What were the lifetime sales for the PCE/PCEDuo

[A Black Falcon]

As far as the CDX goes, a thing to remember is the JVC Genesis + Sega CD combo systems, the Wondermega and Wondermega 2/X'Eye.  They weren't first-party and sold poorly, maybe even worse than the CDX?  But the Wondermega 1 did release in Japan in April 1992, only a few months after the system's late 1991 release there, so a combo system was indeed available there from early on, if people wanted one.  Considering its poor sales, most didn't.  The X'Eye/Wondermega 2 (the one with the mechanical drive lid and lights removed) was released in '94, the same year as the CDX, but the Japan-only Wondermega 1 was earlier.  No models sold much though.  Still, a combo system existed from early on... but it is a definite difference that it was third party and not first.

Anyway though, the Genesis/Sega CD/32X thing didn't go like the TG16/TCD thing because Sega tried to keep all of their systems going up until 1995, when Sega of Japan abandoned them all (except for the Game Gear, which they supported into '96).  Sega of America did release a few final 32X games in late '95 and early '96, but otherwise decided to focus their late releases on the platform that the most people had, the Genesis.  But as for NEC, surely some of those 4 million people who had bought TG16/PCE systems but hadn't bought a CD drive bought some of the ~1 million Duo-line systems sold, but as for the rest, maybe they were gone for good (probably to the SNES), but was it a good decision or not to phase out HuCard releases as they did?  Maybe it was -- the CD thing certainly differentiated NEC from Nintendo in a way HuCards did not -- but I do have some questions about whether it's good to leave behind that much of your userbase.  And of course, even most of that Turbo CD userbase did not follow NEC's next move to the PC-FX.  Maybe they were just doomed and did what they could, but if what's the revisionist-history fun in that?

[o.pwuaioc]

Do emotica mean nothing anymore? Surely you could tell I was posting that in jest? 

[pulstar]

Do emotica mean nothing anymore? Surely you could tell I was posting that in jest? 

Your emoticons...they mean nothing 

[A Black Falcon]

It's very hard to tell if people are joking or not on the internet, that's definitely true...

[TurboXray]

Semantics aside, just growing up with the 8 and 16bit generation - Turbo CDs (2.0, 3.0, ACD) were ~always~  comparable with Genesis and SNES. None of my gaming friends thought any differently, either. There wasn't any of this ambiguous or confusing view of what the system was. It had some deficiencies, that was clear, but it also had its strengths as well.

 From a programming stand point (my experience with ASM), coding for a CD game is no different than coding a Hucard game. Yes, you have slow far storage you need to fetch - but the core is still the same. I still have all the same graphical and processing limitations, directions, optimizations, etc. I'm not somehow free of these limitations, like I would be with on cart processors (snes), or graphics scaling/rotating chips and extra processors (SegaCD).

 I don't understand this need to separate the two formats. The media is different, but the core is the same. FDS and famicom carts are the exact same thing to me. I don't say, hey - let's not count FDS games because the medium is different and requires a new interface for that medium.

I think that, some people think the CD unit for the PCE gives it some sort of unfair advantage over the Genesis and SNES (people have posted this). That's absurd. Or that the Arcade card games shouldn't be counted, because the incredible amount of ram it can hold. That's also absurd. Carts were getting larger and larger, and were putting out more animation; the arcade card was just a direct response to this - to play catch up. Carts have an distinct advantage over CD games, and when that medium starts to get bigger (carts), then the gap starts to widen as well.



 For the record, the 3DO and Jag do not fit the 16bit generation processor and gpu designs; they are completely different and much more closer to that of the PS/Saturn. They just aren't as powerful. So yes, they belong to that generation regardless if they could complete toe to toe, or not. If anything, the PCFX would be closer to the 16bit generation of systems, than the 3DO or Jag. Ignore the fact that the cpu is 32bit, and you pretty much have a 16bit system.

 The PCE is no different than the 3DO or Jag. What makes up the bulk difference between the 8bit systems and the 16bit system, the PCE employes almost all of that. It's the first system out of that era, so yeah it has the weakest overall capabilities - but not in all areas. The PCE is actually superior to the Genesis and SNES is a few areas.

 
 I feel like this is all getting a bit redundant..

[Nazi NecroPhile]

I can't think of even one reason why the fact that the Duo replaced the PCE/TG16, while the Twin Famicom did not replace the Famicom and the CDX did not replace the Genesis, is at all relevant when classifying them.

The best reason is because of how the manufacturers marketed them.  NEC treated the CD add-on as an integral piece of the pie from DAY ONE, whereas other things were marketed as non-essential add-ons or as next gen (32x).  Good luck finding an NEC employee that believes they "abandoned" the PCE in '94 ('92 really).

First, is there any basis for thinking that the Turbo CD was ACTUALLY originally "intended to replace" the PCE HuCard system?  It was intended as a supplement, but as a replacement?  Hudson's continued support for HuCards up until the end of '93 suggests otherwise, considering that they invented the thing.  It was meant as a supplement....

It can't be a supplement and a completely different system.  Make up your mind.

the Atari 5200, Colecovision, and Vectrex are in no way 2nd-gen.  They are early 3rd gen systems......
It and the 5200 are in the same place as the Turbografx in the 4th generation......

Makes total sense.  In truth it spans three console generations!  DO THE MATH!!!!!

.... you have to be consistent.  The things some people said here about how the 32X or Sega CD don't really count because they have more processors in them while the Turbo CD doesn't, or whatever... come on, that's just being biased.

It's not biased to consistently separate based on whether or not the add-on is just a storage medium (TG-CD, Famicom disk, etc.) or add additional hardware capabilities beyond just storage (32x, Sega CD, etc.).  It's not at all hard to see the difference.  By the way, the SF numbers I posted included Satteleview, as did the Sega numbers I compiled but didn't bother to post.


But I digress.  Any time someone starts arguing about the Kinect being relevant to anything, they clearly aren't capable of intelligent discussions.

[A Black Falcon]

The best reason is because of how the manufacturers marketed them.  NEC treated the CD add-on as an integral piece of the pie from DAY ONE, whereas other things were marketed as non-essential add-ons or as next gen (32x).  Good luck finding an NEC employee that believes they "abandoned" the PCE in '94 ('92 really).

Once again, did they really?  "Integral piece of the pie" from day one in December 1988?  But NEC didn't even release a Turbo CD game until September 1989!  That's not "from day one".   It wasn't uintil 1991 that NEC decided to focus on the Turbo CD as their main platform.  Look at their 1989-1990 CD release libraries if you want to see that.  Their only CD releases in '89 -- again, the first one coming in September -- were Altered Beast CD, the first three volumes of Rom Rom Karaoke, and Sidearms Special.  In 1990 all they had on CD was Super Darius and two more volumes of Rom Rom Karaoke.  That's a thin lineup of three games previously or also available on HuCard and five volumes of karaoke.  Finally in 1991 NEC got serious on CDs and released a lot more stuff for it: Quiz Avenue, Hellfire S, Download 2, Splash Lake, and Quiz Avenue 2, and on from there in '92 to '97. (Their first Super CD game was in March '92.)

It can't be a supplement and a completely different system.  Make up your mind.

Addons kind of are a weird middle-ground between supplements and completely different systems, though.  They kind of go in both categories...

Makes total sense.  In truth it spans three console generations!  DO THE MATH!!!!!

The "4th" part is obviously a mistake, I meant 3rd gen of course.  Everything from the Colecovision to the Master System is 3rd-gen.  And yes, this means Atari and Sega each had two 3rd gen consoles.  Nintendo improved the NES via mapper chips, while Atari and Sega instead released entirely new systems.  They weren't far enoughaway from their predecessors in time or power to be full next-gen machines, though -- compare any of them to the TG16 to see that.  The 7800 is MUCH closer to the 5200 than it is the TG16, for instance.

It's not biased to consistently separate based on whether or not the add-on is just a storage medium (TG-CD, Famicom disk, etc.) or add additional hardware capabilities beyond just storage (32x, Sega CD, etc.).  It's not at all hard to see the difference.

Adding a CD storage medium radically alters what you can do in games in certain important ways -- videos, voice acting, CD audio, etc.  Even just on its own it's a huge change for the time.  Sure, the TCD doesn't have scaling and rotation chips like the Sega CD does, but it's not less of an addon because of that.

By the way, the SF numbers I posted included Satteleview, as did the Sega numbers I compiled but didn't bother to post.

The Satellaview didn't have stand-alone games, so it couldn't have "included the Satellaview"; as far as I know, as long as you were paying for the service and had the addon you could download anything for free during its transmission times.

But as for Sega numbers, mixing together the Genesis, Sega CD, and 32X should not be done, just like how the TG16 and TCD should not be mixed.  Or at least, list both the separated AND mixed totals; that would be okay too.

But I digress.  Any time someone starts arguing about the Kinect being relevant to anything, they clearly aren't capable of intelligent discussions.

So 24 million sales are irrelevant just because you say so and dislike it?  Uh, that's not right.  I've never used the Kinect myself and doubt it works well for most games, but that's completely besides the point.

[CrackTiger]

Once again, did they really?  "Integral piece of the pie" from day one in December 1988?  But NEC didn't even release a Turbo CD game until September 1989!  That's not "from day one".   It wasn't uintil 1991 that NEC decided to focus on the Turbo CD as their main platform.  Look at their 1989-1990 CD release libraries if you want to see that.  Their only CD releases in '89 -- again, the first one coming in September -- were Altered Beast CD, the first three volumes of Rom Rom Karaoke, and Sidearms Special.  In 1990 all they had on CD was Super Darius and two more volumes of Rom Rom Karaoke.  That's a thin lineup of three games previously or also available on HuCard and five volumes of karaoke.  Finally in 1991 NEC got serious on CDs and released a lot more stuff for it: Quiz Avenue, Hellfire S, Download 2, Splash Lake, and Quiz Avenue 2, and on from there in '92 to '97. (Their first Super CD game was in March '92.)

Once again, if you refuse to take everyone's word for it, research it yourself and ignore your current source of bogus info. NEC agreed to partner with Hudson on the condition that they push the CD format. Hudson's hardware, which they first offered to Nintendo, was strictly HuCard based. You are correct that it wasn't "from day one", as it was actually from before day one. Before anything was launched, they were showing off the CD-ROM.

The hardware and software actually originated in Japan and NEC and Hudson Soft are Japanese companies. The North American Turbo line was released after the original Japanese version, called the "PC Engine". The first CD games were released in 1988 and the PC Engine CD format is as old as the Sega "Mega Drive" (which is actually the original form of the Sega Genesis)! Two of those 1988 games took advantage of the CD format and provide an experience that both the "Famicom" (NES) and "Super Famicom" (SNES) never did. Two years before the SFC even launched. NO RI KO in particular was the ultimate killer app.

All along, Hudson showed off stuff like the long delayed Tengai Makyou, until games were ready to be published. The only reason that CD software trickled out at first and wasn't ready at launch, is because developing CD games at the time was a huge undertaking, as they learned through trial and error.

[Psycho Punch]

NO RI KO in particular was the ultimate killer app.

wait what

[A Black Falcon]

Once again, did they really?  "Integral piece of the pie" from day one in December 1988?  But NEC didn't even release a Turbo CD game until September 1989!  That's not "from day one".   It wasn't uintil 1991 that NEC decided to focus on the Turbo CD as their main platform.  Look at their 1989-1990 CD release libraries if you want to see that.  Their only CD releases in '89 -- again, the first one coming in September -- were Altered Beast CD, the first three volumes of Rom Rom Karaoke, and Sidearms Special.  In 1990 all they had on CD was Super Darius and two more volumes of Rom Rom Karaoke.  That's a thin lineup of three games previously or also available on HuCard and five volumes of karaoke.  Finally in 1991 NEC got serious on CDs and released a lot more stuff for it: Quiz Avenue, Hellfire S, Download 2, Splash Lake, and Quiz Avenue 2, and on from there in '92 to '97. (Their first Super CD game was in March '92.)

Once again, if you refuse to take everyone's word for it, research it yourself and ignore your current source of bogus info. NEC agreed to partner with Hudson on the condition that they push the CD format. Hudson's hardware, which they first offered to Nintendo, was strictly HuCard based. You are correct that it wasn't "from day one", as it was actually from before day one. Before anything was launched, they were showing off the CD-ROM.

First, NEC's actual release library is not "bogus info".  It's reality.  It took NEC over two years before they started actually caring about releasing original games for the Turbo CD.  If you know everything about the system, you surely know that NEC didn't actually start giving serious support to the Turbo CD until 1991, several years into its life!

Also, everything I've read has always said that the idea for the Turbo CD came originally from Hudson itself.  Not NEC.  And this makes sense, when you look at the release list and see how Hudson supported the Turbo CD from the beginning, while it took NEC longer to start giving it good support.  If NEC really did demand that the Turbo CD must happen for them to release the TG16, they sure did take their time before giving it good software support.  They kind of made up for that later, but for the first few years Hudson's output for the system was more and better -- Hudson had things other than HuCard ports and Karaoke discs in the first two years!  NEC did not.

I mean, sure, I would believe it if a Hudson pitch to Nintendo was initially HuCard only, but I'm also sure Hudson wanted to do a CD drive too.

The hardware and software actually originated in Japan and NEC and Hudson Soft are Japanese companies. The North American Turbo line was released after the original Japanese version, called the "PC Engine". The first CD games were released in 1988 and the PC Engine CD format is as old as the Sega "Mega Drive" (which is actually the original form of the Sega Genesis)! Two of those 1988 games took advantage of the CD format and provide an experience that both the "Famicom" (NES) and "Super Famicom" (SNES) never did. Two years before the SFC even launched.

Did you even read anything I posted before writing up this insultingly basic and completely irrelevant paragraph that totally misses the point?  Go back and read my quote up there again.  Two hints:

1) I'm talking about NEC's Japanese releases.  Not their American ones.
2) I'm talking about NEC.  Not Hudson.  The two are not the same company.  If you're claiming that NEC was so focused on CDs from the beginning then I'd think that they'd have supported the CD system better early on!  NEC certainly got focused on CDs eventually, but as far as game releases go, their support built quite slowly.

NO RI KO in particular was the ultimate killer app.

And that's not even an NEC game, that's Hudson!

All along, Hudson showed off stuff like the long delayed Tengai Makyou, until games were ready to be published. The only reason that CD software trickled out at first and wasn't ready at launch, is because developing CD games at the time was a huge undertaking, as they learned through trial and error.

Yeah, I know that.  Releasing a CD system in 1988 was pretty crazy forward-thinking, and you definitely do see that when you look at the early library.  But... Tengai Makyou Ziria released in June 1989.  That's a major, and good, Turbo CD exclusive, long before NEC had anything other than Karaoke and HuCard ports.  I know Hudson was a more established developer than NEC, so it makes some sense that at that point Hudson was making more and better games for the system than NEC (as they were), but even in '91 all NEC had on CD were those five games I listed earlier.  That same year Hudson released CD games like Ys III, Dragon Slayer, and Cobra II (and also Populous, Monbit, and Pomping World) -- clearly a better overall library, though the two shmups from NEC are nice.

[shubibiman]

A Black Falcon>sorry to tell you that but it's not because NEC Avenue released their first CD games in 1989 that CD games were not released before that, mainly by Hudson Soft, the company that actually designed the PC Engine.

If you want to debate on something, make sure you're documented.

[A Black Falcon]

A Black Falcon>sorry to tell you that but it's not because NEC Avenue released their first CD games in 1989 that CD games were not released before that, mainly by Hudson Soft, the company that actually designed the PC Engine.

If you want to debate on something, make sure you're documented.

You're not saying anything I didn't know a long time ago, so obviously it has no impact on my point.

[CrackTiger]

NO RI KO in particular was the ultimate killer app.

wait what

http://www.videogameden.com/cdrom.htm?nor

[A Black Falcon]

NO RI KO in particular was the ultimate killer app.

wait what

http://www.videogameden.com/cdrom.htm?nor

Just because it's the first CD game doesn't mean that it's actually a killer app...

[shubibiman]

A Black Falcon>sorry to tell you that but it's not because NEC Avenue released their first CD games in 1989 that CD games were not released before that, mainly by Hudson Soft, the company that actually designed the PC Engine.

If you want to debate on something, make sure you're documented.

You're not saying anything I didn't know a long time ago, so obviously it has no impact on my point. 

Ok, so why do you make as if you didn't know the differences between NEC HE and NEC Avenue and the true role of Hudson and NEC in the PC Engine's design ?

[TurboXray]

I do remember seeing pics of the PCE CD prototype before the PCE console was released, so obviously it wasn't an after thought. Funny, internally the PCE was referred to as the 'Core' system and then later on the name was changed to that. Another interesting note; the PCE is the mother of all addon interfaces. What's available on the back plane - it just incredible. No other game console in history had that type of addon support. It was built for addons. It's a shame they didn't do more with it.

 Hudson might have licensed the hardware setup to NEC, but they partnered together. Hudson has always been a software house and has written internal dev tools for Famicom, Sharp X68k, etc. Hudson was NEC's software side, until NEC started creating its own branch. And even then..

 It's funny, the NEC had a close tie with x86 arch as well as making its own clone x86 processors. The official dev softs for the CD unit, refers to internal Zeropage reserved registers (65x thing) with x86 register names; AX(AL/AH), BX(BL/BH), CX(CL/CH), DX(DL/DH), SI, DI, etc. The MCU in the CD unit, is a NEC z80 based processor (this is the chip that manages the port interfacing and requesting status info as well as writing SCSI commands). NEC also released the CD unit for its PC line, which is compatible and fits the original docking bay of the PCE. NEC tasked Hudson with designing the CD unit (it was in some interview). I think it's pretty hard to separate NEC and Hudson, when talking about the PCE. Hudson might have developed the original specs for the PCE, but who knows how much that changed when they partnered with NEC (the GPU can be put into 2bit color tile/cell mode for both sprites/BG).

[A Black Falcon]

I do remember seeing pics of the PCE CD prototype before the PCE console was released, so obviously it wasn't an after thought. Funny, internally the PCE was referred to as the 'Core' system and then later on the name was changed to that. Another interesting note; the PCE is the mother of all addon interfaces. What's available on the back plane - it just incredible. No other game console in history had that type of addon support. It was built for addons. It's a shame they didn't do more with it.

It may be true that there is more available through the back connection than most any other addon port, but many systems certainly are designed for addons, and lots of them have gotten addons.  I mean, sure, it holds back the Sega CD a bit that the port bandwidth is a bit too limited for animation equal to that on carts, but it gets by... and it was designed for an addon like that, they just didn't quite give it enough bandwidth.  But that doesn't mean it wasn't designed for addons from the start, it was!  The same goes for all the other systems with addon ports and the like.

But sure, yeah, the system clearly was designed for addons from the beginning.  We know that Hudson got interested in CDs early on, and NEC was a good partner since they were too...

Hudson might have licensed the hardware setup to NEC, but they partnered together. Hudson has always been a software house and has written internal dev tools for Famicom, Sharp X68k, etc. Hudson was NEC's software side, until NEC started creating its own branch. And even then..

Well, yeah, at first only Hudson did software, but NEC Avenue started publishing its own games by fall '88, and NEC Avenue and Hudson were different companies.  It's definitely a somewhat weird situation, with multiple first-party companies, but that's how it was.  Just about the only other somewhat similar case I can think of is the 3DO, where at first there was no first party studio.  3DO set up one after a little while though, and Panasonic published many games for the system though they didn't develop them in-house (Goldstar/LG and Sanyo published a couple of games each as well).  But another case with multiple different first-party studios with in-house development teams?  Are there any others other than the TG16?

I'm sure NEC and Hudson cooperated, they were working together on the console after all, but they weren't the same exact company.

It's funny, the NEC had a close tie with x86 arch as well as making its own clone x86 processors. The official dev softs for the CD unit, refers to internal Zeropage reserved registers (65x thing) with x86 register names; AX(AL/AH), BX(BL/BH), CX(CL/CH), DX(DL/DH), SI, DI, etc. The MCU in the CD unit, is a NEC z80 based processor (this is the chip that manages the port interfacing and requesting status info as well as writing SCSI commands). NEC also released the CD unit for its PC line, which is compatible and fits the original docking bay of the PCE. NEC tasked Hudson with designing the CD unit (it was in some interview). I think it's pretty hard to separate NEC and Hudson, when talking about the PCE. Hudson might have developed the original specs for the PCE, but who knows how much that changed when they partnered with NEC (the GPU can be put into 2bit color tile/cell mode for both sprites/BG).

Interesting, so NEC actually did have some influence on the hardware?  I thought Hudson had pretty much done the hardware in-house... interesting.  I have heard of the computer you could attach a TCD drive to, though.  They were going to release something similar in the US too of course, but cancelled it...

Anyway though, it may be hard to separate NEFC and Hudson, but they're not the same.  They started at different times ((Hudson ~10 months ahead of NEC on both HuCards and CDs), they ended at different times (NEC continued to publish TCD games regularly for ~16 months after Hudson abandoned the system, while Hudson released many more HuCard games in '92-'93 than NEC, who had almost entirely abandoned HuCards in favor of CDs), etc.  Hudson also continued to support other, mostly Nintendo platforms throughout the TG16/CD/PCFX's lives of course, at first just the NES and SNES but also the SNES starting from late '92, and the Saturn starting in '96 as well.  Except for that last part NEC did not do that; they were Turbo-line exclusive until mid '96, when they admitted that the PC-FX was failing and started supporting the Saturn too.  That both went to the Saturn first after the PC-FX in the 5th generation is similar, and interesting considering how few Genesis and Sega CD games Hudson had made (and were any of them even released in Japan?  As far as I know they were all US/EU only -- Mega Bomberman, SCD Dungeon Explorer, SCD Lords of Thunder, SCD Cobra 2...), but that was during the Saturn's peak of popularity in Japan, so it's understandable either way.

Anyway, yes, I'm sure that Hudson and NEC worked together a lot, cooridinated, etc.  But they were never exactly the same company, and each did their own things.  Their libraries on the TG16/CD have some definite differences, for example... Hudson's games often have a strong unique style which you don't see from NEC.

[CrackTiger]

NEC Ave isn't NEC either. It's just one of their five developing/publishing branches which put out games for Turbo/PCE.

Even Nintendo didn't make all of their own games, like most publishers they just take all the credit.

I've never heard of Hudson being interested in CD technology before NEC. All the stories about their collaboration say that before they did anything, NEC told Hudson that they wanted to make CD games (using theur own computer CD-ROM) a priority. I think that you're just making guesses about history based on game release dates. NEC absolutely ruled the home computer market and the PCE was used to establish disc baded medium as the new standard to this day.

But yeah, Hudson and NEC were separate companies and the PCE was a unique situation. That's what we've been saying all along.

Since NEC insisted on integrating their computer CD-ROM with Hudson's hardware design, they obviously were involved in the process. I think that if any changes were made to Hudson's original cart based hardware, it would have just heen scaling back the audio, since the CD-ROM was going to make it overkill.

[TurboXray]

I think that if any changes were made to Hudson's original cart based hardware, it would have just heen scaling back the audio, since the CD-ROM was going to make it overkill.

I've always had that impression as well. Same with the Genesis/Megadrive. They have onboard stereo inputs on the Genesis cart port, but never upgraded the audio (not even a simple self feeding DAC like the NES has). I mean, considering the Genesis got a LOT of flack for this BITD. That would detract from the SegaCD/MegaCD upgrade. Same with the PCE. There's actually one small thing that's missing from the PCE audio, that would greatly enhance the sound output (timbre control). The audio engineer had to have known this. Simply being able to read back the waveform pointer position, means that it could have emulated all kinds of synths sounds (FM, etc).

[A Black Falcon]

NEC Ave isn't NEC either. It's just one of their five developing/publishing branches which put out games for Turbo/PCE.

Oh come on.  NEC Avenue was a division of NEC, just like, say, EAD or NST are divisions of Nintendo, or Sonic Team and SegaSoft are or were divisions of Sega.  NEC Avenue is NEC.

Even Nintendo didn't make all of their own games, like most publishers they just take all the credit.

Sure, that's true, and I'm sure NEC did that too.  But company divisions like NEC Avenue are not that; games that NEC, or NEC Avenue, or whatever published which secretly were developed by some other team would fit that category.  Nintendo and Sega did both do that sometimes, and I'm sure NEC did as well.

I've never heard of Hudson being interested in CD technology before NEC. All the stories about their collaboration say that before they did anything, NEC told Hudson that they wanted to make CD games (using theur own computer CD-ROM) a priority.

Really?  I thought I remember reading about how Hudson was very interested in the CD thing too, and not only because of NEC. Are you sure of this?

I think that you're just making guesses about history based on game release dates.

No, I didn't say that based on game release dates.  That's entirely separate.

NEC absolutely ruled the home computer market and the PCE was used to establish disc baded medium as the new standard to this day.

But yeah, Hudson and NEC were separate companies and the PCE was a unique situation. That's what we've been saying all along.

Huh?  No, someone said that Hudson and NEC were so close that they can't be separated, to explain away the differences between their release histories.  But that's not true, the two are different companies with different strategies, and that's the explanation for it.

Since NEC insisted on integrating their computer CD-ROM with Hudson's hardware design, they obviously were involved in the process. I think that if any changes were made to Hudson's original cart based hardware, it would have just heen scaling back the audio, since the CD-ROM was going to make it overkill.

Yeah, that could be.  Entirely possible.

[CrackTiger]

Here's a common sense approach using reasonably solid/fact-based figures and proportional estimates that most people would agree upon.

The PC Engine was only released outside of Japan in a significant way in North America, where it may have done alright as a niche console, but wasn't anywhere near as substantial as the mainstream consoles, nor the PC Engine in Japan. As such, it didn't draw the kind of third party support that worldwide-massively successful consoles did and unlike the Genesis, it couldn't get companies like Capcom to break Nintendo's grip on them to support it. Pretty much the only game development for PCE/TG-16 outside of Japan was a handful of games published by the North American first party entities. There's no point getting into why or how it didn't get the kind of European game support that the successful consoles did, all that matters is that it didn't. We can all agree that the PCE was in the worst position of the 16-bit consoles for receiving third or even first party support, since games developed for it didn't have the potential to be successful in other markets.

Now Sega Genesis was insanely popular worldwide, but especially in North America. Although we'll never get solid figures, 40+ million worldwide and 20+ million in North American hardware sales gets tossed around a lot. Obviously the Genesis benefited development-wise from being huge in Europe, while still garnering massive support from Japanese publishers, even if the Mega Drive wasn't as popular in Japan. So it's logical that the Genesis was in a position to receive a much higher rate of published games proportionate to consoles-sold, than the stuck-in-Japan PC Engine. Obviously, the SNES also benefited in what should be a much higher games-published to hardware-sold ratio. It just makes sense.

So taking this non-radical point of view, how is this possible:

Genesis: 20 million consoles sold in NA / 40 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for NA
SNES: 23 million consoles sold in NA / 50 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for NA
PC Engine: >6 million consoles sold in JP / >7 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for JP

Super Famicom: 17 million consoles sold in JP / 50 million worldwide / 1440 published cart games + 232 Satellaview games for JP


So even though the PC Engine should have a much lower number of available games proportionate to consoles sold, the extra low hardware figures being pushed in this thread would have us believe that PC Engine games sold so well, that it garnered a hugely disproportionate amount of development, while still being snubbed by so many publishers because of the whole Nintendo honor/blackmail/bs? And yet we're still supposed to believe that the best selling PC Engine game only moved 200,000 units?

None of this makes any sense unless you're blindly trying to make the PC Engine seem unsuccessful from multiple contradicting points of view.

It just doesn't add up.

[ClodBusted]

I found this article from NFG on the PC Engine magazine to be very enjoyable to read. It also gives a point of view on the numerous hardware variations, add-ons and accessories of the PC Engine:
http://nfgworld.com/?p=1508 (NSFW content)



Black Tiger & A Black Falcon, please keep both your posts coming, I think you've got both many valid points.

[SamIAm]

Genesis: 20 million consoles sold in NA / 40 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for NA
SNES: 23 million consoles sold in NA / 50 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for NA
PC Engine: >6 million consoles sold in JP / >7 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for JP

Super Famicom: 17 million consoles sold in JP / 50 million worldwide / 1440 published cart games + 232 Satellaview games for JP


So even though the PC Engine should have a much lower number of available games proportionate to consoles sold, the extra low hardware figures being pushed in this thread would have us believe that PC Engine games sold so well, that it garnered a hugely disproportionate amount of development, while still being snubbed by so many publishers because of the whole Nintendo honor/blackmail/bs? And yet we're still supposed to believe that the best selling PC Engine game only moved 200,000 units?

First of all, I'm assuming that you're referencing the sales stat I got for Tengai Makyo II. If that's correct, then what is your source for your claim that it was the best-selling PCE game? I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't, either.

Second of all, you're saying that because the PCE with the CD expansion had a total of about 700 games released for it, it must have had a level of market presence closer to the Super Nintendo and the Genesis because they, too, each had about 700 games released for them (albeit in North America only).

In other words, you're saying that the Asahi newspaper figure of 5.8 million PCE system sales worldwide, and Famitsu's figures of 3.92 million Hucard systems and 1.92 million CD systems including Duos in Japan only, must be wrong because of the number of games made. Isn't this right?

By the way, nice shoehorning of another million into the PCE sales quotes in your post.

What you're doing is speculating based on a single limited correlation. There are lots of reasons why the PCE could have gotten 700 games with only 5 million units sold in Japan. How did the 3DO get over 300 games made for it when it only ever sold 2 million units worldwide? It's because it had its own niche, and it had certain developers that focused on it. The PCE had these things going for it and more.

For example, when the PCE was rising in popularity in 1988 thanks to hits like R-Type, the actual number of Hucard games available in Japan was still small. Developers could count on less competition and get good sales even if the PCE user base wasn't as big as the Famicom's, and this probably contributed to the flourishing of Hucard games in 1989 and 1990. However, you could say that something similar happened with CD system, too, given the number of CD games available in 1990 and the boom over the next couple of years. And again for the 3.0 system and the number of games in 1992.

So sheer newness, as well as promise from early popularity, was enough to be an influence on developers each time a new format came out. I hate to bring it up again, but this is another reason why treating the PCE and its CD expansion as one system and comparing it directly to the Mega Drive and the Super Famicom often makes for an apples/oranges comparison. The PCE with the CD expansion arguably got this effect three times, while the others got it just once.

And again, that's all just one possible reason why there were 700 games on a system with 5 million sales.

None of this makes any sense unless you're blindly trying to make the PC Engine seem unsuccessful from multiple contradicting points of view.

It just doesn't add up.

Look, dude, Famitsu and the Asashi newspaper are credible sources, and their two independent figures complement each other very well. And there's that guy from NEC saying that they had sold 1.8 million CD systems in 1994, too, which makes three separate corroborating sources straight from Japan. Do you have even one source that is as credible as a single one of these three?

Because it sounds to me like your only source is your gut.

[Otaking]

I found this article from NFG on the PC Engine magazine to be very enjoyable to read. It also gives a point of view on the numerous hardware variations, add-ons and accessories of the PC Engine:
http://nfgworld.com/?p=1508

I've been going through a massive archive of PC Engine magazines recently. Complete runs of every PCE mag ever printed, basically, 43 gigabytes of scans that brought me on a roller coaster of PC Engine history.

I wonder where he got the PC Engine magazine scans from?

[SamIAm]

Here's a Japanese dude quoting a different Famitsu figure saying that HuCard-only systems had sold 3.72 million in Japan by September 1992. In the same sentence, he compares this to the same 3.92 million Famitsu quote that I talked about.

(scroll down, it's near the bottom)

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Once again, did they really?  "Integral piece of the pie" from day one in December 1988?  But NEC didn't even release a Turbo CD game until September 1989!  That's not "from day one".

You're one dumb cookie.  The design of the hardware (and the prototypes shown before the PCE was released) makes it painfully obvious that the PCE and CD were designed side by side.  The CD is clearly not an afterthought, and the number and timing of game releases by a separate branch of the parent company is wholly irrelevant.

It wasn't until 1991 that NEC decided to focus on the Turbo CD as their main platform.  Look at their 1989-1990 CD release libraries if you want to see that.

I didn't say they considered the CD the main platform.  Learn to read.

Besides, it's downright retarded to look at their released games as an indicator of what they wanted from the system as a whole (from all developers).  Do you also believe they only wanted arcade ports and karaoke discs?

Their only CD releases in '89 -- again, the first one coming in September -- were Altered Beast CD, the first three volumes of Rom Rom Karaoke, and Sidearms Special.  In 1990 all they had on CD was Super Darius and two more volumes of Rom Rom Karaoke.  That's a thin lineup of three games previously or also available on HuCard and five volumes of karaoke.

You talk as if they released a ton of HuCard games in that time frame.  There's only 21 titles from them in '89 and '90, making CDs 38% of the mix, which is hardly the tiny minority you make it out to be.

Addons kind of are a weird middle-ground between supplements and completely different systems, though.  They kind of go in both categories...

But the games for those add-ons are unequivocally separate from the main library?  Try to be consistent with your inanity.

Adding a CD storage medium radically alters what you can do in games in certain important ways -- videos, voice acting, CD audio, etc.

And adding an FX chip (or other helper chips) radically alters what can be done in games too.  Why do you ignore that distinction?

So 24 million sales are irrelevant just because you say so and dislike it?  Uh, that's not right.  I've never used the Kinect myself and doubt it works well for most games, but that's completely besides the point.

It's irrelevant because it in no way, shape, or form can be considered a console; it's a controller, pure and simple.  Bringing it up in this discussion made no sense whatsoever.

[A Black Falcon]

You're one dumb cookie.  The design of the hardware (and the prototypes shown before the PCE was released) makes it painfully obvious that the PCE and CD were designed side by side.

You should try to follow my actual argument and not make stuff up I didn't say...

Get the argument straight.  Black Tiger there said that he thinks that the PCE and CD weren't designed at the same time, and that the PCE came first and the CD later, from NEC and not Hudson.  I said that I doubt this and think that Hudson came up with the CD idea on its own, which obviously suggests that even if the PCE maybe came first, they came up with the CD addon idea early on, almost certainly before the PCE released.  I'm not the one you should be insulting here.

The CD is clearly not an afterthought, and the number and timing of game releases by a separate branch of the parent company is wholly irrelevant.

Well, this first depends on whether the CD system was indeed originally intended as the primary format or not.  Being so forward-thinking as to expect, in 1987, that CDs would be the format that this platform you're releasing now would mostly use... maybe, that could be, but I'm skeptical.  It seems more likely that it was intended at first as what the Turbo CD was for the first three years of its life: an add-on, for the kinds of games that need CD audio or cutscene data.  The 'CD as the main platform' idea dates to the creation of the Duo in 1991.

As for game releases, that it was indeed intended to be 'just an addon' at first explains both NEC and Hudson's relatively thin CD release libraries in '88 to '90.  Both companies were mostly focused on HuCard games, clearly.

I didn't say they considered the CD the main platform.  Learn to read.

Besides, it's downright retarded to look at their released games as an indicator of what they wanted from the system as a whole (from all developers).  Do you also believe they only wanted arcade ports and karaoke discs?

Well, when you look at the kind of stuff releasing on the Turbo CD early on, I think they didn't really know WHAT they wanted.  And this makes sense -- the CD was brand new as a videogame medium, and this massive amount of space was hard to deal with.  What do you put on the disc to take up all that space?  Nobody was really sure that generation about how to make the best use of the space.  And so you end up with cartridge games with CD audio, information discs which aren't really games, FMV-heavy games (on Sega CD particularly), music/karaoke 'games', and such.  Actual game data at the time did not need anywhere near a CD's worth of space, after all, so you couldn't fill a disc with just a game!

You talk as if they released a ton of HuCard games in that time frame.  There's only 21 titles from them in '89 and '90, making CDs 38% of the mix, which is hardly the tiny minority you make it out to be.

38%?  But of the 8 CD games, three are games also available on HuCards, and the other five are karaoke discs.  With the HuCard games, though, all of them are full, individual games.  It's not comparable.

But the games for those add-ons are unequivocally separate from the main library?  Try to be consistent with your inanity.

What you need to be is be consistent in each comparison!  Either include all addons, or don't.  None of this middle ground some people in this thread want where some addons count but others don't.  Go with the standard definition of an addon -- that is, some significant piece of hardware you have to buy separately from the main system that's more than just a RAM expansion -- and either include them all, so compare Genesis+Sega CD+32X to SNES+Satellaview to TG16+TCD, or compare all of them separately.  Both ways are valid, really.  What isn't valid is merging the TCD and TG16 and calling them one platform but not doing so with Sega and claiming that that's a fair comparison, as was done in this thread.

And adding an FX chip (or other helper chips) radically alters what can be done in games too.  Why do you ignore that distinction?

FX chips are built into the carts, they aren't something sold separately as an addon.  This is the difference between the SVP chip in Genesis Virtua Racing and 32X Virtua Racing Deluxe, for instance.  Expansion chips in carts do matter, and in a certain way of looking at it sort of are "self-contained addons", but they are definitely not consoles, since a console is something with multiple, interchangeable games.  And because they are in the carts, and not separate, people count them as part of the main library.

It's irrelevant because it in no way, shape, or form can be considered a console; it's a controller, pure and simple.  Bringing it up in this discussion made no sense whatsoever.

So you're putting it in the same category as, say, light guns?  That might be fair, but special controllers like light guns or the Kinect could, from a certain point of view, count as "addons" too you know.  You're already trying to expand the definition of addon by including special chips in cartridges as "addons", so what's so odd about expanding it to include addon controllers as well?

[A Black Falcon]

Here's a common sense approach using reasonably solid/fact-based figures and proportional estimates that most people would agree upon.

The PC Engine was only released outside of Japan in a significant way in North America, where it may have done alright as a niche console, but wasn't anywhere near as substantial as the mainstream consoles, nor the PC Engine in Japan. As such, it didn't draw the kind of third party support that worldwide-massively successful consoles did and unlike the Genesis, it couldn't get companies like Capcom to break Nintendo's grip on them to support it. Pretty much the only game development for PCE/TG-16 outside of Japan was a handful of games published by the North American first party entities. There's no point getting into why or how it didn't get the kind of European game support that the successful consoles did, all that matters is that it didn't. We can all agree that the PCE was in the worst position of the 16-bit consoles for receiving third or even first party support, since games developed for it didn't have the potential to be successful in other markets.

Now Sega Genesis was insanely popular worldwide, but especially in North America. Although we'll never get solid figures, 40+ million worldwide and 20+ million in North American hardware sales gets tossed around a lot. Obviously the Genesis benefited development-wise from being huge in Europe, while still garnering massive support from Japanese publishers, even if the Mega Drive wasn't as popular in Japan. So it's logical that the Genesis was in a position to receive a much higher rate of published games proportionate to consoles-sold, than the stuck-in-Japan PC Engine. Obviously, the SNES also benefited in what should be a much higher games-published to hardware-sold ratio. It just makes sense.

So taking this non-radical point of view, how is this possible:

Genesis: 20 million consoles sold in NA / 40 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for NA
SNES: 23 million consoles sold in NA / 50 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for NA
PC Engine: >6 million consoles sold in JP / >7 million worldwide / 700'ish published games for JP

Super Famicom: 17 million consoles sold in JP / 50 million worldwide / 1440 published cart games + 232 Satellaview games for JP


So even though the PC Engine should have a much lower number of available games proportionate to consoles sold, the extra low hardware figures being pushed in this thread would have us believe that PC Engine games sold so well, that it garnered a hugely disproportionate amount of development, while still being snubbed by so many publishers because of the whole Nintendo honor/blackmail/bs? And yet we're still supposed to believe that the best selling PC Engine game only moved 200,000 units?

None of this makes any sense unless you're blindly trying to make the PC Engine seem unsuccessful from multiple contradicting points of view.

It just doesn't add up.

SamIAm already covered a lot of the reasons why your argument here makes no sense, but I can add a little more as well. 

First, as he said, it's 5.8 million total, not 7 million.

But more importantly, you seem to not understand that in Japan, many more console games release than release in the West.  This is true with every successful platform!  Saturn, Playstation, PS2, NES, SNES, what have you, consoles get FAR more games in Japan than we do here.  It's easy to release lots of games for a system in Japan, because of the country's relatively small size and dense population.  Releasing a game physically in the West requires a lot more distribution costs for sure,  and doesn't happen anywhere near as often.  Look at those SNES numbers you posted, for example -- the SNES sold better in the US than it did in Japan, but had twice as many game releases in Japan as it did in the US.  With the PS1 or PS2, there is an even bigger discrepancy.

So basically, the main point of your argument, that somehow because the SNES and Genesis in the US got as many game releases as the TG16+CD did in Japan it did as well there as those did here, is based on absolutely nothing.  In fact, in Japan you expect consoles to get more game releases than they get in the West.  It happens all the time.  Cheap distribution costs, easy access to the market, low budgets for games that match the expected sales... that's how the industry worked, and still often works, there.

[SamIAm]

If the number of games in a library were strictly a function of the number of systems sold, let's say to a minimum ratio of 100 games per 1 million consoles sold, then the PC-FX should have had about 11 games. It had 62.

If you're interested, the figure of 110,000 PC-FX systems sold comes from another Asahi newspaper interview with an NEC executive. By the way, and I mentioned this once before, there is actually yet another quote about PC-FX sales from a different interview with an NEC person: he said that it sold 1/50th as many as the PC Engine. That's not exactly precise if 110,000 and 5.8 million are the real sales numbers, but it's pretty close. Close enough to call it a fourth corroborating source for PCE sales, if you ask me.

[NFG]

I updated the above referenced NFGworld post with a sales chart from the November 1993 PC Engine Fan magazine.

https://nfgworld.com/1508/

One of the very interesting things I found was this sales chart from November 1993:



The green line is CD ROM software, and the spike in uptake between 1990 and 1991 is neat, from 1.5m units to 3.4m, while HuCard softs plummeted rather quickly, from nearly six million to 3.4m at the same time. By 1992 HuCard software sales were negligible, at 1m while CD ROM sales held steady at 3.5m.

This seems to indicate that the CD ROM buyers found much greater value in their software options, as CD ROM capable system sales were about a quarter of HuCard system sales (I don't know if a Duo sale counts solely as CD ROM or also as a HuCard system).

The clever reader doesn't need me to point out that hardware sales are measured on the left side, Hu system sales in the white bar, CD systems as the grey bar). Software sales are noted on the right.

[SamIAm]

I updated the above referenced NFGworld  post with a sales chart from the November 1993 PC Engine Fan magazine.

http://nfgworld.com/?p=1508#comment-21492

Thank you for sharing this.

This chart confirms everything that I've been saying and the sources I've been quoting. In 1992, we see Hucard system sales peaking at <4 million, and still some room to grow for the CD system with sales at 1.5 million. We also see Hucard sales taking a dive when the Super Famicom came out, fueling the transition to the CD system.

NFG, do you read Japanese? I'm a fast reader (used to be a professional translator), and if there is something related to this that you would like me to look at and give everyone the gist of, I would be happy to do so.

I'm really curious about the sales of specific games, especially Hucards. I've scoured the internet in Japanese, but I can't find a single reliable source for a sales quote on specific Hucard games.

[A Black Falcon]

One interesting thing about that chart, aren't those hardware totals by '92 very close to the numbers you were saying were the final numbers?  So did the system sell much worse in '93-'99, or something?

Also, you really, really should get together your source citations and fix the English TG16 Wikipedia article's sales numbers... those Gamepro numbers they cite are WRONG.  The Sega Genesis article used to be just as bad, but now it's full of sources for the most specific sales information that could be found.  The TG16 needs something similar.

[SamIAm]

One interesting thing about that chart, aren't those hardware totals by '92 very close to the numbers you were saying were the final numbers?  So did the system sell much worse in '93-'99, or something?

It wouldn't be too surprising. According to that one fan-site, roughly half of the 1.92 million CD systems are the non-Duo, attachment type. Of the remaining million, maybe 500k are original Duos, 300k are Duo-R systems, and 200k are RX systems. That's just a guess, of course, but the Duo-R came out in March 1993, and the RX was in 1994. It seems to line up. It also helps explain why the R and RX are more expensive nowadays, though there are other factors.

Also, you really, really should get together your source citations and fix the English TG16 Wikipedia article's sales numbers... those Gamepro numbers they cite are WRONG.  The Sega Genesis article used to be just as bad, but now it's full of sources for the most specific sales information that could be found.  The TG16 needs something similar.

That might be a good idea. I'll see what I can do. It would be nice to get the specific issue numbers for the Famitsu quotes, but I haven't found any yet. The Asahi newspaper quotes are specific, though, and so is that PC Engine Fan issue.

I'm actually thinking of putting together some kind of essay/retrospective on the PC-FX. I dare say that after reading so many Japanese magazine articles, fan sites and forums, and after getting my hands dirty translating one of the games, I've come to have a perspective on the system that nobody else in the English speaking world has ever had. The PC-FX makes for a good story, because you really have to understand the context of the PCE-CD system to understand the decision making process behind the PC-FX.

Here's one interesting quote from the scenario-writer of such definitive PCE-CD games as the Tengai Makyo series and Linda3: "A PCE game has to have beautiful women in it, or it won't sell."

[esteban]

Here's one interesting quote from the scenario-writer of such definitive PCE-CD games as the Tengai Makyo series and Linda3: "A PCE game has to have beautiful women in it, or it won't sell."

I'm sure he felt that way, but can we think of a few exceptions?

[SamIAm]

I'm sure he felt that way, but can we think of a few exceptions?

Do you mean developers who didn't feel that way, or games that contradicted that? I don't have any other developer quotes on hand. As for successful CD games that didn't have beautiful women in them...that's a good question. Especially if you're talking about games after 1992.

[ClodBusted]

I updated the above referenced NFGworld  post with a sales chart from the November 1993 PC Engine Fan magazine.

http://nfgworld.com/?p=1508#comment-21492

Good to see you here and thanks for updating and sharing your article. Can't wait to get my hands on your upcoming videogame sprite book.
Cheers

[Nazi NecroPhile]

You should try to follow my actual argument and not make stuff up I didn't say...

Get the argument straight.  Black Tiger there said that he thinks that the PCE and CD weren't designed at the same time, and that the PCE came first and the CD later, from NEC and not Hudson.  I said that I doubt this and think that Hudson came up with the CD idea on its own, which obviously suggests that even if the PCE maybe came first, they came up with the CD addon idea early on, almost certainly before the PCE released.  I'm not the one you should be insulting here.

Those comments came after the discussion to which I was responding and don't really conflict with what I was saying anyway, seeing as the concept shown to Nintendo was surely not identical to the final design.

Well, this first depends on whether the CD system was indeed originally intended as the primary format or not.

No it doesn't.  You're under the false assumption that they intended either format to heavily dominate, when it's pretty obvious that they saw room for both.  Blow whatever smoke you want, but there's no denying that NEC and Hudson treated the CD as an important piece of the puzzle before the system even launched.

Well, when you look at the kind of stuff releasing on the Turbo CD early on, I think they didn't really know WHAT they wanted.  And this makes sense -- the CD was brand new as a videogame medium, and this massive amount of space was hard to deal with.  What do you put on the disc to take up all that space?  Nobody was really sure that generation about how to make the best use of the space.  And so you end up with cartridge games with CD audio, information discs which aren't really games, FMV-heavy games (on Sega CD particularly), music/karaoke 'games', and such.  Actual game data at the time did not need anywhere near a CD's worth of space, after all, so you couldn't fill a disc with just a game!

So music, cutscenes, and voicework aren't parts of a game?  Clearly NEC and Hudson disagreed, as does anyone with an IQ over 60.

38%?

It's simple math.  8 divided by 21 equals 0.38.

But of the 8 CD games, three are games also available on HuCards, and the other five are karaoke discs.  With the HuCard games, though, all of them are full, individual games.  It's not comparable.

Wrong again.  Darius Alpha is not a full game and wasn't even commercially available, Artist Tool isn't a game at all, and Altered Beast came out after the CD version.  Also, you can't ignore karaoke discs (or digicomics, FMV stuff, etc.) just because you don't like 'em; they may seem insignificant, but they made what they could sell.

Also, why are you ignoring the games put out by Hudson?  You can't draw conclusions of what they (NEC and Hudson) wanted from the system based solely on what NEC produced early on.  Look up the word "partnership" if necessary.

What you need to be is be consistent in each comparison!

I've already stated how I separate systems: if it's mostly just a storage medium, it's included in the main library, but if it also substantially increases the system's original capabilities, it's a separate system.  You don't have to agree with my reasoning, but I most certainly am being consistent and there is a certain logic to it.

Either include all addons, or don't.  None of this middle ground some people in this thread want where some addons count but others don't.  Go with the standard definition of an addon -- that is, some significant piece of hardware you have to buy separately from the main system that's more than just a RAM expansion [and isn't packaged with the game itself].

So only you are qualified to decide what constitutes a "significant piece of hardware" and thus deserves segregation from the rest of the library? 

FX chips are built into the carts, they aren't something sold separately as an addon.

Sure, that's one way you can do it, but don't kid yourself into thinking it's the only or even the most logical way.  I'd rather look at function than something as simple and easy to change as packaging.

So you're putting it in the same category as, say, light guns?  That might be fair, but special controllers like light guns or the Kinect could, from a certain point of view, count as "addons" too you know.  You're already trying to expand the definition of addon by including special chips in cartridges as "addons", so what's so odd about expanding it to include addon controllers as well?

The discussion has never been about the definition of "add-on", so I don't know what point you're failing to make, nor do I really care.

[esteban]

I'm sure he felt that way, but can we think of a few exceptions?

Do you mean developers who didn't feel that way, or games that contradicted that? I don't have any other developer quotes on hand. As for successful CD games that didn't have beautiful women in them...that's a good question. Especially if you're talking about games after 1992.

Sorry, I should clarified: I meant examples of games.

I have been looking at the trend in games (as presented in these old PCE mags) and concur with NFGman...things quickly became "scantily clad women"-centric

[A Black Falcon]

Those comments came after the discussion to which I was responding and don't really conflict with what I was saying anyway, seeing as the concept shown to Nintendo was surely not identical to the final design.

Uh, they don't?  But he said that he thought NEC came up with the CD system after Hudson made the base system, and you're saying you think the CD and HuCard systems are intrinsically linked... how are those compatible?  I'd think it has to be one or the other.

No it doesn't.  You're under the false assumption that they intended either format to heavily dominate, when it's pretty obvious that they saw room for both.  Blow whatever smoke you want, but there's no denying that NEC and Hudson treated the CD as an important piece of the puzzle before the system even launched.

That's possible, but by no means definite.  I'm sure they hoped the CD system would eventually be important, but their focus on HuCard games for the system's early years shows that they didn't think it was an immediate thing, for sure.  At first they put most of their efforts into HuCard games, and lesser attention on CDs. 

Then came the SNES and their focus changed to the CD system first, because that was something Nintendo did not have.  NEC gradually lost that fight, as the sales numbers that have been found in this thread show -- I mean, ~1.5 million CD systems sold by 1992 out of ~1.9 million total sold is pretty clear, the SNES won.  But if they'd stuck with HuCards first as before, maybe the system would have faded out even sooner?  Or at least, that's what NEC seems to have thought would happen.  Maybe they're right, maybe not, it's hard to say.

But going back, I'm sure that Hudson and NEC found the CD system very interesting, and hoped that it'd take off, but saying that from the beginning they were intending on it being equal in importance to the HuCard system is saying something that we have no evidence for, simply because you want it to be true.

So music, cutscenes, and voicework aren't parts of a game?  Clearly NEC and Hudson disagreed, as does anyone with an IQ over 60.

They're not gameplay.  Everyone know that.  Unless it's an FMV game, or a digital encyclopedia which has nothing BUT that kind of thing, that stuff isn't gameplay!  Everyone knows that actual game programming does not include things like music, graphics, and cutscenes, and it doesn't take up a CDs worth of data for sure either.  And nor did ingame graphics, for most games of the era.  Cutscene and voice work is what filled discs.  Those things can add to a game, but again, unless it's an FMV game, they're not gameplay -- and the Turbo CD, unlike the Sega CD, isn't loaded with FMV games, though stuff like digital comics is pretty close to that kind of thing, for sure.

It's simple math.  8 divided by 21 equals 0.38.

Why 21?  I count 25 releases by NEC Avenue in '88-'90 (17 HuCard, 8 CD)... maybe that's off, but that difference isn't important.  It would be nice to get it precise, but the point is the contrast between that and how different it is from even just the next year -- in '91 in Japan NEC published 6 CD games and 2 HuCards, and that is the last time they published more than one HuCard game in a year.   In the US things were different, but NEC US's HuCard titles weren't released in Japan, of course.

Wrong again.  Darius Alpha is not a full game and wasn't even commercially available, Artist Tool isn't a game at all, and Altered Beast came out after the CD version.

Such a minor quibble... come on.  Anyway, yeah, Altered Beast and Darius Plus released later on HuCard than CD, that is true, but I'm sure they planned from the start to release those games on both formats.  I know the two versions are somewhat different, but they are variants of the same basic game.  Oh, and I wasn't counting Artist Tool above, but I guess it probably should count as a release, sure.

Also, you can't ignore karaoke discs (or digicomics, FMV stuff, etc.) just because you don't like 'em; they may seem insignificant, but they made what they could sell.

I'm sure they do, and they do count as games, but five volumes of karaoke?  That's like the four Make My Video volumes on Sega CD... no new ideas between them, just different videos and stuff.   It makes sense that they'd exist, though, and that's fine,... but even a Make My Video thing is more of a game than karaoke!  Do those even have a scoring system, or are they just basically a CD+G burned to a TCD disc?

Also, why are you ignoring the games put out by Hudson?  You can't draw conclusions of what they (NEC and Hudson) wanted from the system based solely on what NEC produced early on.  Look up the word "partnership" if necessary.

Remember the whole thing about how Hudson and NEC were so similar that they couldn't be separated, etc?  Well, I showed how they could be separated, and focused on NEC because they're the one actually making the systems, and because their early library probably doesn't get as much attention as Hudson's does.  People probably mostly know what Hudson made.

I've already stated how I separate systems: if it's mostly just a storage medium, it's included in the main library, but if it also substantially increases the system's original capabilities, it's a separate system.  You don't have to agree with my reasoning, but I most certainly am being consistent and there is a certain logic to it.

There really isn't, though.  I mean, yes, the Sega CD has scaling and rotation hardware in it for instance, but many games make no use of that stuff and basically don't do anything more than a Turbo CD game would, except with more RAM than anything but the Arcade Card of course.  Do those count differently to you than games that make use of the hardware?  There's essentially no way to actually be completely consistent with your system, I think.  The normal one makes more sense.

And come on, the idea that a different storage medium isn't a major and very significant change is nonsense.

So only you are qualified to decide what constitutes a "significant piece of hardware" and thus deserves segregation from the rest of the library? 

You're being ridiculous!  I am merely agreeing with the standard definition of what an addon is.  You know, the same definition that every website on the internet that separates games by platform uses to determine whether a game is for a console or its addon?  The same one used by game companies themselves, when they put different markings on their games depending on whether they are for the main system or one of its addons?

I hope at least you can admit that you're rewriting the definition of addon here and replacing the normal one with one of your own.  And as such, you're the one who has to prove your case for why the standard system is wrong; this quote here where you somehow try to claim that I'm the one who came up with it is really absurd, you know that that's not the case.

Sure, that's one way you can do it, but don't kid yourself into thinking it's the only or even the most logical way.  I'd rather look at function than something as simple and easy to change as packaging.

As I said above, then you're rewriting the definition of what an addon is, disagreeing with every authoritative source, and basically just making up a system which conveniently is biased in favor of NEC.  Hmm.

I like the Turbo CD for sure, but it's an addon, not the same thing as a TG16!

The discussion has never been about the definition of "add-on", so I don't know what point you're failing to make, nor do I really care.

I have no idea what you're talking about here, because the entire argument is about what the definition of an addon is.

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Uh, they don't?  But he said that he thought NEC came up with the CD system after Hudson made the base system, and you're saying you think the CD and HuCard systems are intrinsically linked... how are those compatible?  I'd think it has to be one or the other.

Can't you read?!?

As I said, it doesn't conflict because the cart based system Hudson proposed to Nintendo wasn't the final design of the PCE; it's not a coincidence that the PCE uses NEC parts, that the expansion connector is loaded to the gills, or that its size and appearance matches the CD drive - all three are evidence of NEC's hand in its design.  Also, we're talking about what the NEC / Hudson partnership wanted from the system, so it doesn't matter one iota what Hudson themselves wanted before the partnership even formed.

That's possible, but by no means definite.  I'm sure they hoped the CD system would eventually be important, but their focus on HuCard games for the system's early years shows that they didn't think it was an immediate thing, for sure.  At first they put most of their efforts into HuCard games, and lesser attention on CDs...... But going back, I'm sure that Hudson and NEC found the CD system very interesting, and hoped that it'd take off, but saying that from the beginning they were intending on it being equal in importance to the HuCard system is saying something that we have no evidence for, simply because you want it to be true.

I didn't say equal in importance, I said it was important period; and just because the CD didn't get 50% of the game releases early on doesn't mean it was unimportant.  Try to reign in your stupid.

They're not gameplay.  Everyone know that.  Unless it's an FMV game, or a digital encyclopedia which has nothing BUT that kind of thing, that stuff isn't gameplay!

You said game data not game play.  Trying to change your argument after the fact won't make you look less retarded.

In any case, cutscenes, music, and voicework most definitely are part of a game.  Look at Ys Book I and II and try to say with a straight face that it wouldn't be any less of a game without 'em.

Why 21?  I count 25 releases by NEC Avenue in '88-'90 (17 HuCard, 8 CD).

Because you specifically said to look at the '89 and '90 releases, I didn't include games from '88.  I also left off GnG, but I guess in your little world the SGX isn't a separate system.

Such a minor quibble... come on.

Indeed, but the only way to refute your minor quibble reasons for saying those CD titles don't count is with more minor quibbles.

I'm sure they do, and they do count as games, but five volumes of karaoke?  That's like the four Make My Video volumes on Sega CD... no new ideas between them, just different videos and stuff.   It makes sense that they'd exist, though, and that's fine,... but even a Make My Video thing is more of a game than karaoke!  Do those even have a scoring system, or are they just basically a CD+G burned to a TCD disc?

Who gives a shit?  The point is that the CD wasn't ignored and in fact it received a significant portion of the releases early on (during your revised '88-'90 timeline, they're still 1/3 of NEC's releases).  Not that it matters.  Even if NEC never releases a single CD title, it wouldn't prove they didn't care about the format.

Remember the whole thing about how Hudson and NEC were so similar that they couldn't be separated, etc?  Well, I showed how they could be separated, and focused on NEC because they're the one actually making the systems, and because their early library probably doesn't get as much attention as Hudson's does.  People probably mostly know what Hudson made.

Color me unsurprised that you didn't bother to look up partnership.  Anything to "prove" your point, eh?

There really isn't, though.  I mean, yes, the Sega CD has scaling and rotation hardware in it for instance, but many games make no use of that stuff and basically don't do anything more than a Turbo CD game would, except with more RAM than anything but the Arcade Card of course.  Do those count differently to you than games that make use of the hardware?  There's essentially no way to actually be completely consistent with your system, I think.  The normal one makes more sense.

True, some games might not use all the capabilities available, but I'm differentiating based on hardware capabilities not what each specific game did or didn't do.  Outside of redbook tunes, every single game in the PCE library could be done on HuCard (ignoring the exorbitant cost of such large carts); the same can be said of games on FDS, 64DD, etc., but it is untrue for the Sega CD, 32x, etc. 

You're being ridiculous!  I am merely agreeing with the standard definition of what an addon is.

But you're not.  Stuff like the Arcade Card is unequivocally an add-on, yet you don't count it as one.

I hope at least you can admit that you're rewriting the definition of addon here and replacing the normal one with one of your own.

Not once have I claimed the PCE-CD was not an add-on, nor am I redefining the word.  The only thing I'd argue that goes against many people's idea of an add-on is that stuff like the FX chip qualifies.  Not that wikipedia is infallible, but here's their definition of add-on:

Add-ons, also known as peripherals, are devices generally sold separately from the console, but which connect to the main unit to add significant new functionality. This may include devices which upgrade the hardware of a console to allow it to play more resource-intensive games, devices which allow consoles to play games on a different media format, or devices which fully change the function of a console from a game playing device to something else.

The FX chip was sold separate from the system, connected to the console, and provided substantially more processing power, so how does it not qualify as an add-on?  I see no disclaimer in the definition that says "unless the device can only be used by the game it is contained within".

As I said above, then you're rewriting the definition of what an addon is, disagreeing with every authoritative source, and basically just making up a system which conveniently is biased in favor of NEC.  Hmm.

You mean my game library separations are biased.  Fear not, I'm similarly biased towards the FDS, 64DD, Satellaview, MSX cassette thingys, etc. 

I have no idea what you're talking about here, because the entire argument is about what the definition of an addon is.

You're confused.  The discussion is about whether or not the CDs and HuCards should be kept separate.

[TurboXray]

 You'll never convince A Black Falcon that hucards and CD games should be counted as a single library of games for the PC-Engine. Ever. All this arguing, over this one little fact. He concedes to nothing (I've seen his arguments across different forums). But anyway, I ~think~ it forms from the simple fact that he grew up with the SNES. Anyone who has grown up with the PCE/TG and CD unit, counts all those games as belonging PC-Engine/TG library. It's no different than having games on cassette, floppy, and cart for small home computers. CoCo, Commodore, Atari, MSX, etc. The CD unit is a storage/medium addon. It is not a SegaCD. It is not a 32x. Hell, even PC games - they had requirements such as newer processors and newer graphics modes, that older PCs couldn't handle without those upgrades.. and yet they're all still called 'PC games' and all part of that same category/library. You had older DOS games, and you had newer DOS games... but you called, labeled, and lumped them together as DOS games. The same could even be said for Amiga games (the required ram upgrades and wouldn't run on stock systems).


Those that didn't grow up with the PCE/TG and CD unit, have a hard time grouping them. Even on the Sega forums, because the mentality is that the SegaCD is capable of soo much more and attached to the CD format (this is the key) - that somehow the PCECD is the exact same way (because it's also CD). Quite a few people thought the Duo had extra hardware (even processors!), that made CD games impossible on the hucard format. I remember having quite a few arguments over this. Even Arcade Card games. E-s-p-e-c-i-a-l-l-y Arcade Card games. Sega-16 is a pretty big place, and draws people from other gaming circles. People have a hard time dealing with the fact that the CD unit, and even Arcade Card, really don't extended anything to the core system processing wise or graphics wise. That there's no way a hucard could ever do what a ACD game, let alone a CD game, can do. That it couldn't just be as a simple as the evolution of games on the system, and/or the limits of storage earlier hucard games, and hucards never got the chance to reach such heights.

 The idea that FX, SA-1 (that's a whole new god damn 16bit processor), and other chips in the carts - are somehow less of an upgrade than the CD system.. is ridiculous. Those SNES games can not run with those processor resource upgrades (and graphics too). Because they are included in the cart, it somehow makes them irrelevant? So if I shoe horned a PS1 into a snes cart, it's still just a snes game? Right.

 Anyway, this is ridiculous that we even have to have this argument of whether it's correct or not, to include hucards and CD games into a single PCE library. Dammit people, add some grey into your world; nothing everything needs to be strictly black and white. While you're at it, add some color too.

[ClodBusted]

I regard software, for that I would have to get a hardware add-on, separate from the rest of the system's native software.

Watering down that border in favour of the Duo and similar combo systems (E.g. Multimega, Twin Famicom): If we would go that way, then we would have to count in backwards compatible consoles like the GBA, DS, PS2 and several others as well. That makes no sense.

[TurboXray]

I regard software, for that I would have to get a hardware add-on, separate from the rest of the system's native software.

So if you had a C64, but then later purchased a disk drive, then you wouldn't count the c64 disk games and tape cassette games, and cart games.. as simply c64 games?

Watering down that border in favour of the Duo and similar combo systems (E.g. Multimega, Twin Famicom): If we would go that way, then we would have to count in backwards compatible consoles like the GBA, DS, PS2 and several others as well. That makes no sense.

In what relation does the Duo have, to backwards compatibility of the GBA, DS, PS2, etc??? The GBA is a completely new system architecture, with the ability to play previous system's capability. That, is not what the Duo is.

 The Duo is not a whole new system, and the hucards some old previous system. It's not even a half new system. It's EVEN a quarter new system, for whatever that means. The SuperGrafx, is a new system - with backwards compatibility (although that would be a 'quarter system' or eighth system, or whatever stupid terminology). The Duo is a PC-Engine, through and through.

 If you're old enough to have used small home computers back in the day, then whole cassette and floppy drive thing/analogy should make perfect sense. Or better yet, when you upgraded your PC with a CD drive.

[A Black Falcon]

You'll never convince A Black Falcon that hucards and CD games should be counted as a single library of games for the PC-Engine. Ever. All this arguing, over this one little fact. He concedes to nothing (I've seen his arguments across different forums). But anyway, I ~think~ it forms from the simple fact that he grew up with the SNES. Anyone who has grown up with the PCE/TG and CD unit, counts all those games as belonging PC-Engine/TG library. It's no different than having games on cassette, floppy, and cart for small home computers. CoCo, Commodore, Atari, MSX, etc. The CD unit is a storage/medium addon. It is not a SegaCD. It is not a 32x. Hell, even PC games - they had requirements such as newer processors and newer graphics modes, that older PCs couldn't handle without those upgrades.. and yet they're all still called 'PC games' and all part of that same category/library. You had older DOS games, and you had newer DOS games... but you called, labeled, and lumped them together as DOS games. The same could even be said for Amiga games (the required ram upgrades and wouldn't run on stock systems).


Those that didn't grow up with the PCE/TG and CD unit, have a hard time grouping them. Even on the Sega forums, because the mentality is that the SegaCD is capable of soo much more and attached to the CD format (this is the key) - that somehow the PCECD is the exact same way (because it's also CD). Quite a few people thought the Duo had extra hardware (even processors!), that made CD games impossible on the hucard format. I remember having quite a few arguments over this. Even Arcade Card games. E-s-p-e-c-i-a-l-l-y Arcade Card games. Sega-16 is a pretty big place, and draws people from other gaming circles. People have a hard time dealing with the fact that the CD unit, and even Arcade Card, really don't extended anything to the core system processing wise or graphics wise. That there's no way a hucard could ever do what a ACD game, let alone a CD game, can do. That it couldn't just be as a simple as the evolution of games on the system, and/or the limits of storage earlier hucard games, and hucards never got the chance to reach such heights.

Actually I grew up as a PC gamer.  The only consoles I owned before 1999 were the Game Boy and Game Boy Color; PC gaming is what I mostly did in the '90s.  Yeah, I liked Nintendo the most, but I didn't actually have their system... actually I knew more people with the Genesis back then, so I played that more than I did the SNES.  But I mostly played PC and GB/GBC games that decade, until I finally got myself an N64 in fall '99.  My classic game collection is more recent; I started buying older systems when I got a SNES in '05, and now have lots and lots of stuff.  (For the other 4th gen systems, I got a Genesis and Sega CD in '06, a TG16 in '09, 32X in '10, and Turbo CD... well, I got the drive later in '09, but didn't actually get it repaired and working until last year, so '13 really I guess; before that I played TCD games emulated on my PC (I did a lot of this).  But I've used the base unit for saving and A/V output since getting it, even though the CD drive didn't work.)  But yeah, you're right that in the computer world you do not categorize things like you do on consoles.  I'd say that that just shows how different computers and consoles are, though... consoles are a different kind of thing from PCs, much more focused on one specific thing, so they get categorized differently.

So yes,  consoles and computers are different things.  Computers are ever-changing, so people don't use the term "addon" with a computer because they're never the same, they're always being "added on to".  With consoles, though, each system stays mostly static, so when you DO have a major change, people notice and marketing and packaging differences make it clear that it's a different system.  You know, you know it's a different (addon) system because it says "32X" on the case instead of "Genesis".  Stuff with the addon built in to the game, like a Super FX game, are not marked differently and don't count the same way.  They are enhancements yes, but not addon consoles; more below.

With every single other console ever (other than the TG16/CD), it's accepted by everyone that addons and consoles are different.  You may want to count the system plus addons combined too, but you'd never count them all just as one library, at least not without mentioning which were designed for each.  Dual-mode games are an issue here, but I'll get into that one below; the rest of the time though, this is consistently followed.

The idea that the TG16 is different just doesn't hold up at all; it isn't different.  Seriously, this idea that just because the Turbo CD has less addon hardware with the drive it doesn't count is completely silly.  The Turbo CD has additional RAM, save backup memory, controller chips for the CD drive, and most importantly that CD drive itself, which allows for things impossible otherwise.  It's a far larger change from the base system than, say, the Famicom Disk System is from the NES; all the FDS really adds is an audio channel, onboard save memory, and load times.  NES/FC carts can hold more space, can have onboard batteries for saving, and FC games can have addon chips to make up the audio difference too.  There's nothing a FDS game can do that a NES game can't apart from maybe the amount of save memory, but that's a minor difference.  Or how about the Satellaview?  It's just downloadable SNES games with a cable-line voice audio stream.  Or the Jaguar CD?  Just a CD drive on the Jaguar.  Satellaview games are often wrongly included in with the SNES library, for some odd reason, but otherwise they are all properly separated out.  I'm sorry, but no, this argument that somehow the hardware in the drive determines whether it's a "true" addon or not is not one I can accept. It makes absolutely no sense, as I've explained; the CD drive alone is a huge, huge change overall!  Yes, so is the Super FX, but the Super FX could never be described as a console like full addons can be (more on this below).

Getting back to dual-mode games, though, yeah, the SuperGrafx is of course separate from the TG16; I should have reduced that 1988-1990 NEC number by one to account for that.  It is a little tricky because there are those SGX-enhanced PCE games (Darius Plus and Alpha), and whenever you have dual-mode titles you have a tendency for people to merge the systems into one -- you see this with the Game Boy and Game Boy Color, for example, and also with the Neo-Geo Pocket and Neo-Geo Pocket Color and the Nintendo DS and Nintendo DSi as well.  In all three cases I think that the systems should be counted separately and NOT be combined as they often are, but because of stuff like dual-mode games that work in the older system but are enhanced in the newer one, corporate marketing that didn't always entirely separate the new system from the older one (such as how Nintendo always reported GB+GBC sales numbers combined, and never separated out as they should be), and such, people wrongly combine them.  The same goes for the SuperGrafx.  This is an issue I often find quite frustrating; myself I break GB and GBC games into three categories for example, one for GB games, one for dual-mode titles, and one for GBC-only games.

The idea that FX, SA-1 (that's a whole new god damn 16bit processor), and other chips in the carts - are somehow less of an upgrade than the CD system.. is ridiculous. Those SNES games can not run with those processor resource upgrades (and graphics too). Because they are included in the cart, it somehow makes them irrelevant? So if I shoe horned a PS1 into a snes cart, it's still just a snes game? Right.

Seriously you people.  It's not hard: The standard definition that the world uses for console addons is that it's a full console addon if it uses separate media of some kind.  If you still use the original system's disc drive or cartridge slot, it's not a full addon, just an enhancement of some kind, such as the Super FX chip.

And this does make sense! Remember, a console is not just a thing which plays games.  It is a piece of hardware with multiple, interchangeable games that it can play.  A standalone system which can only play games that are built in to the system and not anything else is not, strictly speaking, a video game console.  So, when looking at which console expansions count as potential consoles of their own, naturally it is only the addons which change the format that are counted.  If the games still connect to the original systems' media port, then people don't count them as games for a full addon since they're still playing on the base system.  As a result of this go to any site which lists games online -- GameFAQs, Wikipedia, IGN, whatever -- and you'll see that addons sold as full systems, like a Sega CD or Turbo CD, count as addons, while RAM expansions and the like do not.  The one plays on different media, while the other doesn't, so it's not a fully separate thing, just an enhancement to the main system.  Those are both kinds of "addons", but they are DIFFERENT kinds of addons, and for classification purposes only the former are called true addons.  This all should be fairly obvious though...

Anyway, this is ridiculous that we even have to have this argument of whether it's correct or not, to include hucards and CD games into a single PCE library. Dammit people, add some grey into your world; nothing everything needs to be strictly black and white. While you're at it, add some color too.

Getting classifications correct is important though!  It's definitely something I care about. Obviously. :p

[CrackTiger]

You'll never convince A Black Falcon that hucards and CD games should be counted as a single library of games for the PC-Engine. Ever. All this arguing, over this one little fact. He concedes to nothing (I've seen his arguments across different forums). But anyway, I ~think~ it forms from the simple fact that he grew up with the SNES. Anyone who has grown up with the PCE/TG and CD unit, counts all those games as belonging PC-Engine/TG library. It's no different than having games on cassette, floppy, and cart for small home computers. CoCo, Commodore, Atari, MSX, etc. The CD unit is a storage/medium addon. It is not a SegaCD. It is not a 32x. Hell, even PC games - they had requirements such as newer processors and newer graphics modes, that older PCs couldn't handle without those upgrades.. and yet they're all still called 'PC games' and all part of that same category/library. You had older DOS games, and you had newer DOS games... but you called, labeled, and lumped them together as DOS games. The same could even be said for Amiga games (the required ram upgrades and wouldn't run on stock systems).


Those that didn't grow up with the PCE/TG and CD unit, have a hard time grouping them. Even on the Sega forums, because the mentality is that the SegaCD is capable of soo much more and attached to the CD format (this is the key) - that somehow the PCECD is the exact same way (because it's also CD). Quite a few people thought the Duo had extra hardware (even processors!), that made CD games impossible on the hucard format. I remember having quite a few arguments over this. Even Arcade Card games. E-s-p-e-c-i-a-l-l-y Arcade Card games. Sega-16 is a pretty big place, and draws people from other gaming circles. People have a hard time dealing with the fact that the CD unit, and even Arcade Card, really don't extended anything to the core system processing wise or graphics wise. That there's no way a hucard could ever do what a ACD game, let alone a CD game, can do. That it couldn't just be as a simple as the evolution of games on the system, and/or the limits of storage earlier hucard games, and hucards never got the chance to reach such heights.

 The idea that FX, SA-1 (that's a whole new god damn 16bit processor), and other chips in the carts - are somehow less of an upgrade than the CD system.. is ridiculous. Those SNES games can not run with those processor resource upgrades (and graphics too). Because they are included in the cart, it somehow makes them irrelevant? So if I shoe horned a PS1 into a snes cart, it's still just a snes game? Right.

 Anyway, this is ridiculous that we even have to have this argument of whether it's correct or not, to include hucards and CD games into a single PCE library. Dammit people, add some grey into your world; nothing everything needs to be strictly black and white. While you're at it, add some color too.

He has said a few times in the past that the N64 was his first console (of course CD games don't count!).

He's rewriting the rules for consoles that are as old as he is.

[A Black Falcon]

You'll never convince A Black Falcon that hucards and CD games should be counted as a single library of games for the PC-Engine. Ever. All this arguing, over this one little fact. He concedes to nothing (I've seen his arguments across different forums). But anyway, I ~think~ it forms from the simple fact that he grew up with the SNES. Anyone who has grown up with the PCE/TG and CD unit, counts all those games as belonging PC-Engine/TG library. It's no different than having games on cassette, floppy, and cart for small home computers. CoCo, Commodore, Atari, MSX, etc. The CD unit is a storage/medium addon. It is not a SegaCD. It is not a 32x. Hell, even PC games - they had requirements such as newer processors and newer graphics modes, that older PCs couldn't handle without those upgrades.. and yet they're all still called 'PC games' and all part of that same category/library. You had older DOS games, and you had newer DOS games... but you called, labeled, and lumped them together as DOS games. The same could even be said for Amiga games (the required ram upgrades and wouldn't run on stock systems).


Those that didn't grow up with the PCE/TG and CD unit, have a hard time grouping them. Even on the Sega forums, because the mentality is that the SegaCD is capable of soo much more and attached to the CD format (this is the key) - that somehow the PCECD is the exact same way (because it's also CD). Quite a few people thought the Duo had extra hardware (even processors!), that made CD games impossible on the hucard format. I remember having quite a few arguments over this. Even Arcade Card games. E-s-p-e-c-i-a-l-l-y Arcade Card games. Sega-16 is a pretty big place, and draws people from other gaming circles. People have a hard time dealing with the fact that the CD unit, and even Arcade Card, really don't extended anything to the core system processing wise or graphics wise. That there's no way a hucard could ever do what a ACD game, let alone a CD game, can do. That it couldn't just be as a simple as the evolution of games on the system, and/or the limits of storage earlier hucard games, and hucards never got the chance to reach such heights.

 The idea that FX, SA-1 (that's a whole new god damn 16bit processor), and other chips in the carts - are somehow less of an upgrade than the CD system.. is ridiculous. Those SNES games can not run with those processor resource upgrades (and graphics too). Because they are included in the cart, it somehow makes them irrelevant? So if I shoe horned a PS1 into a snes cart, it's still just a snes game? Right.

 Anyway, this is ridiculous that we even have to have this argument of whether it's correct or not, to include hucards and CD games into a single PCE library. Dammit people, add some grey into your world; nothing everything needs to be strictly black and white. While you're at it, add some color too.

He has said a few times in the past that the N64 was his first console (of course CD games don't count!).

Read my post above maybe?  The original Game Boy was my first console, and the PC my first gaming platform.  I had both of those many years before I bought an N64.  It's not my fault my parents refused to ever buy me a TV console!

He's rewriting the rules for consoles that are as old as he is.

... Consoles as old as I am? Hmm... well, that'd be the Colecovision then.  Launched in August '82, same month I was born.  And I guess I do redefine the rules for the Colecovision, given that I believe the standard definition that "the consoles of 1982 are 2nd gen, just like the 2600 and other systems released five years earlier" is ridiculous and actually those systems (Colecovision, 5200, etc.) are actually early 3rd gen, systems, in the same gen as the Famicom/NES and not the O2 and 2600... so you're right, though entirely unintentionally I am sure!

[Psycho Punch]

This thread is shameful.

[Bardoly]

Disclaimer:  I have not read up enough on video game console hardware to call myself an expert by any means.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I understand that ALL of the PC Engine CD games, Super CD games, and Acade card games COULD have been made as HuCARDs and played on the base Core Grafx if the HuCARD chips had simply been large enough.  Is this correct?  (Yes, I know that the theoretical HuCARDS would have been much bulkier, maybe even sticking out from the sytem, and would have needed RAM chips (like many SNES games) to be able to play most Super CD games and all Arcade cards games.)  The difference between the HuCARD format and the CD format (not counting the extra RAM for Super CD/Arcade, which COULD have been put into the HuCARDS) is simple the way that the data is stored.  As was referenced above in regards to computer games, I can remember a time when computer games could be purchase in multiple different formats - 5" floppy disk, 3 1/2" disk, CD, etc...  Even many games today can still be purchased as physical media or as digital download media.  Now, I do understand that computers are continually changing, but it seems to me that all of the PC Engine games are actually PC Engine games    , just with 2 different storage mediums.  I mean, if a video game console today has 2 different storage mediums, say for example, physical disks, or digital downloads (like the Wii virtual store, are they all considered Wii games?  Or if Playstation had regular-sized CD disc games, small-sized disc games (like Gamecube or PSP), and/or DVD disc games, would they all be considered Playstation games?   

[TurboXray]

Getting classifications correct is important though!  It's definitely something I care about. Obviously.

And there in lies your problem. Again, you're conforming the PC-Engine into definition that doesn't accurately describe it, and its library. It's ok to make an exception to the rule; exceptions exist for a reason. Not everything in life can be neatly categorized and factored to a difference. And the PC-Engine and its CD software, have some unique exceptions to add to such a scenario. I and a few others have already listed as to why.

 But you play this semantics game, and when one person corrects or counters you, you side step and bring that point back around to something else to make the point or analogy look invalid. Sometimes, I think you don't even understand the point you're dismissing/deflecting. You're just in automatic dismiss mode. You do make some valid points, but you don't concede or recognize ANY one else's valid points. And I don't mean just here on these forums, either. You're too rigid man. Too rigid.

[esteban]

CONSENSUS: I'm glad we finally agreed that CD and HuCARD media belong in the same core PCE library.