Leeroy ST Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, sn8k said: 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...... This doesn't make sense because game design, plans, or staff can change during a game development. I doubt MGS started out the same as how it launched. There were also several games that were made on the fly. For example, Crash was a technical achievement each entry with a big budget but was a yearly franchise for all 5 titles on PS1. There were other franchises that did that. Heck GT1 and GT2 had the shortest gap between main entries in GT iirc. The common place longer dev cycles really started with Xbox & PS2, and took off post 360. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, sn8k said: 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. And thats why one of the greatest video games of all time was moved from the 3DO in 94 to the PS1 where it went on to sell millions of copies. Metal Gear would have tanked on 3DO. Everyone who saw that first tech demo, jumped on PS1 immediately. You would have been stupid not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 3 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said: This doesn't make sense because game design, plans, or staff can change during a game development. I doubt MGS started out the same as how it launched. There were also several games that were made on the fly. For example, Crash was a technical achievement each entry with a big budget but was a yearly franchise for all 5 titles on PS1. There were other franchises that did that. Heck GT1 and GT2 had the shortest gap between main entries in GT iirc. The common place longer dev cycles really started with Xbox & PS2, and took off post 360. You know what never changes? The guys at the top who pay for all the teams and the equipment they use who most likely don't even give a shit about games to begin with. People act as if games are some favor to us. Its a business. To make money. Not bring you happiness and joy. Sure it can do that. But At the end of the day its the bottom line that matters. Nothing else. If I saw PS1......from some rich assholes perspective, compared to all the other things people have tried to get me to invest in up until that point. Like 3DO and lazerdisc and all garbage looks like complete shit by comparison. Im going all in on Playstation. I would have put the money up no questions asked. No one saw games like that before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy ST Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, sn8k said: You know what never changes? The guys at the top who pay for all the teams and the equipment they use who most likely don't even give a shit about games to begin with. People act as if games are some favor to us. Its a business. To make money. Not bring you happiness and joy. Sure it can do that. But At the end of the day its the bottom line that matters. Nothing else. If I saw PS1......from some rich assholes perspective, compared to all the other things people have tried to get me to invest in up until that point. Like 3DO and lazerdisc and all garbage looks like complete shit by comparison. Im going all in on Playstation. I would have put the money up no questions asked. No one saw games like that before. How can you go all in on something that didn't exist in 1990-1991? You said people knew Sony was the future of gaming then. Once PS1 took off in 96, yeah going all in would make sense. Which did happen, so... (Also the guys at the top do change wut?) Edited September 7, 2021 by Leeroy ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy ST Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, sn8k said: And thats why one of the greatest video games of all time was moved from the 3DO in 94 to the PS1 where it went on to sell millions of copies. Metal Gear would have tanked on 3DO. Everyone who saw that first tech demo, jumped on PS1 immediately. You would have been stupid not to. Why are you quoting yourself? Also this is a subjective opinion. Since more people brought Crash in the US than MGS. Also Spyro, Tony Hawk, Frogger, FFVII... We have no idea how it would preform on 3DO, but due to the install base no one would expect MGS to sell 2 million copies on it since that's around what the console ended up at ltd. Unless they had exclusive rights and released the M2. And again, I dont get why you're responding like Sony is being attacked. Edited September 7, 2021 by Leeroy ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 All we can agree on is Playstation crushed everything and everyone. And you can't launch a console over night. I'm just being real. You guys always give people shit for not understanding this place and some people who make and sell things here arent some corporation..... Welll the opposite is these other guys are corporations and this shit is much more thought out meticulous in planning when you have millions on the table and have investors to please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy ST Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, sn8k said: All we can agree on is Playstation crushed everything and everyone. Yes, ps1 was successful. No one said otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 3 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said: How can you go all in on something that didn't exist in 1990-1991? You said people knew Sony was the future of gaming then. Once PS1 took off in 96, yeah going all in would make sense. Which did happen, so... (Also the guys at the top do change wut?) So Sony was shopping around what exactly around that time then? A CD attachment to keep playing the same games? Or a CD player to play music? The PSx's tech existed in some form if they wanted to partner with Sega or Nintendo. This thing was clearly going to be much different than the Sega CD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 Sony only decided to go it alone after rejection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy ST Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, sn8k said: So Sony was shopping around what exactly around that time then? A CD attachment to keep playing the same games? Or a CD player to play music? The PSx's tech existed in some form if they wanted to partner with Sega or Nintendo. This thing was clearly going to be much different than the Sega CD. Or it was completely different tech when they went from a CD add-on to a full 3D polygonal standalone game system. Edited September 7, 2021 by Leeroy ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy ST Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 1 minute ago, sn8k said: Sony only decided to go it alone after rejection. This contradicts your last post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said: This contradicts your last post. Ok but thats the f@#$%ing reality of it. Sony was rejected by all of them...Atari, Sega, and Nintendo. Sony had no plans going it alone initially. But if I saw it myself and had the money as an investor...... I would have put every cent I had into it and convinced them to go alone..... which they ultimately did in the end. I'm not speaking Chinese here. Edited September 7, 2021 by sn8k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy ST Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, sn8k said: Ok but thats the f@#$%ing reality. Sony was rejected by all of them...Atari, Atari? Anyway, I mean yeah that's great that you would invest in the ps1. Or that it was successful. No one said otherwise? Edited September 7, 2021 by Leeroy ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 Yes Atari was approached with the same deal Sega and Nintendo were given. Atari said no thanks. Sega laughed and told them where to go Nintendo let them make a prototype, but ultimately said no. They believed their cartridges were really the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) To be fair Sony didn't have much to show for their partnership. Just a plan. A plan nobody believed in but in hindsight totally should have. But some developers, most likely the ones Sony successfully courted, in their secretive world tour.... knew exactly what they were getting because they were the ones who asked for all the shit that was inside of it. Edited September 7, 2021 by sn8k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy ST Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 Off topic, but do you like tigers? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) Consoles don't just show up over night. Nor does the developer support for them. I will guarantee you PSX was a thing right after SNES launched. R and D... is no joke and is not cheap. It came out at the end of 94. Im willing to bet PSX was a working prototype that was stronger than the shitty attachment they may have been planning because now Ken Kutaragi was out for blood and probably added a couple of things to ensure all 3 got their asses kicked.... by mid 92.... not more than 6 months after Nintendo rejected them. Edited September 7, 2021 by sn8k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 Im willing to bet that 1 working prototype of the Sony SNES has more than a few things in common with what became PS1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitanClassic Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 The myth that Nintendo saved the video game console market after the North American market collapsed is just a good story. Sort of how the number one/two best selling carts for the VCS, Pac-man (7 million sales) and E.T. (4 million sales), caused the crash. The crash was caused by a glut of software, falling prices of home computers, and confusion with the customers at where best to spend their money. Why buy an inferior video game console, when for 2-3 times the price you can get a home computer that plays better looking games, your kids could type their homework or learn to program. Nintendo became so successful from 1985-1987, because of their strict tactics with retailers (buy back unsold inventory, guaranteed/exclusive shelf space) and with developers (only Nintendo could create carts, exclusive releases, only 5 titles per year). There certainly was a NA video game crash, bigger than there was in the transition to CD based platforms. The transition is likely what caused the drop. Consumers didn’t know whether to put money behind Sony, Sega, Nintendo. The last generation also had a glut of hardware, Turbo Graphics, Neo Geo, Sega CD/32x tower of power, Philips CDi, etc. and competition from the new Window 95 OS and CD-Rom (no more IRQ collisions, INI editing, and AutoExe.bat boot disks), and no one knew which new hardware would win out. Customers could either put money towards games on the old systems, or hold off and wait for enough great games on the new system that would justify buying a console. No one talks about Sony saving the industry, because recovering from a 66% drop isn’t like coming back from almost nothing, especially when Atari was known as the fastest growing company of all time (at the time). It just doesn’t make a good story. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn8k Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 2 hours ago, sn8k said: Consoles don't just show up over night. Nor does the developer support for them. I will guarantee you PSX was a thing right after SNES launched. R and D... is no joke and is not cheap. It came out at the end of 94. Im willing to bet PSX was a working prototype that was stronger than the shitty attachment they may have been planning because now Ken Kutaragi was out for blood and probably added a couple of things to ensure all 3 got their asses kicked...which happened.... they most likely started in mid 92.... not more than 6 months after Nintendo rejected them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy ST Posted September 7, 2021 Author Share Posted September 7, 2021 48 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said: The crash was caused by a glut of software, Negative, the software glut was caused by the crash. The companies imploded so the retailers were left with stock they couldn't return and threw them out at fire sale prices indirectly contributing to the pricing issue retailers were complaining about with the price wars. They basically helped accelerate a problem they were complaining about themselves. 52 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said: Why buy an inferior video game console, when for 2-3 times the price you can get a home computer that plays better looking games, Actually there was a point computers were cheaper. 53 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said: The transition is likely what caused the drop. Consumers didn’t know whether to put money behind Sony, Sega, Nintendo. The industry was unstable before then, and the transition didn't start until two years after the dive started, so the transition argument doesn't hold imo. 55 minutes ago, CapitanClassic said: because recovering from a 66% drop isn’t like coming back from almost nothing, especially when Atari was known as the fastest growing company of all time (at the time). It just doesn’t make a good story. Actually bigger drop. But are you saying there was actually "almost nothing" during the Atari crash or are you saying that was another myth? (It was) 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CapitanClassic Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 Quote it is known the value of the US game industry dropped from $3 billion to $100 million in 1985 16 minutes ago, Leeroy ST said: But are you saying there was actually "almost nothing" during the Atari crash or are you saying that was another myth? (It was) I cannot tell if you are arguing against yourself or not. You also think real dollar value is somehow effected by changes in income/wealth. Perhaps I will leave it to you to explain it to yourself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leeroy ST Posted September 8, 2021 Author Share Posted September 8, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, CapitanClassic said: I cannot tell if you are arguing against yourself or not. You also think real dollar value is somehow effected by changes in income/wealth. Perhaps I will leave it to you to explain it to yourself. (Of course you skip the other stuff.) Are you telling me you also are not able to understand that the $100 million in 1985 in value was due to rock bottom prices and not because the market was "almost nothing"? You realize that's the monetary value of what was generated right? There was a rebound in 85 recovering from the wars, but most of the year before that was still cheap 70% off hardware and $40 games for $5. You can't say the NES savior stuff was a myth (it was) but also believe the industry or market was "almost nothing". The industry never saw widespread price cuts of that scope since for a reason. Example:1 million sales of Pitfall for a few bucks each copy doesn't bring in much money for the industry, but there's clearly an industry, and demand in the market. The reason why the analysts with charts put Nintendo as the reason leading value recovery late 87 (while the dishonest press spun it to the common myth well known today) is literally because they costed more and brought in more money by default. The 7800 could have sold 500k more than NES in late 87 and still wouldn't have brought in more $$ with cheaper hardware and software. Nintendo themselves were trying to assure retailers they would avoid price cutting wars. Edited September 8, 2021 by Leeroy ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high voltage Posted September 8, 2021 Share Posted September 8, 2021 It crashed even harder in 2093 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reklen Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 The other thing that nobody has mentioned is that you could get new high quality games for the Playstation for twenty dollars unlike the N64 where all the games were over 50.00, and some were even 70.00. I think that is the major reason the console blew Nintendo away. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.