The game industry crashed harder in 1993 than in 1983!!!

[sn8k]

An entire industry changed when Sony entered. Whether you want to admit it or not.... you are playing in Sony's world. They have won every generation they participated in........ you need the industry's help to do that.. devs need to be attracted to your console. Because we all know what happens you cant attract devs to a platform... it dies. Horribly ..... 5200, 7800, Jaguar, 3DO, , CD-i, Saturn, N64, Wii U.......are prime examples of when the industry doesn't want to put their games on a platform.

Edited September 7, 2021 by sn8k

[Leeroy ST]

37 minutes ago, sn8k said:

.. you are playing in Sony's world. They have won every generation they participated in........ 

Uh, Wii? 360?

 

Not to mention PSP and Vita 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Leeroy ST

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, sn8k said:

Ok cool. Ignore common sense. Though it means Metal Gear Solid was in development prior to 94. Which means most of what PS1 had to offer on launch was too. Which console ended up shattering every record and was the first to sell over 100,000,000?  death.

That's great but dont see your point here. Sony didn't hit it immediately out the gate. The new experiences have to come out first and bring in new demographics that WERENT THERE before. Along with some old ones previously alienated. That's what actually happened hence the increase.

 

1 hour ago, sn8k said:

The sales figures support that.

 

There wasn't a 2nd crash.

But the sales figures support that there was in 1993, stirring since 1990, Sony did prevent things from being worse, but 3D alone was not the cure as that already was around, it was the new experiences, and also bringing some of the PC experience to consoles.

 

Of course that bridge wouldn't fully kinect until the Xbox in 2001, but that's where it started.

 

Not sure where the Jaguar stuff came from. Or the PS4. Somewhat irrelevant to the topic 

 

I mean it feels like you're being defensive of Sony in some of these posts but no one is attacking Sony? I did say Sony primarily brought the value back up.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Leeroy ST

[sn8k]

I'm not. I can face facts. I was originally a SEGA kid. I was crushed when the Saturn took it's ass whooping. But 105,000,000 beats 9,000,000+.....badly. I was devastated when Dreamcast died, because I knew what it meant. SEGA was dead. 155,000,000 beats 9,000,000+ again But outselling your toughest competition (Nintendo) by 75,000,000 units isn't just a win...... it's an absolute slaughter.

 

It didn't let up until the 360 showed up..... but continued exactly the same way after.... and current data suggests Sony is going to once again outsell the shit out of this new Xbox aswell. 

 

And it pretty much was out of the gate...it didn't take long for the onslaught of instant classics to arrive..... and get the other 100,000,000 people.

 

Alot of those games were being worked on 93-96 to release in 97. Metal Gear definitely was being worked on in 93.

So was Resident Evil. The 2 biggest games.

 

Go figure.

 

I wonder how many other people cancelled their Genesis, SNES, Jaguar and Saturn games and got to work on PS1 games in 93. I guarantee it's over 100.

 

You are failing to realize how ground breaking Ps1 actually was and how much developer attention it stole.

 

So I will say this one last time.

 

It was a transitionary period into the Playstation era.

 

And nothing was really on the decline because SNES outsold Genesis and NES.... did the 16 bit wars not happen?

 

Each major player in this round was already worth more than Atari, Coleco and Intellivision combined. And all 3 of them as a whole grew that industry to a level the other 3 couldn't.

 

GTFOH

26 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said:

mean it feels like you're being defensive of Sony in some of these posts but no one is attacking Sony? I did say Sony primarily brought the value back up.

 

[sn8k]

And Sony didn't bring value back up. It was the value that propelled the industry to retarded heights. 105,000,000 people need games..... so do 155,000,000..

 

From a business perspective......

 

You go where the money is. It clearly wasn't in Jaguar or 3DO 

[CapitanClassic]

16 hours ago, Rhomaios said:

2.9m to 100k is a 96.55% drop.

 

6b to 2.5b is only a 68.337% drop.

 

Given that it's the end of a cycle, it isn't comparable.

 

6 hours ago, Leeroy ST said:

That doesn't add up given the sales figures.

 

You're excluding the unknown drop in part of 96. Also the $ drop was bigger, which hurts businesses more, especially with inflation.

Leeroy ST, I don’t think you understand inflation.

Inflation from 1983-1993 resulted in the value of $1 being worth about $0.70.

The drop of $3.5 billion is really only $2.4 billion in inflation adjusted 1983 dollars.

It also makes sense to use percentage drop in the market if you care about how big of a crash there was. If 95% of the market disappears, that is much more indicative of a crash than if 2/3rds of that market disappears. Imagine if in the future the video game market grows to $1 trillion (inflation adjusted), and then drops by $6 billion (6%). Would you really call that crash worse than the $3 billion (95%) drop?

[sn8k]

It was a Playstation console that grew the industry to heights we never knew anyone could achieve. No one saw a console selling more than 60,000,000  units. Let alone 105.... on your first attempt at Nintendo.

 

Games don't just get made over night. You need years of inherent support to make that a reality. So as consoles of this period are dying brutal deaths  because no good games are coming and the 1 game that could have saved 3DO, which couldn't even survive long enough to recieve it.... gets to moved to Playstation.....hmmmm what else was moved to Playstation as consoles were dropping off a cliff left and right at this EXACT very time you're describing. 

 

Probably all of the ones that never came in 93 or 94 because they came in 95 and beyond.... remember, game development times increased here. It took time to get that footing.

 

You're talking about a 6 billion dollar drop to 2.

 

Well now it's $300,000,000,000 

 

And I think it has every bit to do with the guys who  not only keep winning these battles..... but keep doing it everytime for 25 years straight without letting up and no indication that it's ever going to.

 

There's 2 things that are certain in life.... death and taxes.. now you can add a 3rd. Playstation winning what ever home console battle it's locked into.

 

And entire industry had to jump on board over night and they did when they saw the Ps1's first tech demos. This coincides with the cancelled projects of this exact time frame and consoles not being to garner any support because pf how shit they were in comparison to this surprise Playstatiom no one saw coming in 94.

[sn8k]

The people have spoken.

 

Your argument is shit.

 

We should do this again sometime.

 

Maybe next time you can tell us about how the Lynx almost outsold the DS for best  selling handheld.

[sn8k]

I also hate DS..... so don't get any ideas.

 

PSP is life.

[CapitanClassic]

@sn8k, got to be careful using raw numbers and not adjusting for population (inflation). While impressive that PSX sold 100 million units, it is easier to do that when the population keeps growing. I don’t know an easy way to account for population growth though. I suppose you could use % of all households that owned a particular system. That would show market penetration, and how popular the system was with respect to society as a whole.

 

Quote

 

It was a Playstation console that grew the industry to heights we never knew anyone could achieve. No one saw a console selling more than 60,000,000  units. Let alone 105.... on your first attempt at Nintendo.

 

USA 2600 sales 25 million, 257 million people (1992) 9.7%
USA PSX sales 41 million, 299 million people (2006) 13.7%

 

Should really filter out the people -15 years old and +65 years old. Would also have to normalize for household size. It looks like PSX had more market penetration than the 2600, with about 55% of households (estimated with 4 people per household) owning a PSX versus about 40% of households owning a 2600.

[sn8k]

12 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

@sn8k, got to be careful using raw numbers and not adjusting for population (inflation). While impressive that PSX sold 100 million units, it is easier to do that when the population keeps growing. I don’t know an easy way to account for population growth though. I suppose you could use % of all households that owned a particular system. That would show market penetration, and how popular the system was with respect to society as a whole.

 

 

USA 2600 sales 25 million, 257 million people (1992) 9.7%
USA PSX sales 41 million, 299 million people (2006) 13.7%

 

Should really filter out the people -15 years old and +65 years old. Would also have to normalize for household size. It looks like PSX had more market penetration than the 2600, with about 55% of households (estimated with 4 people per household) owning a PSX versus about 40% of households owning a 2600.

You know what I mean though. It's been a complete and total ass whooping that has spared noone in it's path. Everything changed when they showed up. Drastically.

[sn8k]

And with population growth...... Nintendo struggled through most of the last 25 years to bring the fight to Sony. So has Microsoft outside of one lucky time....the 360.

[sn8k]

The first console that was built 100% with developers in mind. They straight up travelled the world just to figure out what the worlds most prominent developers wanted in a console and gave it to them.

 

This is why PSX disrupted the industry and is what I feel is definitely responsible for a decline if there was one....... because it's been nothing but a sharp incline since it took over the industry as #1 top dog in the console space right around this very time in question.

 

In 92-93 the games   were being worked on before any of us even knew Sony was making a console.

Edited September 7, 2021 by sn8k

[sn8k]

Nothing has been the same since and  3 out of 5 crossed the 100,000,000 mark soon to be 4. Nintendo has done that once with the Wii and might be able to do it again with the Switch. Excluding their known dominance of handhelds of course. 

Edited September 7, 2021 by sn8k

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, sn8k said:

And Sony didn't bring value back up. It was the value that propelled the industry to retarded heights. 105,000,000 people need games..... so do 155,000,000..

 

From a business perspective......

 

You go where the money is. It clearly wasn't in Jaguar or 3DO 

You do realize yes, the PS1 did bring back up the industry value by revenue..because it did. The sales of 1996 were what was counted toward the rebound. So yeah.

 

Also it took them some time to hit 100 million. They weren't selling such huge numbers out the gate.

 

And you're forgetting we are talking about the US here. Which again, they weren't selling huge numbers out the gate. Not Worldwide.

 

Otherwise you seem to be acting defensive for no reason since no one is saying Sony wasn't successful. In fact said the opposite. 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Leeroy ST

[Leeroy ST]

35 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said:

@sn8k, got to be careful using raw numbers and not adjusting for population (inflation). While impressive that PSX sold 100 million units, it is easier to do that when the population keeps growing. I don’t know an easy way to account for population growth though. I suppose you could use % of all households that owned a particular system. That would show market penetration, and how popular the system was with respect to society as a whole.

 

 

USA 2600 sales 25 million, 257 million people (1992) 9.7%
USA PSX sales 41 million, 299 million people (2006) 13.7%

 

Should really filter out the people -15 years old and +65 years old. Would also have to normalize for household size. It looks like PSX had more market penetration than the 2600, with about 55% of households (estimated with 4 people per household) owning a PSX versus about 40% of households owning a 2600.

Also we are talking US so really it was the PS2 followed by the 360 with the highest penetration ratios overall. Though PS1 was the biggest at the time.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Leeroy ST

[zzip]

15 minutes ago, sn8k said:

The first console that was built 100% with developers in mind. They straight up travelled the world just to figure out what the worlds most prominent developers wanted in a console and gave it to them.

 

This is why PSX disrupted the industry and is what I feel is definitely responsible for a decline if there was one....... because it's been nothing but a sharp incline since it took over the industry as #1 top dog in the console space right around this very time in question.

 

In 92-93 the games   were being worked on before any of us even knew Sony was making a console.

So is your argument that the sales drop could be explained by developers releasing fewer games in those years as they switched development over the Playstation?

[sn8k]

1 minute ago, Leeroy ST said:

You do realize yes, the PS1 did bring back up the industry value by revenue..because it did. The sales of 1996 were what was counted toward the rebound. So yeah.

 

Also it took them some time to hit 100 million. They weren't selling such huge numbers out the gate.

 

And you're forgetting we are talking about the US here. Which again, they weren't selling huge numbers out the gate. Not Worldwide.

 

Otherwise you seem to be acting defensive for no reason since no one is saying Sony wasn't successful. In fact said the opposite. 

 

 

 

When Resident Evil dropped...

 

We all asked for Playstations for Christmas.

 

The dweebs were waiting for N64. I witnessed a complete ass whooping of an entire industry. 

[Leeroy ST]

1 hour ago, CapitanClassic said:

 

Leeroy ST, I don’t think you understand inflation.

Inflation from 1983-1993 resulted in the value of $1 being worth about $0.70.

The drop of $3.5 billion is really only $2.4 billion in inflation adjusted 1983 dollars.

It also makes sense to use percentage drop in the market if you care about how big of a crash there was. If 95% of the market disappears, that is much more indicative of a crash than if 2/3rds of that market disappears. Imagine if in the future the video game market grows to $1 trillion (inflation adjusted), and then drops by $6 billion (6%). Would you really call that crash worse than the $3 billion (95%) drop?

No.

You need to account for average household and business earnings and wealth which shrunk in that time frame. You cant ignore that. 

[sn8k]

While you were looking at numbers and sales....  i was the kid this shit was being sold to. 

 

As kids..... 90% of us had PS1 by 96. Some of us still heart broken over ehat happened to Saturn, quickly got over it when we saw what gaming could really be.

[sn8k]

Numbers do  not lie. This has been Sony's game since before it's actual release. Because getting the support needed to launch a console isn't some easy run of the mill task. Legitmately good consoles have died because:

 

A. People didnt want to take the time to learn the complex hardware some of these complicated beasts were.

 

B. Companies refused to support a good console because the numbers were off to them. Wii U is a prime example. It kicked ass. But nobody knew what the hell it was and developers who said they would support it quickly vanished when initial sales did not meet expectations.

 

EA puts out a lengthy presentation about Ghost Recon on WiiU..... quickly denies the thing even exists or that presentation ever happened. 

 

Game development is big money and for Sony to get as much support as they did and as fast as they did mean the PSx's dominance was already written on the wall by SNES's launch.... those who knew of it saw it was the future. Nintendo was so worried it skipped an entire generation to try and sell you on perceived power that paled in comparison to a technically weaker 32 bit console ...

 

Turns out 32 bits and a CD to hold massive amounts of data beats 64 bits on cartridge.  Atleast it did then.

[Leeroy ST]

12 minutes ago, sn8k said:

Sony to get as much support as they did and as fast as they did mean the PSx's dominance was already written on the wall by SNES's launch.... 

People knew Sony was the future when their only gaming "system" was a cd-i player and was working on a CD addon for the SNES? For a console that didn't exist yet for another 3.5 years? (4 if we use japan's launch for SNES)?

 

Maybe you might be going a bit overboard?

 

The thread is showing US sales and how it took some time before the revenue (money generated by consumers buying) came back up after a 1993 dive, which was after a unstable industry since 1990 outside bumps accompanied by big hits.

 

I doubt the US market saw Sony as some major force in gaming in 1990 or 1991. Hence why they thought 3DO might end up being the one to change things initially, which was of course wrong. (But may have been true if they started cheaper since they did do some things Sony did later.)

 

 

But none of that is really relevant since no one is denying Sony was eventually a success and was the cause of the revenue rebound. Or sold well each generation

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by Leeroy ST

[sn8k]

22 minutes ago, zzip said:

So is your argument that the sales drop could be explained by developers releasing fewer games in those years as they switched development over the Playstation?

Not totally. But considering that to have a game ready for 94..... it had to be made prior to that..... and to have a game release for 95 that thing had to be made in 93 atleast. Or longer in some cases....MGS, RE, GT.

 

There was clearly a shift. Is it a surprize the very best games of that generation were on PS1..... Saturn and 64 got shafted pretty much every step of the way.

 

 The real question to ask, was how many PS1 games were being worked on before anyone officially knew what it was and how far back was the first game that was being developed. Because If it was me......

 

I would have dropped everything for it as a developer. Whats the point of wastimg time releasing this game on SNES to move 250,000-500,000 units....  or get to work on this crazy console that does shit no one has ever seen before. To have games ready for 94 and  beyond. You had to convince a large number of people to trust in your very first console.

 

And the level of games that came out for it along with their development times kinda proves it. These guys moved on to making PS1 games while we were still debating if SNES or Genesis was better on the playground.

 

Becuase I was hit completely by surprise. It was not on my radar at all.

[sn8k]

Just now, Leeroy ST said:

People knew Sony was the future when their only gaming "system" was a cd-i player and was working on a CD addon for the SNES? For a console that didn't exist yet for another 3.5 years? (4 if we use japan's launch for SNES)?

 

Maybe you might be going a bit overboard?

 

The thread is showing US sales and how it took some time before the revenue (money generated by consumers buying) came back up after a 1993 dive, which was after a unstable industry since 1990 outside bumps accompanied by big hits.

 

I doubt the US market saw Sony as some major force in gaming in 1990 or 1991. Hence why they thought 3DO might end up being the one to change things initially, which was of course wrong. (But may have been true if they started cheaper since they did do some things Sony did later.)

 

 

But none of that is really relevant since no one is denying Sony was a success and was the cause of the revenue rebound.

 

 

 

Nintendos biggest mistake was not partnering with Sony. And that mistake benefitted Sony the most.

[sn8k]

In fact..... if SEGA didn't laugh in their face and tell them where to go first.....

 

SEGA would be top dog if they took an honest look at what Sony was really bringing to the table.