Quantcast
PlayStation Classic is out & receiving "Do Not Buy" recommendations (did Sony even develop it themselves?) *updated 12/5/18

Forums - Sony Discussion - PlayStation Classic is out & receiving "Do Not Buy" recommendations (did Sony even develop it themselves?) *updated 12/5/18

RolStoppable said:
twintail said:
They never advertised it as anything else but a working PS1 in a smaller form factor.
And that's what you've got.

Indeed. Not Sony's fault that only now it dawns on people that the PS1 was overrated.

Back in the day the PS1 was barely on my radar. I knew of it, but in 1995/96 I was more interested in what Nintendo had to offer. Then Final Fantasy VII happened. But even then, the PS1 was to me "that system with Final Fantasy on it." The system itself and its larger library didn't do anything for me. The games looked hideous even back then, and while the N64's graphics weren't leagues better, they were still easier on the eyes than the jagged pixelated affairs on the PS1 (seriously, I was for the most part not impressed by the transition from 2D to 3D games). Even gameplay-wise, Nintendo & Rare seemed to be about the only ones who could make video games that played well in 3D. The PS1 did have a small handful of other games that I did enjoy, but the N64 had by far the better library, with better quality making up for the lack of quantity.

And the PS1 owes its success to third parties, especially Square Soft, as FFVII was the first big killer app for the system, and was the system-seller that generation in the U.S. You know what, scratch that. It owes it success to Nintendo, whose mistakes are what allowed the PS1 to succeed at all. Had the N64 been CD-based, the PS1 would likely never have become the massive success that it did. Third parties by and large didn't care much for the expensive, low-capacity cartridges of the N64, and that's why most of them decided to throw most of their support behind the PS1. And good thing for Sony, because they had precious little first-party works of their own.

TL;DR, the PlayStation succeeded because Nintendo screwed up, and, aside from a few gems, most of its games, and most notable games in general that generation, were not very good and have aged poorly because most devs had no idea how to make good use of those 3D worlds they could now create.

Last edited by Shadow1980 - on 09 November 2018

Around the Network
dharh said:
Mandalore76 said:

Riddled with personal opinions and misconceptions.  Go on Atari Age or YouTube and see how many people buy these mini consoles for actual play, or just to put on a shelf.  And to say that no one who bought one ever played them back in the day, lol.  And then to say that no "actual gamer" would find value in one of them... wow.  It's good to know that you get to classify who is and isn't an "actual gamer".  That must be a hefty burden for you to bear.

If they served no other purpose than just sitting in a collection, no one would complain when a shoddy version of one comes out.  It literally wouldn't matter if the emulation quality was good or bad.  No one would care.  Just because Sony throws a lazily rushed cash grab product into the holiday marketspace doesn't vindicate your belief that all retro consoles are pieces of trash for people you believe are non-gamers.

Yeah of course it's my opinion.  What the hell do you think all this crap is?  Opinions.  IMO if you are satisfied with the NES Classic as anything more than a collectors item or to play some shits and giggles games for a little while you aren't much more than a sunday gamer.  AKA not much of a gamer really.  And yeah, this PS1 classic is the shittiest of a line shitty classics.  It really is nothing more than a PS1 with a crap limited library with an HDMI port slapped onto it.

Though, the fact that the other classics have more than an HDMI port slapped onto it, still don't make them appealing to me.

More opinions.  Please cry more.

Somebody piss in your corn flakes this morning, or are you always this cheerful?  It's funny how the people who consider themselves the "hardcore"/"real gamers" are the jaded miserable people.  And the ones that get looked down as "casual"/"not real gamers" are the ones who generally get more enjoyment from their hobby.  But thanks for projecting on me the fact that you are unhappy to wake up every day.



Mandalore76 said:
dharh said:

Yeah of course it's my opinion.  What the hell do you think all this crap is?  Opinions.  IMO if you are satisfied with the NES Classic as anything more than a collectors item or to play some shits and giggles games for a little while you aren't much more than a sunday gamer.  AKA not much of a gamer really.  And yeah, this PS1 classic is the shittiest of a line shitty classics.  It really is nothing more than a PS1 with a crap limited library with an HDMI port slapped onto it.

Though, the fact that the other classics have more than an HDMI port slapped onto it, still don't make them appealing to me.

More opinions.  Please cry more.

Somebody piss in your corn flakes this morning, or are you always this cheerful?  It's funny how the people who consider themselves the "hardcore"/"real gamers" are the jaded miserable people.  And the ones that get looked down as "casual"/"not real gamers" are the ones who generally get more enjoyment from their hobby.  But thanks for projecting on me the fact that you are unhappy to wake up every day.

Wow you got all that from what I said?  Hardcore is a bit much.  I am an avid retro collector of RPGs, but I only spend a few hours of gaming a day on my heavy gaming weeks.  I do think there are different levels of devotion to gaming.  It's not that I look down on 'casual gamers', it is just that there are casual gamers.  They are just that, casual about gaming.  Nothing more, nothing less.  A casual gamer might be satisfied with one of these classics, I personally think that if you are heavily into retro gaming you already have something far better than these classics.  I think these classics, all of them, are crap. Sorry if you think that opinion makes me 'unhappy to wake up every day'.

Also.  Opinions.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.



dharh said:
Mandalore76 said:

Somebody piss in your corn flakes this morning, or are you always this cheerful?  It's funny how the people who consider themselves the "hardcore"/"real gamers" are the jaded miserable people.  And the ones that get looked down as "casual"/"not real gamers" are the ones who generally get more enjoyment from their hobby.  But thanks for projecting on me the fact that you are unhappy to wake up every day.

Wow you got all that from what I said?  Hardcore is a bit much.  I am an avid retro collector of RPGs, but I only spend a few hours of gaming a day on my heavy gaming weeks.  I do think there are different levels of devotion to gaming.  It's not that I look down on 'casual gamers', it is just that there are casual gamers.  They are just that, casual about gaming.  Nothing more, nothing less.  A casual gamer might be satisfied with one of these classics, I personally think that if you are heavily into retro gaming you already have something far better than these classics.  I think these classics, all of them, are crap. Sorry if you think that opinion makes me 'unhappy to wake up every day'.

Also.  Opinions.

Sorry, your first response came off as both jaded and antagonistic.  Your 2nd response was much less so and more composed, which I appreciate.  So, I'll happily say I misjudged.  I still do believe that these consoles are being bought by a demographic of gamer not solely restricted to casual play.  As I had said, there are tons of retro enthusiasts online and on YouTube who play, enjoy, and endorse the good quality systems.  I own a Switch and an Xbox One, and I still enjoy some of them myself.  The original Legend of Zelda never gets old to me, and the same goes for a number of other games on those systems.



I would have bought it regardless but 100 is too much, 70 quid tops would have been my absolute highest spend on it but preferably 50 or closer to it.



 

Around the Network

I'm kind of confused why people are saying that these classic consoles are just collector's items. You don't sell as much as the NES mini or SNES mini as a collector's item. Weren't people also making a big deal out of the SNES mini as a christmas gift for kids? Hell ... I wanted an SNES mini and I wasn't even born when it was a relevant console!



Actually, I think the reason they did succeed is because they *are* collectors items.  Before the NES Mini, the retro consoles were mostly third party made, mostly mediocre or low quality, and mostly a 1:1 ratio with the bulky systems they replicated.   And they sold passably.

Nintendo comes along and uses miniaturization to make a device that is not only functional at a higher quality than those previous retro copies, but at the size, can serve as a display piece when you're done using it.  And, after Nintendo was taken off-guard by how successful it was given the middling success of other retro copy consoles, the rush to copycat ensued.  Leading, ultimately, to Sony.  And given the game list, the purpose of the PS1 mini is to play the one game you loved from that system, then display it as a collectors item.



DreadPirateRoberts said:

Actually, I think the reason they did succeed is because they *are* collectors items.  Before the NES Mini, the retro consoles were mostly third party made, mostly mediocre or low quality, and mostly a 1:1 ratio with the bulky systems they replicated.   And they sold passably.

Nintendo comes along and uses miniaturization to make a device that is not only functional at a higher quality than those previous retro copies, but at the size, can serve as a display piece when you're done using it.  And, after Nintendo was taken off-guard by how successful it was given the middling success of other retro copy consoles, the rush to copycat ensued.  Leading, ultimately, to Sony.  And given the game list, the purpose of the PS1 mini is to play the one game you loved from that system, then display it as a collectors item.

I don't think that isn't a reason, or at least I didn't mean to imply that, but there's other factors as well. At least that's what I believe. I guess it also depends on what you consider "collector". Is a 40 year old man who barely plays video games buying one to play it for a few weeks a "collector"? I don't think so, it's just a novelty purchase but it isn't inherently a collectors purchase. Same thing with buying them for your kids. 



Cash grab. And, really, who can blame them? Nintendo gets people lined up to buy a collection of 30 year old games that many of them have already paid for several times. Sony has investors to please, and they have a system that's getting close to classic status itself. Of course they're gonna jump on the money train.

How many more would they sell if they spent a couple million dollars more developing a better UI and smoothing out some rough edges? Probably not many. As others have stated, these are either collector items, or plays on nostalgia. A better UI doesn't do much for either of those things.



And, as for the thing being outsourced..... what difference does that make? I see the Sony name only. At least with Sega's crappy "classic" consoles, they carried the At Games logo front and center, letting you know right away that it was just a licensing deal. In this case, Sony wants it to appear as though it is all them. So, they gotta take the bad with the good.