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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Without Playstation, would the industry be in another crisis?

Mr Puggsly said:
zorg1000 said:

Those people moved onto other devices, that doesn't somehow negate the fact that Nintendo moved the industry forward during the Wii era.

And how exactly are Playstation/Xbox moving the industry forward? Like I said in another reply, PS2+Xbox & PS3+360 will sell roughly the same, and it's very likely PS4+XB1 will as well. They haven't done anything in 15 years to move gaming forward since their audience has remained stagnant for 3 consecutive generations.

Again, the Wii was a fad and its impact on the industry wasn't worth much. I mean the Wii isn't credited for anything that we love about gaming today. It was a neat machine for people that still enjoy Mario games and waggling to pop music.

How is Xbox and Playstation moving the industry forward? Well they invest more money in their hardware, which can be used to raise the bar in game design. They have created great online gaming infrastuctures, while Nintendo platforms feel archaic in that regard. You feel Nintendo moves the industry, while many of us are waiting for them to catch up.

Nintendo wishes its console sales were stagnant, the Wii bubble bursted and now the Wii U is probably going to be their worst selling console. Hopefully it will achieve the Dreamcast userbase this year.

I get it that you don't like the wii but there's no point in trying to diminish it. The wii is credited for bringing accurate motion controls to gaming, something that true gamers always dreamed of. the wii remote + nunchuck is the perfect control for shooters, it allowed games that weren't possible before and the motion + even allowed the likes of 1:1 sword control.



Around the Network
Aeolus451 said:
zorg1000 said:

Why wouldn't Nintendo touch Resident Evil back then? Mortal Kombat, Doom, Killer Instinct, Turok are all M rated games Nintendo allowed on SNES/N64 in the mid-90s.


Resident Evil was released on playstation and shortly after was ported to Sega Saturn and pc. Why didn't nintendo get a port? Hmm. That's interesting.

2 years later Resident Evil 2 was released on playstation and a year later it was ported to nintendo 64. Nintendo didn't seem that interested in a third party mature themed game until it sold well on other consoles. 

What does nintendo have to do with that? it's capcom's decision.



Materia-Blade said:
Aeolus451 said:


Resident Evil was released on playstation and shortly after was ported to Sega Saturn and pc. Why didn't nintendo get a port? Hmm. That's interesting.

2 years later Resident Evil 2 was released on playstation and a year later it was ported to nintendo 64. Nintendo didn't seem that interested in a third party mature themed game until it sold well on other consoles. 

What does nintendo have to do with that? it's capcom's decision.

some people dont understand that you didnt had to buy the right for a game to make it exclusive some years ago.



For those of you who say "Someone else would have filled the void" or "Sony got lucky." I don't know about that. You the need to consider the fact that Sony wanted nothing to do with making console hardware after talks between them and Nintendo fell through with the proposed Nintendo CD add-on. It was Katuragi that convinced the hot shots at Sony to push on with the Playstation project. Because think about it. If Sony didn't originally wanted to do it, who else would have? I have not heard of any other major hardware manufacturer who went as far as Sony eventually did to capitalize on the console market. Also if it were so obvious that it was luck that pushed the PlayStation success, then most other major hardware manufacturer could have easily trounced Sony and its first entry in to the console market. But there were no other takers. Other than Nintendo and Sega, no one else challenged Sony if it were so obvious that they didn't have a pray of doing it on their own.



LivingMetal said:
For those of you who say "Someone else would have filled the void" or "Sony got lucky." I don't know about that. You the need to consider the fact that Sony wanted nothing to do with making console hardware after talks between them and Nintendo fell through with the proposed Nintendo CD add-on. It was Katuragi that convinced the hot shots at Sony to push on with the Playstation project. Because think about it. If Sony didn't originally wanted to do it, who else would have? I have not heard of any other major hardware manufacturer who went as far as Sony eventually did to capitalize on the console market. Also if it were so obvious that it was luck that pushed the PlayStation success, then most other major hardware manufacturer could have easily trounced Sony and its first entry in to the console market. But there were no other takers. Other than Nintendo and Sega, no one else challenged Sony if it were so obvious that they didn't have a pray of doing it on their own.


did you look at the competition? atari was a dead man walking and never figured out how to copy the nes gamepad, Apples hardware was bad and they had no games, Nuon and 3DO flopped because nobody realy cared for them or pushed games.

its not like others dont tryed, but they all failed horrible because they mae realy stupid mistakes...



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
Aeolus451 said:

Nintendo handles very tough competition just fine but sega bails out after sony has been in the market for a bit. That tells me sega wasn't really doing all that well to begin with and probably would of exited the console market without sony being there.  It just would of took a bit longer. Sega was horrible at handling consoles.

Yes, I think Nintendo would of turned down the first Resident Evil game without knowing what it would become. I doubt that a publisher would give the go ahead on resident evil on nintendo's consoles at the time. It was mainly a kid's console at that time.

Sony undermined what Sega's success in the fourth generation was built on, and that was an image campaign. Sega had portrayed themselves as the cool brand and Nintendo as for kids, then Sony entered and made themselves the cool brand. Since Sony had more money to throw around than Sega, they succeeded and there wasn't much left for Sega. Without Sony taking that image away from Sega, Sega could have continued what they've been doing in the fourth generation and been successful at it.

At the time that Resident Evil was made, Nintendo home consoles had third party IPs like Mortal Kombat and Doom, so Capcom's game wouldn't have been out of place at all. Your belief that Nintendo was a kid's console is a testament to how successful Sony's (and previously Sega's) image campaign has been. I can give you simple examples of how messed up it all is. Two of the most anticipated games for PS4 right now are Final Fantasy XV and Street Fighter 5. Now think about where those IPs used to be in the past. When Sony has these games, they are cornerstones of making gaming mainstream; but when Nintendo had them, it's a kid's toy. And it's not like Nintendo had only Final Fantasy and Street Fighter back in the day; they had countless other games too. Contra, Castlevania, Gradius, R-Type, numerous JRPG series etc.

However, video game history is framed in a way where all these works of third party publishers are considered meaningless and it wasn't until PlayStation that video games became something respectable. And because you clearly buy into these lies, you don't realize how plausible it is that a publisher would greenlight a game like Resident Evil when at the same time Turok was greenlit, a series that would go on to have four games on the Nintendo 64.

 

So you're telling me what I'm thinking now? Please, stop with rhetoric about nintendo not being intended for kids. It's like trying to say power rangers was for adults. Yeah, some adults watched it but that doesn't change what demographic it was intended or marketed towards. Yes, anyone can play 'em. It's marketed to this day as 'The console the whole family could enjoy." 

 Nintendo brought many rpgs into being and plenty of other series. I never downplayed that nor will I ever. Some people are acting like if sony never went into the gaming market, all of those third party games that started or were popularized on a playstation console would of just ended up on any of the consoles. Playstation and Nintendo cater to completely different demographics/fan bases. Some publishers might not of took a big risk with a new IP on a console where that genre doesn't fair well. Do Call of duty games do well on nintendo's consoles compared to how well those games do on other consoles? Hell no and the publishers/Devs know that as well.

How well would of titanfall done on the wii u if it released on it instead of the xbox consoles? Would it been able to beat just the xbox one's sales of titanfall? No. 

Am I lying or skewing facts when I say mature games generally don't do well on nintendo consoles? 



generic-user-1 said:
Materia-Blade said:
Aeolus451 said:


Resident Evil was released on playstation and shortly after was ported to Sega Saturn and pc. Why didn't nintendo get a port? Hmm. That's interesting.

2 years later Resident Evil 2 was released on playstation and a year later it was ported to nintendo 64. Nintendo didn't seem that interested in a third party mature themed game until it sold well on other consoles. 

What does nintendo have to do with that? it's capcom's decision.

some people dont understand that you didnt had to buy the right for a game to make it exclusive some years ago.


It wasn't exclusive. 



Materia-Blade said:
Aeolus451 said:


Resident Evil was released on playstation and shortly after was ported to Sega Saturn and pc. Why didn't nintendo get a port? Hmm. That's interesting.

2 years later Resident Evil 2 was released on playstation and a year later it was ported to nintendo 64. Nintendo didn't seem that interested in a third party mature themed game until it sold well on other consoles. 

What does nintendo have to do with that? it's capcom's decision.

I'm sure nintendo didn't show any interest in the IP to Capcom, so capcom didn't bother to port it. 



generic-user-1 said:
LivingMetal said:
For those of you who say "Someone else would have filled the void" or "Sony got lucky." I don't know about that. You the need to consider the fact that Sony wanted nothing to do with making console hardware after talks between them and Nintendo fell through with the proposed Nintendo CD add-on. It was Katuragi that convinced the hot shots at Sony to push on with the Playstation project. Because think about it. If Sony didn't originally wanted to do it, who else would have? I have not heard of any other major hardware manufacturer who went as far as Sony eventually did to capitalize on the console market. Also if it were so obvious that it was luck that pushed the PlayStation success, then most other major hardware manufacturer could have easily trounced Sony and its first entry in to the console market. But there were no other takers. Other than Nintendo and Sega, no one else challenged Sony if it were so obvious that they didn't have a pray of doing it on their own.


did you look at the competition? atari was a dead man walking and never figured out how to copy the nes gamepad, Apples hardware was bad and they had no games, Nuon and 3DO flopped because nobody realy cared for them or pushed games.

its not like others dont tryed, but they all failed horrible because they mae realy stupid mistakes..

And you call that luck??? Therefore if Sony could have done it, anyone could have.  But clearly, this wasn't the case. Go figure. 



Aeolus451 said:
RolStoppable said:

Sony undermined what Sega's success in the fourth generation was built on, and that was an image campaign. Sega had portrayed themselves as the cool brand and Nintendo as for kids, then Sony entered and made themselves the cool brand. Since Sony had more money to throw around than Sega, they succeeded and there wasn't much left for Sega. Without Sony taking that image away from Sega, Sega could have continued what they've been doing in the fourth generation and been successful at it.

At the time that Resident Evil was made, Nintendo home consoles had third party IPs like Mortal Kombat and Doom, so Capcom's game wouldn't have been out of place at all. Your belief that Nintendo was a kid's console is a testament to how successful Sony's (and previously Sega's) image campaign has been. I can give you simple examples of how messed up it all is. Two of the most anticipated games for PS4 right now are Final Fantasy XV and Street Fighter 5. Now think about where those IPs used to be in the past. When Sony has these games, they are cornerstones of making gaming mainstream; but when Nintendo had them, it's a kid's toy. And it's not like Nintendo had only Final Fantasy and Street Fighter back in the day; they had countless other games too. Contra, Castlevania, Gradius, R-Type, numerous JRPG series etc.

However, video game history is framed in a way where all these works of third party publishers are considered meaningless and it wasn't until PlayStation that video games became something respectable. And because you clearly buy into these lies, you don't realize how plausible it is that a publisher would greenlight a game like Resident Evil when at the same time Turok was greenlit, a series that would go on to have four games on the Nintendo 64.

 

So you're telling me what I'm thinking now? Please, stop with rhetoric about nintendo not being intended for kids. It's like trying to say power rangers was for adults. Yeah, some adults watched it but that doesn't change what demographic it was intended or marketed towards. Yes, anyone can play 'em. It's marketed to this day as 'The console the whole family could enjoy." 

 Nintendo brought many rpgs into being and plenty of other series. I never downplayed that nor will I ever. Some people are acting like if sony never went into the gaming market, all of those third party games that started or were popularized on a playstation console would of just ended up on any of the consoles. Playstation and Nintendo cater to completely different demographics/fan bases. Some publishers might not of took a big risk with a new IP on a console where that genre doesn't fair well. Do Call of duty games do well on nintendo's consoles compared to how well those games do on other consoles? Hell no and the publishers/Devs know that as well.

How well would of titanfall done on the wii u if it released on it instead of the xbox consoles? Would it been able to beat just the xbox one's sales of titanfall? No. 

Am I lying or skewing facts when I say mature games generally don't do well on nintendo consoles? 


Mature titles don't do well on Nintendo consoles at this current moment in time, back in the 90s they did which is what it discussing, so using examples like Call of Duty or Titan fall are irrelevant.

Their is no other way to put it, ur being ignorant, teen & mature rated games did do well on Nintendo consoles back in the SNES/N64 days. Mortal Kombat 2 sold about 2 million, Killer Instinct sold over 3 million, Turok 1 & 2 each sold about 2 million, Street Fighter II sold 12 million, Goldeneye sold 8 million, Perfect Dark did over 3 million, Shadow of the Empire did over 2 million.

Their is no reason to believe games like Resident Evil, Tekken, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider wouldn't have been successful if they were on N64.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.