By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, people bought 5x more PS1 than N64 because N64 was the best system and they thought it had the better games.

Gamers really are masochists.

People also buy more Volkswagons than Bentleys.. not because there better cars..

What was your point again?

PS1 was sold on the market for twice aslong so dont forget that part.

In the same time space it wouldnt be 5 times the sales. And just look up the best criticality acclaimed games, majority are on the N64 which stands my point.

You are really bad at analogy.

Comparing two cars that aren`t competing in the same market one for like 10k and another for 1M really?

People buy what they think is the best for them. Similar price, PS was the new comer without any legacy and still was able to sell 3x more than a console that already had several successful IPs and record track entering its 3rd generation.

PS1 only sold for twice as long because it was a success, N64, GC, WiiU, Xbox original were all cut short on track because they didn`t sell well at the time they were cut. Look for NES and SNES and you`ll see that they were sold for even longer than 10 years.

Well the majority of critically acclaimed games you were already debunked. And funny you bring that because for the last 3 years you have been downplaying it.

Since PS4 have much better and more acclaimed games than Xbox it is a much better system than Xbox right?

Azzanation said:
Darashiva said:

That isn't exactly true. The N64 has 17 games with a metacritic score of 90 or higher, while the PS1 has 28. You can make the argument that the best N64 games were better than the best PS1 games, although I would personally disagree with that, but you can't say that the N64 had more critically acclaimed games compared to the PS1. Also, as far as being on the market for longer, the PS1 was outselling the N64 by early late 1997, and passed it by in sales soon after, so it wouldn't have really mattered if the N64 had remained on the market for longer. It simply wasn't selling as much as the PS1 at any point after its first year on the market.

I am talking about the best were on N64 and it turns out I am not the only one to think so either. Having a 90s meta score doesn't tell us much about a game however being critically acclaimed and winning awards were common on the N64.  

Keep in mind the PS1's also had a major piracy issue which also would have hurt many developers and was a major selling point for the system as well. N64 was not or very little losing money on piracy, cannot say the same for the PS1. So being on the market for twice as long with an added benefit of pirating your games for free and being cheaper overall are not examples I would say a system is more successful. PS1 numbers are not as incident as they look. Besides the N64 was a solid successful console, there is no loser when being successful business wise. 

Its why I brought up the Volkwagon and Bentley comparison. Selling more does not mean something is better.

You may think it like the 30M or so that bought N64, but over 100M though the best games were on PS1 so they bought it, unless again you think people go and buy for similar price what they think is worse.

Funny you bring piracy for the major reason for PS1 winning, it basically sold 4x as much SW as N64 that didn`t had piracy. So majority bought for the piracy but still had like 10 games of attach ratio, higher than N64 with the "majority of critically acclaimed games", strange isn`t it?

PS1 had already outsold N64 2:1 with the same time on market. The tail end sales were just bonus.

I really think you should stop while you are losing and save face.

Azzanation said:
Darashiva said:

And it sold three times as many units, so what's your point? That the N64 underperformed? Many of the best games ever created came from the PS1 as well, which are still looked up to today, so that's no different from the N64. Again, I never said the N64 wasn't a success, but arguing that it didn't lose against the PS1 is kinda pointless when the numbers tell the opposite story. It lost to the PS1 on every metric, from sold consoles, to number of sold games, to number of critically acclaimed games. That doesn't mean it's not a great console, but you're arguing against obvious facts here.

Nintendo lost the home console war that generation, just as it won the previous two with the NES and SNES. Or if the N64 didn't lose are you saying that the Sega Genesis, the original Xbox, or the PS3 didn't lose their respective generations either because they did what they needed to do as well?

Ill never understand this metric you people use to justify a products success with what wins and losers. This is a business not a sport, there is nothing set in place for coming last in this so called sales race, in fact the sales race doesn't even exist. First to 100m, who sells more at the end of the generation etc, its all made up.

Sorry to bust your bubble here, companies make products with estimate sales goals etc not based on there competitors. If its that important about beating the other in sales than these consoles wouldn't stop being manufactured and will continue to sell way beyond there life spans just to win or to hit that 100m mark or whatever metric you use to justify winners and losers.

The Sega Genesis was a success, it definitely was no loser, it just didn't sell as good as the SNES. The N64 fits that same bill. It didn't outsell the PS1 but it was still a successful console and is not a loser. Consoles don't need to win a imaginary race to be justified as not losing. Honestly when I was 10 I use to say these things about Nintendo beating Sega.. today I look back and see the industry for what it is and not what we think its about. 

There is no gold trophy at the end of these races, there isn't even a finish line, hence some consoles stay on the market longer than others etc. They are products with sales expectations and targets, like anything else in the world. Look at Car brands, Lets say BMW sold less cars than Mercedes in the past 5 years, does that make them losers? No.

The terminology of these winners and losers need to change. 

You are really someone from the newer generation where everybody is a winner just for existing?

Yes someone can be successful being second or third, but can`t be the winner, the winner is just whoever finish first.

Genesis was ahead of SNES for most of the gen and lost for a very small margin, the same can`t be said about N64. Perhaps you were more mature when you were 10?

You really don`t know anything about administration right? Look at the sales curve of N64 and please give me an estimative of how long it would take for it to sell 100M. Will give you a hint, NES was production in Japan for like 30 years (didn`t sell 100M even like that), and the knock-offs are still being produced in some countries like Brazil. 

Azzanation said:
BraLoD said:

Are you seriously asking if the N64 lost for the PS1?

Then you proceed to give the PS1 successful life cycle as an excuse because the 64 died a lot faster? lol

Never change.

Is this some kind of play school where we have to have a winner and loser? what if Nintendo's N64 sales target was 20m consoles sold? Do you know what there target was? Does something have to lose? How does two successful products win and lose?

Not sure how long you been around gaming however ill help you out and say Nintendo are well known for mid life spans. They move on quicker to there next platform compared to Sony who likes to keep platforms on the market for 10+ years. Thats by company choice, it can depend when they decide to shift focus for there next product.

N64 was far from a flop which means it'ssuccessful, its just Sony opened up the doors for more gamers and sold incredibly well. No one knew, probably not even Nintendo or Sony knew how big the audience was back than.

Gamecube to PS2 is a different story, Gamecube failed to meet expectations so thats where i will agree on.

Replicant said:

I'm aware that you really dislike PlayStation for some reason but even still you gotta take a step back once in awhile and question your logic.

Why do you think PS1 had a longer life? Do you think N64's life would've been cut short if it sold as well as PS1 worldwide through its first 5 years?

As mentioned above, Nintendo tends to aim to cut there consoles short or aim for a 5 year life span. Has nothing to do weather i like a brand or not. 

Someone mention before that the Sega Genesis lost.. im far from a Sega fan but comments like that make me facepalm. It's a buisness about profits and money not a 1st place and last place sport tournament.

You are the best kkkk.

So you think Nintendo gone and thought, ok we sold 80+M NES and like 50+M of SNES but will plan to only sell 20M N64. So perhaps they planned to sell 5M WiiU and since it sold 15M it is a major success?

You claiming BraLOD is less knowledgeable than you on console or sales is really funny. I will tell you again, NES and SNES were on the market for way longer than 10years, and that was because they were successful consoles, N64, GC, Xbox, PSVita and WiiU weren`t.

Tifabestwaifu said:

Never see so much denial in one humain being lol.

You didn`t know him before? Well you will love him.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."