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

Mr Puggsly on 14 April 2017
SegataSanshiro said:
Saturn has 600 games and most of them fantastic. In terms of library it was a far better system than N64 and deserved better sales but Sega of Japan turning down SEGA of America's deal to partner with Sony backfired badly. (PS1 used the specs SOA wanted). N64 is a good console no doubt with some absolute classics. Thing is Had only about 200 games and was severely lacking in Fighting games,RPGs and shmups which at the time were huge. Saturn and PS1 kinda had everything but PS1 had more than Saturn and bigger named like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear plus the better ports of Tomb Raider,CSOTN and Resident Evil. Honestly N64 I do like it a lot but it's in 3rd place for library that gen.

I'm a fan of the Saturn as well... but most of its games were fantastic? No way.

I felt N64 was unique, the games it excelled at were very different than its competitors. Its hard to convince fans of Goldeneye, Mario 64, Smash Bros, Zelda, Rare games, that the Saturn has the superior library. I personally spent hundreds of hours with those THQ werstling games on N64.

But for the types of games you and I enjoy, Saturn is much more appealing and quantity on top of that. Saturn also has a lot of games that aged well.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
Soundwave on 14 April 2017
Turkish said:
Soundwave said:

Actually N64 even starved of games still sold virtually the same as the SNES did in North America and Europe. The only difference was basically Japan where losing Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest sadly neutered the system there. 

Never should have happened. FF7/8/9 and Dragon Quest VII should have been N64 exclusives. Now the odds are much more even, and I like Nintendo's chances against Sony in that scenario. Sony needed virtually a monopoly on all major third party games to win that generation, if N64 has a CD drive first of all I don't think companies that were historically close to Nintendo like Squaresoft and Enix would've left as there would be little reason to do so. 

No way IMO Sony would have been able to compete against the combined might of Mario 64, GoldenEye, Zelda: OoT, and Final Fantasy VII ... no way. And I think other Playstation exclusives like Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil 1/2/3 would've gone multi-plat. Tekken and maybe Tomb Raider would've stayed for Sony (maybe). 

People always think N64 lost because it didn't have a CD drive, they're WRONG. As I stated earlier N64 came in 1996, PS1 and Saturn in 1994. It was too late in the market. Nintendo was still riding off its Snes sales in 1994. If anything, Saturn deserved FF7-9 and DQ to be multiplats with PS1, and it would have if it wasn't so hard to program for. Those games would never have become exclusive to Nintendo with a very easy system like PS1 on the market. No one would choose Nintendo with their anti 3rd party practices even if they made a system on the level of PS1, they were very happy with Sony.

It only sold like 6 million in Europe despite being marketed heavily by Nintendo, I remember how much marketing there was for the system, it was as prominent as the PS1 in stores yet it only ended up with 5-6 million.

The gen should've gone PS1>Saturn>N64, Saturn deserved to sell more than the N64.

The chart I've shown disproves that. Playstation was a mediocre selling console prior to late 1997, whereas the N64 had record breaking sales in 1996. 

N64's first year in the US might actually be the most impressive ever, even above PS2/PS4/Wii it's in the same ballpark as those three but with far fewer games and it did at a time when the industry was smaller. 



d21lewis on 14 April 2017

I was a die-hard Nintendo only guy until the N64. Too few games (not even exclusives. Games, PERIOD) made me test the waters with other consoles. You're right. Nintendo 64 SHOULD have won. They had the fanbase and experience. Unfortunately, they blew it.

I still have fond memories but history can't be rewritten.



hunter_alien on 14 April 2017
Soundwave said:
hunter_alien said:
But in the end IMO truly the better system won by a landslide. Sony simply did everything better than Nintendo. The 1st party output was fresh and came in large numbers, CD became a standard and their relationships with 3rd party developers was miles ahead of Nintendo.

And lets be honest. No matter how good Mario 64, Goldeneye or OoT was, the PS simply had the superior library.

N64 first party output was better than Sony's. 

Take Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest away and make Metal Gear and Resident Evil multiplat and things swing in Nintendo's favor very quickly. 

And Mario 64/GoldenEye/OoT are arguably 3/4 of the top games of that generation. 

Its obvious that 100 million people felt otherwise They looked at the Crash quadrilogy, Spyro, Gran Turismo, Twisted Metal and WIpeout and decided it was better. And when you take into consideration the 3rd party exclusive titles, the N64 starts to look far different.

You dont have to believe me. Believe the numbers...



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!

d21lewis 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.

Gamecube?



Around the Network
Soundwave on 14 April 2017
hunter_alien said:
Soundwave said:

N64 first party output was better than Sony's. 

Take Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest away and make Metal Gear and Resident Evil multiplat and things swing in Nintendo's favor very quickly. 

And Mario 64/GoldenEye/OoT are arguably 3/4 of the top games of that generation. 

Its obvious that 100 million people felt otherwise They looked at the Crash quadrilogy, Spyro, Gran Turismo, Twisted Metal and WIpeout and decided it was better. And when you take into consideration the 3rd party exclusive titles, the N64 starts to look far different.

You dont have to believe me. Believe the numbers...

So which of these three do you think wins:

N64: Super Mario 64, Zelda: Oot, Final Fantasy VII/VIII/IX, GoldenEye, Dragon Quest VII, Perfect Dark, Banjo-Kazooie, Diddy Kong Racing, Mario Kart 64, Star Fox 64, Wave Race 64, Star Wars games, Kobe Bryant NBA, Ken Griffey MLB, etc. exclusive

Versus Crash, Spyro, Gran Turismo, and Twisted Metal (Wipeout wasn't even exclusive to PSX as is, N64 got a version of that one, not that it mattered because F-Zero X is the better game), Toshinden, Jumping Flash, NFL Game Day, PaRappa. 

I like those odds for Nintendo, I would take that any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Sony would've been screwed IMO. Gran Turismo is the only one on that list that really kinda would worry me, but everything else Nintendo matches up very well. Having CD would've ensured the N64 a steady flow of games too, so all those Resident Evil and Metal Gear and Colony Wars and sports games ... sorry Sony, those are all on Nintendo 64 now too, you gotta share those. No 4-5 month droughts for the N64 to capitalize on, you'd have to fight fair like the SNES/Genesis did against each other in sharing most multiplats. 



d21lewis on 14 April 2017
Turkish said:
Soundwave said:

Actually N64 even starved of games still sold virtually the same as the SNES did in North America and Europe. The only difference was basically Japan where losing Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest sadly neutered the system there. 

Never should have happened. FF7/8/9 and Dragon Quest VII should have been N64 exclusives. Now the odds are much more even, and I like Nintendo's chances against Sony in that scenario. Sony needed virtually a monopoly on all major third party games to win that generation, if N64 has a CD drive first of all I don't think companies that were historically close to Nintendo like Squaresoft and Enix would've left as there would be little reason to do so. 

No way IMO Sony would have been able to compete against the combined might of Mario 64, GoldenEye, Zelda: OoT, and Final Fantasy VII ... no way. And I think other Playstation exclusives like Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil 1/2/3 would've gone multi-plat. Tekken and maybe Tomb Raider would've stayed for Sony (maybe). 

People always think N64 lost because it didn't have a CD drive, they're WRONG. As I stated earlier N64 came in 1996, PS1 and Saturn in 1994. It was too late in the market. Nintendo was still riding off its Snes sales in 1994. If anything, Saturn deserved FF7-9 and DQ to be multiplats with PS1, and it would have if it wasn't so hard to program for. Those games would never have become exclusive to Nintendo with a very easy system like PS1 on the market. No one would choose Nintendo with their anti 3rd party practices even if they made a system on the level of PS1, they were very happy with Sony.

Seriously it sounds like you dont know why Nintendo lost and blame everything on the lack of CD Drive which is revisionism at its worst.

It only sold like 6 million in Europe despite being marketed heavily by Nintendo, I remember how much marketing there was for the system, it was as prominent as the PS1 in stores yet it only ended up with 5-6 million.

The gen should've gone PS1>Saturn>N64, Saturn deserved to sell more than the N64.

 

Turkish said:
Soundwave said:

Actually N64 even starved of games still sold virtually the same as the SNES did in North America and Europe. The only difference was basically Japan where losing Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest sadly neutered the system there. 

Never should have happened. FF7/8/9 and Dragon Quest VII should have been N64 exclusives. Now the odds are much more even, and I like Nintendo's chances against Sony in that scenario. Sony needed virtually a monopoly on all major third party games to win that generation, if N64 has a CD drive first of all I don't think companies that were historically close to Nintendo like Squaresoft and Enix would've left as there would be little reason to do so. 

No way IMO Sony would have been able to compete against the combined might of Mario 64, GoldenEye, Zelda: OoT, and Final Fantasy VII ... no way. And I think other Playstation exclusives like Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil 1/2/3 would've gone multi-plat. Tekken and maybe Tomb Raider would've stayed for Sony (maybe). 

People always think N64 lost because it didn't have a CD drive, they're WRONG. As I stated earlier N64 came in 1996, PS1 and Saturn in 1994. It was too late in the market. Nintendo was still riding off its Snes sales in 1994. If anything, Saturn deserved FF7-9 and DQ to be multiplats with PS1, and it would have if it wasn't so hard to program for. Those games would never have become exclusive to Nintendo with a very easy system like PS1 on the market. No one would choose Nintendo with their anti 3rd party practices even if they made a system on the level of PS1, they were very happy with Sony.

Seriously it sounds like you dont know why Nintendo lost and blame everything on the lack of CD Drive which is revisionism at its worst.

It only sold like 6 million in Europe despite being marketed heavily by Nintendo, I remember how much marketing there was for the system, it was as prominent as the PS1 in stores yet it only ended up with 5-6 million.

The gen should've gone PS1>Saturn>N64, Saturn deserved to sell more than the N64.

You don't think CD ROM vs Cartridges didn't play a huge role? A young d21lewis who purchased Killer Instinct Gold for $80 while his neighbor bought Tekken 2 for $40 would disagree.



SegataSanshiro on 14 April 2017
Mr Puggsly said:
SegataSanshiro said:
Saturn has 600 games and most of them fantastic. In terms of library it was a far better system than N64 and deserved better sales but Sega of Japan turning down SEGA of America's deal to partner with Sony backfired badly. (PS1 used the specs SOA wanted). N64 is a good console no doubt with some absolute classics. Thing is Had only about 200 games and was severely lacking in Fighting games,RPGs and shmups which at the time were huge. Saturn and PS1 kinda had everything but PS1 had more than Saturn and bigger named like Final Fantasy and Metal Gear plus the better ports of Tomb Raider,CSOTN and Resident Evil. Honestly N64 I do like it a lot but it's in 3rd place for library that gen.

I'm a fan of the Saturn as well... but most of its games were fantastic? No way.

I felt N64 was unique, the games it excelled at were very different than its competitors. Its hard to convince fans of Goldeneye, Mario 64, Smash Bros, Zelda, Rare games, that the Saturn has the superior library. I personally spent hundreds of hours with those THQ werstling games on N64.

But for the types of games you and I enjoy, Saturn is much more appealing and quantity on top of that. Saturn also has a lot of games that aged well.

Most the games are great on SS just they pretty much were released only in Japan. Just about every fighting game in 2D is better on SS and it has them in spades. SS was THE console to own for shmups as it is full of them and not seen a bad one. RPG's again I even say has enough quality RPGs to be on par with PS1 but again mainly only in Japan. Not to mention outside of a Neo Geo CD was the place to get Neo Geo games at that time.



Soundwave on 14 April 2017
SegataSanshiro said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I'm a fan of the Saturn as well... but most of its games were fantastic? No way.

I felt N64 was unique, the games it excelled at were very different than its competitors. Its hard to convince fans of Goldeneye, Mario 64, Smash Bros, Zelda, Rare games, that the Saturn has the superior library. I personally spent hundreds of hours with those THQ werstling games on N64.

But for the types of games you and I enjoy, Saturn is much more appealing and quantity on top of that. Saturn also has a lot of games that aged well.

Most the games are great on SS just they pretty much were released only in Japan. Just about every fighting game in 2D is better on SS and it has them in spades. SS was THE console to own for shmups as it is full of them and not seen a bad one. RPG's again I even say has enough quality RPGs to be on par with PS1 but again mainly only in Japan.

Unfortunately for Sega they made a system that emphasized 2D games in a time period when people didn't want 2D games. 

Nintendo should've copied their concept of having a cartridge slot and CD drive all in one though. Had they done that they would've won easily IMO. 

They could've just dropped the RAM expansion slot honestly and let the cartridge slot double as the RAM expansion for CD games too, I believe the Saturn did this as well. 



Turkish on 14 April 2017
Soundwave said:
Turkish said:

People always think N64 lost because it didn't have a CD drive, they're WRONG. As I stated earlier N64 came in 1996, PS1 and Saturn in 1994. It was too late in the market. Nintendo was still riding off its Snes sales in 1994. If anything, Saturn deserved FF7-9 and DQ to be multiplats with PS1, and it would have if it wasn't so hard to program for. Those games would never have become exclusive to Nintendo with a very easy system like PS1 on the market. No one would choose Nintendo with their anti 3rd party practices even if they made a system on the level of PS1, they were very happy with Sony.

It only sold like 6 million in Europe despite being marketed heavily by Nintendo, I remember how much marketing there was for the system, it was as prominent as the PS1 in stores yet it only ended up with 5-6 million.

The gen should've gone PS1>Saturn>N64, Saturn deserved to sell more than the N64.

The chart I've shown disproves that. Playstation was a mediocre selling console prior to late 1997, whereas the N64 had record breaking sales in 1996. 

N64's first year in the US might actually be the most impressive ever, even above PS2/PS4/Wii it's in the same ballpark as those three but with far fewer games and it did at a time when the industry was smaller. 

What does it disprove? Is this really a globally in America meme? You're only showing American sales. PS1 sold nearly 20M units worldwide in N64s first full year, nearly 22M units the year after that, it had its strongest years. N64 didn't affect PS1 at all.

The N64 was a near Wii U level bomba everywhere but America.