I don't think the N64 deserved to win anything. Sony made a console that appealed to more people and it made gaming way more mainstream. Sony deserved everything they got.
pokoko said:
First, the idea that Playstation has never brought anything revolutionary to the industry--do you know what dual analog controls are? You know, the scheme that everyone uses today? |
That's plain flase wrong. One of them? N64. Two of them? Wavebird.
My themeforest portfolio:
RolStoppable said:
Indeed, this is turning into a quote tree of people being wrong. First a crazy story, then a claim that more of the same is revolutionary instead of an evolution (one might as well say that four shoulder buttons in total were a revolutionary addition), then this Wavebird thing. |
Well, first we'd have to determine what revolutionary even is.
BuckStud said:
I'm not sure how old you were during the N64 time, but your memory is a little off. While the PS1 and Saturn had many good games, most of them paled considerably to the great games on the N64. Other than storage capacity, the N64 was superior in every way to either of those. Sony did so well simply because of their less than ethical marketing of the PlayStation line. They were able to get into stores that didn't sell video games prior like Circuit City by telling them that they would only be allowed to carry their other products if they sold the PlayStation in their stores. Sony TV's were still popular back then, so that got them into more stores. Then there's the fact that Sony hired secret shoppers to go into stores and ask about their competition with video games. I had a friend that was the store manager at Electronic Boutique and he said that it was well known in the industry that gifts were handed out randomly to sales associates that would steer customers to the PlayStation when they would ask about Sony's competition...I witnessed it more than once. Then there were the BS rumors that would get started like the government is buying a bunch of PS2's to replace there super computers because the PS2 was more powerful and a lot cheaper.
Sony came to the market as a bully and bought their way into their market share. They’ve never really brought anything revolutionary to the industry. The PS4 is nothing more than an underpowered gaming PC in a plastic case. Sony has done so well mostly because of hype and ignorant fans....much the same way the USA has the current president that it does.
|
lol look at this loser
Moderated ~ CGI
The best console won by a landslide because it had the overall better games that appealed to a broader audience. I never really got into gaming until the PS1 because of the more mature themed games. Nintendo always thought of itself as a toy company that made toys for kids. It's games were designed and marketed with that in mind. I never cared for nintendo's games because of that. I never liked disney as a kid either.
BuckStud said:
I'm not sure how old you were during the N64 time, but your memory is a little off. While the PS1 and Saturn had many good games, most of them paled considerably to the great games on the N64. Other than storage capacity, the N64 was superior in every way to either of those. Sony did so well simply because of their less than ethical marketing of the PlayStation line. They were able to get into stores that didn't sell video games prior like Circuit City by telling them that they would only be allowed to carry their other products if they sold the PlayStation in their stores. Sony TV's were still popular back then, so that got them into more stores. Then there's the fact that Sony hired secret shoppers to go into stores and ask about their competition with video games. I had a friend that was the store manager at Electronic Boutique and he said that it was well known in the industry that gifts were handed out randomly to sales associates that would steer customers to the PlayStation when they would ask about Sony's competition...I witnessed it more than once. Then there were the BS rumors that would get started like the government is buying a bunch of PS2's to replace there super computers because the PS2 was more powerful and a lot cheaper.
Sony came to the market as a bully and bought their way into their market share. They’ve never really brought anything revolutionary to the industry. The PS4 is nothing more than an underpowered gaming PC in a plastic case. Sony has done so well mostly because of hype and ignorant fans....much the same way the USA has the current president that it does.
|
Nah, both PS1 and Saturn have bigger and better libraries than the N64.
Interesting PS1 stories btw but it sounds like BS, you got a link for those?
Sony came in the market because their Japanese honor forced them! Without Sony this industry would be dead, they expanded the business with the PS1 and PS2 and saved the industry with the PS4 at a time when 3rd parties were in doubt whether consoles were still popular or mobile was the future, especially with the Wii U bomba. The evidence for this is clearly in the lack of games in the first 2 years of this gen. Most of the games must've been greenlit after the positive PS4 reveal and launch.
How can you be so uneducated as to call the PS4 an underpowered gaming PC? What PC functions does it have other than playing games and browsing? For $399 you got your money's worth with it so how can it be underpowered? All the budget went into the best components available for them at the time, like were you expecting they put a $500 gpu in a $400 console?
Also what the hell, ignorant fans? Having the best games console with the best games is being ignorant?
VGPolyglot said:
Well, first we'd have to determine what revolutionary even is. |
Revolutionary for analog input?
I'd say this:
Using a stick for the analog input could also seen as revolutionary:
All after that (shrinking and repositioning the stick, adding a second stick, adding and repositioning buttons, changing the form of the controller): evolutionary.
Saying Nintendo would win because they put a CD drive on the N64 is like saying PS3 would win if they put motion controls on the system. CDs were not the problem. The Saturn had CDs and we do not hear about the amazing sucess that the Saturn had. The DS destroyed the PSP despite using cartirdges. Sony won because they got 3rd party support. They placed a HEAVY emphisis on 3rd party support. Moreso than any company ever. Nintendo and Sega had outdated rules about 3rd parties because they didn't want 3rd parties to flood the market with terrible games and cause the Crash of 1983 part 2.
Sony reduced the restrictions for 3rd pary devlopment by a great deal. Here are some numbers.
PS1 had 2,435 ps1 games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_games
N64 had 388 games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_64_games
SNES has 783 games
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Nintendo_Entertainment_System_games
Even when Nintendo was on top they had nowhere near the amount of games that the PS1 had. 3rd parties wanted to support the console with the fewest restrictions. They no longer had to buy cartridges from Nintendo. They no longer had to censor their games to put it on the system. Before the Playstation console companies thought that the only way to sell systems was through 1st party software. Sony proved that 3rd party could sell systems too now.
Sony also had one thing that no other system had: Western AAA 3rd party support. Western companies like EA refused to put games on Nintendo because they were underpowered and had severve 3rd party restrictions. They were used to publishing games on the PC which had none of that. Here is a quote from Trip Hawking founder of EA.
Sega-16: According to Steven Kent’s Ultimate History of Video Games, you had a certain “disdain” for consoles, and refused to publish for the NES because you would have had to tone down your games for the hardware. The Genesis, however, was much better suited for PC ports. How long did it take you to recognize that the 16-bit console market was worth getting into?
Trip Hawkins: Other than Acclaim, all the American publishers avoided the 8-bit Nintendo and had disdain for their model. None of us at that time appreciated how license fees could be used to subsidize hardware pricing and marketing, and thereby help companies like Nintendo build an installed base.
http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/interview-trip-hawkins/
Things got better with Sega but Sony destroyed Sega in 3rd party friendly support. For the 1st time sony got western PC games like Grand Thief Auto,Simcity and even Civilization 2! Sure the N64 had some PC games but not as many as the PS1.
Sony also used another advantage. Sell Worldwide. Before the Playstation Europe was not seen as a big market yet. Nintendo didn't really pay attention to them and Sega was too busy trying to win America. The reason why Playstation did so much better than every other consolee was because it sold well in Japan+America+Europe. Playstation wasn't really more popular than the NES in Japan or in America. What made the difference was Europe. Nintendo counldn't really sell there without proper 3rd party support at their 1st party games weren't doing the best there yet.
Nintendo did a lot wrong as well however this is getting too long. Nintendo did learn from the Playstations. When the Wii came out Nintendo did their best to flood the Wii with games so that they could take away Sony's #1 advantage. Nintendo also learned to sell worldwide with the Wii outselling every Nintendo home console in Europe COMBINED. To give Nintendo a disc drive and calling it an automatic win for them is ignorant. Sony didn't win by luck. They knew what they were doing. Calling Sony lucky is underselling them on what they did.
| killeryoshis said: Saying Nintendo would win because they put a CD drive on the N64 is like saying PS3 would win if they put motion controls on the system. CDs were not the problem. The Saturn had CDs and we do not hear about the amazing sucess that the Saturn had. The DS destroyed the PSP despite using cartirdges. Sony won because they got 3rd party support. They placed a HEAVY emphisis on 3rd party support. Moreso than any company ever. Nintendo and Sega had outdated rules about 3rd parties because they didn't want 3rd parties to flood the market with terrible games and cause the Crash of 1983 part 2. |
Tried explaining it earlier, basically this mang, and the nearly 2 year launch after the PS1 helping Sony establish itself as the go to partner and having devs become accustomed to their platform. Also Nintendo not taking Europe was definitely a thing, when they reported sales they had USA, Japan but Europe was in "rest of the world".
I also think that the casual games boom on the PS2 helped Nintendo eventually come up with the idea for the Wii and make it something for the entire family. I remember the PS2 commercials with the Singstar parties and grandmas playing Eyetoy.
And Sega, if the Saturn was easy like the PS1, it'd probably get half of PS1's market share.
RolStoppable said:
Since we are on the topic of controllers, revolutionary is a new input that catches on. The first analog stick is revolutionary, adding a second one is an evolution of the idea. Especially because the functionality of the second stick was already largely provided by the C-buttons of the Nintendo 64. Shoulder buttons on the SNES controller were revolutionary. The original PS1 controller adding another two shoulder buttons is an evolution. The N64 rumble pak is the revolution, built-in rumble in later controllers is the evolution. HD rumble in the Switch's Joy-Cons is also an evolution. I think you get the point. What usually follows here in comments by other people are mentions of older analog sticks (they weren't thumbsticks like we use them today though) or force feedback in flightsticks, but those things didn't catch on and they aren't really comparable to begin with. |
Hold on a second. The predictable "it's only evolutionary, not revolutionary" downplay aside, your comment makes no sense.
Controllers already had buttons. Now the placement of the buttons is revolutionary? You implied earlier that "more of the same" cannot be revolutionary, so which is it? That's pretty clearly a double standard you've got going there.
Ignoring the debate over more buttons being "more of the same", dual stick controls changed the way we played games. The impact on the controls and structure of video-games was, without a shred of doubt, the start of a revolution in game design, particularly with the rise of FPP. Yes, I know people are going to go down the "evolution vs. revolution" side-track but, honestly, who really cares? Depending on semantics is often an act of desperation. The importance of dual stick controls cannot be down-played.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
