The future of the PS3 and the Playstation brand

[Zenien]

Isildur´s Heir is insane. I'd take up the arguement, but other people have beaten me to it. People like "I created MArio and rebirthed the entire Industry" are was more influencial and a bigger deal then a head of a studio that has great ideas, but failled largely to make commerical and creative hits, like Molyneux. He belongs nowhere near a Trinity of gaming. Though he is a great case study for "So close yet so far" Game Design.

Well , it started by me saying Molyneux was in the "Holy Trinity of Gaming", being gaming the key word, so, no hardware.
That takes Kutaragi and Yokoi out of the equation...

You can't play video games without hardware, and if you meant just gaming, then just gaming isn't exclusive to electronic devices.

 

[GFreeman]

What did Kutaragi do that was so important again? He put a console out that wasn't really doing anything new? That isn't that great. His only real claim to fame is being the "father" of a successful system that was the child of many, many men, not just him. And Miyamoto is way, way overrated. Rebirthed the entire industry? Are you serious?

 

[hippie_hunter]

What did Kutaragi do that was so important again? He put a console out that wasn't really doing anything new? That isn't that great. His only real claim to fame is being the "father" of a successful system that was the child of many, many men, not just him. And Miyamoto is way, way overrated. Rebirthed the entire industry? Are you serious?

Yes, Miyamoto pretty much single handedly created the modern video game industry. Without his Super Mario Bros., the Legend of Zelda, and Donkey Kong, the NES wouldn't be as successful as it was and the video game industry would not have revived at that time.

And the Playstation brand really helped move to make optical disks the standard format for consoles. It allowed third parties to gain more power in the industry. And really allowed the industry to expand to where it is today.

 

[GFreeman]

I'm sorry, but market success is no reason to say that someone was important. If it weren't for the playstation existing, the Sega Saturn would have done everything the playstation did, and we'd pretty much be in the same spot we're in now. He didn't invent putting a game on a CD, he didn't invent 3rd parties (and I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that they gave them more power), and he sure as hell isn't responsible for games becoming more popular. He's a dope that says lots of stupid things and so sony apologists feel the need to say "bu bu but he's important!" when in reality he's done nothing. There isn't a single thing the Playstation did that wasn't being done before the Playstation came along, and he sure wasn't the only guy that worked on the console either. He's a corporate buffoon.

As for Miyamoto, important to Nintendo maybe, but he also hasn't really done anything major for the industry as a whole. He's just a name that Nintendo fans and nostalgics want to toss around because he's responsible for creating a few popular franchises that haven't really done anything besides repeat themselves for the past decade.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm sorry, but market success is no reason to say that someone was important. If it weren't for the playstation existing, the Sega Saturn would have done everything the playstation did, and we'd pretty much be in the same spot we're in now. He didn't invent putting a game on a CD, he didn't invent 3rd parties (and I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that they gave them more power), and he sure as hell isn't responsible for games becoming more popular. He's a dope that says lots of stupid things and so sony apologists feel the need to say "bu bu but he's important!" when in reality he's done nothing. There isn't a single thing the Playstation did that wasn't being done before the Playstation came along, and he sure wasn't the only guy that worked on the console either. He's a corporate buffoon.

You just completely misunderstood what I said. First of all, I'm talking about Kutaragi before he became Krazy Ken who acted like a ******.

Second, I never stated that the Playstation invented optical disks for a system. There have been other consoles that have done so before the Playstation. My point was that the Playstation allowed it to be successful. The other systems that had CD-ROMs at the time were pretty much flops.

Third, the Sega Saturn would have flopped even if the Playstation didn't come to be. The Saturn failed because of lack of software, without the software you can't sell the hardware (this is what a Sega executive said).

Fourth, I never said that Sony invented the third parties. I said that the Playstation allowed the third parties to gain as much prominence that they have today. Something that Nintendo restricted quite a bit.

As for Miyamoto, important to Nintendo maybe, but he also hasn't really done anything major for the industry as a whole. He's just a name that Nintendo fans and nostalgics want to toss around because he's responsible for creating a few popular franchises that haven't really done anything besides repeat themselves for the past decade.

You do know that Nintendo single handedly created the modern video game industry. Nintendo wouldn't have been able to do that without Miyamoto. Again, software sells the hardware. Take a look at the Playstation 3, that's a reason why it's not selling so well right now.

 

[GFreeman]

You just completely misunderstood what I said. First of all, I'm talking about Kutaragi before he became Krazy Ken who acted like a ******.

Second, I never stated that the Playstation invented optical disks for a system. There have been other consoles that have done so before the Playstation. My point was that the Playstation allowed it to be successful. The other systems that had CD-ROMs at the time were pretty much flops.

Third, the Sega Saturn would have flopped even if the Playstation didn't come to be. The Saturn failed because of lack of software, without the software you can't sell the hardware (this is what a Sega executive said).

So his big claim to fame is taking a bunch of stuff that was done before, roping it all together in one console that many, many other people worked on, and then taking advantage of the overwhelming failure of his competitors to make his product successful. That is what's great to you? Really? You might want to rethink that. And no, the Saturn would not have flopped even if the PS1 didn't come out. It didn't have that software because everyone preferred to work on the PS1 or N64, if you were to remove the PS1 from that equation, that wouldn't be such an issue.

You do know that Nintendo single handedly created the modern video game industry. Nintendo wouldn't have been able to do that without Miyamoto. Again, software sells the hardware. Take a look at the Playstation 3, that's a reason why it's not selling so well right now.

This is ridiculous. No, they didn't create anything. Video games existed before Nintendo came onto the scene, Nintendo didn't make any changes whatsoever to games when they did come onto the scene, and they haven't even been in a position to change things for more than a decade now. What they did was succeed in the console business where Atari's recent effort had failed. That's it. That isn't exactly a revolution. People need to take the rose tinted glasses off here. Nintendo and Kutaragi's big claim to fame and greatness, so far, seems to be "our products didn't fail, woohoo!". That isn't greatness.

 

[hippie_hunter]

So his big claim to fame is taking a bunch of stuff that was done before, roping it all together in one console that many, many other people worked on, and then taking advantage of the overwhelming failure of his competitors to make his product successful. That is what's great to you? Really? You might want to rethink that. And no, the Saturn would not have flopped even if the PS1 didn't come out. It didn't have that software because everyone preferred to work on the PS1 or N64, if you were to remove the PS1 from that equation, that wouldn't be such an issue.

You are really not seeing the impact the Playstation brand has made on the industry. While you're right that they haven't done anything truly innovative, but Playstation's impact on the industry cannot be denied.

This is ridiculous. No, they didn't create anything. Video games existed before Nintendo came onto the scene, Nintendo didn't make any changes whatsoever to games when they did come onto the scene, and they haven't even been in a position to change things for more than a decade now. What they did was succeed in the console business where Atari's recent effort had failed. That's it. That isn't exactly a revolution. People need to take the rose tinted glasses off here. Nintendo and Kutaragi's big claim to fame and greatness, so far, seems to be "our products didn't fail, woohoo!". That isn't greatness.

You forget that the old video game industry literally collapsed. Nintendo revived it single handedly.

The reason why Miyamoto, Kutaragi, and Yokoi are on top is because the industry would most likely be radically different if it weren't for them. I would also say that Microsoft is on the verge of joining those three for making online the powerful presence it is in gaming.

 

[Zenien]

You'd have a point if you weren't wrong. The video game market crashed, it wasn't like they just became number 1 in a thriving, or subsisting market, the video game console market was dead .

 

[GFreeman]

You are really not seeing the impact the Playstation brand has made on the industry. While you're right that they haven't done anything truly innovative, but Playstation's impact on the industry cannot be denied.

No, I do see their impact. What I don't see is why people have attributed these messianic qualities to the Playstation, acting like it swooped in and saved an industry by giving it mainstream appeal when it was already seeing a huge upswing in it's popularity before Sony ever thought of a console. I don't see why people are acting like they've done something that Nintendo or Sega wouldn't have done had Sony not been in the picture. All they did was fill a spot that anyone else could have filled. They didn't innovate, they didn't even do the same thing "but better", they basically just showed up at the right time to give 3rd parties an alternative to the difficult to work with Saturn or the expensive cartridge based Nintendo. If that's greatness to you guys, then we're never going to agree, because we've got two different definitions of the word.

You forget that the old video game industry literally collapsed. Nintendo revived it single handedly.

The reason why Miyamoto, Kutaragi, and Yokoi are on top is because the industry would most likely be radically different if it weren't for them. I would also say that Microsoft is on the verge of joining those three for making online the powerful presence it is in gaming.

Arcades were fine, PCs were fine, so no, the entire games industry didn't collapse. Consoles "collapse", if you can really call the discontinued popularity of a single product a "collapse". I don't even know who Yokoi is, so I can't comment on him/her one way or another, but Miyamoto and Kutaragi haven't done jack to really change the industry. If they were gone, the only differences would be superficial at best. Do you seriously think that Miyamoto invented the platform game? Or that he's really done anything for any genre of game besides the platformer? Because he didn't, and he hasn't. Do you seriously think that if the Playstation didn't exist, that gaming wouldn't have taken off even though the exact same software would have been getting produced? Do you think it took off because people saw something called "Playstation" and said "gee whiz, what a name, I've got to get me some of that!" and that they never would have bought a 64 or Saturn had one of those two been in possession of the same software?

 

[GFreeman]

You'd have a point if you weren't wrong. The video game market crashed, it wasn't like they just became number 1 in a thriving, or subsisting market, the video game console market was dead .

One particular part of the market crashed in North America only, for a very, very short time, and then a similar product came along and the market was so "devastated" that people ate it up. I'm not denying that something happened, but you people are acting like Nintendo rescued the Earth from a world-wide video game depression. They didn't. They provided an alternative to one particular market that was tired of Atari's product being ****.

 

[Zenien]

No they actually prevented a gaming depression, of sorts. It would be nowhere near what it is today without them, not even close.

 

[GFreeman]

Commodore 64s were flying off the shelves, PC gaming was taking off. Arcades weren't dead yet. Europe was fine. Japan was fine. The console market in N. America is the only one that was "dead", and it couldn't have been too dead, because about 2 years later the NES was released and the market had no problem buying that one up.

 

[Zenien]

Commodore 64s were not flying off the shelves at that point. Europe was decent, but that's like comparing a boulder to a stone. The Arcade Market has crashed and never recovered, but the console market is a bigger part of the video game market then the Arcades and the PC market put together.

 

[GFreeman]

1983/84/85, the years of the "crash", the commodore 64 held 40% of the market (see?), so yes, it was doing very well for itself. Europe wasn't a stone, at least not the UK. The Arcade Market didn't really crash until the 1990s when you could play an "arcade game" in your home that looked just as good as the arcade, and at the time, consoles were not bigger than the arcade market and the PC combined. That market was dead after all, wasn't it? Nintendo "rescued" the N.American console market before someone else did it. Big whoop.

 

[블라스]

You're all a joke.

 

[GFreeman]

Drink my piss gamera.

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

Zenien, do you really think before writing things down or you just go witht he flow and write whatever cames to mind?
Do you even know one single bit of what your talking about?

The Commodore 64 was one fo the biggest seller in video game history.
The arcade market was at it´s peak, in 1991 was the year of birth of Street Fighter 2, Capcom started in the arcades years fbefore going to home consoes, it died years afte Nintendo arrived to shelves.
And consoles were not bigger than the PC, don´t even joke about it.
Consoles only started to surpasse the PC at the end of PS1´s life and the begining of last generation.
The majority of PC game were exclusives, consoles didn´t had first person shooters, consoles were, above all, about platform and japonse rpgs.
PC and consoles weren´t even on the same league, there were PC games and consoles games, two very diferent things, so, Zenien, before talking crap....THINK A LITTLE.

Life didn´t started with the playstation

 

[Zenien]

- I'd ask you the same question, seeing you type things like "Well , it started by me saying Molyneux was in the "Holy Trinity of Gaming", being gaming the key word, so, no hardware.
That takes Kutaragi and Yokoi out of the equation... "

In Europe... not so much in the rest of the market, like N America and Japan. Though you're right the market wasn't dead in Europe, my mistake, but the Commodor crashed right out with the arrival of the NES. The C64 had a 40 percent share in 83, but went through year over year declines to the point where it accounted for slightly over a half of a percent by 1992, at their height they sold 2.5 million for the year, much better then I thought, but not flying off the shelves.

I said the Arcade has crashed, and I meant now the console market is bigger worldwide then the Arcade and PC market combined, and leads the industry to ever bigger growth every year. None of that would have happened without Nintendo, because they offered a fundamentally different and an explosively sucessful product which changed the landscape of the industry.

You can't refute that, unfortuantely. Without Nintendo, there would have been no Sega, no Sony, no Microsoft. The console market now is much bigger then the PC market, and the Arcade Market crashed and never recovered because of the rise of Consoles being able to replicate dthe Arcade experience, and seeing as Nintendo is currently the number 1 video game company in the world, the sun hasn't set on their influence or relivence to the industry.

The Commodore 64 was one fo the biggest seller in video game history.

Not relative to the NES, which suplanted it handedly and redefined the video game market world wide. C64 wasn't as sucessful in America and Japan as it was in Europe.

The arcade marker was fine, it died years afte Nintendo arrived to shelves.

I didn't say it didn't, the Arcade Market crashed much later.

And consoles were not bigger than the PC, don´t even joke about it.

They are now which is what I said.

Consoles only started to surpasse the PC at the end of PS1´s life and the begining of last generation.

In terms of game sales. cumulative? Or yty? Because there's a big distinction.

 

[GFreeman]

I don't see how it "fundamentally changed" anything. All it did was offer the exact same product that Atari was offering, a box that you connect to your TV, minus the Quaker Oats games. I guess they introduced the concept of quality control maybe.

 

[Zenien]

You're a frustrating human being.

 

[GFreeman]

I guess so

 

[블라스]

Drink my piss gamera.

No, you drink your piss. And your period blood too.

 

[GFreeman]

Racist

 

[블라스]

How is that racist, smartass?

 

[GFreeman]

I think that goes without saying.