RolStoppable said:
I meant higher investment of time on behalf of the players, not the developers. It kills the pipeline of new players coming in, that in turn reduces the sales of all kinds of games. You can have an accessible system and deep games without either part suffering. However, the other way around is poisonous because the hardware design will kill the pipeline. The Nintendo 64 is an example of that. There are games that can be played with a couple of buttons and in sessions that are only a few minutes long, but that monster of a controller was so off-putting that people didn't even want to give it a shot. |
N64 would've outsold the NES if it had the same developer support the SNES/NES had.
The fact that it still somehow managed to sell 33 million consoles with $80 games and long stretches where it only got like 1 game every month (if that) is unbelievable.
In fact it sold exactly the same as the SNES did in the US and Europe basically despite being starved for games, the decline came from Japan and that decline was because it lost the Japanese RPGs like Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy for no good reason.
You add Final Fantasy VII, Resident Evil, Tekken, and other third party titles to Mario 64, GoldenEye, and Zelda: OoT and they would have doubled sales easily, probably more than that.
The N64 was outselling the Playstation into 1997 quite routinely, it's not until the really ugly software droughts started and FF7 launched on PSOne in September '97 that Sony pulled away (actually even then the N64 had a solid holiday 1997 largely thanks to GoldenEye coming out nowhere). Until then the N64 was the fastest selling console ever by a large margin. They didn't have games to keep that fire going. The N64 was a system that the public liked and was incredibly enthusiastic about, it was the PS4 of its day, until people began to realize the system was not getting games.







