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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo 64 Lost to PlayStation Because Japanese Gamers Prefer “Depressing Games”

Azzanation said:
N64 lost to the PS1? Guess you must mean sales. N64 was on the market for 5 years, PS1 close to 10 years.
N64 had the better games overall PS1 had more games but not better.
I own and still do both machines and i enjoyed both systems alot but the N64 was miles ahead when it came to quality.

Yes, people bought 5x more PS1 than N64 because N64 was the best system and they thought it had the better games.

Gamers really are masochists.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Yes, people bought 5x more PS1 than N64 because N64 was the best system and they thought it had the better games.

Gamers really are masochists.

People also buy more Volkswagons than Bentleys.. not because there better cars..

What was your point again?

PS1 was sold on the market for twice aslong so dont forget that part.

In the same time space it wouldnt be 5 times the sales. And just look up the best criticality acclaimed games, majority are on the N64 which stands my point.



Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

Yes, people bought 5x more PS1 than N64 because N64 was the best system and they thought it had the better games.

Gamers really are masochists.

People also buy more Volkswagons than Bentleys.. not because there better cars..

What was your point again?

PS1 was sold on the market for twice aslong so dont forget that part.

In the same time space it wouldnt be 5 times the sales. And just look up the best criticality acclaimed games, majority are on the N64 which stands my point.

That isn't exactly true. The N64 has 17 games with a metacritic score of 90 or higher, while the PS1 has 28. You can make the argument that the best N64 games were better than the best PS1 games, although I would personally disagree with that, but you can't say that the N64 had more critically acclaimed games compared to the PS1. Also, as far as being on the market for longer, the PS1 was outselling the N64 by early late 1997, and passed it by in sales soon after, so it wouldn't have really mattered if the N64 had remained on the market for longer. It simply wasn't selling as much as the PS1 at any point after its first year on the market.



I imagine what he considered 'depressing' differs greatly from what most consumers consider depressing. That, or he has no idea what he's talking about, I can't imagine him not having any idea, so it's probably his idea of depressing that differs.



He was so cut throat, delusional at times as well.



Around the Network
Darashiva said:
Azzanation said:

People also buy more Volkswagons than Bentleys.. not because there better cars..

What was your point again?

PS1 was sold on the market for twice aslong so dont forget that part.

In the same time space it wouldnt be 5 times the sales. And just look up the best criticality acclaimed games, majority are on the N64 which stands my point.

That isn't exactly true. The N64 has 17 games with a metacritic score of 90 or higher, while the PS1 has 28. You can make the argument that the best N64 games were better than the best PS1 games, although I would personally disagree with that, but you can't say that the N64 had more critically acclaimed games compared to the PS1. Also, as far as being on the market for longer, the PS1 was outselling the N64 by early late 1997, and passed it by in sales soon after, so it wouldn't have really mattered if the N64 had remained on the market for longer. It simply wasn't selling as much as the PS1 at any point after its first year on the market.

I am talking about the best were on N64 and it turns out I am not the only one to think so either. Having a 90s meta score doesn't tell us much about a game however being critically acclaimed and winning awards were common on the N64.  

Keep in mind the PS1's also had a major piracy issue which also would have hurt many developers and was a major selling point for the system as well. N64 was not or very little losing money on piracy, cannot say the same for the PS1. So being on the market for twice as long with an added benefit of pirating your games for free and being cheaper overall are not examples I would say a system is more successful. PS1 numbers are not as incident as they look. Besides the N64 was a solid successful console, there is no loser when being successful business wise. 

Its why I brought up the Volkwagon and Bentley comparison. Selling more does not mean something is better.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 06 February 2020

Azzanation said:
Darashiva said:

That isn't exactly true. The N64 has 17 games with a metacritic score of 90 or higher, while the PS1 has 28. You can make the argument that the best N64 games were better than the best PS1 games, although I would personally disagree with that, but you can't say that the N64 had more critically acclaimed games compared to the PS1. Also, as far as being on the market for longer, the PS1 was outselling the N64 by early late 1997, and passed it by in sales soon after, so it wouldn't have really mattered if the N64 had remained on the market for longer. It simply wasn't selling as much as the PS1 at any point after its first year on the market.

I am talking about the best were on N64 and it turns out I am not the only one to think so either. Having a 90s meta score doesn't tell us much about a game however being critically acclaimed and winning awards were common on the N64.  

Keep in mind the PS1's also had a major piracy issue which also would have hurt many developers and was a major selling point for the system as well. N64 was not or very little losing money on piracy, cannot say the same for the PS1. So being on the market for twice as long with an added benefit of pirating your games for free and being cheaper overall are not examples I would say a system is more successful. PS1 numbers are not as incident as they look. Besides the N64 was a solid successful console, there is no loser when being successful business wise. 

Its why I brought up the Volkwagon and Bentley comparison. Selling more does not mean something is better.

Uh, what? You literally wrote that the majority of critically acclaimed games were on the N64, which I pointed out wasn't true. Having a metascore in the 90s tells us exactly that about a game, that it is critically acclaimed, a point you brought up. I also never said that the N64 wasn't successful, but there's no question that the PS1 was the more successful console by a wide margin. It sold three times the number of units compared to the N64, and overall there were around 962 million games sold on it to the N64's 224 million, so even with it being on the market for twice as long, as you pointed out, the PS1 was consistently outselling the N64 on both consoles and games.

And you're right, selling more does not necessarily mean something is better as a result. That is a matter of opinion. For me the PS1 had the overall better games, but I've always enjoyed both systems.



Azzanation said:
Darashiva said:

That isn't exactly true. The N64 has 17 games with a metacritic score of 90 or higher, while the PS1 has 28. You can make the argument that the best N64 games were better than the best PS1 games, although I would personally disagree with that, but you can't say that the N64 had more critically acclaimed games compared to the PS1. Also, as far as being on the market for longer, the PS1 was outselling the N64 by early late 1997, and passed it by in sales soon after, so it wouldn't have really mattered if the N64 had remained on the market for longer. It simply wasn't selling as much as the PS1 at any point after its first year on the market.

I am talking about the best were on N64 and it turns out I am not the only one to think so either. Having a 90s meta score doesn't tell us much about a game however being critically acclaimed and winning awards were common on the N64.  

Keep in mind the PS1's also had a major piracy issue which also would have hurt many developers and was a major selling point for the system as well. N64 was not or very little losing money on piracy, cannot say the same for the PS1. So being on the market for twice as long with an added benefit of pirating your games for free and being cheaper overall are not examples I would say a system is more successful. PS1 numbers are not as incident as they look. Besides the N64 was a solid successful console, there is no loser when being successful business wise. 

Its why I brought up the Volkwagon and Bentley comparison. Selling more does not mean something is better.

Your Volkswagen and Bentley comparison is flawed ,Bentley was never in competition with Volkswagen and I'm sure that many Volkswagen buyers would say that for them it was a better car based on,sale price fuel,repair and insurance costs and many other factors, now why things like the best are subjective the volkswagen owners at least can demonstrate reasoning better than PS1 was a pirate haven and scores from critics don't tell us much about a game.



Darashiva said:

Uh, what? You literally wrote that the majority of critically acclaimed games were on the N64, which I pointed out wasn't true. Having a metascore in the 90s tells us exactly that about a game, that it is critically acclaimed, a point you brought up. I also never said that the N64 wasn't successful, but there's no question that the PS1 was the more successful console by a wide margin. It sold three times the number of units compared to the N64, and overall there were around 962 million games sold on it to the N64's 224 million, so even with it being on the market for twice as long, as you pointed out, the PS1 was consistently outselling the N64 on both consoles and games.

And you're right, selling more does not necessarily mean something is better as a result. That is a matter of opinion. For me the PS1 had the overall better games, but I've always enjoyed both systems.

Being on the market for at least double the time should sell by default twice as much units. Being a cheaper console world wide also means you are intended to sell more by default. Quality has nothing to do with it. 

You are entitled to your game preference however many games that are considered some of the best games ever created came from the N64 and are still looked up to today. N64 was a success, it never lost, it did what it needed to do. Many games hit the 90s, doesn't mean there award winning, or genre defining etc.

mjk45 said:

Your Volkswagen and Bentley comparison is flawed ,Bentley was never in competition with Volkswagen and I'm sure that many Volkswagen buyers would say that for them it was a better car based on,sale price fuel,repair and insurance costs and many other factors, now why things like the best are subjective the volkswagen owners at least can demonstrate reasoning better than PS1 was a pirate haven and scores from critics don't tell us much about a game.

It makes perfect sense. A cheaper car should outsell a more expensive car. A cheaper console should outsell a more expensive console.

Being on the market for 12 years should by default outsell a product that's on the market for 6 years. 

Bentley makes cars, Volkwagon makes cars.

Nintendo make game consoles, Sony make game consoles.

I just use Bentley as an example, I can use another brand, the concept remains the same.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 06 February 2020

Azzanation said:
Darashiva said:

Uh, what? You literally wrote that the majority of critically acclaimed games were on the N64, which I pointed out wasn't true. Having a metascore in the 90s tells us exactly that about a game, that it is critically acclaimed, a point you brought up. I also never said that the N64 wasn't successful, but there's no question that the PS1 was the more successful console by a wide margin. It sold three times the number of units compared to the N64, and overall there were around 962 million games sold on it to the N64's 224 million, so even with it being on the market for twice as long, as you pointed out, the PS1 was consistently outselling the N64 on both consoles and games.

And you're right, selling more does not necessarily mean something is better as a result. That is a matter of opinion. For me the PS1 had the overall better games, but I've always enjoyed both systems.

Being on the market for at least double the time should sell by default twice as much units. Being a cheaper console world wide also means you are intended to sell more by default. Quality has nothing to do with it. 

You are entitled to your game preference however many games that are considered some of the best games ever created came from the N64 and are still looked up to today. N64 was a success, it never lost, it did what it needed to do. Many games hit the 90s, doesn't mean there award winning, or genre defining etc.

And it sold three times as many units, so what's your point? That the N64 underperformed? Many of the best games ever created came from the PS1 as well, which are still looked up to today, so that's no different from the N64. Again, I never said the N64 wasn't a success, but arguing that it didn't lose against the PS1 is kinda pointless when the numbers tell the opposite story. It lost to the PS1 on every metric, from sold consoles, to number of sold games, to number of critically acclaimed games. That doesn't mean it's not a great console, but you're arguing against obvious facts here.

Nintendo lost the home console war that generation, just as it won the previous two with the NES and SNES. Or if the N64 didn't lose are you saying that the Sega Genesis, the original Xbox, or the PS3 didn't lose their respective generations either because they did what they needed to do as well?