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

Forums - Sony - Which Do You Consider More Successful: PS1 or PS2?

 

Which system was the more successful?

PS1 13 32.50%
 
PS2 27 67.50%
 
Total:40

Sony deserves credit for the ps1, but i do think they go darn lucky. Sega did the whole CD, 32x and overpriced Saturn. Basically Sega shot themselves repeatedly. Nintendo went cartridge, which alienated developers.



rtx 4090, 32 gb ram, i7-13700k

Switch 2

Around the Network

I think PS1 is the more impressive, due to a newcomer immediately dominating. The PS2 was more successful.



Chrkeller said:

Sony deserves credit for the ps1, but i do think they go darn lucky. Sega did the whole CD, 32x and overpriced Saturn. Basically Sega shot themselves repeatedly. Nintendo went cartridge, which alienated developers.

The overpriced Saturn was a panicky response to the PS1. Saturn was supposed to be a 2D powerhouse and Sega threw in a bunch of 3D chips at the last minute to make it as powerful as PS1. The main reason why Sega panicked and added those extra chips is because the PS1 really was powerful for its time and price. 3DO was $700 in 1993 for almost as good graphics as the PS1. N64 didn't launch until 1996 and still cost $50 more than the PS1 which was $199.99 by then. Sega Saturn cost 1.33 times as much as PS1 at launch. N64 cost 1.25 as much as the PS1's 1996 price at launch. When combined with cheap CD games you just couldn't beat the PS1 in price-to-power ratio. 

And as for Nintendo, they initially had N64 with a christmas 95 launch date. Yet they delayed it again and again until June 1996, because they knew the PS1 was too good pricewise. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - 2 days ago

The question is how much did DVD playback play into the success of the PS2.

PS1 established the brand, yet PS2 benefited a lot from the new DVD format. Which Sony tried to replicate with the PS3 yet blu-ray never surpassed DVD, never came anywhere in the vicinity of DVD at its peak.

PS2 doubled as a DVD player while the competition was using cartridges and XBox required an add-on.

But in the end I'll say PS2 was more successful as it established a lot of great new franchises that established enough of a loyal fan base to save the ps3.



Cerebralbore101 said:
Chrkeller said:

Sony deserves credit for the ps1, but i do think they go darn lucky. Sega did the whole CD, 32x and overpriced Saturn. Basically Sega shot themselves repeatedly. Nintendo went cartridge, which alienated developers.

The overpriced Saturn was a panicky response to the PS1. Saturn was supposed to be a 2D powerhouse and Sega threw in a bunch of 3D chips at the last minute to make it as powerful as PS1. The main reason why Sega panicked and added those extra chips is because the PS1 really was powerful for its time and price. 3DO was $700 in 1993 for almost as good graphics as the PS1. N64 didn't launch until 1996 and still cost $50 more than the PS1 which was $199.99 by then. Sega Saturn cost 1.33 times as much as PS1 at launch. N64 cost 1.25 as much as the PS1's 1996 price at launch. When combined with cheap CD games you just couldn't beat the PS1 in price-to-power ratio. 

And as for Nintendo, they initially had N64 with a christmas 95 launch date. Yet they delayed it again and again until June 1996, because they knew the PS1 was too good pricewise. 

That's not really accurate. 

The N64 launched at $199.99 in 1996, so that would be the same price as the Playstation in 1996 with a significantly more advanced chipset. 

The N64 wasn't delayed from 1995 to June 1996 because of the Playstation, it was delayed because the games weren't ready. Even with a June 1996 delay there were still large software droughts, Wave Race 64, the next "real" game for the N64 after Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 wasn't ready until several months later. 

Hardware delays weren't anything new to Nintendo at that point anyway, the Super NES CD-ROM was obviously delayed multiple times before being eventually cancelled, the Super NES was supposed to release in 1989 but the games weren't ready and had to be moved to 1990 in Japan and 1991 in North America. That's actually the only reason the Game Boy released (because of the Super NES delay). The Game Boy was cancelled at that point, believe it or not. 

Last edited by Soundwave - 2 days ago

Around the Network

I think the answer is clearly PS2, even though the PS1 was a great system too. I think PS1 vs. PS4 would be a more interesting comparison.



Soundwave said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

The overpriced Saturn was a panicky response to the PS1. Saturn was supposed to be a 2D powerhouse and Sega threw in a bunch of 3D chips at the last minute to make it as powerful as PS1. The main reason why Sega panicked and added those extra chips is because the PS1 really was powerful for its time and price. 3DO was $700 in 1993 for almost as good graphics as the PS1. N64 didn't launch until 1996 and still cost $50 more than the PS1 which was $199.99 by then. Sega Saturn cost 1.33 times as much as PS1 at launch. N64 cost 1.25 as much as the PS1's 1996 price at launch. When combined with cheap CD games you just couldn't beat the PS1 in price-to-power ratio. 

And as for Nintendo, they initially had N64 with a christmas 95 launch date. Yet they delayed it again and again until June 1996, because they knew the PS1 was too good pricewise. 

That's not really accurate. 

The N64 launched at $199.99 in 1996, so that would be the same price as the Playstation in 1996 with a significantly more advanced chipset. 

The N64 wasn't delayed from 1995 to June 1996 because of the Playstation, it was delayed because the games weren't ready. Even with a June 1996 delay there were still large software droughts, Wave Race 64, the next "real" game for the N64 after Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 wasn't ready until several months later. 

Hardware delays weren't anything new to Nintendo at that point anyway, the Super NES CD-ROM was obviously delayed multiple times before being eventually cancelled, the Super NES was supposed to release in 1989 but the games weren't ready and had to be moved to 1990 in Japan and 1991 in North America. That's actually the only reason the Game Boy released (because of the Super NES delay). The Game Boy was cancelled at that point, believe it or not. 

Yeah it was $199 at launch. I don't know how my Mom paid $250 for it in 96 but clearly she got taken for $50 extra somehow. I need to ask her why it was $250 at the store. 

Legit didn't know about the GB almost not releasing. 



Costs of games hurt the N64. I distinctly remember paying $70 for n64 games while many ps1 games were $40. Damn near half price. I bought quite a few $40 ps1 titles that I would not have spent $70 on.



rtx 4090, 32 gb ram, i7-13700k

Switch 2

Cerebralbore101 said:
Soundwave said:

That's not really accurate. 

The N64 launched at $199.99 in 1996, so that would be the same price as the Playstation in 1996 with a significantly more advanced chipset. 

The N64 wasn't delayed from 1995 to June 1996 because of the Playstation, it was delayed because the games weren't ready. Even with a June 1996 delay there were still large software droughts, Wave Race 64, the next "real" game for the N64 after Mario 64 and Pilotwings 64 wasn't ready until several months later. 

Hardware delays weren't anything new to Nintendo at that point anyway, the Super NES CD-ROM was obviously delayed multiple times before being eventually cancelled, the Super NES was supposed to release in 1989 but the games weren't ready and had to be moved to 1990 in Japan and 1991 in North America. That's actually the only reason the Game Boy released (because of the Super NES delay). The Game Boy was cancelled at that point, believe it or not. 

Yeah it was $199 at launch. I don't know how my Mom paid $250 for it in 96 but clearly she got taken for $50 extra somehow. I need to ask her why it was $250 at the store. 

Legit didn't know about the GB almost not releasing. 

The N64 was supposed to launch at $250, but they dropped the price to $199.99 before it even released. But if you paid $250 for it, yeah you got a fast one pulled on you, the N64 was never a penny over $200 officially. 

The Saturn actually was probably the best value by late 1996 (IIRC) funny enough. Sega was selling the system with 3 free games (Virtua Fighter, Daytona, and Virtua Cop I believe) ... that was honestly a way better value than the Playstation or N64. 

Nintendo would have been better off sticking to $250 but including a 2X CD-ROM drive ... it would have radically changed the system's library and given it virtually all the same 3rd party support because it would have sold too well to be ignored by any publisher (33 million units easily doubles at that point no 3rd party can ignore it, which then sends sales even higher). 

Last edited by Soundwave - 2 days ago

Difficult, ps1 is the first console ever to sell 100mill makinh gaming cool and mainstream and lets be honest have some games people still talk about today(ff7 for example put jrpgs on the worldmap)

Ps2 build upon that foundation and made it x100, one of the biggest gaming libraries ever(yea sorry i dont count a 0,70cent switch mobile game as a game) it created genres never ever seen like dmc and dynasty warriors.
Had one of if not the biggest library of exclusives, sony made A LOT of exclusive games and overall ps2 is seen by many as the golden age of gaming(6th gen)

I dont know,honestly i cant pick one.



 

My youtube gaming page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/klaudkil