Why did the SuperGrafx fail so miserably?

[reson8er]

Does anyone know of a definitive article or info as to why the SuperGrafx failed so badly and quickly? 5(7) games  total for a console is horrendous (even the Jaguar had more games), especially after coming off such success with its PC Engine. 

Its unbelievable how little effort went into the system to keep it alive (at least that's how it appears).  I understand it had a poor sales at launch, and the system itself was not a huge step up technically from the PCE but would not more games have helped? It's was like they just didn't care.

I've read info, speculation, conjecture  throughout the years from a multitude of sources but I don't really recall seeing anything that detailed what NEC was going through at the time. If anyone can shed some light I would really appreciate it. This thought was bothering me all weekend (and on and off for years).

[Nazi NecroPhile]

I can't say it failed in terms of meeting their expectations (what expectations?), and I wouldn't say it died quickly seeing as the few games it did get were spread out over 28 months.  Just didn't care sums it up, I guess.

They must not have seen it as absolutely necessary to compete with the MD and upcoming SF, so they let it die and instead pushed the Super CD.  I agree that it wasn't needed, but they should've made that determination long before it made it to production.

[Trenton_net]

I think they had the Sega syndrome. They push too many iterations out with too little differences. If they made them to have a little more punch and reason to own, I think it would have done much better. I think the form factor also was kind of off-putting as now you need to spend more money on an adapter just to use it with your existing CD-ROM setups.

[touko]

My two cents opinion lol ..

Because you need a least a scd-rom² for a real use of SGX hardware .
Hucard format,is too limited in space storage i think .

I think the good combo is scd²+AC, and this combo were too expensive to be viable .

[seieienbu]

It's a shame no supergrafx cdrom^2 games were released.  I've always kinda wondered what a Supergrafx game designed specifically for use with an Arcade Card could be capable of.

[reson8er]

I can't say it failed in terms of meeting their expectations (what expectations?), and I wouldn't say it died quickly seeing as the few games it did get were spread out over 28 months.  Just didn't care sums it up, I guess.

They must not have seen it as absolutely necessary to compete with the MD and upcoming SF, so they let it die and instead pushed the Super CD.  I agree that it wasn't needed, but they should've made that determination long before it made it to production.

This is the part that keeps bothering me when I think about it. They positioned this as the successor to their hardware line and probably put a lot o money into promotion, r&d etc. yet they were content to just let it die. 5 games!! NEC itself couldn't even be bothered to make more games. Depressing.

[CrackTiger]

I don't think that CD games were needed. It could toss around so much that it was more in the class of arcade hardware or the X68000. SGX HuCards could have featured more parallax than any MD or SFC game or more sprites than any console game at the time did, without any flicker. Think about the kind of shooters we could have got and if developers really needed two tile layers to make platformers, then we could have seen way more than thr PCE received.

Take any intense PCE HuCard and imagine it with twice the sprites and an extra layer of background or what games would look like in 512 pixel wide resolution.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

I doubt they spent all that much on R&D.  It's not all new architecture, just more memory (intended to be in the PCE before cost cuts), a second video chip, and a controller to coordinate the two video chips.

[reson8er]

I doubt they spent all that much on R&D.  It's not all new architecture, just more memory (intended to be in the PCE before cost cuts), a second video chip, and a controller to coordinate the two video chips.

Sure granted, but even now, it's just so disappointing. 5 dedicated games in 28 months is absurd. doubly so coming off the success and fan base you built up during the PCE's life.

At some point they cared enough to make the thing, but didn't seem to give two shits once it was released.  Makes me sad and a little angry that the system never had a chance even realize its potential even from NEC.

[pulstar]

My opinion is that it was a response to the new systems already out and coming out (MD & SFC) but with the CD/SCD still performing well and the initial poor sales NEC decided, to hell with it, and let it die. It would have been awesome to have a DUO with SGX hardware as well. Probably would have been insanely expensive at the time but it would have made the system more appealing, to developers at least (and by extension, consumers).

[Nando]

I don't think that CD games were needed. It could toss around so much that it was more in the class of arcade hardware or the X68000. SGX HuCards could have featured more parallax than any MD or SFC game or more sprites than any console game at the time did, without any flicker. Think about the kind of shooters we could have got and if developers really needed two tile layers to make platformers, then we could have seen way more than thr PCE received.

Take any intense PCE HuCard and imagine it with twice the sprites and an extra layer of background or what games would look like in 512 pixel wide resolution.

Would be cool seeing a mock up of something like this.

[ToyMachine78]

Answer: Just 5 games.

[reson8er]

My opinion is that it was a response to the new systems already out and coming out (MD & SFC) but with the CD/SCD still performing well and the initial poor sales NEC decided, to hell with it, and let it die. It would have been awesome to have a DUO with SGX hardware as well. Probably would have been insanely expensive at the time but it would have made the system more appealing, to developers at least (and by extension, consumers).

It was most certainly that, however I don't think the addition of the CD Rom add on was a factor in the SG's early demise. NEC was never shy about releasing add on's or iterations to hardware, had the SG been successful, I think they would have probably made a proper add on to match the aesthetic of the SG, if not an all in one or both

[reson8er]

Take any intense PCE HuCard and imagine it with twice the sprites and an extra layer of background or what games would look like in 512 pixel wide resolution.

Exactly, they had, at the very least a way to make some amazing games, yet, from Hudson itself all they produced was Granzort, Battle Ace, and Aldynes 3 games in 28 months. Only one of which was actually good in my opinion.  Hell they could have taken some earlier catalog games and gave them the "SuperGrafx" treatment.  They never even made a real effort 

[CrackTiger]

Hudson made 1941 CA.

I doubt they spent all that much on R&D.  It's not all new architecture, just more memory (intended to be in the PCE before cost cuts), a second video chip, and a controller to coordinate the two video chips.

Sure granted, but even now, it's just so disappointing. 5 dedicated games in 28 months is absurd. doubly so coming off the success and fan base you built up during the PCE's life.

At some point they cared enough to make the thing, but didn't seem to give two shits once it was released.  Makes me sad and a little angry that the system never had a chance even realize its potential even from NEC.

Nintendo hyped the crap out of the Super Famicom early on. When the final product began to emerge, it turned out to be weaker than other consoles and just had some neat special effects that the SuperGrafx didn't anyway. Also around that time, developers were already pulling off advanced parallax in PCE games like Super / Darius / Plus, while still having more available sprites to toss around than the average SFC game. The Mega-CD was overkill and the main draw was still the CD medium.

It made sense for them to begin putting together the SuperGrafx when they did, but it was redundant by the time it came out. It still should have been built into all Duo machines though. They could have also taken the risk of discontinuing CoreGrafx units and made the more expensive SuperGrafx the new core hardware.

[PunkCryborg]

Why did NEC make so many versions of the  same console and so many crazy accessories? Who knows and that's what makes PCE so awesome is playing on them all and enjoying them. It's hard to say of the SGX was actually a failure or not. It's just another piece of the legacy and almost just another oddity like the Virtual Cushion and the Duo monitor.

[ToyMachine78]

Why did NEC make so many versions of the  same console and so many crazy accessories? Who knows and that's what makes PCE so awesome is playing on them all and enjoying them. It's hard to say of the SGX was actually a failure or not. It's just another piece of the legacy and almost just another oddity like the Virtual Cushion and the Duo monitor.

.     Exactly! They revised and released too much shit! I think that was a big cause of the failure in the US too.... And the horrible box art. From the box album alone the games look like shit.

[Otaking]

I think it was a terrible idea for NEC to scrap the Super Grafx. If they had developed more games for it and released it in the west I think history would of played out very different.

[ccovell]

NEC "cared" but they were inept in releasing the thing anyway.  It comes down to game companies not wanting to take a risk on it because gamers didn't care:

https://www.chrismcovell.com/secret/sp_sgxreactions.html

Code Select Expand

Maker & Comment prior to SGX launch:
IREM
Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
NEC Avenue
A machine without excess fat. Development will be interesting. But the machine's appearance...
Sunsoft
The price is slightly strange for something that only increases the amount of RAM. I had expected more secrets in there.
Taito
It's too early to comment. We hope to make games that use its powerful graphic functions.
Data East
Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
Naxat
Since it's early, it [SGX] is like a sheet of blank paper. But in terms of graphics, the current PC-Engine is good enough, I think.
Namco
We will watch the market calmly for a little while. We will enter [the SGX market] after considering it well.
Nichibutsu
Since the SGX is downward compatible with the PC-Engine, we are developing software aimed at the current PC-Engine.
FACE
Since the current PC-Engine market is growing, for the time being, we are concentrating our resources on the present PC-Engine.
Hudson
Since this is a big brother to the PC-Engine, it gives software houses a good chance to try. Development pays the maximum reward.

[esteban]

A lot of you are missing the point. It takes balls to recognize an irrelevant dud and cut your losses.

There was no need to fragment the PCE user base further.

We are lucky we got 5 games. 


SGX should have been an add-on combined with a PCE Pachinko Controller (PPC).

Good night.

[SamIAm]

Well said, esteban. I think "fragment" is a really important word, and it's easy to forget how anyone with a PCE could expand into the CD system, but anyone with a PCE who wanted a Supergrafx would have effectively had to accept the money they spent on the PCE as a loss.

When it came out in November 1989, PCE Hucards were in their glory days, and the CD-system had been around for a year and was gaining traction. Hudson and NEC had plenty on their plates already, as did enthusiastic PCE developers. And really, which system(s) makes more sense for Hudson to release their best stuff on?

The price was $400 and the technology wasn't really worth it. ccovell's post shows how unexcited devs were, and I think consumers were similarly indifferent.

I once read in Japanese that Aldynes was made in 1991 as a sort of "thank you" to all the people who bought the Supergrafx, with the implication being that they didn't expect much in the way of direct profit.

[TheClash603]

I think the advancements made possible by the CD system could be more easily sold to the consumers than the SGX.  With SGX the tagline would be something like, "we are now putting out essentially the same thing our competitors are."  With the CD add-on, the tagline was "YOU CAN'T GET THIS SHIT ANYWHERE ELSE!!!!"

The company was smart to realize they couldn't push two systems at once and I think they picked the right horse.  It's unfortunate the SGX ever came to market for the early adopters, but in hindsight it is fun to talk about.

[ClodBusted]

Lol, from looking at Chris' post, even NEC's software guys weren't confident in what their hardware department created with the SuperGrafx.

[rtyper]

basically for the same reason i got one at launch, it was backwards compatable with the PCE, it should have been a lot more powerful and seperated itself from the earlier models.
it worked very nicely with the cdrom2, but that was it.
it WAS in my opinion a step above the MD/Snes but the games still gliched and slowed down ala PCE (see GnG). then NEC lost it completely and released the craptastic (in my opinion) PCFX, epic FAIL.

[touko]

Look at GnG, the SGX is the best home version (i do not count the x68000) , and use the syndical minimum of the SGX hardware .
The VDC vram are empty, and don't use all the SGX capabilities because of hucard limitations .

Aldynes, nothing fabulous, a simple use of the SGX second sprite layer and 2nd bckgnd layer, but IMO, is graphically poor in background department, because of hucard limitations .

1941 is the best for me, all VDC are full of datas,the game is full of sprites (with different patterns), and there is some backgrounds animations, i thing there are some heavy compression on it for pulling all that things on Hucard .
Even PCE is very limited by Hucard space, why sapphire use SCD+AC ??, why NG conversions do the same ??, why SF2 is only a 20 MB card ?? ..

The SGX capbilities, is not only a 2nd background layer + 64 sprites, it's also 64 ko of vram for more détailled backgrounds and animations .

[reson8er]

NEC "cared" but they were inept in releasing the thing anyway.  It comes down to game companies not wanting to take a risk on it because gamers didn't care:

https://www.chrismcovell.com/secret/sp_sgxreactions.html

Code Select Expand

Maker & Comment prior to SGX launch:
IREM
Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
NEC Avenue
A machine without excess fat. Development will be interesting. But the machine's appearance...
Sunsoft
The price is slightly strange for something that only increases the amount of RAM. I had expected more secrets in there.
Taito
It's too early to comment. We hope to make games that use its powerful graphic functions.
Data East
Since we are at a time where we don't understand the system very well, we cannot say anything.
Naxat
Since it's early, it [SGX] is like a sheet of blank paper. But in terms of graphics, the current PC-Engine is good enough, I think.
Namco
We will watch the market calmly for a little while. We will enter [the SGX market] after considering it well.
Nichibutsu
Since the SGX is downward compatible with the PC-Engine, we are developing software aimed at the current PC-Engine.
FACE
Since the current PC-Engine market is growing, for the time being, we are concentrating our resources on the present PC-Engine.
Hudson
Since this is a big brother to the PC-Engine, it gives software houses a good chance to try. Development pays the maximum reward.

Very interesting, this is the sort of thing I was hoping to come across. The comments by the developers are very telling (Even NEC Avenue itself!) and its not hard to see why so little software was produced by 3rd parties. "PC Engine is good enough!" was the consensus, and I suppose when that died out, the SF was there to carry the torch.  Even Hudson and NEC itself weren't interested in supporting it. Quite fascinating.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Even PCE is very limited by Hucard space.... why SF2 is only a 20 MB card ??

It's not technically limited to 20mb, so either they didn't need it and/or cost considerations kept it limited to 20mb.  Keep in mind that the SNES versions aren't any larger: SFII is 16mb and SFII Turbo is 20mb, though Super SFII and Alpha are 32mb.

[Arkhan Asylum]

I think it failed because really, the SCD games for PCE offered developers more bang for their buck than writing a SGX game.

CDs were/are cheaper to produce than ROMs/HuCards.   They also automagically offer more storage space by default.

What ccovell posted basically makes this even more obvious.

Why go balls deep into committing time to SGX development when fully awesome games are already being produced for the wildly popular PCE?

PCE game can be played on SGX also, so it's the most guaranteed thing ever.

and really, now, people may go "oh man imagine this game in 512 pixel widescreen with TWICE THE SPRITES AND SCROLLIES"

but I think at the time, the general population thought "FUCK YEAH, GAMES" 

The most impressive SGX game is probably Aldynes, and it isn't even that good, all things considered.

I can think of like 15 horizontal shmups on regular PCE that I would rather play.

[touko]

It's not technically limited to 20mb, so either they didn't need it and/or cost considerations kept it limited to 20mb.  Keep in mind that the SNES versions aren't any larger: SFII is 16mb and SFII Turbo is 20mb, though Super SFII and Alpha are 32mb.

Limited by cost is the same, how many hucards are > to 8Mb ??
Hucard format is best for nes/sms competition but not to compete in 16 bit category, when snes and MD can have easily 16Mb and more cartridges ..
For SGX development you need more storage than PCE if you don't want a PCE+ game like granzort or Aldynes.Sgx can do more than provide simple enhanced PCE games IMO .

The most impressive SGX game is probably Aldynes, and it isn't even that good, all things considered.

I think 1941 take more advantage of SGX hardware .
Aldynes seems to be a PCE game quickly ported on SGX .

[Nazi NecroPhile]

You're making a bunch of false assumptions.  Hueys weren't exponentially more expensive to manufacture, nor were they limited in size to 8mb or even 20mb.

[OldMan]

nor were they limited in size to 8mb or even 20mb.

8Mb is the complete address space for the address lines on a HuCard, iirc. To go larger requires a custom mapper or some kind, which is how 20Mb was reached.

The practical limit is 8Mb, without extra (ie, expensive) hardware.  Even so, acessing memory above 8Mb is probably slower, and requires extra steps.

Technically, HuCards could be made any size. You would have to add extra hardware to the card to access it, though.  Which would drive up the cost of the card.

Limited by cost is the same....

Agreed.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Of course mappers are needed for larger sizes, but who gives a shit?  The NES had mappers galore and the SNES used all sorts of chips that were often a hell of a lot more sophisticated and expensive than a mapper.  Big deal.  It's not like a mapper cost $50.

Bigger rom sizes obviously cost more to manufacture, but that's hardly a trait specific to hueys; far more costly than the rom chips themselves was creating the content to fill 'em.  And CDs were way cheaper to make (even back then), but the cost of a banana was even lower and just as relevant.

[reson8er]

I guess the part that bothers me the most is that NEC failed to continue its success in any meaningful way.  SG wasn't the answer anyone wanted, and game makers just moved on. What a sad ending to a great legacy. 

[Nazi NecroPhile]

That sounds like the PC-FX.  The SGX was just a road bump along the PCE's journey, with many of its best games coming long after the SGX was just a memory.

[Psycho Punch]

There is something unsettling about the SFII mapper though... the programmers had to program under two (or more?) layers of bank switching, ouch. Just like the Arcade Card I can't imagine myself programming a game successufully under that setup without confusing myself.

[touko]

You're making a bunch of false assumptions.  Hueys weren't exponentially more expensive to manufacture, nor were they limited in size to 8mb or even 20mb.

It's just an opinion, for a descent use of SGX hardware, you need space storage and IMO hucard was not appropriate.
Do you think than a game like sapphire (exept for redbook audio),could have been done on hucard ??
 ;-) .
However this game is entirely done by PCE hardware, and need only the scd+AC space storage .

This prove that hucard is a limiting factor .
 

8Mb is the complete address space for the address lines on a HuCard, iirc. To go larger requires a custom mapper or some kind, which is how 20Mb was reached.

The practical limit is 8Mb, without extra (ie, expensive) hardware.  Even so, acessing memory above 8Mb is probably slower, and requires extra steps.

Technically, HuCards could be made any size. You would have to add extra hardware to the card to access it, though.  Which would drive up the cost of the card.

i agree .

[reson8er]

That sounds like the PC-FX.  The SGX was just a road bump along the PCE's journey, with many of its best games coming long after the SGX was just a memory.

I thought the PCFX was aimed at a different market that the PCE? So the SG was not intended as a successor but actually as an alternative or variation of the PCE?

[OldMan]

..the programmers had to program under two (or more?) layers of bank switching,

-IF- the mapper was general purpose, and had been used for more than SFII, there would have been a library and documents on how to use it. Probably wouldn't have been any worse than setting aside blocks of memory for specific things, and making a function call.  No worse than the original setup, and probably easier.

The NES had mappers galore and the SNES used all sorts of chips that were often a hell of a lot more sophisticated and expensive than a mapper.  Big deal.  It's not like a mapper cost $50.

Nope, the mappers were probably $1-$2 (in batches of 100,000).  But where do you put it on a HuCard? Circuit real-estate is very limited. And using a 'bump' to add the extra circuitry makes failure rates go way up, I think.
Especially if you squeeze the bump to insert/remove the card NEC would have had to eat a lot of returns, I'll bet...

 (We had a similar problem with the ABCard - the chip would pop a connection if you bent the card wrong. And we were using soldered connections - not the NEC pressure-welded wire setup. )

The whole memory discussion just reminds me of the original IBMS: "Who's ever going to need more than 640K?"

[Keith Courage]

One reason could be a lot of what we are seeing now with new gen consoles. People feel content with what they already have and are not buying the new xbox 1 or ps4. Because of this many new games are still being released for the Xbox 360 and ps3 because they want their game to be able to sell to the biggest market.

So maybe developers didn't want to make games for the super grafx only since hardly anyone owned one at the time.

[touko]

Nope, the mappers were probably $1-$2 (in batches of 100,000).  But where do you put it on a HuCard?

Of course, you'r right ..

[Nazi NecroPhile]

It's just an opinion, for a descent use of SGX hardware, you need space storage and IMO hucard was not appropriate.

Then you must mean cartridges aren't appropriate for 16 bit games at all, as the majority of SNES and Genny games are SFII' sized or smaller.  I agree that CDs are the better option for virtually unlimited space and dirt cheap manufacturing, but that's at the cost of load times and limited ram, very limited ram considering there was no Super CD (let alone Arcade Card) available at the time.

Do you think than a game like sapphire (exept for redbook audio),could have been done on hucard ??

It's technically possible but not fiscally viable.  On a huey it'd be cut down just like every single SNES/Genny shewty, and I can't think of a single one of those that even cracked 16 meg.

This prove that hucard is a limiting factor .

Yeah, just like Bush had "proof" of weapons of mass destruction. 

But where do you put it on a HuCard? Circuit real-estate is very limited.  And using a 'bump' to add the extra circuitry makes failure rates go way up, I think.  Especially if you squeeze the bump to insert/remove the card NEC would have had to eat a lot of returns, I'll bet...

You know there's almost nothing under the bump, right?  Using a SFII layout, there's enough to match almost any SNES or Genny game in rom size.

[touko]

Then you must mean cartridges aren't appropriate for 16 bit games at all, as the majority of SNES and Genny games are SFII' sized or smaller.  I agree that CDs are the better option for virtually unlimited space and dirt cheap manufacturing, but that's at the cost of load times and limited ram, very limited ram considering there was no Super CD (let alone Arcade Card) available at the time.

Of course, but you can did a better use of snes or MD hardware with 16Mb cartridges or up to 48 Mb than a single 20MB on pce .
It's obvious than hucard is not sized for big sizes .
The pce is powerfull to manipulate graphics datas, sapphire prove it, and you cannot use this power with hucards which are limited to 8Mb,and diffcult to extend ..

It's technically possible but not fiscally viable.  On a huey it'd be cut down just like every single SNES/Genny shewty, and I can't think of a single one of those that even cracked 16 meg.

Yes technicaly all is possible, but i'am pretty sure than it's pretty hard for hucard format, because is slim, and i think it needs a special mapper not very easy to use .

Yeah, just like Bush had "proof" of weapons of mass destruction. 

Ahahah, of course, it was a joke ;-)
But you can not deny that the more graphicaly advanced games are not on hucard, and if there is only one 20 Mb hucard, there is a reason .
And why 20 Mb, and not 24 like for genesis version ??

[CrackTiger]

I thought that non-mapper limits for SFC and MD were 32 and 40 megs?

SFII'CE that was completed and almost released for MD was 20 megs. The SFII'CE + SFII Turbo compilation with bonus artwork, extra bonus stage, etc, that the MD and SFC actually received is 24 megs each. SFII World Warrior for SFC is 16 megs. It all makes perfect sense.

I've been meaning to comment on this thread properly, but haven't had the time. Biggest point I wanted to make is that only HuCard can unleash the full potential of the SuperGrafx. CD games are bottlenecked. A 6 stage CD game that doesn't load bosses separately would be <3 megs on HuCard. A port like Darius Plus was already as arcade perfect as can be on PCE. All the SuperGrafx could add was eliminating flicker.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

... and you cannot use this power with hucards which are limited to 8Mb,and diffcult to extend .... Yes technicaly all is possible, but i'am pretty sure than it's pretty hard for hucard format, because is slim, and i think it needs a special mapper not very easy to use .

Well, you're wrong.  Devs had been using mappers (and even more sophisticated cart chips) for years in the NES, 2600, etc., so they obviously weren't a hindrance to those with dev kits, funding, etc.

But you can not deny that the more graphicaly advanced games are not on hucard, and if there is only one 20 Mb hucard, there is a reason.

Yes, but that reason has absolutely nothing to do with it being too hard or too expensive to make bigger hueys, at least not by the time such large games were relatively common.  Early on it was a road block (R-Type), but that problem was quickly solved.  Keep in mind that early SNES and Genny games were all under 16Mb; their first 16Mb games didn't come out until mid-'92, at which time HuCARD development of any size was essentially dead.

And please don't argue that everyone switched from HuCARDs to CDs because big hueys were "too hard", as they obviously switched to CDs because they were far cheaper to produce regardless of size (many games made post '92 could easy fit in an 8Mb cart) and likely had smaller minimum order sizes.  Had the CD add-on not been as successful (causing poor sales of CD games vs. HuCARDs), more devs would've stuck with the format and we would've seen more 16Mb+ sized carts.

And why 20 Mb, and not 24 like for genesis version ??

Who knows?  The SNES version is also 20Mb and its cart obviously wasn't limited to that size.

[seieienbu]

As long as we're talking theoretical potential, why worry about the Super CD's memory when you could have Supergrafx Arcade CDs?  A full 16Mb with additional sprite and background layers?  I think that sounds pretty sick.

[CrackTiger]

As long as we're talking theoretical potential, why worry about the Super CD's memory when you could have Supergrafx Arcade CDs?  A full 16Mb with additional sprite and background layers?  I think that sounds pretty sick.

Because that was from four years in the future. Only CD2 games existed when the SuperGrafx launched.

[Arkhan Asylum]

Necromancer, you realize that comparing NES/Atari2600 to HuCards is a bit flawed, right?

Ever notice how there's a plethora of new NES/Genesis/Atari 2600 homebrew cart games released, and not one single PCE one (Until Atlantean comes out)?

It's because the process of making an actual HuCard, start to finish, complete with the slim-as-fuck technology required to get it onto that little bit of space as opposed to a giant board that fits in a giant cartridge is costly, on top of difficult.   It was more costly back then, and is more costly now.    You're cramming more hardware than an NES cartridge into what, like 25% of the space?

It becomes less and less practical to continue to do this when you have a much cheaper option in CDs (Like I said already). 

And please don't argue that everyone switched from HuCARDs to CDs because big hueys were "too hard", as they obviously switched to CDs because they were far cheaper to produce regardless of size (many games made post '92 could easy fit in an 8Mb cart) and likely had smaller minimum order sizes.  Had the CD add-on not been as successful (causing poor sales of CD games vs. HuCARDs), more devs would've stuck with the format and we would've seen more 16Mb+ sized carts.

Doesn't this contradict what you said a few posts ago:

Of course mappers are needed for larger sizes, but who gives a shit?  The NES had mappers galore and the SNES used all sorts of chips that were often a hell of a lot more sophisticated and expensive than a mapper.  Big deal.  It's not like a mapper cost $50.

Bigger rom sizes obviously cost more to manufacture, but that's hardly a trait specific to hueys; far more costly than the rom chips themselves was creating the content to fill 'em.  And CDs were way cheaper to make (even back then), but the cost of a banana was even lower and just as relevant.

You downplay the relevancy of CD costs in one post, but make it pretty much the most relevant thing ever in another post...?


and, you're basically just repeating what I already said, anyways.    Why would anyone want to waste the time producing a SuperGrafx game when they can probably make a better game for SCD, and sell it to a far wider audience, for less costs.




and, as a bit of an example:

It costs 1000$ to make 500 CDs (Insanity), complete in jewel cases, with booklets, and the turnaround is 2 weeks.

It costs 1000$ (More, probably) to make like, 50 HuCards (Atlantean), WITHOUT mappers, with manuals, and the turnaround time is holyshitforever.

So, I wouldn't downplay the cost of HuCard manufacturing so much.

EDIT:
and another good example would be comparing N64 and PS1.   Look which one kicked ass, and which one had overpriced games that didn't even really compete well?

CD > Card. 

[CrackTiger]

HuCards may have been more challenging to manufacture and could potentially cost more with or without mappers for the same company than traditional carts. But HuCards weren't being made by a relatively small company like Sega or Nintendo. It should have been cheaper for a company like NEC to make them than it would be for others. They also would have been able to stengthen them in any number of ways we might not even think of, if that really became an issue. We know now from things like various converters that a HuCard could have had a huge raised chunk on it. They may not have been as sexy as flat cards, but they would have gotten the job done.

But even if large sized HuCards did cost more than other carts, so what? SNES games cost more than Genesis games. The 8 & 16-bit generations were the craziest for stuff that got crammed into carts. Mappers, cpus, sound chips, entire Famicom converters, batteries, multi-player taps, internal and external clocks, additional cart ports, etc... all sold inside of every variation of cost increasing decorations like various colors of opaque and translucent plastic, metalic finish, unique shapes, crazy labels, etc. They were the generations of "ballin'" carts. Carts were often made more expensive for reasons that did not improve game content and people bought them up at any prices.

I agree that the PCE was better off with CDs becoming the dominant format. But no one's arguing against that. In the alternate reality in which the PCE or SuperGrafx didn't have CD games, HuCard games comparable to SNES and Genesis cart games would have been totally doable and the notion that the lack of huge HuCards in this reality proves otherwise, is ignoring the success of the CD format that limited HuCard projects to smaller sizes once CD sales dwarfed HuCard sales.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Necromancer, you realize that comparing NES/Atari2600 to HuCards is a bit flawed, right?

Not at all.  In a discussion about mappers (among other chips) being too expensive and too complicated to utilize, both in manufacturing and programming, it's entirely relevant to point out that companies had been successfully dealing with those issues for years, and they continued to do so with the SNES.  Why would the mapper be such an insurmountable obstacle in a HuCARD yet a non-issue everywhere else?

Ever notice how there's a plethora of new NES/Genesis/Atari 2600 homebrew cart games released, and not one single PCE one (Until Atlantean comes out)?

It's because the process of making an actual HuCard, start to finish, complete with the slim-as-fuck technology required to get it onto that little bit of space as opposed to a giant board that fits in a giant cartridge is costly, on top of difficult.

Your difficulties in hand building HuCARDs 25 years later isn't even remotely relevant.  Do you really think NEC didn't know what they were doing and struggled to make hueys?  Bitch, please.

It was more costly back then, and is more costly now.    You're cramming more hardware than an NES cartridge into what, like 25% of the space?

I doubt the difference to Hudson/NEC was all that great back in the day.  If it was exponentially more expensive to go small, why in the hell would they have championed the format repeatedly?

Doesn't this contradict what you said a few posts ago:
....
You downplay the relevancy of CD costs in one post, but make it pretty much the most relevant thing ever in another post...?

There's no contradiction, as it's two different arguments.  The earlier quote is about the capabilities and cost of the HuCARD relative to SNES or Genny carts; the fact that CDs are cheaper than HuCARDs doesn't matter because they're also cheaper than SNES and Genny carts.  The later quote is about why they abandoned the HuCARD when they did, saying it was due to their cost compared to CDs and that the CD had been adopted by enough of the user base that it wasn't a hindrance to sales; it surely wasn't because of their cost compared to SNES or Genny carts or because it was impossible to make something like Xanadu or Sapphire on a HuCARD.

and, you're basically just repeating what I already said, anyways.    Why would anyone want to waste the time producing a SuperGrafx game when they can probably make a better game for SCD, and sell it to a far wider audience, for less costs.

If you mean making a game now, you're arguing something very different.

[Arkhan Asylum]

 

Not at all.  In a discussion about mappers (among other chips) being too expensive and too complicated to utilize, both in manufacturing and programming, it's entirely relevant to point out that companies had been successfully dealing with those issues for years, and they continued to do so with the SNES.  Why would the mapper be such an insurmountable obstacle in a HuCARD yet a non-issue everywhere else?

Not insurmountable.  Just more costly, and complicated.  It's a size thing.  There isn't a lot of real estate to work with on a HuCard, like we keep saying.  Fabricating the little circuit sheet isn't as simple as bashing out a green PCB that's the size of a slice of bread.

One single chip in an SNES cartridge basically takes up the entire real estate that a HuCard has to work with for everything.

It's a different issue than all of the cartridge goons.   They basically have it easy by comparison.

NEC tackled it with PCE and kicked a lot of ass with it, but it doesn't change the fact that it costs more money, and is more difficult to produce a large game on a card than it is on a CD.

Because CD hardware had already caught on by the time SuperGrafx was a thing, nobody probably saw the value in spending extra money/effort on a more expensive production operation for what will either be an inferior or on-par title.   Like I've said like twice now.

Your difficulties in hand building HuCARDs 25 years later isn't even remotely relevant.  Do you really think NEC didn't know what they were doing and struggled to make hueys?  Bitch, please.

More relevant than you think. It serves as proof as to how challenging, resource intensive, and complicated it was for NEC to do it in the first place.

I doubt the difference to Hudson/NEC was all that great back in the day.  If it was exponentially more expensive to go small, why in the hell would they have championed the format repeatedly?

There was probably a noticeable difference in the form of money on a spreadsheet. 

Why did the champion the format repeatedly? Because CDs were not in play originally.  They won the size/efficiency war with HuCards, and did it again with CDs.

They probably hoped that SGX would catch on in cartridge form and then have a repeat life-span of PCE where it goes Card--->CD--->\o/, but, again, as CCovell's post shows, nobody really appeared to see much value in switching formats since CD has proven to be superior, and more people have PCEs than SGX.

There's no contradiction, as it's two different arguments.  The earlier quote is about the capabilities and cost of the HuCARD relative to SNES or Genny carts; the fact that CDs are cheaper than HuCARDs doesn't matter because they're also cheaper than SNES and Genny carts.  The later quote is about why they abandoned the HuCARD when they did, saying it was due to their cost compared to CDs and that the CD had been adopted by enough of the user base that it wasn't a hindrance to sales; it surely wasn't because of their cost compared to SNES or Genny carts or because it was impossible to make something like Xanadu or Sapphire on a HuCARD.

HuCards cost more to manufacture than an SNES or Genesis cart.   Hence CDs being a nice power play.   If it were just as cheap and easy to manufacture HuCards as you seem to think, don't you think everyone would've jumped at the format?   They didn't, because it's a pretty specialized manufacturing process.

They also cost more to manufacture than CDs in general, again, a nice power play by NEC.  Superior storage, at much less cost.

If you mean making a game now, you're arguing something very different.

No, I mean back then. 


I'm done repeating myself though.   This entire line of discussion has already taken place, like 2 or 3 years ago.