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

Forums - Sales Discussion - If the N64 had a CD-ROM Drive, would've Nintendo won the generation in sales?

 

If N64 had a CD-ROM Drive, would've Nintendo won the generation in sales?

Yes 39 50.00%
 
No 39 50.00%
 
Total:78

i didnt think the cartridge was the thing that pulled it down most,
maybe marketing?!
n64 had amazing games!



Around the Network
zippy said:
It's kinda funny that in the present day Nintendo are topping worldwide sales with a cartridge based system.

Funny thing is this scenario popped up again in 2004. PSP vs DS. PSP going with disc hurt them. Sure PSP sold well for a non-Nintendo handheld at the time but the UMD format was a real hindrance. So we got carts with Vita.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

The_Liquid_Laser said:

Nintendo would have won with a CD-Rom.  Playstation was not selling well until it got Final Fantasy 7.  It was doing ok, but not nearly well enough to beat Nintendo.  The main third parties that didn't like Nintendo were Western devs like EA, but Western devs were not that important during the Gen 5 era.  Plenty of third party games still ended up on the Gameboy.  This idea that devs wanted to flee Nintendo is extremely overstated.  There was no mass exodus from Nintendo handhelds.  The main reason why third parties switched on home systems was 1) CD's were a much better format and 2) Playstation was selling well after FF7 ended up on it.  If Nintendo has CDs and FF7, then Playstation doesn't do nearly as well.

Nah. The PlayStation had demolished the Saturn on launch, and had loads of third party titles coming up. The positive relationship Sony carved with developers back then was unlike anything ever seen in the industry. I'd say even now Nintendo hasn't quite climbed to the standard set back in 1994.

Besides, you can bet there would have been some uniquely Nintendesque BS if they had opted for CDs instead. Like having to buy a million units of their proprietary kid-proof plastic or something.



 

 

 

 

 

Capcom would've released the Resident Evil's in tandem on the 64 or only on the 64 (They already tried to release 2 on the 64 in our timeline plus the beginning of the gamecube lifespan Resident Evil was to be a Gamecube exclusive), the Final Fantasy's would've been exclusive to nintendo (Square and nintendo were pretty tight in Sega vs Nintendo, so I see no reason this would change) I also see the possibility for many games released exclusively on PS1 also either becoming exclusive to Nintendo 64, though it would be more shared games between the two.

Also due to limited space on Cartridges, this would allow Nintendo to create more detailed backgrounds and better looking games. Loading times would suck though. Also this would increase actual Profit from games as cartridges were and are expensive to make, as were the boxes they came in.

Last edited by badskywalker - on 02 September 2020

Nintendo would have lost its advantage in load times., Mario 64 and Zelda would have been a different experience littered with those load times. Zelda might have been a better product with cd quality sound and more diverse backgrounds, but again the load times might have ruined that. Games like Star Fox which had excellent voice work and cut scenes could have been a bit cooler. I believe Square would have still developed games for PlayStation but would have been more multi-platform developing for both Nintendo and Sony. Sega Saturn got both Resident Evil 1 and Tomb Raider 1 so those would have been on Nintendo as well and had they sold would have gotten the sequels which Saturn did not end up getting. It would have been a whole lot closer, but the games we loved on Nintendo with no load times and better graphics would have been changed from what we did get.



Around the Network
haxxiy said:
The_Liquid_Laser said:

Nintendo would have won with a CD-Rom.  Playstation was not selling well until it got Final Fantasy 7.  It was doing ok, but not nearly well enough to beat Nintendo.  The main third parties that didn't like Nintendo were Western devs like EA, but Western devs were not that important during the Gen 5 era.  Plenty of third party games still ended up on the Gameboy.  This idea that devs wanted to flee Nintendo is extremely overstated.  There was no mass exodus from Nintendo handhelds.  The main reason why third parties switched on home systems was 1) CD's were a much better format and 2) Playstation was selling well after FF7 ended up on it.  If Nintendo has CDs and FF7, then Playstation doesn't do nearly as well.

Nah. The PlayStation had demolished the Saturn on launch, and had loads of third party titles coming up. The positive relationship Sony carved with developers back then was unlike anything ever seen in the industry. I'd say even now Nintendo hasn't quite climbed to the standard set back in 1994.

Besides, you can bet there would have been some uniquely Nintendesque BS if they had opted for CDs instead. Like having to buy a million units of their proprietary kid-proof plastic or something.

Sony would have definitely finished ahead of Sega, even if Nintendo had included a CD-Rom.  However they were also in a situation much like NEC with the TG16.  Both were big electronics companies heading into gaming for the first time.  NEC had their share of third party games on the TG16, but it wasn't enough to gain much traction in the marketplace.  

Sony was in a similar boat.  The PS1 was not selling terribly well before Final Fantasy 7.  They didn't have a real killer app, and they didn't have a compelling reason for most Japanese devs to commit to the system.  If Nintendo had a CD Rom, then Sony would have ended up a lot like NEC, maybe a little better, because the Saturn was so terrible.  But Nintendo would have still secured the #1 spot.



Intrinsic said:
LivingMetal said:

Ok.  I"ll keep this simple:  "Nintendo PlayStation" =/= PlayStation.  There.

I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion. Here are the known facts.

  1. Kutaragi (unknown to the higher us at sony) designed a SNES sound chip for Nintendo, and it lost cost him his job but fr he intervention of then sony president Ohga or whatever his name was (can't recall).
  2. After that successful chip, Ken went on to convince the board at sony that they should make aCD add on for the SNES. And Nintendo agreed to this. There was not a lot of support from both camps as sony felt gaming was a fad at the time and not worth investing in and Nintendo wasn't keen on CD-Roms.
  3. Then Nintendo went back on this deal and announced that they were intended partnering with Phillips. The messed up thing was, Sony found out about this along with everyone else when Nintendo announced their partnership with Phillips.
  4.  Then Ken convinced the board that they should go on with the project and make their own game console. And that is how we have Playstation today.

I don't know how else to look at that, but I think its safe to say, that chances are, if that Nintendo Playstation actually came to light, and was a commercial failure (as was the case with the Sega CD), then sony would have sen no reason what so ever to listen to Ken and mak their own console. And the Playstation would never have existed. 

If it was a commercial success, then sony and Nintendo would have started off a long partnership, and sony would probably just be a third party game publisher today if at anything.

I can't see what reason or how to look at this any other way. Nothing at all points to the suggestion that sony would ever have made a Playstation if things hadn't gone south with their partnership with Nintendo.

Another known fact is that the "Nintendo PlayStation" hardware is NOT the original PlayStation hardware as we know it today.  Basically, the original PlayStation was developed INDEPENDENTLY from the "Nintendo PlayStation."  History.



FFVII was a big deal but not so much of an big deal, sure it sold 10 million units but in reality maybe a 1 or 2 million at max bought a ps one for FFVII a lot already owned a PS one before it's release and many would pick it up later that's 2% of the total userbase it's not that much in the big picture.

It is fun to go trough old magazines and you read fan's letter who give good reasons to go with Ps one.  The N64 launched later, very late and when it finally did it came with 2 games.  While Sony was like 'hey we have hundreds of games'! 'and did you know that many are available for 20$!  Tekken/Need for speed/Tomb Raider/resident Evil/Air Combat/Crash Bandicoot/MK III/Trilogy/Fifa/Madden/tennis X/ and so on....  The N64 initial sales were destroying PS one thanks to older Nintendo fans but the wait on new games hurts it sales and while eventually more games were releasing on N64 and helped it's sales the number of games on PS one was insane.   

Depends what lists you follow but we have 300-400 games for N64 and 2500-3100 for PS one.






LivingMetal said:

Another known fact is that the "Nintendo PlayStation" hardware is NOT the original PlayStation hardware as we know it today.  Basically, the original PlayStation was developed INDEPENDENTLY from the "Nintendo PlayStation."  History.

I think you are confusing yourself here.

I NEVER said that the Nintendo Playstation was the original PlayStation.

The Nintendo Playstation was meant to have been a CD add on fr the snes made for Nintendo by sony, and a CD and cart version of the snes made by sny that also played Nintendo games ut with more robust multimedia functions. Kinda like how we had a Sega CD add on for the Mega Drive. Only that with the Nintendo Playstation t was a more integrated device as opposed to a CD drive plugged into the cart bay. If the said device ever came to light and was a commercial success, chances are the N64 would have been CD based as opposed to cart based.

The PlayStation as it came to be, came about after Nintendo canceled (or rather stabbed sony in the back) the whole Nintendo Playstation CD project when they found out that the agreement made mean that sony would have more control over the disc stuff than Nintendo were comfortable relinquishing. At that point, sony went from making a disc and cart-based version of the SNES, to making their own disc-based console, the Playstation. The prototype of the Nintendo Playstation plays SNES games.

The original Playstations "independent" development only started and came about "after" Nintendo pulled out of the Nintendo PlayStation project by announcing they were going with Phillips instead. Which happened in 1991, three years before the original Playstation actually released.



Intrinsic said:
LivingMetal said:

Another known fact is that the "Nintendo PlayStation" hardware is NOT the original PlayStation hardware as we know it today.  Basically, the original PlayStation was developed INDEPENDENTLY from the "Nintendo PlayStation."  History.

I think you are confusing yourself here.

I NEVER said that the Nintendo Playstation was the original PlayStation.

The Nintendo Playstation was meant to have been a CD add on fr the snes made for Nintendo by sony, and a CD and cart version of the snes made by sny that also played Nintendo games ut with more robust multimedia functions. Kinda like how we had a Sega CD add on for the Mega Drive. Only that with the Nintendo Playstation t was a more integrated device as opposed to a CD drive plugged into the cart bay. If the said device ever came to light and was a commercial success, chances are the N64 would have been CD based as opposed to cart based.

The PlayStation as it came to be, came about after Nintendo canceled (or rather stabbed sony in the back) the whole Nintendo Playstation CD project when they found out that the agreement made mean that sony would have more control over the disc stuff than Nintendo were comfortable relinquishing. At that point, sony went from making a disc and cart-based version of the SNES, to making their own disc-based console, the Playstation. The prototype of the Nintendo Playstation plays SNES games.

The original Playstations "independent" development only started and came about "after" Nintendo pulled out of the Nintendo PlayStation project by announcing they were going with Phillips instead. Which happened in 1991, three years before the original Playstation actually released.

No. PS1 came after SEGA and Sony had talks for Sony to manufacture the Saturn. Those talks fell apart and then Sony went to make PS1.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!