Console 'wars' is really just a metaphore for the business competition. We could compare it to any other product (even brands of laundry detergent or whatever). These scenarios are seen as more of a 'war' when brands are attacking each other in advertising because it looks that way on TV etc... but make no mistake, competing products are always at 'war' with the competition even if it doesn't look that way to the public
I only knew one kid in school with intellivision and it was neat but no one was clamoring for one since atari had the better library. If it was considered a war back then it was a pretty one sided one
I had no clue of the console war or the crash in 83. We just liked to play some games on Atari and some on Intellivision. We all enjoyed both in the neighborhood I grew up in.
I literally only “learned” about it through the internet. Now kids today “know” more about the history of video games than I do; who grew up in that era, lol
As someone who grew up during the 16-bit Sega-Nintendo war, I was shocked when I learnt that Atari games were on Intellivision, Intellivision games on Atari (under the M-Network label) and so on. It would have been like having Mario on Sega consoles and Sonic on Nintendo consoles (the latter did eventually happen of course)
Yeah, it's all about marketing. Atari dominated the market for a long time early on. It wasn't until Nintendo came on the scene that Atari started taking a hit. It seemed so strange to me that Atari had much better systems than the 2600, but for some reason it didn't market those systems as prominently. When you mention Atari everyone immediately thinks 2600, but Atari had a whole line of pretty decent PCs and next generation consoles (for the time) which could have easily blown Nintendo out of the water. To this day, I don't understand why Atari didn't market those systems better (Maybe it had something to do with cost and timing of their release?). But, you're absolute right about the cross-platform game development. We typically think of these gaming companies by the consoles they produced, but the reality is all of them were first video game developers. The hardware was just there so the games could be played. So, yeah, why not license a game to run on another platform. If the game does well, the developer would still make money either way. Well, anyway, the whole "war" thing is basically a marketing ploy. I remember the so called "console wars" heating up in the 80's. Each company wanted to establish its dominance, and one way to do that was to get people to identify with a specific brand. Although, each brand had its positives and negatives. I had my favorites, but I still found things to like about each of them. Wow, a lot of history there. I could talk all day about this. LOL! Great video!
I think I am going to try to get a Famicom English Translation for Magic of Scheherazade. I like the time travel elements of it. I never did finish it.
The ports done for the Atari VCS/2600 from IntelliViSion games were under Mattel's M Network label. Although I got into this generation of gaming retro I share your sentiments about the ports to the different consoles all being different, but still fun. The differnces in them are one of the many things I've always found appreciable about this generation.
The thing that killed the Master System was the lack of 3rd party support. The controllers were a bit diagonal happy as well. Genesis "blast processing"... Hmmm. Well it did have a faster CPU but the SNES had stuff built in for handling video effects that would lighten the load and the SPC700/SMP audio system... It was its own thing with a separate processor which could lighten the load on the 65816 on the SNES so it kinda evens out. I saw someone wrote a homebrew demo for the SNES running a level from Sonic The Hedgehog showing it could be done on that system quite faithfully to the original. Intellivision was better at Sports, Simulations and Board Games.
i know the majority think most of the atari games were bad not good only most of them wa good i really want to say that all the atari games are good to me in my honest unpopular perception and i'm happy atari acquire intelllivison this is great news to me and i always prefer sega over nintendo because i love sonic better than mario don't get me wrong i love some of the nintendo games and mario games i did enjoy some of them but i usually love sega better than nintendo i'm only a fan of bally astrocase, sega and atari that's just me preference that's also love i love the new atari vcs 800 so much it's my favorite i think it's great best underrated unpopular sleeper hit hardware to me i think it's right up with the sega dreamcast for me even the sega genesis and sega dreamcast are my favorite video game hardware
Coleco wanted to dominate by making everyone else's systems play the same game as bad as possible. What a crappy strategy. It did work though. I just didn't like it.
Totally untrue. ColecoVision's Donkey Kong was better only because the console was more capable. The CV was released in 1982, Intellivision in 1979, and Atari 2600 in 1977. The Atari 2600 Donkey Kong was as good as it could be given the constraints. Otherwise you're calling its programmer, Garry Kitchen, a liar. He's on the record as saying he did the best he could with it, and I believe him.
@8_Bit I have seen what is actually possible and it's not that. I believe differently. It's the same as today releasing games that aren't even complete. They are trying to do things to quickly. It's ridiculous. Look at Cyber Punk. Nowadays they are pushing the lie that you need more PC power to run your games when it's actually bad programming. Believe what you want. I call bullcrap.
@8_Bit I think the same business strategies are alive today saying you need at least 16 to 32 Bits of RAM to run things when they are definitely programmable with less. It's all lies. They don't even finish games before they release them like Cyber Punk.
Console 'wars' is really just a metaphore for the business competition. We could compare it to any other product (even brands of laundry detergent or whatever). These scenarios are seen as more of a 'war' when brands are attacking each other in advertising because it looks that way on TV etc... but make no mistake, competing products are always at 'war' with the competition even if it doesn't look that way to the public
I only knew one kid in school with intellivision and it was neat but no one was clamoring for one since atari had the better library. If it was considered a war back then it was a pretty one sided one
I still have the Coleco and Donkey Kong cart from when I was young
Nice!
I had no clue of the console war or the crash in 83. We just liked to play some games on Atari and some on Intellivision. We all enjoyed both in the neighborhood I grew up in.
I literally only “learned” about it through the internet. Now kids today “know” more about the history of video games than I do; who grew up in that era, lol
As someone who grew up during the 16-bit Sega-Nintendo war, I was shocked when I learnt that Atari games were on Intellivision, Intellivision games on Atari (under the M-Network label) and so on. It would have been like having Mario on Sega consoles and Sonic on Nintendo consoles (the latter did eventually happen of course)
True. There were preferances in systems (if you even had that luxury), but there was no "console war" like Sega and Nintendo had later.
Yeah, it's all about marketing. Atari dominated the market for a long time early on. It wasn't until Nintendo came on the scene that Atari started taking a hit. It seemed so strange to me that Atari had much better systems than the 2600, but for some reason it didn't market those systems as prominently. When you mention Atari everyone immediately thinks 2600, but Atari had a whole line of pretty decent PCs and next generation consoles (for the time) which could have easily blown Nintendo out of the water. To this day, I don't understand why Atari didn't market those systems better (Maybe it had something to do with cost and timing of their release?). But, you're absolute right about the cross-platform game development. We typically think of these gaming companies by the consoles they produced, but the reality is all of them were first video game developers. The hardware was just there so the games could be played. So, yeah, why not license a game to run on another platform. If the game does well, the developer would still make money either way. Well, anyway, the whole "war" thing is basically a marketing ploy. I remember the so called "console wars" heating up in the 80's. Each company wanted to establish its dominance, and one way to do that was to get people to identify with a specific brand. Although, each brand had its positives and negatives. I had my favorites, but I still found things to like about each of them. Wow, a lot of history there. I could talk all day about this. LOL! Great video!
Especially now since Atari has bought Intellevision
Atari sees it as a war seeing that they're now selling Intellivision tee shirts and boasting about it on their website 💯
I think I am going to try to get a Famicom English Translation for Magic of Scheherazade. I like the time travel elements of it. I never did finish it.
The ports done for the Atari VCS/2600 from IntelliViSion games were under Mattel's M Network label. Although I got into this generation of gaming retro I share your sentiments about the ports to the different consoles all being different, but still fun. The differnces in them are one of the many things I've always found appreciable about this generation.
The thing that killed the Master System was the lack of 3rd party support. The controllers were a bit diagonal happy as well. Genesis "blast processing"... Hmmm. Well it did have a faster CPU but the SNES had stuff built in for handling video effects that would lighten the load and the SPC700/SMP audio system... It was its own thing with a separate processor which could lighten the load on the 65816 on the SNES so it kinda evens out. I saw someone wrote a homebrew demo for the SNES running a level from Sonic The Hedgehog showing it could be done on that system quite faithfully to the original. Intellivision was better at Sports, Simulations and Board Games.
Hi Brian, were you referring to the M-network? Intellivision games made for Atari?
That’s It!!!!!
i know the majority think most of the atari games were bad not good only most of them wa good i really want to say that all the atari games are good to me in my honest unpopular perception and i'm happy atari acquire intelllivison this is great news to me and i always prefer sega over nintendo because i love sonic better than mario don't get me wrong i love some of the nintendo games and mario games i did enjoy some of them but i usually love sega better than nintendo i'm only a fan of bally astrocase, sega and atari that's just me preference that's also love i love the new atari vcs 800 so much it's my favorite i think it's great best underrated unpopular sleeper hit hardware to me i think it's right up with the sega dreamcast for me even the sega genesis and sega dreamcast are my favorite video game hardware
Atari WINS! YES!😄
Coleco wanted to dominate by making everyone else's systems play the same game as bad as possible. What a crappy strategy. It did work though. I just didn't like it.
Well really they just didn’t invest as much for the competitive systems
Totally untrue. ColecoVision's Donkey Kong was better only because the console was more capable. The CV was released in 1982, Intellivision in 1979, and Atari 2600 in 1977. The Atari 2600 Donkey Kong was as good as it could be given the constraints. Otherwise you're calling its programmer, Garry Kitchen, a liar. He's on the record as saying he did the best he could with it, and I believe him.
@8_Bit I have seen what is actually possible and it's not that. I believe differently. It's the same as today releasing games that aren't even complete. They are trying to do things to quickly. It's ridiculous. Look at Cyber Punk. Nowadays they are pushing the lie that you need more PC power to run your games when it's actually bad programming. Believe what you want. I call bullcrap.
@8_Bit I think the same business strategies are alive today saying you need at least 16 to 32 Bits of RAM to run things when they are definitely programmable with less. It's all lies. They don't even finish games before they release them like Cyber Punk.