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

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
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. 

I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction here.  The 40-year-old man may buy it for a novelty purpose today, but that doesn't make the product any less of a collectors item.  Particularly if, at some point in the future, the device becomes valued as such.

 

I mean, shit, AOL demo disks are a collectors item now. 



Around the Network

With the list of games it has i couldnt care less about it.



Megiddo said:
Mandalore76 said:

Your personal opinion.  A lot of people buying the other retro systems bought them for use and enjoyment.

 So the only reason to buy it is for collector's value.

Collecting is one aspect, the demand is too strong however to be just seen as just a collection device. 10 million shipped and counting for SNES/NES. Also if these plug n play devices were only for collection sake, why are so many people bellyaching at the thought of PS1 classic emulatiom being subpar? 



Shadow1980 said:

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.

Back in the day, gaming in general was off my radar.  The NES had been a fun way to waste some time after school but rarely more than that.  Then the SNES came along and pretty much lost me.  Final Fantasy VI was the one real shining light.  I considered myself a Nintendo fan but they weren't holding my interest at all.  Everything just felt like more of the same, more of the same, more of the same.  When the PS1 came along, I bought it solely for FFVII, because of FFVI.  What happened then was a revelation for me.  Suddenly games and game characters were interesting and creative, not just jumping and punching with a random, uninspired story intended to simply tie levels together, or souless, goofy characters with no personality.  

It's easy to say, "oh, Sony got lucky," but the way I see it, Nintendo had their shots.  Two consoles to one but it took only a brief spell with the PS1 and I never looked back.  I never even considered getting the Nintendo console at the time.  It was off my radar, my sonar, and even my satellite network was getting nothing.  

Is a lot of that nostalgia talking?  Absolutely.  But it's nostalgia generated by the simple fact that I liked the games on the PS1 more than those of the NES and SNES combined, and by a country mile.  

The simple truth is that Nintendo just didn't make a mistake.  It was Nintendo being Nintendo and they would have made the same mistake 10 times out of 10.  If it hadn't been that mistake then it would have been another mistake.  Nintendo thought they had the right to dictate the terms of gaming to consumers, developers, and publishers--just like Microsoft did with the original Xbox One.  I think a lot of people liked the vibe that Playstation brought to the table.  I know I did.  



Mandalore76 said:
pokoko said:

Kind of.  I mean, It wouldn't have been such a smash hit had the competition not been terrible.  Still, hindsight is 20/20 and in reality the PS1 changed the landscape of gaming and allowed it to grow like never before with the greatest library of games ever to hit a console, and by a wide margin.  In that regard, its spot in history is probably underrated.  

Did it really though?  Video gaming was expanding Gen over Gen before Sony's entrance into the market.  Whenever a competitor stumbles, someone always fills more of the void than if there was a healthy environment.  When Atari, Coleco, and Mattel all got hit by the North American Video Game Crash, Nintendo stepped in and absorbed all of their sales, plus whatever part of the market they might have had anyway.  Once Sega got a foothold in the marketplace, the SNES had to split sales with the Genesis that the NES hadn't had to face the previous gen.  But the SNES having less sales than the NES doesn't mean the video game market contracted.  It expanded.  When Nintendo stumbled by sticking to cartridges with the N64, and Sega made their mistakes leading to the Saturn launch, Sony sucked in sales from 2 competitors simultaneously.  It's easy to look at the PlayStation's sales in a vacuum and say "Sony introduced 100 million people to video games that weren't there before", but that's a gross over-estimation of what happened.  Each successive gen has a wider consumer pool of potential sales to go after.  If Nintendo had switched to discs, they wouldn't have lost Square and the Final Fantasy series, among other 3rd party support, and the N64 would have taken back some of the sales it lost to the PlayStation.  If Sega hadn't made the mistakes they made as well, the division of console sales would have been more even among the 3, more like what we saw in the Wii, PS3, Xbox 360 gen just recently.

edit - I also don't think the PlayStation library is dramatically more impressive than the NES library.  Not by a wide margin, or any margin to be honest.

Of course it grew the market.  Much more than when it was basically just Nintendo and Sega in the mix.  During the NES era, the two top consoles sold ~75M consoles combined, with the top console selling ~62M.  The following gen, ~80M total, with the top console selling just ~49M.  A growth of just 5M units, hardly anything to tout. 

The PS1 pushed gaming into the mainstream.  It wasn't just a relatively niche hobby, it was a cool activity for all.  It became the first console to sell 100M+ units, minus the Gameboy, which had little competition and was allowed to stay on the market for 12 years before the GBA launched.  The total for the top two consoles jumped from ~80M to 135M, a huge growth of 55M units.  It even grew to the point where the 3rd place could sell almost 10M, a first.  PS expanded the market even more so during the PS2 era, where the top two consoles sold a combined 182M, another huge growth of 48M.  And 3rd place actually sold 20M+.

So, yea, Sony and the PS deserve a lot of credit for making the industry the size it is today.



Around the Network

Am torn over whether to cancel my preorder or not...I wanted it for the collection, and I’m not gonna touch the thing anyway so it doesn’t really bother me if it’s crap...

On the other hand, if it’s crap and no one buys the thing, it’s not exactly gonna be something I’ll be proud to have as part of my collection so there’s no point in buying it...



mushroomboy5 said:
Am torn over whether to cancel my preorder or not...I wanted it for the collection, and I’m not gonna touch the thing anyway so it doesn’t really bother me if it’s crap...

On the other hand, if it’s crap and no one buys the thing, it’s not exactly gonna be something I’ll be proud to have as part of my collection so there’s no point in buying it...

Keep your preorder, but return it if it turns out to be crap.



thismeintiel said:

Of course it grew the market.  Much more than when it was basically just Nintendo and Sega in the mix.  During the NES era, the two top consoles sold ~75M consoles combined, with the top console selling ~62M.  The following gen, ~80M total, with the top console selling just ~49M.  A growth of just 5M units, hardly anything to tout. 

The PS1 pushed gaming into the mainstream.  It wasn't just a relatively niche hobby, it was a cool activity for all.  It became the first console to sell 100M+ units, minus the Gameboy, which had little competition and was allowed to stay on the market for 12 years before the GBA launched.  The total for the top two consoles jumped from ~80M to 135M, a huge growth of 55M units.  It even grew to the point where the 3rd place could sell almost 10M, a first.  PS expanded the market even more so during the PS2 era, where the top two consoles sold a combined 182M, another huge growth of 48M.  And 3rd place actually sold 20M+.

So, yea, Sony and the PS deserve a lot of credit for making the industry the size it is today.

Actually, the bulk of the gen-over-gen growth in Gen 5 was thanks to Europe, which finally started to buy consoles en masse, and the PS1 was by a massive margin their console of choice. Combined 5th-gen console sales in Europe were triple what they were in the 16-bit era. In the U.S. and Japan, growth was far more modest. Combined PS1+N64+Saturn sales were about 26% higher than combined SNES+Genesis+TG16 sales, which was comparable to the gen-over-gen growth from the 8-bit to 16-bit. In Japan, gen-over-gen growth from Gen 4 to Gen 5 was only 14.3%, down from the 30.7% growth from Gen 3 to Gen 4. The PS1 was a big hit in America and Japan, but it didn't do anything special as far as mainstreaming video games went. Take Europe out of the equation and the PS1 sold about the same as the NES.

It seems likely that Europe saw such explosive growth was due to the collapse of the home computer market. Home computers were the preferred gaming system in the region, and European gamers didn't buy much in the way of Nintendo or Sega consoles in the 8-bit & 16-bit eras. It's entirely possible that had Nintendo not dropped the ball by making the N64 cartridge-based, thus pushing many developers to Sony, a hypothetical CD-based N64 could have been Europeans' console of choice. There's no way of knowing what the market would have looked like in specifics like market share, but it's still likely that one way or another the European console market would have grown massively once home computers became a non-issue.



pokoko said:

Back in the day, gaming in general was off my radar.  The NES had been a fun way to waste some time after school but rarely more than that.  Then the SNES came along and pretty much lost me.  Final Fantasy VI was the one real shining light.  I considered myself a Nintendo fan but they weren't holding my interest at all.  Everything just felt like more of the same, more of the same, more of the same.  When the PS1 came along, I bought it solely for FFVII, because of FFVI.  What happened then was a revelation for me.  Suddenly games and game characters were interesting and creative, not just jumping and punching with a random, uninspired story intended to simply tie levels together, or souless, goofy characters with no personality.  

It's easy to say, "oh, Sony got lucky," but the way I see it, Nintendo had their shots.  Two consoles to one but it took only a brief spell with the PS1 and I never looked back.  I never even considered getting the Nintendo console at the time.  It was off my radar, my sonar, and even my satellite network was getting nothing.  

Is a lot of that nostalgia talking?  Absolutely.  But it's nostalgia generated by the simple fact that I liked the games on the PS1 more than those of the NES and SNES combined, and by a country mile.  

The simple truth is that Nintendo just didn't make a mistake.  It was Nintendo being Nintendo and they would have made the same mistake 10 times out of 10.  If it hadn't been that mistake then it would have been another mistake.  Nintendo thought they had the right to dictate the terms of gaming to consumers, developers, and publishers--just like Microsoft did with the original Xbox One.  I think a lot of people liked the vibe that Playstation brought to the table.  I know I did.  

I was consistently excited about video games throughout the early to mid 90s. Back in the 80s, I first got into gaming through arcades, the Intellivision, and my father's Commodore 64. Then the NES comes along and I quickly became a Nintendo fan. The first time I saw an NES (it was at a friend's house) I was blown away, and I begged my parents to get me one, which they did for Christmas '88. When the SNES was announced, needless to say I retained my excitement. My parents unexpectedly bought me a Genesis back in Christmas '91, and while it wasn't an SNES, it was a pleasant surprise. But I still had plenty of opportunities to play the SNES until I finally got one of my own on Christmas 1994. And the SNES remained tied with the NES as my favorite system ever. Back in the N64's infancy, a classmate of mine (and my best friend of 22 years) had bought an N64 and we played it all the time. Nintendo's games still hadn't lost that magic even with the switch to 3D, but aside from Nintendo and Rare most other studios didn't make a ton of games that appealed to me. I played various PS1 games and only a handful did anything for me (I enjoyed FFVII, Mega Man 8 was okay, Resident Evil 1 & 2 were pretty good), and even most third-party games I played on the N64 that weren't an FPS were average at best. From 1988 to 2000, Nintendo was quite simply the best around.

Now, it was the GameCube where Nintendo started to lose me a bit. They seemed to go more towards quirky experimental titles (Super Mario with a water pack?), and that kind of turned me off a bit. Honestly, Gen 6 as a whole was to me the weakest post-Crash-of-'83 gen overall. Most popular games still weren't clicking with me, and it seemed that most devs were still working out the kinks and figuring out how to get cameras right in third-person games and how to get the controls right. Halo CE was by far my favorite game that generation, and while I had more games on the GameCube, I probably spent more time overall on the Xbox (and as for the PS2 I mainly had it for a few exclusives like Final Fantasy X, Gradius V, and Shadow of the Colossus). But by Gen 7 it seems like most notable studios were getting the hang of things. The Wii was an okay system with a few gems, while the 360 was my primary, and I never actually owned a PS3. The Wii U meanwhile actually got me back into buying Nintendo games big time, and the Switch is great, too. Sony has done a lot to wow me with their first-party outputs over the past few years. MS has made an amazing piece of hardware with the Xbox One X, though their first-party efforts aren't as strong as I'd have liked (hopefully Halo Infinite blows me away).



To be honest, I’m not sure what these reviewers were expecting. I own both a NES and SNES classic, as well as one of those Atari Flashbacks, and none of them are all them are all that impressive. They’re more just something that is cool to own rather than a device to be taken seriously. The games, while classics, are severely old and outdated, and that’s pretty much all you get with these classic consoles.



0331 Happiness is a belt-fed weapon