DonFerrari said:
d21lewis said:
I think we're putting too much of the value on the company and not the content. Some people are loyal to a brand but most just want the best content. There's been BS comments in the past l like "Xbox 360 just sells in North America because it's an American console" but no. People but the best product. The Genesis launched in 1989 in North America and it was obviously superior to the NES. It had the market to itself for over a year, unchallenged. Even when the SNES launched, the Genesis appeared to be the better product for a long time and up until the end got better versions of many multiplats. The thing is, Nintendo supported the SNES longer when it felt like Sega had already moved on. Their focus shifted to Sega CD to 32-X to Saturn. They quit being competitive. When you compare SNES and Genesis you have to keep in mind that you're comparing a console that seemed to quit fighting halfway through the battle---a lot like Xbox seems to do against PlayStation.
Again, using North America because I know nothing of Europe, the PS2 was the most successful console of all time. Everyone had one. How did it go from being so dominant to being outsold so handily in North America? Why did people suddenly start caring about the Xbox brand? And why did they suddenly go back to PlayStation a generation later? Same with Nintendo time and again. The name on the box matters much less than what the box has to offer.
If the N64 was able to offer a better experience than the PS1 (and being twice as powerful that would be a given) for the same price, that would be a given. Side by side, I think a lot of people would agree that Nintendo's first party content was overall superior to Sony during the 5th gen. Third parties won the battle for PlayStation the same way they made Xbox 360 a contender and the same way they made PS4 such a beast (though I will gladly admit that Sony really stepped up their first party game during the PS3 era and much of the PS2's lifespan). The N64's cartridge format just created obstacle after obstacle for developers.
|
First paragraph I fully agree, perhaps Genesis could have ended first that gen if they haven't lost focus. But my point wasn't on that.
Yes the name of the box doesn't mater that much. Still the mentality of the company behind and as you said the contente mater. And that is why I pointed out that Nintendo wasn't really caring about Europe or RotW.
And here you on the last paragraph you are making more changes than just CD and plus are considering best case scenarios. Sure the first parties of Nintendo were regularly better that gen (although I wouldn't trade Gran Turismo and Syphon Filter for the catalog of N64), but we are speculating that with the CD Nintendo would have the edge and secure most 3rd parties. A thing they weren't able to do against Genesis when they had the same format and stronger HW and also a thing Nintendo didn't seem to show to care until WiiU or perhaps even Switch. And usually their care is minimal.
|
Let's say Nintendo couldn't secure most third parties. When you think of PS1 games that really made a difference, which games come to mind?
For me it's games like
-Tomb Raider (Eidos)
-Resident Evil (Capcom)
-Ridge Racer/Tekken (Namco)
-Metal Gear Solid (Konami)
- WipeOut (Psygnosis)
-Medal of Honor (Electronic Arts)
- Final Fantasy (Square)
I'm sure I'm missing some but you get the idea. When you think of these classics, you think of PlayStation. But what many don't think is that most of these companies were still in good with Nintendo. Almost all of them actually made content for the N64 or at least the Gameboy. They just didn't bring the "good stuff" most of the time because the N64 just couldn't handle it. So instead of Metal Gear, N64 got games like Castlevania 64. You didn't get Tekken, you got Namco Museum.
Maybe they wouldn't have gotten everyone on board but they already had most of the key companies on their side. It wasn't loyalty to Sony. It was loyalty to the only hardware that could run their games.
