the book:

Quote: "Most Nintendo licensees liked the idea of competition between Nintendo and Sega, even though it meant they had to make choices about which system to support - or whether to support both. The attitude of some licensees was that anything that weakened Nintendo was good news. Part of this was resentment - it was always good to see a tyrant fall - but part was that it strengthened their positions. Whereas they had originally come to Nintendo hat in hand when they wanted to become NES licensees, now Nintendo needed them. Nintendo had to have a strong library of games to beat Sega and licensees were key. In spite of their discreet rooting for Genesis, the licensee found neither openness nor benevolence at Sega, whose own licensing terms got tougher until they appeared to be nearly as strict as NOA's. The only thing that some licensees had going for them was that they were being wooed by both Nintendo and Sega which gave them some negotiating power. "As often happens, a revolutionary accomplishes a coup and becomes the next despot," a licensee said. "Sega was as bad as Nintendo because Sega wanted to be Nintendo."


Clearly David Sheff did mention that Sega wanted, not just to break Nintendo's monopoly, but wanted to supplant Nintendo as the dominant force in the industry. So much for the "kind" and "benevolent" Sega, huh?

[Barone]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to stu again."

That was a great find Barone

Thanks to the Generation 16 YT show actually, when he talked about Stormlord.

Great job with that book, stu!

Like I said before, when you go check the actual sources and/or don't explicitly ignore the ones some people dislike you end up discovering what is fact and what is just wishful thinking.

[sheath]

You know stu, I can't recall you posting anything of any significance until barone decided to show his true colors. Are you sure you are a real person? If you aren't a duplicate account you should be ashamed for mistaking David Sheff's speculation, or that of an unnamed source, as a primary or secondary source for Sega. We know Sony and Nintendo are anti-competitive companies because of their practices, citing a journalistic rendition of history as proof that Sega is the same is biased nonsense.

Also, Sega as any sort of model of virtue is your "flame 'sheath' fan club" performance and nothing more. 90s Sega gave a company a hard time for making super violent games? Good golly, I'm shocked. All of these troll attempts are the worst kind of internet tripe. I said Sega never targeted dominance as far as I have seen, and you liars and dissemblers rattle off a bunch of counter arguments that Sega never did anything the internet would argue against. Brilliant guys.

Here, let me help:
Leader:
: something that leads: as
g : something that ranks first
2

: a person who leads: as
a : guide, conductor
b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence
c (1) : the principal officer of a British political party (2) : a party member chosen to manage party activities in a legislative body (3) : such a party member presiding over the whole legislative body when the party constitutes a majority
d (1) : conductor c (2) : a first or principal performer of a group


Note: The repetition of 'a' instead of 'the' or other singular terms is key to finally understanding the term "leader".


Tyrant
: a ruler who has complete power over a country and who is cruel and unfair
: someone who uses power in a cruel and unfair way

1
a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty

2
a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

Monopoly
: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2
: exclusive possession or control

3
: a commodity controlled by one party

4
: one that has a monopoly

anti-competitive -trust:

always used before a noun law
: protecting against unfair business practices that limit competition or control prices

• antitrust laws
• an antitrust violation [=a violation of an antitrust law]

Finally, I wasn't aware that I made any statement about whether or not a trademark owner had the rights to defend its property. I do not intend to either. Hopefully you intellectually dishonest internet stage actors can realize the difference between defending property and shutting down competition, at least enough to stop poisoning the well in this thread and others.

Finally, so the third stooge can follow along, a picture:

[stu]

You know stu, I can't recall you posting anything of any significance until barone decided to show his true colors. Are you sure you are a real person? If you aren't a duplicate account you should be ashamed for mistaking David Sheff's speculation, or that of an unnamed source, as a primary or secondary source for Sega. We know Sony and Nintendo are anti-competitive companies because of their practices, citing a journalistic rendition of history as proof that Sega is the same is biased nonsense.

Also, Sega as any sort of model of virtue is your "flame 'sheath' fan club" performance and nothing more. 90s Sega gave a company a hard time for making super violent games? Good golly, I'm shocked. All of these troll attempts are the worst kind of internet tripe. I said Sega never targeted dominance as far as I have seen, and you liars and dissemblers rattle off a bunch of counter arguments that Sega never did anything the internet would argue against. Brilliant guys.

Here, let me help: TL : DR load of OT nonsense

Oh so I'm not "a real person" now then. SO pray tell, who do you think I am then? Please tell me, I'm sure it will be interesting. BTW I seem to recall having this "discussion" with you before you and Barone had your disagreements, so if you're attempting (and failing) to claim that I am some kind of "duplicate account" then go ahead and report me to a moderator/admin who can then verify that my IP address is unique.

I find it interesting that you take criticisms of your views so personally. I also find it interesting that when faced with published facts that happen to counter your skewed version of events that you like to side step and backpedal rather than provide any counter evidence. Now it seems you're going to stoop to insults and unfounded accusations. Whatever. I was trying to keep this a civil discussion and have been forth coming in providing sources for my information, but apparently thats considered "trolling".

[sheath]

Oh so I'm not "a real person" now then. SO pray tell, who do you think I am then? Please tell me, I'm sure it will be interesting. BTW I seem to recall having this "discussion" with you before you and Barone had your disagreements, so if you're attempting (and failing) to claim that I am some kind of "duplicate account" then go ahead and report me to a moderator/admin who can then verify that my IP address is unique.

I find it interesting that you take criticisms of your views so personally. I also find it interesting that when faced with published facts that happen to counter your skewed version of events that you like to side step and backpedal rather than provide any counter evidence. Now it seems you're going to stoop to insults and unfounded accusations. Whatever. I was trying to keep this a civil discussion and have been forth coming in providing sources for my information, but apparently thats considered "trolling".

I take my words being twisted personally. I take you posting after every negative reply to one of my posts as telling.

[TrekkiesUnite118]

You know stu, I can't recall you posting anything of any significance until barone decided to show his true colors. Are you sure you are a real person? If you aren't a duplicate account you should be ashamed for mistaking David Sheff's speculation, or that of an unnamed source, as a primary or secondary source for Sega. We know Sony and Nintendo are anti-competitive companies because of their practices, citing a journalistic rendition of history as proof that Sega is the same is biased nonsense.

You didn't seem to have problems with quotes and "speculation" from that book when you used them to defend your argument earlier...

[sheath]

You didn't seem to have problems with quotes and "speculation" from that book when you used them to defend your argument earlier...

Mr Contrary to the rescue. Here let me help, again. David Sheff interviewed execs from which company exactly?

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Mr Contrary to the rescue. Here let me help, again. David Sheff interviewed execs from which company exactly?

Very good question. Did you ask this to yourself when you referred to his statements earlier to defend your argument?:

Sam Pettus and Steven Kent, and even David Sheff all fail to mention Sega wanting to do anything more than break Nintendo's monopoly and carve out some market share. That is Sega of Japan or Sega of America. These corporate entities truly would have been full of enormously arrogant flying monkeys (as often portrayed here at Sega-16) if they thought they were going to dominate at any given point.

[sheath]

Very good question. Did you ask this to yourself when you referred to his statements earlier to defend your argument?:

Al Nilson is thanked from Sega, as the singular source from Sega, in the Acknowledgements. Game Over is predominantly David Sheff, with significant influence from NCL and EA, this is well known and your "doubt" contributes nothing at all to this or any other conversation on the topic.

Stretching a book about Nintendo and its licensing practices to include Sega is, well, breaking any logical possibility. There are tons of awesome interviews on this very site, can any of you three contrarians find a single comment about Sega wanting to dominate, or shut down a third party developer or retailer in any of them?

[TrekkiesUnite118]

Al Nilson is thanked from Sega, as the singular source from Sega, in the Acknowledgements. Game Over is predominantly David Sheff, with significant influence from NCL and EA, this is well known and your "doubt" contributes nothing at all to this or any other conversation on the topic.

How interesting. That didn't stop you from using his statements to back up your own stance though. Could you address this please? I'm genuinely interested in your ongoing efforts at Game-Pilgrimage to correctly document console history for future generations.

[stu]

Stretching a book about Nintendo and its licensing practices to include Sega is, well, breaking any logical possibility. There are tons of awesome interviews on this very site, can any of you three contrarians find a single comment about Sega wanting to dominate, or shut down a third party developer or retailer in any of them?

Just me again, you know, the "made up" "contrarian" guy.

I present exhibit A - Sega-16 interview with Trip Hawkins - Founder of Electronic Arts - A Sega 3rd Party licensee.


http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/interview-trip-hawkins/

Sega-16: Some publishers complained about Sega attempting to emulate the strict licensing policies Nintendo had. Was this ever the case with EA?

Trip Hawkins: Sega’s initial “standard license agreement” was indeed a Nintendo clone. EA skirted this because we reverse engineered the Genesis and therefore did not technically need a license agreement to bring games to market. This gave me a lot of leverage in negotiating a reasonable license, which I did in 1990.


A bit further on:

Sega-16: It seems like you were going to develop for the Genesis, regardless of whether Sega licensed you or not. What was Sega’s initial reaction when you approached it about developing software and showed that you had reverse-engineered its new hardware?

Trip Hawkins: They huffed and puffed and said they would blow my house down. When intimidation did not work, we got down to brass tacks and they accepted that I was committed to going to market with or without a license. They became much more reasonable after that because they were afraid I would hurt their third party program by licensing my information to competitors.


Oh btw that's just one interview on here. I'm sure there are others.

I take my words being twisted personally. I take you posting after every negative reply to one of my posts as telling.

I haven't twisted or altered any of your posts or comments in this thread or any others for that matter, just merely examined them and found them inaccurate and incorrect. And as for replying after "every negative reply" I apologize, its just that I mostly have other things (aka more important) to do than check to make sure that I'm not late in posting comments to a thread. I will try to do better.