Hacker News Reader

Comment by empressplay | Hacker News Reader

After the video game crash, retailers (particularly department stores, where most major purchases were made in the 80s, usually on payment plans) were extremely resistant to stocking another console (and consumers were resistant to buying one -- they had been buying home computers like the Commodore 64 since the video game crash to better justify the expense.)

The redesign was intended to position the NES more as a home video accessory and remove it from the tainted video game category, hence the front-loading (like a VCR) so that it could fit into an entertainment system / TV table. It may seem silly from a modern standpoint but it was all about perception, and it was what was needed to successfully 'reboot' the video game market in North America.

View on HN

That’s the standard story, yes.

What’s always been missing from it for me is whether it actually mattered.

The NES wasn’t cheap. It didn’t do anything but play video games. Did its looking kinda (but not really) like some other piece of AV equipment (but having no other actual capabilities) contribute meaningfully to its success? Were a lot of its buyers, who weren’t exactly making an impulse purchase, swayed by the appearance?

I kinda doubt it. Meanwhile, the redesign did make it less-reliable than its Japanese counterpart.

I don't think the attached controllers with cord lengths appropriate for Japan would have done well in the US. Our Intellivision had attatched controllers and that wasn't great.

The only thing anyone needed to aid their perception and reboot the video game market in north America was 15-20 minutes with super mario bros. I knew a lot of people with an NES and not one of them could care less about how front-loading or VCR-like it was. Everyone, including the adults, knew a fun time when they saw it.

Nintendo already had an answer to the problem of people being afraid of the low quality games that gave Atari a bad name, and that was their "Seal of Quality" which ultimately didn't end up meaning much since shovelware has always been an issue with Nintendo (especially when it came to their handhelds). Still, their first party games were good enough that Nintendo could keep selling consoles even when there were few other games worth buying for them.

Stores weren't stocking video game consoles in Japan either. I really don't think people would equate all video game consoles as being the same. Technology was moving fast at this time, and when a kid gets a taste of a game like Super Mario Bros, they will want the console since there is software they want to play with. There was practically a guarantee of market demand, and the software demoed well with American kids. I don't believe the perception was that much of an actual roadblock to shipping the famicom. I feel like if you were to ask kids if they wanted a NES because it looked like a VCR they would look at you funny. They would want it for the games.

But the redesign was targeted at stores, not end consumers

Do you really thinks stores would not be smart enough to realize that it was a game console? I don't think it would trick stores.

> I really don't think people would equate all video game consoles as being the same.

I mean, they kind of do. Before the NES rose to dominance, people who didn't care that much called everything an Atari. During and after the NES, people called everything a Nintendo. Now, people are likely to call everything a PlayStation.

If you're a toy store and you've just been clearancing all the systems for whatever they went for and have a barrel of games for $1 at the checkout that isn't selling and a couple more barrels in the back, you might be more interested in something that looks different than the others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com