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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What's the worst successor to a console, ever?

 

Biggest loser

Nintendo 64 4 4.30%
 
Xbox One 11 11.83%
 
Wii U 45 48.39%
 
PlayStation 3 9 9.68%
 
Sega Saturn 10 10.75%
 
Other 9 9.68%
 
They're all winners in my eyes!! 5 5.38%
 
Total:93

Well, Rol makes a good case for the 5200. Also the PS3 is a good contender because it lost all the money Sony earned on the previous two generations and then some, but I actually like that console. From the list I’d say WiiU; going from the popular Wii to a system that has little reason to exist, and sold accordingly. In the future it can’t really claim any accomplishment and will likely be forgotten completely. That’s tough for a system made by the biggest gaming company out there.



Around the Network

Technically the Wii U, but man...my Wii U was used like crazy. Such a party console!



RolStoppable said:
The Atari 5200.

It was the successor to the massively popular Atari 2600. It wasn't backwards compatible, it had atrocious build quality (its controllers commonly broke within a week or two) and weak software lineup. It's a big part of the reason why the American video game market crashed. It buried Atari with it. It was so bad that the history of console generations got revised to omit the generation of the Atari 5200 altogether and merely make it a footnote of generation 2, therefore moving the NES from generation 4 to generation 3 and everything else accordingly with it.

I didn't read your OP's reasons because whatever you said, it can't touch the Atari 5200.

I totally forgot about the Atari 5200.  You're right.  It's even worse than the Virtual Boy.  The Virtual Boy only jeopardized Nintendo's fortunes (temporarily).  The Atari 5200 destroyed home gaming, and it could have been permanent without Japanese intervention.  The Atari 5200 really did suck on a whole extra level.



N64 had a devastating impact on Nintendo's home consoles by:

1. Primarily being the reason the PS1 existed, and
2. Flocking away third party support.

The Wii U though was a failure as a console PERIOD. Probably the worst branded console in history and failed to really do anything apart from inspiring the Switch concept.

And that's where it's tough. Without the Wii U, I doubt the Switch would exist. Without the N64 (and all the decisions that went to making it), Sony might've not entered the gaming market for another generation or two, and Nintendo might've dominated the next few cycles.

It has to be between those two imo. Wii U is by far the worst console on the list but the N64 impacted Nintendo so badly, you still feel the repercussions today.



Well, Sega never recovered from Saturn's failure in the hardware-space



Around the Network

Discounting "obsolete" (not Big 3 + Sega) companies, there are two candidates:

N64: If you don't like Nintendo games, there is just about no reason to own one. Even with Nintendo games, it misses so much in certain genres such as RPG's, SHMUPS, etc - the SNES is just so much better.

Xbox One: 6 years later, there are very few reasons I see why people buy one over a PS4. Game pass? Otherwise, the X360 got a lot more games, a lot more exclusives, and a lot more attention from its parent company giving it genuine life by the PS3.



The WiiU was a bad successor for sales, but I still enjoyed the console very much and for a very long time. Plus it had windwaker remake and super mario maker!

The XBox One however, the only one from the list I still haven't found a reason for to own, so that's the one for me.



kopstudent89 said:
N64 had a devastating impact on Nintendo's home consoles by:

1. Primarily being the reason the PS1 existed, and
2. Flocking away third party support.

The Wii U though was a failure as a console PERIOD. Probably the worst branded console in history and failed to really do anything apart from inspiring the Switch concept.

And that's where it's tough. Without the Wii U, I doubt the Switch would exist. Without the N64 (and all the decisions that went to making it), Sony might've not entered the gaming market for another generation or two, and Nintendo might've dominated the next few cycles.

It has to be between those two imo. Wii U is by far the worst console on the list but the N64 impacted Nintendo so badly, you still feel the repercussions today.

The primary reason for the PS1's existence was Nintendo's avarice itself. They betrayed Sony and went behind their back to partner with Phillips for a CD based add-on for the SNES. Sony then decided it was going to get their pay back and took over  the home console market.  So basically Nintendo created the PS1, it had nothing to do with the N64.



I rather stunned the Saturn hasn't received more votes. Sega was doing really well with the Genesis. The Saturn was very expensive compared to the ps1 and Sega never recovered. The Saturn basically killed the company.  Though I'll concede the Sega CD and 32x certainly didn't help.  Sega used to be a huge player.  



Chrkeller said:

I rather stunned the Saturn hasn't received more votes. Sega was doing really well with the Genesis. The Saturn was very expensive compared to the ps1 and Sega never recovered. The Saturn basically killed the company.  Though I'll concede the Sega CD and 32x certainly didn't help.  Sega used to be a huge player.  

Because the Saturn wasn't a bad console. Sega made certain mistakes. But the 32x, Sega CD, Nomad, Game Gear had bigger parts on Sega's downfall than the Saturn. One could say the Saturn was a victim of Sega's circumstances. Sega had a disastrous launch...but the aforementioned add ons and systems had ruined the people's trust in Sega before the Saturn arrived.