Forums - Gaming Discussion - Which is the most significant (important) console in history?

Which is the most important console ever?

Atari 2600 119 6.86%
 
NES 806 46.48%
 
SNES 109 6.29%
 
Sega Genesis 25 1.44%
 
N64 54 3.11%
 
PSX 303 17.47%
 
XBox 14 0.81%
 
PS2 225 12.98%
 
XB360 20 1.15%
 
Other - please explain 59 3.40%
 
Total:1,734
RJ_Sizzle said:
monocle_layton said:
NES

any other console wouldn't even exist if it didn't save the gaming industry.

There were other consoles around at the time. Even Atari was still around after the great "crash". it's just the Famicom was imported, repurposed and came in at the right time to take off internationally. 

I'll say the most important console is the one that escewed cartridges as a format for discs, saving a ton of costs for devs who could put that money back into their games. The dawn of AAA development if you will. The second most important is the one that established online gaming to the masses as a norm.

NES+PS1 were both huge contributions. Nes for saving the US industry and PS1 for bringing a market in Europe and proving games can be mature too.



Around the Network
RJ_Sizzle said:
monocle_layton said:
NES

any other console wouldn't even exist if it didn't save the gaming industry.

There were other consoles around at the time. Even Atari was still around after the great "crash". it's just the Famicom was imported, repurposed and came in at the right time to take off internationally. 

I'll say the most important console is the one that escewed cartridges as a format for discs, saving a ton of costs for devs who could put that money back into their games. The dawn of AAA development if you will. The second most important is the one that established online gaming to the masses as a norm.

The major US players at the time of the Crash: Atari, Coleco, & Mattel were all effectively killed by the Crash.  Mattel sold off the Intellivision line in 1984 due to the Crash.  Coleco Industries left electronics all together and went bankrupt  Atari may have still been around, but it was not the Warner Communications owned Atari (1976-1984).  That Atari died in the Crash and was sold by Warner to Jack Tramiel.  That Atari was more focused on home computers.  The Atari 7800 they released in 1986 to compete with the NES never had a chance, because the console was developed in 1983 for launch in '84, which never happened because of the Crash.  I got a 7800 for Christmas in 1987 and remember being severely unimpressed with it having already seen Super Mario Bros and The Legend of Zelda on the NES in other people's homes.  We got an NES the following Christmas. 



Mandalore76 said:
RJ_Sizzle said:

There were other consoles around at the time. Even Atari was still around after the great "crash". it's just the Famicom was imported, repurposed and came in at the right time to take off internationally. 

I'll say the most important console is the one that escewed cartridges as a format for discs, saving a ton of costs for devs who could put that money back into their games. The dawn of AAA development if you will. The second most important is the one that established online gaming to the masses as a norm.

The major US players at the time of the Crash: Atari, Coleco, & Mattel were all effectively killed by the Crash.  Mattel sold off the Intellivision line in 1984 due to the Crash.  Coleco Industries left electronics all together and went bankrupt  Atari may have still been around, but it was not the Warner Communications owned Atari (1976-1984).  That Atari died in the Crash and was sold by Warner to Jack Tramiel.  That Atari was more focused on home computers.  The Atari 7800 they released in 1986 to compete with the NES never had a chance, because the console was developed in 1983 for launch in '84, which never happened because of the Crash.  I got a 7800 for Christmas in 1987 and remember being severely unimpressed with it having already seen Super Mario Bros and The Legend of Zelda on the NES in other people's homes.  We got an NES the following Christmas. 

Well, yeah. I guess NES deserves more credit for being a system that resuscitated the US console market, based on a strong lineup of games and not being trash. I know I loved it. I just still feel that the NES was being a touted as a child's toy still (since it was introduced that way outside of Japan), and didn't quite set console gaming as the true juggernaut it was going to be at that point.



NES.

Before you had the NES, video game consoles were essentially a way to play inferior versions of arcade ports. With the NES, Nintendo developed longer more intricate games that were more suited to the home experience. Mario, Zelda, and Metroid were particularly revolutionary.



Soundwave said:

Also the whole "games were just kiddie stuff" before Playstation is one of the most disingenuous bullshit fairy tales that's pushed by a certain segment. It's pure revisionist history.

SEGA went to fucking US FEDERAL COURT for the right to have violent M-rated video games to be allowed onto market. SEGA was the one selling game systems that looked like hifi stereo equipment ages before Sony. SEGA was the one marketing to an older MTV audience while Sony was making sound chips for the Super NES. Sports sim games as a major genre came first on the Genesis. Sega was making games like Virtua Fighter (3D fighter), Virtua Racing (3D racing). Sega and NEC were doing CD-ROM gaming ages before Sony, and yes the Sega CD played music CDs, big whoop.

If there was no Sega, Nintendo would have had a 99% monopoly on the game industry and there would be no Playstation in the first place as Sony's brass was already not keen on making a game console to begin with, with no blueprint to follow (under Sega) on how to compete, Sony would have never even bothered in the first place.

The NES was not only the birth of Mario, Zelda and Nintendo, but also where Squaresoft, Enix, Capcom, and Konami turned into global iconic brands with the Final Fantasy series, Dragon Quest, Megaman, Metal Gear, Contra, Castlevania, etc.

The NES more than doubled the sales of the previous best selling game console (Atari 2600), the Playstation did not do that to the NES either (way below doubling the NES) as well.

Good post.

And in regards to your last sentence, if you take away Europe it's even closer between the NES and PS1. The NES sold 53.35M in N. American & Japan, compared to 59.63M for the PS1. Granted, the N64 was actual competition (well, in the U.S. at least for a little while) while the SMS was barely a blip on the radar in either America or Japan, but still. The only reason the PS1's global sales tally was way ahead of the NES's was because of Europe finally getting on board with consoles and choosing PlayStation as their platform of choice (obviously for the same reasons the PS1 succeeded everywhere else).

Literally the only things the PS1 did that was of any impact was being the first hugely successful console in Europe and being the first successful CD-based system. Anyone who argues the PS1 is the most important system ever is guilty of historical revisionism. In the 8-bit & 16-bit eras, the American and Japanese markets were doing just fine.



Around the Network

Other, went with the original PlayStation, as it basically kickstarted the modern video game market. NES second for me, just as it didn't push teh market's popularity as far as the PS did.

VAMatt said:

PSX ushered in 3D graphics, and was the first significant console released by non-gaming focus company. Without the success of PSX, I doubt that we would have MS in the industry now. Without Sony and MS, the gaming world would be a really different place.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSX_(digital_video_recorder)

Are you talking about something else? The only info I could find on the PSX says its a peripheral for the PS2, so not even a console. 



Personally there are only three consoles I think should be considered the Magnavox Odyssey, the first home console, the Atari 2600, even though it was the console that lead into the market crash it proved that a home game machine had market potential, it wasn't the machine that caused it but Atari's non-excistant market control which is pleguing the mobile industry right now, or the NES which revived the market.



VAMatt said:
fatslob-:O said:
I'm kinda bummed out that the Atari 2600 doesn't get the credit it deserves for being the absolute first to show that there was mass market potential for consoles ...

You can talk about the NES all you want about reviving the console market in North America with stronger it's stronger licensing rights and that it brought console gaming to Japan but that doesn't compare with the Atari 2600 alone for setting setting trends in the new console generations to come thereafter ...

I'm not bummed.  But, yeah, it deserves more credit. 

Like I've said before, as have others - it would be really interesting to know how the age of commenters impacts their thinking about which system is most significant.  Personally, I'm thinking that people have trouble recognizing the signifigance of Atari 2600 because it came and went before they were even a twinkle in their parents' eye.

I started on Atari 2600. My parents became parents of my brother and sister before Ralph Baher even invented his brown box which was the first prototype console ever. I still said NES.



Anyone not voting NES has no clue about the history of gaming.
Anyone voting PS(anything) is clearly aging themselves on when they started gaming.

Even other game devs point to one company and one specific point / console.



PAOerfulone said:
nuckles87 said:

If there was no Atari Pong, there would have been no industry for Nintendo to resurrect, because there wouldn't be one, and Nintendo would still be making cards and toys.

Lets not forget, Nintendo's first foray into home gaming wasn't the NES. It was a pong clone. :P

And also, the NES did not resurrect the gaming industry. The industry was still quite alive on home computers like Commodore 64, ZX Spectrum, and MSX, which were very popular gaming devices in their own right. NES simply re-legitimized standalone game consoles in the US market.

Last I checked, this was a thread about the most significant CONSOLE in history. Since when was this discussion about home computers?
There have been numerous rises and crashes for the video game market, it wasn't until Nintendo entered the fray when gaming stabilized and grew into what it is today and there hasn't been a crash since. 

But you said the NES saved the INDUSTRY. In the 80s, console gaming did not equal the industry. ;) 

 

There was one rise, and one crash in the US console market. And yes, Nintendo did stabilize it, with controls and regulations meant to reign in the Wild West console gaming became after Atari lost control of their platform. But there would have not been an industry for Nintendo to stabilize, without Atari and their Pong consoles.