Quantcast
Which is the most significant (important) console in history?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Which is the most significant (important) console in history?

Which is the most important console ever?

Atari 2600 119 6.86%
 
NES 806 46.48%
 
SNES 109 6.29%
 
Sega Genesis 25 1.44%
 
N64 54 3.11%
 
PSX 303 17.47%
 
XBox 14 0.81%
 
PS2 225 12.98%
 
XB360 20 1.15%
 
Other - please explain 59 3.40%
 
Total:1,734
kopstudent89 said:
NES started it all. PS1 made videogame consoles a world wide phenomena. I'd give it to the NES though

That was also the NES.

 

PS1 just widened it even further. 



Around the Network
Mbolibombo said:
kopstudent89 said:
NES started it all. PS1 made videogame consoles a world wide phenomena. I'd give it to the NES though

That was also the NES.

 

PS1 just widened it even further. 

In Europe and others, PS still dominates always due to the fact that it popularised it a lot more. NES and SNES  didn't break 10m in Europe+Others, PS1 sold 45m+ in EU and others. In Lebanon for instance PS1 was the first to really make an impact on the home console market.

Obviously in America and Japan, Nintendo were the first to do that but they never really broke out world wide till the Wii (apart from the handhelds of course)



YNWA

CGI-Quality said:
hunter_alien said:
The PSX? The PSX was released only in Japan, and barely sold anything. How can it be influential? It did introduce the XMB.

But in all seriousness, its the PS. The video game crash of 83-85 was significant, but the market for video games was already proven. The Atari 2600 was way to basic to make a lasting appeal, and the NES was IMO just a step above. If Nintendo wouldn't have been there Atari or Sega would have filled in the place.

The PS on the other hand is irreplaceable. Made gaming mainstream, launched the concept of a multimedia box, rather than a purely gaming system, and made the 3rd party publishers and developers the ones that actually dictate the shape of the industry, making the genre selection process far more natural and multi-faceted, and giving them a real leverage in what way they want the industry to evolve. So yeah, gaming as we know it would have been far more different (and boring) if the PS was never launched.

Hadn't even considered that!

Good points. It's easily between the NES and PS1. Other consoles had an impact but nothing close to as groundbreaking in the Video Game scene



YNWA

VAMatt said:
monocle_layton said:
NES

any other console wouldn't even exist if it didn't save the gaming industry.

I agree with this statement.  However, the same logic could be applied to Atari - "Any other console wouldn't even exist, if Atari 2600 didn't create (prove the significance of?) the industry"

However the NES was the first home console that had what could be considered "modern" games (Mario 2 & 3, the MEga Man games, + many other series that were brought from Japan).

The NES also established the business model all gaming console companies follow since then (with some slight variations) - I.E. the publishers have to get their games approved, then they pay a fee for every copies they sell to the platform owner, consoles prior to this did not have this fee, nor did the platform owner care about which games and what their content was.

I was also ugely popular in its day.

By the way, gaming did not "die", the home console market collapsed, but arcades still flourished during the crash, computer gaming was still perfectly fine, like nothing had happened... it just cleared the field for new, better, players (Nintendo + Sega)



PAOerfulone said:
Lawlight said:
We always expected a Nintendo-majority forum to pick the NES but its success was mostlyluck and Nintendo could not sustain that success with the SNES. I maintain that gaming as we know it today has survived thanks to PlayStation. A small market could never have sustained the cost of games development without that expansion.

This is, without a doubt, the biggest load of bull I have read since joining this site. 
Mostly luck? How was Nintendo anymore lucky with the NES than Sony was with the PlayStation? 
And the reason why the SNES didn't do the same numbers is because Sega kickstarted the 4th generation by releasing the Genesis much earlier - October 1988 in Japan, August 1989 in the North America, August to November 1990 everywhere else. The SNES? November 1990 in Japan, August 1991 in North America, April to September 1992 everywhere else.
Sega had a 2 year headstart over Nintendo. Giving them all the time they needed to amass a larger library of games over them, stealing a chunk of their install base. Like how Microsoft took nearly half of Sony's from the Xbox/PS2 generation into the 360/PS3 generation. If you think that having a headstart is insignificant, you're kidding yourself. And the SNES still soundly defeated the Genesis in the end. 

And you have an odd definition of "small". Using the numbers that zorg1000 pointed out:

Worldwide market:
3rd Generation - NES/Master System/Atari 7800=~75 million
4th Generation - SNES/Genesis/TurboGrafx=~100 million
5th Generation - PS1/N64/Saturn=~140 million

 

America
3rd Generation - NES era=~40 million
4th Generation - SNES era=~50 million
5th Generation - PS1 era=~60 million

Japan
NES era=~20 million
SNES era=~25 million
PS1 era=~30 million

Europe
NES/Master System era=under 20 million
SNES/Genesis era= under 20 million
PS1 era=~45 million

By the time the PlayStation entered the scene, console gaming was already very popular, more popular than it had ever been at that point. Sony is responsible for the explosion of the European console market, which they absolutely deserve credit for, as well as standardizing CDs as the main format for games and video game consoles as multimedia devices. For that, I consider the PlayStation to be the 2nd most important system in video games... but a distant 2nd. It was the NES that saved the American console market from the crash of 1983, created the Japanese console market (opening the door for what are now PlayStation centric franchises that were/are mostly popular in Japan like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, both of which started on NES.) During that period, playing video games was called "playing Nintendo".
If there was no Nintendo Entertainment System, there would be no PlayStation. 



I'll come back to this post but some corrections:

 

3rd generation for the 3 consoles = 77.48M

4th generation for the 3 consoles = 92.75M (don't round it up to 100M)

5th generation for the 3 consoles = 144.68M (don't round it down to 140M)

So the newcomer, the PS1 outsold the whole of the previous generation by itself. Sony wasn't lucky to enter a market with no competitor like the NES.



Around the Network
Nuvendil said:
Ganoncrotch said:

You must know that the dreamcast shipped with a modem installed from day 1? The Xbox was not the first platform to start online play.

Being first doesn't always equate to being the most influential in am area.  As I said in the very next sentence, online gaming was a novelty type concept on consoles, not much used or talked about except in a small handful of games.  And the Dreamcast wasn't the first attempt either.  The Famicom modem, the Sega Net Work System, the Sega Channel, the Xband, the Sega Net Link, the Apple Pippin, the N64DD, all these were attempts dating back to the 3rd Gen to bring online gaming of some form to consoles.  And all failed, all forgotten, all merely novel ideas.  It was the Xbox that changed that, that made online gaming a necessity.  The clearist indicator is the behavior of the market.  The Dreamcast launched before the GC or PS2 with its online functionality, yet neither of those two competitors bothered to have online functionality at launch.   The Xbox comes along with its online functionality and the games that take advantage of it and very shortly afterwards both competitors are playing catch up to them in that area and the next generation comes along and all consoles have built in online functionality.  

All of the consoles you mention here require addons to give the console functionality, the Dreamcast was the first console built with the modem installed out of the box as I said.

As for not being the first but most influential? No, that like others said here, the X360 was the machine which bought online play to the mainstream gamer, not the original console, which didn't even have online for the first year of availability.

To suggest that future consoles having features from previous generations means that those previous gens created the "norm" just doesn't work unless you are going for revisionist history, consoles use what is available technology at the time of their release to try to get the most out of the system. The original xbox just wasn't the first machine to be designed with online in mind, nor was it the most influencial in bringing it to the mainstream.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

N64
Rumble
Analog control done right
3D gaming
four control ports
Expansion Pack



Ganoncrotch said:

All of the consoles you mention here require addons to give the console functionality, the Dreamcast was the first console built with the modem installed out of the box as I said.

As for not being the first but most influential? No, that like others said here, the X360 was the machine which bought online play to the mainstream gamer, not the original console, which didn't even have online for the first year of availability.

To suggest that future consoles having features from previous generations means that those previous gens created the "norm" just doesn't work unless you are going for revisionist history, consoles use what is available technology at the time of their release to try to get the most out of the system. The original xbox just wasn't the first machine to be designed with online in mind, nor was it the most influencial in bringing it to the mainstream.

Although I understand where the other guy is coming from in regards to Xbox and online I agree with you here that DC is the execution that got the ball rolling as I remember playing games like PSO with 4 others online as well as Quake 3 which even had cross platform play with PC and it was the first time that quite a significant number of peopler had experienced that on console.

At the same time I disagree with you that Xbox wasn't the machine that brought online to the mainstream because it was and one game flat out highlights this, Halo 2, Live is the template for online services/platforms used by consoles and showed platform holders how to go about it. Halo 2 was heavily active for years after its release until the Xbox was phased out with people clocking tonnes of hours in online play, 360 built on what Xbox brought.



Ganoncrotch said:
Nuvendil said:

Being first doesn't always equate to being the most influential in am area.  As I said in the very next sentence, online gaming was a novelty type concept on consoles, not much used or talked about except in a small handful of games.  And the Dreamcast wasn't the first attempt either.  The Famicom modem, the Sega Net Work System, the Sega Channel, the Xband, the Sega Net Link, the Apple Pippin, the N64DD, all these were attempts dating back to the 3rd Gen to bring online gaming of some form to consoles.  And all failed, all forgotten, all merely novel ideas.  It was the Xbox that changed that, that made online gaming a necessity.  The clearist indicator is the behavior of the market.  The Dreamcast launched before the GC or PS2 with its online functionality, yet neither of those two competitors bothered to have online functionality at launch.   The Xbox comes along with its online functionality and the games that take advantage of it and very shortly afterwards both competitors are playing catch up to them in that area and the next generation comes along and all consoles have built in online functionality.  

All of the consoles you mention here require addons to give the console functionality, the Dreamcast was the first console built with the modem installed out of the box as I said.

As for not being the first but most influential? No, that like others said here, the X360 was the machine which bought online play to the mainstream gamer, not the original console, which didn't even have online for the first year of availability.

To suggest that future consoles having features from previous generations means that those previous gens created the "norm" just doesn't work unless you are going for revisionist history, consoles use what is available technology at the time of their release to try to get the most out of the system. The original xbox just wasn't the first machine to be designed with online in mind, nor was it the most influencial in bringing it to the mainstream.

I am aware many were addons, that's not the point.  My point was that online gaming didn't start with Dreamcast in the console space.  It was the second one the have it out of the box, sure, but my point was that it was no different than those former atempts:  it was novel.  A neat trick.  A fun little distraction.  A minor addition.  It didn't propel sales, it didn't compell competitors to get on board, it did none of those things whatsoever.  The rest of its competitors launched with no thought to online.  Because it influenced nothing, drove nothing, compelled its compeition to do *nothing*.  

And it is not revisionism to use hindsight to judge a the reality of how thigns influenced others.  If I were doing what you said I was doing I would be arguing that the Pippin was the most influential.  Or the Dreamcas- oh wait that was your argument.  And no, consoles don't just include features because they can, the manufacturers have to feel there's money in the inclusion OR someone has to dare to attempt the untested.  The Xbox I list as more influential than the 360 because the whole reason MS went all in on the 360's online, the only reason Sony and Nintendo launched with standard online, was because the Xbox showed the potential in online functionality.  It was the first domino, the one that started that revolution.  By the end of gen 6, online gaming had gone from a throw away novelty to a standard feature everyone EXPECTED to see in future machines.  And none of that would have happened without Xbox Live and the original Xbox.  If MS had not done with the Xbox what they did, there's no telling how radically different the path forward would have been.  How many more failed attempts, throwaway novelties would have come and gone before someone dared to go all in and make it work?  I don't know, but the Xbox ignited a movement that changed console gaming.  360 followed up on it, but the Xbox undoubtedly, incontravertably was the first domino, the starting point.  

Also, another point:  The Dreamcast only included a dial-up modem, not a broadband connection option, making it...well kinda useless.  The Xbox shipped with an ethernet port for broadband connection, making it far more viable for gaming.  



kopstudent89 said:
Mbolibombo said:

That was also the NES.

 

PS1 just widened it even further. 

In Europe and others, PS still dominates always due to the fact that it popularised it a lot more. NES and SNES  didn't break 10m in Europe+Others, PS1 sold 45m+ in EU and others. In Lebanon for instance PS1 was the first to really make an impact on the home console market.

Obviously in America and Japan, Nintendo were the first to do that but they never really broke out world wide till the Wii (apart from the handhelds of course)

I'm willing to bet that SMB1 would be recognized over Crash Bandicoot 1 in pretty much all over the world. It wasnt just about the amount sold, it was a whole movement that started with the NES even in Europe. In Sweden for instance at one point every sixth home had an NES. That's batcrazy. 

Then obviously Playstation 1 cranked it up a notch or two and took the console business to a whole other level.