Lawlight said:
I like that idea - looking at it backwards. It is absolutely true that if PlayStation wasn't here, we wouldn't be gaming now. If the NES wasn't around, Sega would have been Nintendo and things would have carried on as there were and the Master System would have been leading this poll. Personally, I was introduced to gaming by Nintendo - the NES was my first console though I preferred the games on the Master System but I left console gaming after that, dabbled into PC gaming and then quit PC gaming altogether. It was PlayStation that got me back into gaming and made a gamer. I haven't stopped gaming since. And looking at how PS1 sales exploded while Sega and Nintendo's systems sold less, I think this is a common thing amongst modern gamers. |
lol, gaming would've been just fine without the Playstation.
All that would've happened is FF7, MGS would've been on Sega Saturn and it would've done great as a result. Sony didn't bring jack all the table other than Gran Turismo in 1998 and a Sonic rip off in Crash, big whoop. The rest was driven by third parties who were close to Nintendo to that point that would've made those games anyway.
The console business NEEDED Nintendo on the other hand, Mario was gaming's first (and still largest) superstar, he would become in time as popular as Mickey Mouse and that changed everything, then third parties like Capcom, Squaresoft, Konami ... all these companies cashed in on the Nintendo craze and made a name for themselves. Capcom wasn't shit before the NES. Squaresoft wasn't shit before the NES. Konami same deal.
Honestly I'd prefer an industry with Nintendo + Sega over the current setup we have. Sony/MS have drained the industry of a lot of its charm IMO, what we have now are basically just boxed, boring ass PCs really that are called consoles.