Why are older consoles almost all toploaders?

[WhereEaglesDare]

Why are almost all older systems toploaders, the only mainstream exception I can think of is the NES1.  Do you think it is a marketing plan, if the console is a top loader it has to be on the top of the entertainment center, so everyone has to see it.  I get that if its is a top loader you can see the cart, but why did Nintendo go from a front loader to a toploader?

[Mikezilla]

Or maybe its a marketing scheme so dust can get in easier, and break, and then youll have to buy a new one!!! 

[RonnieC312]

Or maybe its a marketing scheme so dust can get in easier, and break, and then youll have to buy a new one!!! 

         ^
         ^
         ^
         ^
 Smartest person I know   lol

[DJ_Izumi]

Because it was mechanically simple and easier to make a console that'd survive kids jamming it in from the top rather than the side.

Let's remember, the classic NES not being a top loader is a factor in the machines dieing due to the connectors wearing out.  The Famicom and NES2 didn't have that issue.

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

As I recall reading the American NES was specifically designed to look like an appliance rather than a traditional game console in order to attempt to bypass the mindset of the then burned out American consumer who thought Video Games = Atari 2600 ET. The same reason that it was called an "Entertainment System" rather than "video game console". Thus, the NES was modeled to look like a VCR.

[northerngames]

in the end it was cheaper and faster to add two flaps and two spings 4 parts instead having all the extra parts to open a flap and inserta a cart into the tray that goes into the system.

less special machines and people to pat to run and make the parts

all top loader's would also be twice the size if the whole cart needed to go inside of the console case like the nes.

so pretty much overall size and extra cost that went with it is what made it obsolete.

[Vigo]

This is also from an era when we didn't have a million things attached to our tv sets. We had the room.

[Vigo]

Eh, I imagine the answer is simply 'gravity'.

Gravity killed the bottomloader!

[RandyT]

The cheapest and most reliable connection to a card edge is a tight, friction fit to spring contacts.  Pushing a card in from the top makes a tight fit possible, due to the extreme resistance of whatever is below the machine.  If you try to do the same from the front, you'd just end up pushing the console around, or need to use two hand to hold it in place.

[Malenko]

I was actually thinking "how would you possibly load them from the bottom?"

[ChadTower]

I was actually thinking "how would you possibly load them from the bottom?"

I tried that once but they all just fell out all over the highway.

[WhereEaglesDare]

I was actually thinking "how would you possibly load them from the bottom?"

I tried that once but they all just fell out all over the highway.

I like to think it is more of a marketing conspiracy than any functional reasons.

[SavannahLion]

I was actually thinking "how would you possibly load them from the bottom?"

I tried that once but they all just fell out all over the highway.

So that was you! Thanks for the laughs.

[danny_galaga]

The cheapest and most reliable connection to a card edge is a tight, friction fit to spring contacts.  Pushing a card in from the top makes a tight fit possible, due to the extreme resistance of whatever is below the machine.  If you try to do the same from the front, you'd just end up pushing the console around, or need to use two hand to hold it in place.

Zachary. Friction is the answer. Lots more friction pushing down, than sideways. What I want to know is how come more consoles didn't have the popper outter thingy that the SNES had? All well and good pushing it in, pulling them out is ungainly, except the SNES...

[WhereEaglesDare]

Okay I concede the cart angle when it comes to top loaders, but why is it that even CD based ones didn't use trays but instead used top loaders.  I know the Sega CD1 used a tray and they had issues with it, but that could have been because of poor engineering.  Computers have had CD trays, I have some from 1995 that still work, they are ungodly slow, but they work.

[missioncontrol]

not all were:

[missioncontrol]

Okay I concede the cart angle when it comes to top loaders, but why is it that even CD based ones didn't use trays but instead used top loaders.  I know the Sega CD1 used a tray and they had issues with it, but that could have been because of poor engineering.  Computers have had CD trays, I have some from 1995 that still work, they are ungodly slow, but they work.

perhaps space saving or less mechanical parts 

[Blanka]

The holy Vectrex was a side loader too.

[Malenko]

Okay I concede the cart angle when it comes to top loaders, but why is it that even CD based ones didn't use trays but instead used top loaders.  

3DO


PS2


NeoGeo CD


CDi

[SavannahLion]

The top loading tray was done as a cost saving measure.

PCs don't generally have top leaders because of their inherent design constraints.

[Mikezilla]

Or maybe its a marketing scheme so dust can get in easier, and break, and then youll have to buy a new one!!! 

         ^
         ^
         ^
         ^
 Smartest person I know   lol

I knew I always liked you Ronnie! 

[DaveMMR]

I think CD-based systems are overwhelmingly mechanical trays over top loaders.   I can only think of a few examples of manual top loading drives: PS1, Gamecube, Sega CD Ver. 2, TurboGrafx CD.     

[ark_ader]

Cost.

[DJ_Izumi]

I think CD-based systems are overwhelmingly mechanical trays over top loaders.   I can only think of a few examples of manual top loading drives: PS1, Gamecube, Sega CD Ver. 2, TurboGrafx CD.     

PS2 Slim.

[SavannahLion]

I think CD-based systems are overwhelmingly mechanical trays over top loaders.   I can only think of a few examples of manual top loading drives: PS1, Gamecube, Sega CD Ver. 2, TurboGrafx CD.     

PS2 Slim.

Jaguar CD

[newmanfamilyvlogs]

Dreamcast.

[SavannahLion]

Dreamcast.

Please don't tell me you're a Sega fan

*Cough*Saturn*Cough*

 

[northerngames]

once again even for the cd unit's its a cost of the parts the extra labor cost making the extra parts the extra machine cost to make them parts the extra building cost to house the machine's that make the parts and crews that run the machines material cost for the parts overall size of the finished console shipping weight over seas etc.



pretty sure there are more top loaders then there are tray loaders

turbo duo

jvc x-eye

sega cdx

sega saturn

jaguar cd

gamecube

ps1

PSone

and many more.

compared to the ps2 xbox and 360 3do and original sega cd wich thats a good example of size difference in the 2 sega cd units.

 the ps3 and Wii is trayless somewhat by why there not tray loaders either that ps3 would be that much biiger heavier and perhaps even run that much hotter too if it were a tray wich means bigger fans or better heatsinks to make the difference wich also racks up production cost the wii would be twice as thick if it were a regular tray loader..

look at all the gears spings motors shafts and what not in the ps2 pc xbox or 360 drive.

now open that ps1 GC saturn there is a laser eye two rails and a snake motor to move the laser and a spindle motor to spin the disk and used a ribbon from the motors and eye to the main console motherboard itself.

now in the tray system there is the added tray the extra open/close tray motor you need a case top that need's a disk locking ring mounted in the case top of the case to keep the cd from loosing balance most require a extra 1-2 logic board / greenboard's more becuase of the extra motors. there is many more gears plastic framing plastic mounts in the case dvd drive bezel there is also leveling boots for the laser pitch alsong with a added laser frame and many other parts that are not needed in a top loader.

not exact number's here but it's like 5-6 parts compared to 25-30 is all.

in today's tech there still the top loaders are still the best drive out there for cost but also my ps1 dc saturn GC top loader's are still kickin like new but I have littery worked on hundreds of ps2 drive's xbox's and 360 drive's but only a handdfull of them top loader's actually had drive problems wich in the end they just needed to be cleaned and greased or had pet hair/lint that needed to be removed but not actual any part replacement like the tray one's needed. but littery tons and tons of tray based system's have had or have drive problems and if has not had any yet its only a matter of time in a few years use but break out that ol saturn or ps1 and they still fire right up after 10+ years where alot of these newer tray system's drive parts crap out in 2-3 years and need something actualy replaced or no worky.

just my 2 cents on these but also my repairing experiance over the years.

if they made a top loadin ps3 360 or wii i would take them over the tray deals any time.

another console oddball

nes snes genesis etc. instead of having a huge console to fit the power unit they made a brick/block that goes on your wall socket.

saturn xbox original playstation not PSone where all huge heavy and blocky console's but had a regular 2 wired cord going to the wall socket.

now there not on the wall or in the console but this huge block for someone to trip over that sit's on the floor or tearing stuff off the tv becuase your cords to short and you leave it convieniently dangling in the air.

I would like to see the overall size of a 360 if they put that brick on the inside of the console instead of the power brick deal and same thing if they did mount the power on the inside you thought heat was an issue now LMAO Tehy would have to add more massive heatsinks LMAO 

[WhereEaglesDare]

I think CD-based systems are overwhelmingly mechanical trays over top loaders.   I can only think of a few examples of manual top loading drives: PS1, Gamecube, Sega CD Ver. 2, TurboGrafx CD.     

All the popular ones....

[MidnightMenace!]

if it was a front loading cart system youd have to hold the back of the console while you pushed the game into the front to hold it from pushing off the back of the shelf its on. unless your in zero gravity something will be supporting the bottom of the system while you insert the game

[DaveMMR]

Dreamcast.

Ahh, forgot that one (shame on me) and the Jaguar CD as well.   Also, didn't know the PS2 slim was a top-loader.   Just lucky my original PS2 works.

So now I guess now that's changing my statement...

[geomartin]

After working in the tool and die industry for almost 30 years, I would say that the most probable reason that early systems were toploaders is to reduce tooling costs.  CNC machinery was in its infancy in the late 70's early 80's and EDM (Electro Discharge Machining) was yet to radically reduce the cost and lead time to market of complex injection mold tooling.

[MidnightClubbed]

I'd go with cost too, plus consoles typically needed to be more rugged then the average CD player - kids aren't the most careful when inserting disks in a sugared up frenzy to get their game-on.  Easier to 'fix' a disk that is inserted incorrectly in a top loader.

Cost is critical in an industry that launches consoles at enormous losses, having a design that can be re-engineered over time to reduce costs and (hopefully) turn a profit is key.  Unless you're Nintendo (who deliberately never take a loss on hardware sales) or Microsoft circa 2001 (who forgot to make a machine they could ever turn a profit on).

[WhereEaglesDare]

The XBox wasnt profitable?  I guess when yoy got that kinda money backing ya you dont need to make much profit..

[DaveMMR]

The XBox wasnt profitable?  I guess when yoy got that kinda money backing ya you dont need to make much profit..

Nope.   From a Google search that lead to a message board quoting figures from Forbes.

Year ending June 30 figures are in millions of dollars

2005
Revenue $3,242
Operating loss $391

2004
Revenue $2,876
Operating loss $1,220

2003
Revenue $499
Operating loss $339

But it's not a big surprise at all.   Releasing a console is expensive.   Microsoft's success staying in the market can be attributed to its deep pockets so they can sustain such a loss.  And also none of their systems were top loaders...

[ChadTower]

Does that include Xbox Live revenue?

[DaveMMR]

Does that include Xbox Live revenue?

Honestly couldn't tell you for sure but I am assuming those figures are "all inclusive" (software/hardware/Live revenue).   Also factor in they set aside $1 Billion to deal with the RROD problem a few years ago.   All part of their "give away the razors; make money in blades" strategy I suppose (though IANABM*)

 *I am not a business major

[ChadTower]

Microsoft's strategy is subscription revenue driven.  Sure, you may pay $250 for the console, but you're going to pay hundreds more for Live whether you use it 1 hour a week or 40.  Nintendo, and to a lesser extent Sony, forego that and go with the razor/blade strategy you mention.

[DaveMMR]

Microsoft's strategy is subscription revenue driven.  Sure, you may pay $250 for the console, but you're going to pay hundreds more for Live whether you use it 1 hour a week or 40.  Nintendo, and to a lesser extent Sony, forego that and go with the razor/blade strategy you mention.

The underlying problem with that strategy is not everyone signs up for Live when they buy an Xbox (unlike, for example, cell phones where your hardware is useless without a carrier subscription).   Which could be why they're still in a bit of a hole.

Nintendo doesn't follow the razor/blade thingee - they turn profit on each console sold ("razors" are sold for a loss to make profits on "blades").

[ChadTower]

The underlying problem with that strategy is not everyone signs up for Live when they buy an Xbox (unlike, for example, cell phones where your hardware is useless without a carrier subscription). 

That would be an interesting set of stats to have:  What percent of Xboxes never carried Live subs?  How long of a Live sub needs to be carried, on average, to break even overall?

Given that the 360 is very heavily wrapped around the Live service I'm willing to bet the percentage of new units that did not generate a subscription is small.  How many new units were replacements for failed units, though, and thus did not result in a new subscription but rather a continued one?  Does that statistically matter?