From: Laird Popkin <laird@think.com>
Newsgroups: rec.games.video
Subject: Re: Too much me-too for the Lynx? (was Re: Lyn
Date: 1 Sep 1992 16:55:58 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: tiffin.think.com
X-UserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d9
X-XXMessage-ID: <A6C918F0AE013590@tiffin.think.com>
X-XXDate: Tue, 1 Sep 92 17:56:16 GMT

In article <la5kgaINNro@aludra.usc.edu> Robert A. Jung,
rjung@aludra.usc.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.141814.28185@exu.ericsson.se>
exuhag@exu.ericsson.se writes:
>>Robert A. Jung writes:
>>>Stephen Jonke writes:
>>>>Is it just me, or are there others who think the recent release of
many
>>>>Sega-esque games for the Lynx is more then a bit disturbing?  
>>>
>>>  I have to disagree here. While I don't think a Lynx library of
nothing but
>>>beat-em-ups and space shooters is great, I also don't think that
having them
>>>present is A Bad Thing.
>>
>>But once Atari realizes that the formula games sell ten times better
than
>>everything else, they may start pushing for that sort of game.
>
>  I never speculates on "maybes" and "what ifs" without some shred of
evidence
>to back it up. If anything, the recent arrival of more "conventional"
games on
>the Lynx is just a way to bring the library closer to a 50% original/50%
>derivative level.
>
>  Lemme put it another way: Count up the number of Mario-clones,
scrolling
>beat-em-ups, and space shooter titles on the Lynx. Count up the number of
>everything else. Total A is _still_ outnumbered by Total B, a feature
that
>only the Lynx library can "boast"(?) of.
>
>>>  And who says the Lynx is guaranteed to lose if it tries to compete
with
>>>"games for the masses"?
>>
>>It will probably be a more popular system if it does.  But it will also
fall
>>into the pool of mediocrity which most other video game systems are
already
>>in.
>
>  I still think there's room enough for all types of games. You still
can't
>get rid of that "original OR mainstream" mentality, can you?
>
>>>Besides, sometimes I *WANT* more shooters and whatnot on my Lynx, you
know?
>>
>>Who says that "mindless" action games have to follow the Sega/Nintendo
>>formula? Robotron doesn't fall into the "scroll along and beat-up a
boss"
>>trap.
>
>  Right. And who says that having more scrolling shooters and
beat-em-ups is
>a bad thing? I still stand by my statement: As long as
original/innovative
>games are not sacrificed for "mainstream" genres, I don't have a problem
with
>things.

I see this issue going either of two ways.

Clearly, derivative killer ninja, run and jump, and scrolling shooters
sell well, which is why they dominate the NES, etc., game market.

The assumption is that Atari produces some of these sorts of games, and
makes money on them, since they sell better than "original" games.

The optimistic scenario is that Atari continues to produce original games
as well, so the derivative games sell more Lynxes and make Atari more
money, some of which could go to advertising and to development of more
original games.

The pessimistic scenario is that Atari realizes that derivative games are
more profitable, and focuses its efforts on cranking out large numbers of
"me too" games, as is common on the NES, and stops producing as many
original games as it has in the past.

I think that the optimistic scenario is much more likely, because there's
a factor that hasn't been mentioned.  That is that original games have
the potential to become bigger hits than derivative games, or to spawn a
new series of derivative games which Atari would control.  Both Nintendo
and Sega have games which were fairly original (Donkey Kong, etc., with
the Mario Brothers, and Sonic), which they are now using to sell tons of
machines.  If Atari could create a similar new "sensation" but based on
the Lynx, they'd be much better off.  It's the potential to hit this
jackpot that (I believe) will motivate Atari to continue to produce
original games, even while they're cranking out "me too" games to get
market share from 14-year-old NES fanatics who want a color portable.

Also, from a business point of view, they're better off if Lynx games do
things that other systems cannot do.  If the Lynx has the same games as
all the other systems, that's nice, but that alone isn't a reason to buy
a Lynx, just a reason to *consider* a Lynx if you are into those games. 
But if the Lynx does things others don't (e.g. Blue Lightning's scaling)
that is a reason to buy a Lynx instead of another system.  And I am sure
that Atari realizes this.  They need to have ports from other systems, to
get people to take the Lynx seriously, but they need original games to
stand out from the crowd.

I also believe (though I can' tjustify this one) that Atari has a
tradition of creating original games, which makes it stand out from the
other videogame companies.