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

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
Mnementh on 12 July 2017
fatslob-:O said:
Mnementh said:

Sorry, yes, I mixed up the numbers. My main point stays: that the numbers alone don't say anything about significance.

The first movers are usually a tiny blip compared to the market if properly covered. The first movers have to test out things, establish for customers that the possibility for this type of product even exists and so on. That is why first movers usually don't seem to be big in hindsight. But the 350K sales for Odyssey were more than enough to prove that a market for home gaming systems is sustainable. That was the important part.

And Atari on the other hand - it came into the market together with a lot of other contenders. Not only fairchild. 1975 and 1976 saw a lot of new contenders. Without Atari one of them would've been market leader. To be precise: the first Atari-system (Home Pong) sold only 150K and was outsold for instance by Colecos Telstar. 1975 also Magnavox discontinued the original Odyssey- but for a series of Odyssey machines (Odyssey 100, Odyssey 200 and so on). Ataris sales champion 2600 was really late, it started in 1977. So it is easy to see, that Atari could've been replaced easily. Also the game that pushed Atari a lot was Pac-Man, a licensed game. Someone would've probably done that. I would assume without Atari Coleco and Magnavox would've fought for market leader, but that is speculation.

But while Atari could've been easily replaced, without Ralph Baer and the Brown Box (that became the Odyssey) the market would've been created at that point. Atari, Coleco, Mattel, Fairchild - they all tried this because the Odyssey showed this is possible. Without it it would've taken years and at that point would've been met with serious competition of PC-gaming. Console gaming would look very different.

You need more than just pioneers to be able to show that there is a market for similar products. 350K is hardly what anyone would call sustainable in terms of commercial viability now and even back then ... 

There's tons of examples out there where new standards or products that were pioneered fail to get traction ... (3D displays, Segway, camera controller's like Eyetoy or Kinect, wearables and etc) 

Most of the other contenders were hardly prepared at the time and if Atari didn't exist then the console gaming industry would've been delayed by half a decade or more depending on the circumstances so Atari is hardly what you'd describe as being replaceable ... 

Mainstreaming your solution is just as important as pioneering it and from that perspective the Atari 2600 was just as impactful as the Magnavox Odyssey if not then even more so ...

OK, I think we must agree to disagree.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network
mysteryman on 12 July 2017
Nuvendil said:

And there is denying that Nintendo was "massively lucky".  They came in and did everything right in the early eighties to get the industry whipped into shape.  If you think that was blind luck...then wow.  And people accused ME of revisionism in this thread....

It's obvious that any of Nintendo's successes are just blind luck. They are merely the embodiment of the infinite monkey theorem, through mathematical surety, it was inevitable they would eventually make all the right decisions.

The only time it can be assured that Nintendo have intentionally accomplished anything is when they fail.   



Kai_Mao on 12 July 2017
Nuvendil said:
Lawlight said:

Let's correct one thing - Nintendo isn't getting theme parks. It's getting themed areas in 3 Universal's theme parks.

Nintendo being a big brand in the 80s did not stop sales to drop from the NES to the SNES.

And add FIFA to the list of franchises bigger than Mario and Pokemon. I'd argue that Battlefield, CoD and Elder Scrolls are also bigger. Destiny and Overwatch are potentially bigger too.

Adjusted for inflation, the PS cost about the same as the NES ($393 vs $364). There's no denying that Nintendo was massively lucky and has to thanks Atari for its gaffes.

Fifa has finally caught up to Pokemon, but it's not a stronger brand.  Battlefield, on the other hand, is not bigger than Pokemon and isn't in great shape after Battlefield Hardline.  CoD is bigger, but CoD is the biggest or second biggest brand in the industry sooooo yeah, not shocking.  Elder Scrolls is bigger, assuming it maintains its strenght from Skyrim.  Destiny isn't.  Overwatch isn't yet, but we'll see.  Pokemon as a brand is still among the strongest out there.

Mario has had a dip in sales, so that's a fair assessment, though as a brand Mario is still very strong (It ain't called "Nintendo Kart" for a reason)

And there is denying that Nintendo was "massively lucky".  They came in and did everything right in the early eighties to get the industry whipped into shape.  If you think that was blind luck...then wow.  And people accused ME of revisionism in this thread....

I'll admit FIFA has caught up, but I think its been mostly Europe that has been carrying the sales of the games, since its because of the obvious. For Pokemon, its still huge worldwide, not just in Japan. Like you, I don't know if I give games like Destiny and Overwatch a nod up in the ranks of Pokemon and Mario, at least not yet. I'd probably give Warcraft a nod within the top ranks, but other than GTA, CoD, and maybe FIFA, Mario and Pokemon remain among the strongest in the gaming industry. For the latter two, they've reached beyond gaming and have garned status in the overall pop culture. Even if you haven't played a video game, you would at least heard about Pokemon and Mario.

And I agree with your last statement and I think this notion about "Nintendo is lucky" is just as ridiculous as saying "Sony is lucky" during the 5th generation.



AsGryffynn on 12 July 2017

NES was the one that kept everything from dissolving. PSX initiated the tradition of discs and the Xbox was the forerunner of online. So definitely those three...



asqarkabab on 12 July 2017

Gameboy nes and the ps2



REQUIESCAT IN PACE

I Hate REMASTERS

I Hate PLAYSTATION PLUS

Around the Network
Ajax on 12 July 2017
bananaking21 said:
PS2. It was the console that made gaming as popular as it is today.

The PSX had already sold more than 100 million units and the game boy sold around 120 million units. 

The PS2 certainly did not make gaming as popular as it is today on it's own. And without PSX's stunning succes no PS2 at all. So by definition the PSX has more significance. 



''Hadouken!''

Ruler on 12 July 2017
Kai_Mao said:
Ruler said:

Well didnt it changed how console evolution works now?

Then you could say the Game Boy Advance SP and the DS Lite did it first with great success. Heck the New 3DS XL was about more than a year before the PS4 Pro released

Those are Handhelds



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

Kai_Mao on 12 July 2017
Ruler said:
Kai_Mao said:

Then you could say the Game Boy Advance SP and the DS Lite did it first with great success. Heck the New 3DS XL was about more than a year before the PS4 Pro released

Those are Handhelds

That doesn't mean that they didn't have an influence for the future. Plus handhelds are consoles regardless, even if they aren't "home consoles."



bigtakilla on 12 July 2017
COKTOE said:
Ka-pi96 said:

You don't think Activision and COD deserve any credit for that?

Also, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark say hello. The N64 in general was a FPS monster.  On topic: I won't jump into this debate head first. There's a handful of legit contenders. NES and PSX would be my front runners, with some 2600 and Dreamcast love.

N64 also had Turock (this may be misspelled) which was huge at the time. 



bigtakilla on 12 July 2017
Kai_Mao said:
Ruler said:

Those are Handhelds

That doesn't mean that they didn't have an influence for the future. Plus handhelds are consoles regardless, even if they aren't "home consoles."

Truth, and you can even say that they influenced Sony to make handhelds as well as push Nintendo in this new console direction. Hell even Wii U was built with some portability in mind.