| Mr Puggsly said: Sony gets way too much credit for making gaming cool for non-children gamers. The reality is 3rd parties are really what made Sony consoles successful. |
Good point.
| Mr Puggsly said: Sony gets way too much credit for making gaming cool for non-children gamers. The reality is 3rd parties are really what made Sony consoles successful. |
Good point.
|
pokoko said: -But Sega Saturn was disc based and released first. And, before them, were the Panasonic 3DO, Phillips CDi, and a few others that I can't think of right now that were CD only. Weren't they the enormous leap forward? -Nintendo and Microsoft had ads for third parties, too. Nintendo, mostly during the Gamecube era. Microsoft and Sony still do it now. It would piss me off (I was an emotional guy back then, I guess) to see Nintendo Gamecube at the end of an ad that was a game for every console. I was like "Why are they pushing this if it's also on PS2?". But I'm more concerned with the PS1 era and how the PS1 became so dominant. During the time, Sega and Nintendo had TONS of third party support. Mario games were coming out once every five years, then. -Again, the Sega Saturn didn't look like a toy. Neither did many other consoles of the time. And all CD based consoles from Turbo-Duo to PS1 supported CD music and VCDs (Video CDs). Why didn't any of them break the perception?
|
Daisuke72 said:
|
I have owned or still own each gaming device that Sony has released in the USA along with systems from pretty much everyone else. Sony did not make gaming "cool", maybe in your eyes, but not mine or many others. No one in our highschools thought we were nerds for paying Atari, Nintendo or Sega...we all played them. Open your eyes, there's a whole wold of great gaming out there when you have each of the systems.
Stop hating and start playing.
attaboy said:
|
The Saturn was a failure in a lot of ways. Personally, I didn't know anyone who owned one. It wasn't real competition at the time. If we're judging that generation, it's between Sony and Nintendo. The PS1 was a lot easier to make games for that the Saturn and Sony provided better support for third parties. Sega made a lot of mistakes, like the way the Saturn handled 3D graphics, and they didn't have the resources to compete with Sony or Nintendo. It's kind of like asking why a small developer doesn't sell as many games as Activision. The other consoles you mentioned, I've never even seen in person.
We're talking about perception, and marketing and advertising is a huge part of that.

FFVII is the main game that made the PlayStation wow the gaming industry...
| attaboy said: I see that a lot. Sony and the PS1 are what expanded the gaming industry, made it something that was more than just for kids, released the mature games, etc. I got a PS1 back in 1997 and enjoyed it. It was a great console but really, what did Sony do? Mature games? Nothing new. Mortal Kombat, Chiller, Shadowgate, etc. were available long before Sony entered the market. Great IPs? Final Fantasy, Metal Gear, Mega Man, Street Fighter etc. were already available elsewhere. Sports games? Madden, NHL, WWE, FIFA, MLB, etc. were staples of gaming since the 80's. CD Roms? Tons of consoles already released CD Rom games. Even some of the bigger PS1 titles (Tomb Raider, Resident Evil) were available on Sega Saturn. So, what was it about the PS1 that made the industry explode the way it did? I experienced it and I still don't get it! Did everyone just fuck up so much that Sony won by default? Were Sony such masters of gaming and marketing right out of the gate? Enlighten me. |
They made gaming cool, this had little to do with actual games.
They made it cool, by marketing towards cool people, young adults, putting it in night clubs, putting cool and popular music into games rather than bleeps and blops, they pushed it as a cool experience rather than a nerdy one. They brought it out of the nerd cave and childrens toy categories.
| pokoko said: The Saturn was a failure in a lot of ways. Personally, I didn't know anyone who owned one. It wasn't real competition at the time. If we're judging that generation, it's between Sony and Nintendo. The PS1 was a lot easier to make games for that the Saturn and Sony provided better support for third parties. Sega made a lot of mistakes, like the way the Saturn handled 3D graphics, and they didn't have the resources to compete with Sony or Nintendo. It's kind of like asking why a small developer doesn't sell as many games as Activision. The other consoles you mentioned, I've never even seen in person. We're talking about perception, and marketing and advertising is a huge part of that. |
Yeah, I agree. I hated Sega at the time. Somehow, I have a CD case with like five Sega Saturn games and two Sega CD games and I've never owned or played either of them either! Somehow they just wound up in my possession. It's crazy. And the other non-Sony/Sega/Nintendo/Microsoft consoles I've mentioned, I've never seen in person, either. The only Sega devices I've actually played were the Dreamcast, Genesis, and Game Gear. The others are just mythical creatures.
To be totally honest, I have a pretty good understanding why Sony won with the PS1, continued to dominate with the PS2, and floundered with the PS3. I just like to play devil's advocate for the sake of discussion sometimes.
BuckStud said:
|
This guy gets it.
Sony did so many things right with their machine. It's the the individual things that matter but the whole, and Sony nailed it.