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

Well, we had been interested at first but not anymore, there are not enough good games on it.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Around the Network

Its clear the PS1 classic is built more for the easy cash grab of the mini console market than an actual quality product. Sony also don't make or own majority of the PS1 games which is why they probably struggled to get them on board the system. Also I don't feel the PS and Xbox are retro enough to be in this market. PS1 games have aged horribly and basically you can find majority of PS1 games on better systems with a better experience.

My biggest let downs from what I hear are the lack of Dual Shock Controller support, the poor UI and the lack of quality Games. Honestly Sony should have waited and invested a little more because right now id stick with my original PS1 Dual Shock system.. if it still works.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 10 November 2018

How on earth do you mess something this simple up? It's essentially a glorified emulator with a plastic casing just like the Nintendo classic consoles is it not?



thismeintiel said:
Mandalore76 said:

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.

I can only half agree.  Sony and the PS1 certainly helped fuel a continued growth of the market - and as already noted, cashed in heavily on the collapse of PC gaming in Europe.  The PS1 (and then PS2) were definitely critical releases that helped the market move forward. Where I disagree is the claim that the PS1 made gaming mainstream.  In North America, the credit for that goes to Atari, and then to Nintendo for rescuing the industry from the ashes of Atari's flame-out.  The PS1 was just a continuation of growth.  Likewise in Japan, gaming had been mainstream for years and had taken no notice of the crash that decimated the North American market.

 

Also, lol at "it was the first to sell 100 million if you ignore the device that beat it to 100 million."  



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.

Edgy

 

Shadow1980 said:

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.

Arguments like this are so reductive.

Sony could have screwed up too, but they didn't. Sony did a better job at courting devs. They did a better job at looking outside the established gamer demographic. They actually bothered with EU as a market. 



Around the Network
twintail said: 
Arguments like this are so reductive.

Sony could have screwed up too, but they didn't. Sony did a better job at courting devs. They did a better job at looking outside the established gamer demographic. They actually bothered with EU as a market. 

Yeah, apparently all of PlayStation's success is the result of luck and competitors screwing up.

In the end, we're only capable of recognizing certain doings as wrong/fails/screw ups because someone (in this case PlayStation) came along and did things differently. People act like PlayStation had an unfair advantage and that they were told how to avoid screwing up. No, they simply made better choices.



twintail said:

 

Arguments like this are so reductive.

Sony could have screwed up too, but they didn't. Sony did a better job at courting devs. They did a better job at looking outside the established gamer demographic. They actually bothered with EU as a market. 

I didn't say PlayStation succeeded only because Nintendo screwed up. But Nintendo's mistakes were the biggest contributor. By deciding to make the N64 cartridge-based, they drove away the biggest third parties of the day, and as a result no Final Fantasy, no Metal Gear Solid, no Tekken, no Tomb Raider, no Silent Hill, and no Resident Evil (except that port of RE2 that came two years after the PS1 version). Those games all would have almost certainly been released on the N64 had it been CD-based. It's possible that Sony could still have made it a competitive generation as their attempts at courting third parties would have likely resulting in a ton of multiplatform releases, but it wouldn't have been this massive blowout. Sony would have likely been in the position Sega was the prior generation, serving as strong but not unbeatable competition, but because of Nintendo's failures the PlayStation became an outright juggernaut. I honestly do not believe that the PlayStation would have gotten as big as it did had Nintendo decided to go with CDs instead of cartridges.



Azzanation said:

Its clear the PS1 classic is built more for the easy cash grab of the mini console market than an actual quality product. Sony also don't make or own majority of the PS1 games which is why they probably struggled to get them on board the system. Also I don't feel the PS and Xbox are retro enough to be in this market. PS1 games have aged horribly and basically you can find majority of PS1 games on better systems with a better experience.

My biggest let downs from what I hear are the lack of Dual Shock Controller support, the poor UI and the lack of quality Games. Honestly Sony should have waited and invested a little more because right now id stick with my original PS1 Dual Shock system.. if it still works.

I'd prefer it if Sony, Nintendo, Sega etc didn't bother making these "Classic" consoles and focused on getting their libraries of past games playable on to the already well established main consoles. PS1 and PS2 should really be on PS4 and NES-Wii should be heading to the Switch. Sega and other publishers have the freedom to release games on all platforms. I'm sure some people like the novelty of the small replica console but all of these retro machines seem very lacking to me, especially in comparison to what a newer console/PC could do for with these classic games.



The only reason to buy that "thing", is because you can hack it.



Long live Nintendo


Ehh. Too bad they half-assed it. Missed opportunity.