Lamenting the SuperGrafx

[spenoza]

With some time since I originally posted this I have had some thoughts.

Was there a right move re: the Supergrafx? Should it have been left on the drawing board, tabled for revisiting in a couple years, or released as an add-on of some sort?

On a slightly different note, talking about whether adding can be successful, only the PCE CD and the Sega CD probably qualify. We’ve sort of been over this, but the only data I have suggests the SegaCD and PC Engine CD didn’t have that dissimilar unit sales numbers, though the PCE CD owners were a far less culturally and geographically diverse user base and were probably this a more reliable audience and no localization costs. That data may be horribly incorrect, but I don’t have anything reliable to go on otherwise. So the PCE CD could be considered a success despite similar numbers suggesting the Sega CD was not (I think it would qualify as a success, if not as impressive as one.)

[goldenpp72]

Dec 14, 2022 3:54:32 GMT spenoza said:

With some time since I originally posted this I have had some thoughts.

Was there a right move re: the Supergrafx? Should it have been left on the drawing board, tabled for revisiting in a couple years, or released as an add-on of some sort?

On a slightly different note, talking about whether adding can be successful, only the PCE CD and the Sega CD probably qualify. We’ve sort of been over this, but the only data I have suggests the SegaCD and PC Engine CD didn’t have that dissimilar unit sales numbers, though the PCE CD owners were a far less culturally and geographically diverse user base and were probably this a more reliable audience and no localization costs. That data may be horribly incorrect, but I don’t have anything reliable to go on otherwise. So the PCE CD could be considered a success despite similar numbers suggesting the Sega CD was not (I think it would qualify as a success, if not as impressive as one.)

I don't have data either, but I think that the regional density aspect made the proposition a lot more desirable for those who did partake in one, versus the other. Even as a big Sega fan and someone who focuses on the US side of gaming, I can still see a clear quality proposition difference between the two, with the SCD definitely being inferior if considered on a worldwide scale since they kinda just put scraps on it mostly (with some exceptions of course)

I'm not sure about the Supergrafx otherwise, as someone who isn't very aware of what the market conditions were like at that moment, were sales really down and they needed to do something? Or did they do like Sega and launch something without needing to, really depends. If they were losing marketshare/steam I can see why they would use it as a last ditch effort, but I'm not sure if they needed that at the time. If the option existed, they definitely should have done more to ensure a desirable lineup of exclusives and specs were in tow to fight back.

[dshadoff]

Dec 14, 2022 3:54:32 GMT spenoza said:

On a slightly different note, talking about whether adding can be successful, only the PCE CD and the Sega CD probably qualify. We’ve sort of been over this, but the only data I have suggests the SegaCD and PC Engine CD didn’t have that dissimilar unit sales numbers, though the PCE CD owners were a far less culturally and geographically diverse user base and were probably this a more reliable audience and no localization costs. That data may be horribly incorrect, but I don’t have anything reliable to go on otherwise. So the PCE CD could be considered a success despite similar numbers suggesting the Sega CD was not (I think it would qualify as a success, if not as impressive as one.)

As I recall, the PC Engine CD came out about 3 years earlier than Sega CD (late 1988 as opposed to late 1991).
It seems vaguely familiar that monthly sales in the 91-92 era were similar between the systems, but Sega was missing out on the install base prior to that (and I don't recall seeing numbers later than that).

[SignOfZeta]

The thing with add-ons and success…

You have to keep in mind that the definition of success with game machines has changed over the years. Originally game machines were sold at a profit. Then they became a zero margin thing. Then by the time MS got into game machines it was considered a good move to not make a dime of profit until the 2nd generation. Consoles are a very very long game now.

During this period the number of units you needed to sell to be a “success” changed. Selling half a million consoles used to be OK, now it’s certain doom to be so unpopular.

So the add-ons also changed and eventually went away. In the 80s if Mattel sold a speech synthesizer that never got a lot of support it was OK because they made their $13 off it already. Now when you sell something like PlayStation Move or whatever you sell it at a huge loss or just give it away straight up (MS) with the idea being that everyone will love the thing so much that it will move 9 million units of something they’ll pay for…and it hasn’t done that in a while…so add-ons are viewed as something that spilts the user base and dooms the whole scene.

In the 70s and 80s though if you sold something to %3 of your user base it was OK as long as you made money and that %3 was happy.

The PCE had some success with being two systems at once but in the end moved almost totally to CD. This was a good turnout for them. The Sega CD was never going to be anywhere near as big as the mega hit Genesis though so the carts stayed the main format.

The SGX mega sucked not only because it was extremely underwhelming in action but also because it created a deliberate dead end. The old PCE can never become an SGX so they were telling you to put your one or two year old white PCE system in the closet. Any non-Japanese customer would take it as an insult or a con.

[spenoza]

Keep in mind that modern consoles are typically only sold at a loss for the first year of life or so, because after a year of production manufacturing costs decline due to optimization and better part availability. And Nintendo makes it a habit to deliberately not sell hardware at a loss.

[SignOfZeta]

Nintendo, yes. PS5 or any XBox? No.

[spenoza]

Dec 15, 2022 15:42:56 GMT SignOfZeta said:

Nintendo, yes. PS5 or any XBox? No.

For the first year or so, yes. But after that? No. They do not sell those systems at a loss for any longer than they have to. Probably 2 years tops. If they can't streamline manufacturing by then there's something wrong with their design.

[SignOfZeta]

I seriously doubt MS made any profit, net, off the entire XB1 generation, games and hardware included.

EDIT: www.theverge.com/2021/5/6/22422691/microsoft-xbox-consoles-profit-software-services-revenue-apple-epic-games-trial

[spenoza]

I picked one article from many, but the PS5 standard edition stopped selling for a loss middle of last year.

www.gamepressure.com/newsroom/ps5-breaks-even/z1371f

And I believe Sony's model has always been to achieve break-even as soon as possible. According to that article the PS5 standard edition took less than a year to break-even on hardware costs. The PS4 only took 6 months to stop selling for a loss. The PS3 was actually the exception, probably due to pressure from Microsoft. So it seems like Microsoft is really the exception these days rather than the rule. Nintendo profits from day one. Sony breaks even within a year (except PS3). Microsoft clenches and takes it. If there's any pattern here it's that there is really no standard model for the industry.