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

Forums - Nintendo - N64 Was A Sales Beast And Should Have Won Its Generation

Hynad on 14 April 2017
SegataSanshiro said:
pokoko said:

The dual analog controller, which was first shown to the public in November of 1996, was an evolution of the button scheme of the N64?  Seriously?  Even if you're really stuck on the "evolution" route, that makes no sense.  Why?

Revealed in August of 1995:

Dual analog pre-dates the c-button scheme.  The idea that it evolved from the N64 controller is laughable.

As far as listing games that use dual analog ... uh.  I honestly don't know what to say to that.  There are literally thousands of games that use it.  Halo?  Far Cry?  Devil May Cry?  Bayonetta?  Seriously, throw a stick.

Ultra 64 Console and controller was shown to the public in April 1994.

That's simply not true.

The console was revealed with the naming "Ultra 64" during that year. But not its controller. The actual full reveal happened in november 1995, where the controller was finally shown.



Around the Network
Pemalite on 14 April 2017
KBG29 said:
The 64 was a great console. The last dedicated games console, and the best. I had amazing times with Mario 64, Goldeneye, Wrestlemania 2000 & WWF No Mercy, and many more great titles. All these years I have been looking for a successor to this system, and in my eyes the Switch is that device. I can't wait to grab one later this year.

As for 64 winning the generation? I still think Sony winning was a great victory for gamers and the industry. They brought a lot of innovation to the market, and pushed in directions Nintendo never would have. The industry became much stronger with two solid competitors.

I will always look back foundly at the 64. It honestly is the one system I regret getting rid of.

I have a Nintendo 64. It hasn't aged well.

I loved Lylat Wars, Ocarina of Time, Golden Eye and Perfect Dark. Trying to hunt down a cheap copy of StarCraft 64... But that shit is way to expensive. Like $300-$400 AUD expensive. You could buy a PS4 for that with cash left over.

Can't agree that the Switch is the successor to the N64. The Gamecube fits that description better... After that all Nintendo consoles have been underpowered relative to the competition and pushed silly gimmicks. (Motion Controls, Tablet Controls, Removable Controls.)




www.youtube.com/@Pemalite

pokoko on 14 April 2017

Found something kind of interesting that I did not know.

On April 26, 1996,[10] Sony released a potentiometer-based analog joystick for use in Flight-Simulation games. The Sony Dual Analog FlightStick featured twin analog sticks and was used in games such as Descent to provide a much greater degree of freedom than the typical digital joysticks of the day.  Link

Descent is a 3D first-person shooter video game developed by Parallax Software and released by Interplay in Europe in 1995. The game features six degrees of freedom gameplay and was followed by several expansion packs, as well as a 1996 port to the PlayStation.  Link



VGPolyglot on 14 April 2017
Shadow1980 said:
pokoko said:
And if cats had gills, they could live underwater.

This thread is basically saying that if Nintendo were Nintendo while not being Nintendo then they could have remained at the top. The N64 not having a CD slot was a symptom, it wasn't the root of the problem.

Why did Nintendo fall despite having an absolute stranglehold on the market? Because of attitude. They got to the top by being ruthless and controlling. When someone else came along that exploited those weaknesses, they took a major hit. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Playstation hit at the exact perfect time. Developers and publishers were itching to break out from Nintendo's grasp. Much of the third-party market was eager for competition to emerge. They wanted someone who listened to them, who gave consideration to their opinions, who allowed them room for profit, and was ready to explore new technology and themes.

Here is a quote from a Square executive about FF7:

Yoshihiro Maruyama, Executive vice president, Square U.S. - I don’t think [anyone from Nintendo gave us a hard time]. They said, “Oh, we don’t need that.” That’s what they said. [Laughs] Their philosophy has always been that Nintendo hardware is for their games, and if a publisher wants to publish, “OK you can do it.” But if you don’t like it, “We don’t want you.” http://gonintendo.com/stories/271612-square-enix-dev-says-nintendo-told-squaresoft-to-never-come-back

Nintendo put themselves above gaming and tried to define the market. I have no sympathy for the N64.

@Bolded. Third parties had an opportunity to ditch Nintendo half a decade earlier. With Nintendo's de facto monopoly broken and third parties free to develop for the Genesis, they could have told Nintendo to kiss their asses then. But they didn't.

No, this was all about format. CDs held over ten times the data of the largest N64 carts, yet cost only one tenth what an N64 cart did. That's two orders of magnitude difference on a cost-per-megabyte basis. While CDs had loading times and weren't as durable as carts, their higher capacity and lower price made them far more appealing to developers and publishers.

The thing is, Sega was still pretty strict about their licensing. They still made publishers buy from them, and they had high licensing fees too. Of course, they gave a favourable deal to EA, because they managed to crack it, but most publishers weren't so easy. Sony went en by letting them purcahse from any supplier, and having lower fees than either Sega or Nintendo.



Ruler on 14 April 2017

The N64 had only 400 games and 40% of them were sports games, the Saturn has a way larger library with more interesting games, even if you just count the PAL region



Why i left PC gaming

 

(2015) Question for PS4 owners: if the situation would be reverse? would you still play on PS4?

(2015) The "I don't care PS4 is the most powerful console" thread

Around the Network
TheBlackNaruto on 14 April 2017
snyps said:
TheBlackNaruto said:

Wait why would have it have one in sales JUST by choosing CDs? That literally makes no sense.....having a CD drive was not the determining factor as to why the N64 bomed....NNTNEDO was by making idiotic decisions and treating 3rd parties like crap....having a CD drive or not would not have made a difference.

becaues reasons and spelling

My apologies for the spelling. I was at work and rushing lol. But still how would have it having a CD drive made it win gen 5?



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23

LadyJasmine on 14 April 2017

This is funny as this generation was before my time lol!



forevercloud3000 on 14 April 2017
Shadow1980 said:
pokoko said:
And if cats had gills, they could live underwater.

This thread is basically saying that if Nintendo were Nintendo while not being Nintendo then they could have remained at the top. The N64 not having a CD slot was a symptom, it wasn't the root of the problem.

Why did Nintendo fall despite having an absolute stranglehold on the market? Because of attitude. They got to the top by being ruthless and controlling. When someone else came along that exploited those weaknesses, they took a major hit. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Playstation hit at the exact perfect time. Developers and publishers were itching to break out from Nintendo's grasp. Much of the third-party market was eager for competition to emerge. They wanted someone who listened to them, who gave consideration to their opinions, who allowed them room for profit, and was ready to explore new technology and themes.

Here is a quote from a Square executive about FF7:

Yoshihiro Maruyama, Executive vice president, Square U.S. - I don’t think [anyone from Nintendo gave us a hard time]. They said, “Oh, we don’t need that.” That’s what they said. [Laughs] Their philosophy has always been that Nintendo hardware is for their games, and if a publisher wants to publish, “OK you can do it.” But if you don’t like it, “We don’t want you.” http://gonintendo.com/stories/271612-square-enix-dev-says-nintendo-told-squaresoft-to-never-come-back

Nintendo put themselves above gaming and tried to define the market. I have no sympathy for the N64.

@Bolded. Third parties had an opportunity to ditch Nintendo half a decade earlier. With Nintendo's de facto monopoly broken and third parties free to develop for the Genesis, they could have told Nintendo to kiss their asses then. But they didn't.

No, this was all about format. CDs held over ten times the data of the largest N64 carts, yet cost only one tenth what an N64 cart did. That's two orders of magnitude difference on a cost-per-megabyte basis. While CDs had loading times and weren't as durable as carts, their higher capacity and lower price made them far more appealing to developers and publishers.

I am just going to interject here but....

wasn't there something about Nintendo held a firm monopoly over the production and sale of cartridges in general? They made the majority profit on every game sold due to everything needing to go through them to get it on cart. I think this combined with the fact CDs were a fraction of the production price was a huge factor in the great departure of Devs from Nintendo. 

#My2cents

#CarryOn



      

      

      

Greatness Awaits

PSN:Forevercloud (looking for Soul Sacrifice Partners!!!)

Jumpin on 14 April 2017

Can't say I was a fan. It was the first Nintendo console to have droughts. Losing Square, Enix, Konami, and Capcom, it had a really weak lineup as well. No RPGs on the console really hurt it, especially in an era where RPGs were by far the most interesting genre.

The N64, GameCube, and Wii U all deserved their failure.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

thismeintiel on 14 April 2017
Shadow1980 said:
pokoko said:
And if cats had gills, they could live underwater.

This thread is basically saying that if Nintendo were Nintendo while not being Nintendo then they could have remained at the top. The N64 not having a CD slot was a symptom, it wasn't the root of the problem.

Why did Nintendo fall despite having an absolute stranglehold on the market? Because of attitude. They got to the top by being ruthless and controlling. When someone else came along that exploited those weaknesses, they took a major hit. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Playstation hit at the exact perfect time. Developers and publishers were itching to break out from Nintendo's grasp. Much of the third-party market was eager for competition to emerge. They wanted someone who listened to them, who gave consideration to their opinions, who allowed them room for profit, and was ready to explore new technology and themes.

Here is a quote from a Square executive about FF7:

Yoshihiro Maruyama, Executive vice president, Square U.S. - I don’t think [anyone from Nintendo gave us a hard time]. They said, “Oh, we don’t need that.” That’s what they said. [Laughs] Their philosophy has always been that Nintendo hardware is for their games, and if a publisher wants to publish, “OK you can do it.” But if you don’t like it, “We don’t want you.” http://gonintendo.com/stories/271612-square-enix-dev-says-nintendo-told-squaresoft-to-never-come-back

Nintendo put themselves above gaming and tried to define the market. I have no sympathy for the N64.

@Bolded. Third parties had an opportunity to ditch Nintendo half a decade earlier. With Nintendo's de facto monopoly broken and third parties free to develop for the Genesis, they could have told Nintendo to kiss their asses then. But they didn't.

No, this was all about format. CDs held over ten times the data of the largest N64 carts, yet cost only one tenth what an N64 cart did. That's two orders of magnitude difference on a cost-per-megabyte basis. While CDs had loading times and weren't as durable as carts, their higher capacity and lower price made them far more appealing to developers and publishers.

Even if Nintendo went with CDs, they would still have been Nintendo of that era.  Which means much more control on devs and higher fees to publish games on their systems.  A point I think was hammered home to companies after they saw how they treated Sony with the PS deal.  And Sega was better with 3rd parties, but still weren't as good for them as Sony was in terms of freedom and profitability. 

pokoko said:
VGPolyglot said:

I don't remember either, that wasn't me that mentioned those games. Though, Alien: Resurrection came out in 2000 for the PS1, and look at one quote from the Gamespot review:

"The game's control setup is its most terrifying element. The left analog stick moves you forward, back, and strafes right and left, while the right analog stick turns you and can be used to look up and down."

So, even in 2000, 4 years after the N64, it was not compared to it.

I think (almost) everyone is aware that both schemes were attempts to replicate the precision and fluidity of the PC experience.  One scheme failed to catch on, the other performed much better and is thus considered an industry standard today.  Trying to give all the credit for everything to one company is just revisionism.  

This is probably the biggest problem I have with many Nintendo fans.  All credit for anything gaming is given to Nintendo using some strange logic, while everyone else just copies them.  Problem is almost everything in gaming was tried out during the Atari age in gaming, including motion controls.  Most things past that are just improvements in tech and/or people putting their own spin on ideas of the past.  Nintendo is not as revolutionary as the fans think they are.