Talk:History of the Nintendo Entertainment System

Comboy?
I notice that there's a section in the introductory paragraph about the Famicom being released in Korea as the "Comboy." I've not been able to corraborate this: a Google search turns up several entries for the "COMBOY," a scantool (?) for Hyundai cars, and a few more for the "Super Comboy" (a SNES analogue). Does anyone have any verification (and a source, if possible) for this information? Some more release details would be nice, too, of course. – Seancdaug 21:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For some info / pictures / video of the Comboy, check out these links: 1 2. There is not much out there in Korean, let alone in English, but some of these links might give you a start. I've certainly looked. I have seen the Comboy firsthand. I also have several official NES (Comboy) releases, complete. If there's interest, I can take a photo or two. There appears to be a lockout difference in the Korean version of the NES and the US version (the US version doesn't seem to want to boot the Korean games unless the lockout chip is disabled); my theory is that the Comboy might not have a lockout chip, but I'm not sure about that. The Comboy certainly didn't last very long in the Korean market. For 8-bit Nintendo, bootleg famicom seems to have been the de facto standard. Metdugi 09:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed unverfied claims
I've removed the following two sentences from the article:
 * In South Korea, the official licensed version was marketed as the Comboy by Hyundai Electronics, even though the units also contained the Nintendo Entertainment System marking.
 * At the height of its popularity, an NES console could be found in more than a third of all households in North America and Japan.

I couldn't find a source supporting either statement. If anyone else can provide such a source, feel free to reinsert them. – Seancdaug 16:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Other than I saw Comboys in South Korea when I visited as a child, I don't have a source for use. Coffee4binky (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nesticle.jpg
Image:Nesticle.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No Acknowledgement of Japanese FamiCom Being Produced Until 2003
My sub-subject line is the topic at hand. Nintendo halted final production of FamiCom units in 2003, and that should be noted.

Ah, the whole article needs a good twice-over, actually, though it is pretty accurate in many places.

Coffee4binky (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Source

 * How the Famicom Was Born – Part 7. 91.39.82.56 (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

NES market share in Europe?
On the german wiki site stands that Master System has 1988 45% market share in Germany without competitors like Commodore and Amiga. More market share had Sega in UK and that were two big console markets. Are the references for "though the console did see more success later on in its life"? What means later in years?--178.24.62.247 (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Disputed claims
After having a recent set of changes reverted, I have added a number of tags to the following disputed but sourceable claims: In addition, I feel that another claim, that Baseball was "a prominent key of success," although attributed as an opinion, is not significant enough to single out in an article of this size and level of detail, especially given that the source of this opinion is also the source for some of the other disputed text. Dancter (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) That the Famicom was to be released as the "Nintendo Enhanced Video System" under the deal being negotiated between Nintendo and Atari
 * 2) That the NES had a library of eighteen titles at launch
 * 3) That among those launch titles were the games Donkey Kong Jr. Math and Mach Rider
 * 4) That Super Mario Bros. was definitely available on October 18, 1985, on day one of the NYC market test
 * Driving by here and removing tags. For unsourced claims, I went along with what you said. For sourced claims, you will need to provide a counter source to prove the current "reliable" one wrong. (1) The source implies that the NA release of the Famicom was to have this name, unless you want to be more specific (2) The 18 launch title claim is sourced to IGN. (3) Unsourced, removed (4) Unreliably sourced, removed. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  15:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Talk:Nintendo Entertainment System czar  19:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. as launch title
Figure I should bring this up here to head off unnecessary edit warring. I know all the “controversy” surrounding release dates. Heck, I was part of the original discussion about all of this a decade ago on the Wikipedia talk page for the game. At the end of the day, though, all the primary sources from newspaper articles to copyright registrations to display and packaging materials indicate the game was available at launch, as is summarized in Frank Cifaldi’s Gamasutra piece back in 2012 (some of which was based on research conducted on Wikipedia that was regurgitated without attribution by a fan site that Cifaldi took the info from). The countervailing “evidence” comes in the form of second-hand accounts of recollections from interviews years after the fact and a supposed anonymous insider who told Frank that he looked at a Nintendo database or some such and saw a different date with no provenance as to when it may have been entered or under what circumstances, if this viewing was even real. In short, no source has thrown this date in doubt through actual, reliable documentary evidence. If a news report or internal Nintendo document surfaces that unambiguously states SMB was delayed compared to the other planned launch titles, that would be a reliable source to throw dates in doubt. Hearsay, innuendo, rumor, and faded recollection are not enough. All primary sources contemporaneous with the launch itself indicate it was available. Indrian (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And of course there was a pointless revert anyway, which does not surprise me. Here is the talk page, bring your source that says it was not a launch title (seriously, do, I know they exist) then show me how that source is better than a newspaper article written at the time and Nintendo's own launch materials.  Reliable sources still have to be accurate.  I've used this example before, but if the most authoritative book on World War II ever written said Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 9th instead of December 7/8 (depending on your time zone) we would not add that to Wikipedia and say sources disagree on the date.  Indrian (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose to make this exercise even easier, I should summarize the chronology here:

October 5, 1985, Ed Semrad reports in the Milwaukee Journal that the NES is launching in New York with 2 bundled games and 15 additional titles, Super Mario Bros. is mentioned by name, as are all the other titles.

October 1985, Nintendo staff descend on New York with systems and promotional displays for the launch. The warranty card included with the system includes a chance to win one of 15 games (the exact number of non-bundled launch titles according to multiple reports) for returning the card. Super Mario Bros. is on the list. In-store displays also feature screenshots of 17 games (the total number of launch titles including bundled games according to multiple reports). Super Mario Bros. is featured on the display.

November 1985, Computer Entertainer reports the NES is on sale in New York now along with 15 games sold separately. They are not named.

November 17, 1985, Macy’s runs an ad for the NES in the New York Times. Fifteen games sold separately are listed with prices. Super Mario Bros. is one of them. The game list matches the titles in Semrad’s article, the warranty card, and the in-store display. The number of available games matches all other contemporaneous sources.

February 1986, Computer Entertainer reports the NES is about to launch in California. Fifteen games will be available sold separately, which happens to be the same number they earlier reported were available in New York. The fifteen games are named. Super Mario Bros. is one of them.

So to summarize, all news reports agree Nintendo had 17 games, 2 bundled and 15 sold separately, in New York. All promotional materials list fifteen or seventeen games (depending on context since two are bundled) and include Super Mario Bros. Computer Entertainer shows that in early 1986, there were still only fifteen games available outside the bundled games, and Super Mario Bros. is one of them. THOSE are reliable sources. A claimed peek at a database with no provenance established and the claims in interviews (and only in some interviews since most participants remember it being there ) years after the fact that it may not have been there (mostly interviewees claimed by Kent, whose book is riddled with so many errors you could write a book of similar size just correcting them) are not compelling evidence to contradict the actual historical record. Absent documentary evidence that all the contemporaneous news reports and promotional materials are wrong, the claim it was not a launch title cannot stand. But still, I invite anyone to bring a source they want to discuss; it should make an interesting conversation while likely changing nothing. Indrian (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)