I'm kind of confused why people are saying that these classic consoles are just collector's items. You don't sell as much as the NES mini or SNES mini as a collector's item. Weren't people also making a big deal out of the SNES mini as a christmas gift for kids? Hell ... I wanted an SNES mini and I wasn't even born when it was a relevant console!

Actually, I think the reason they did succeed is because they *are* collectors items.  Before the NES Mini, the retro consoles were mostly third party made, mostly mediocre or low quality, and mostly a 1:1 ratio with the bulky systems they replicated.   And they sold passably.

Nintendo comes along and uses miniaturization to make a device that is not only functional at a higher quality than those previous retro copies, but at the size, can serve as a display piece when you're done using it.  And, after Nintendo was taken off-guard by how successful it was given the middling success of other retro copy consoles, the rush to copycat ensued.  Leading, ultimately, to Sony.  And given the game list, the purpose of the PS1 mini is to play the one game you loved from that system, then display it as a collectors item.

I don't think that isn't a reason, or at least I didn't mean to imply that, but there's other factors as well. At least that's what I believe. I guess it also depends on what you consider "collector". Is a 40 year old man who barely plays video games buying one to play it for a few weeks a "collector"? I don't think so, it's just a novelty purchase but it isn't inherently a collectors purchase. Same thing with buying them for your kids. 

Cash grab. And, really, who can blame them? Nintendo gets people lined up to buy a collection of 30 year old games that many of them have already paid for several times. Sony has investors to please, and they have a system that's getting close to classic status itself. Of course they're gonna jump on the money train.

How many more would they sell if they spent a couple million dollars more developing a better UI and smoothing out some rough edges? Probably not many. As others have stated, these are either collector items, or plays on nostalgia. A better UI doesn't do much for either of those things.

And, as for the thing being outsourced..... what difference does that make? I see the Sony name only. At least with Sega's crappy "classic" consoles, they carried the At Games logo front and center, letting you know right away that it was just a licensing deal. In this case, Sony wants it to appear as though it is all them. So, they gotta take the bad with the good.

I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction here.  The 40-year-old man may buy it for a novelty purpose today, but that doesn't make the product any less of a collectors item.  Particularly if, at some point in the future, the device becomes valued as such.

I mean, shit, AOL demo disks are a collectors item now. 

With the list of games it has i couldnt care less about it.

Collecting is one aspect, the demand is too strong however to be just seen as just a collection device. 10 million shipped and counting for SNES/NES. Also if these plug n play devices were only for collection sake, why are so many people bellyaching at the thought of PS1 classic emulatiom being subpar? 

Back in the day, gaming in general was off my radar.  The NES had been a fun way to waste some time after school but rarely more than that.  Then the SNES came along and pretty much lost me.  Final Fantasy VI was the one real shining light.  I considered myself a Nintendo fan but they weren't holding my interest at all.  Everything just felt like more of the same, more of the same, more of the same.  When the PS1 came along, I bought it solely for FFVII, because of FFVI.  What happened then was a revelation for me.  Suddenly games and game characters were interesting and creative, not just jumping and punching with a random, uninspired story intended to simply tie levels together, or souless, goofy characters with no personality.  

It's easy to say, "oh, Sony got lucky," but the way I see it, Nintendo had their shots.  Two consoles to one but it took only a brief spell with the PS1 and I never looked back.  I never even considered getting the Nintendo console at the time.  It was off my radar, my sonar, and even my satellite network was getting nothing.  

Is a lot of that nostalgia talking?  Absolutely.  But it's nostalgia generated by the simple fact that I liked the games on the PS1 more than those of the NES and SNES combined, and by a country mile.  

The simple truth is that Nintendo just didn't make a mistake.  It was Nintendo being Nintendo and they would have made the same mistake 10 times out of 10.  If it hadn't been that mistake then it would have been another mistake.  Nintendo thought they had the right to dictate the terms of gaming to consumers, developers, and publishers--just like Microsoft did with the original Xbox One.  I think a lot of people liked the vibe that Playstation brought to the table.  I know I did.  

Of course it grew the market.  Much more than when it was basically just Nintendo and Sega in the mix.  During the NES era, the two top consoles sold ~75M consoles combined, with the top console selling ~62M.  The following gen, ~80M total, with the top console selling just ~49M.  A growth of just 5M units, hardly anything to tout. 

The PS1 pushed gaming into the mainstream.  It wasn't just a relatively niche hobby, it was a cool activity for all.  It became the first console to sell 100M+ units, minus the Gameboy, which had little competition and was allowed to stay on the market for 12 years before the GBA launched.  The total for the top two consoles jumped from ~80M to 135M, a huge growth of 55M units.  It even grew to the point where the 3rd place could sell almost 10M, a first.  PS expanded the market even more so during the PS2 era, where the top two consoles sold a combined 182M, another huge growth of 48M.  And 3rd place actually sold 20M+.

So, yea, Sony and the PS deserve a lot of credit for making the industry the size it is today.