Really PS1's success had nothing to do with its games. It really was just marketing. The PS1 was marketed to people who weren't as interested in games, and made a ton of money off of marketing sports games in a way that systems didn't previously do. If you just watched the ads back then you would've thought Madden was a PS1 exclusive, lol.
Why did the PS1 succeed so much?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]You can't list japanese games (as we are talking about their success on a US site) -if we were on a Chinese site, then we would talk about the best systems and games released therejust for interest, here is a list of games which I would say are better on the Saturn
- Dead Or Alive
- Street Fighter Alpha 2
- Street Fighter Alpha/Zero 3
- Vampire Savior/ Darkstalkers 3
- Pocket Fighter
- Sillhouette Mirage
- Pandemonium (only slightly though)
- Soviet Strike
- Duke Nukem 3D
- Quake (arguably better then the N64 version)
- Metal Slug
- King of Fighters 97
- Grandia (if you can get by the Japanese)
- Lunar (same as above)
- Lunar 2 (same as above)
- Samurai Spirits 4
- Resident Evil (debatable, both versions have their good and bad)
- Command and Conquer (PS1 version too fast )
- Policenauts
- Mass Destruction
rawsavon
not really, since this is not really a "US site" , quite legitimate to talk about Japanese games.
besides even then it wasnt impossible to get import games.
btw I hope you actually played all of the games youre listing.
another thing I noticed with that list is that quite a few of the games there were released after the Saturn was dead or nearly dead in 1998 onwards, so you can't really count them if youre talking about a competition with the Saturn at the time (unless youre thinking about now, but that isnt the topic of the conversation
and for the record, never have I said the Saturn is the better system , far from it, I actually prefer the PS1 overall , but when people tell me the Saturn hasn't got a good amount of great games and exclusives, then thats not true at all.
and a fair chunk of the games you listed came out after the Saturn was dead in late 1998, so they don't count in terms of an argument against competiton between the two.
and I have answred the question which was asked, half of the success is due to marketing, half is due to the games, simple as that.
and no , its not a purely US site, there are forums for people outside the US (you just can't see them because youre on the US branch of the website) and there are plenty of people here not from the US.
post as many games as you want, but if you want to compare them against the Saturn , make the list only a pre 1999 one, since thats when the Saturn was still alive ,so no FFF8 and 9 , Chrono Cross, most Spyro games , etc.
and Im in favour of truth , not the Saturn , if I think something sucks about any console or game, I will say it , and that includes the Saturn.
and I never said any of those games were bad as such , I just said I didn't like them , just like you said you dislike Albert Odyssey, which doesnt mean its bad, it just means you dislike it.
and a fair chunk of the games you listed came out after the Saturn was dead in late 1998, so they don't count in terms of an argument against competiton between the two.
Darkman2007
I'd most certainly say it does since that means the PSX survived and Saturn didn't. Which would show that PSX was more successful than Saturn.
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]
and a fair chunk of the games you listed came out after the Saturn was dead in late 1998, so they don't count in terms of an argument against competiton between the two.
Emerald_Warrior
I'd most certainly say it does since that means the PSX survived and Saturn didn't. Which would show that PSX was more successful than Saturn.
wait......did I say the Saturn was more successful? no I did not. what I did say is that the Saturn has alot of great games. we were comparing exclusives between systems. so are you saying sales decide which console is better?[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]
and a fair chunk of the games you listed came out after the Saturn was dead in late 1998, so they don't count in terms of an argument against competiton between the two.
Emerald_Warrior
I'd most certainly say it does since that means the PSX survived and Saturn didn't. Which would show that PSX was more successful than Saturn.
PS1 surviving shows why it survied and the saturn didn't? lol? Is that what I'm reading?
Not trying to be a Dousche, but that doesn't make much sense to me, lol.
[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]
and a fair chunk of the games you listed came out after the Saturn was dead in late 1998, so they don't count in terms of an argument against competiton between the two.
magnax1
I'd most certainly say it does since that means the PSX survived and Saturn didn't. Which would show that PSX was more successful than Saturn.
PS1 surviving shows why it survied and the saturn didn't? lol? Is that what I'm reading?
Not trying to be a Dousche, but that doesn't make much sense to me, lol.
what he forgot to mention is that Sega discontinued the Saturn in 1998 due to them simply losing money and not having as much money as Sony to lower the price of the Saturn (and thus take a big loss) at the same rate as Sony. in terms of sales incidentally, if you look at the PS1 console sales by the end of 1998 amounted to a total of 40 million , while the Saturn was 10 million , so when people quote a X10 advantage in sales, its not as simple as that[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]
and a fair chunk of the games you listed came out after the Saturn was dead in late 1998, so they don't count in terms of an argument against competiton between the two.
magnax1
I'd most certainly say it does since that means the PSX survived and Saturn didn't. Which would show that PSX was more successful than Saturn.
PS1 surviving shows why it survied and the saturn didn't? lol? Is that what I'm reading?
Not trying to be a Dousche, but that doesn't make much sense to me, lol.
How does it not make sense? Saturn was discontinued because it failed to make enough money to continue, and Playstation continued on because it continued to sell and make money.
And Darkman, I never said PSX was better than Saturn because of it (although I do prefer PSX, personally), I just said PSX was more successful than Saturn. Which is exactly what we're debating, the name of the thread is "Why did the PS1 succeed so much?"
[QUOTE="magnax1"]
[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]
I'd most certainly say it does since that means the PSX survived and Saturn didn't. Which would show that PSX was more successful than Saturn.
Emerald_Warrior
PS1 surviving shows why it survied and the saturn didn't? lol? Is that what I'm reading?
Not trying to be a Dousche, but that doesn't make much sense to me, lol.
How does it not make sense? Saturn was discontinued because it failed to make enough money to continue, and Playstation continued on because it continued to sell and make money.
And Darkman, I never said PSX was better than Saturn because of it (although I do prefer PSX, personally), I just said PSX was more successful than Saturn. Which is exactly what we're debating, the name of the thread is "Why did the PS1 succeed so much?"
That's not really what you said though. You used the consequences for it discontinuing as the reason for the consequences, if that makes sense, lol.
[QUOTE="magnax1"]
[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]
I'd most certainly say it does since that means the PSX survived and Saturn didn't. Which would show that PSX was more successful than Saturn.
Emerald_Warrior
PS1 surviving shows why it survied and the saturn didn't? lol? Is that what I'm reading?
Not trying to be a Dousche, but that doesn't make much sense to me, lol.
How does it not make sense? Saturn was discontinued because it failed to make enough money to continue, and Playstation continued on because it continued to sell and make money.
And Darkman, I never said PSX was better than Saturn because of it (although I do prefer PSX, personally), I just said PSX was more successful than Saturn. Which is exactly what we're debating, the name of the thread is "Why did the PS1 succeed so much?"
the thing is that the Saturn was discontinued because of Sega's lack of funds. and success doesnt come only from games, it comes from advertising, it comes from shops giving priority to your console over the others, etc. so the PS1 succeded for a number of reasons . and yes, I too prefer the PS1, but when people tell me the Saturn doesnt have a good number of great multi platform and exclusive games, to me it shows a lack of knowledge , you must be able to see that.[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]
[QUOTE="magnax1"]
PS1 surviving shows why it survied and the saturn didn't? lol? Is that what I'm reading?
Not trying to be a Dousche, but that doesn't make much sense to me, lol.
magnax1
How does it not make sense? Saturn was discontinued because it failed to make enough money to continue, and Playstation continued on because it continued to sell and make money.
And Darkman, I never said PSX was better than Saturn because of it (although I do prefer PSX, personally), I just said PSX was more successful than Saturn. Which is exactly what we're debating, the name of the thread is "Why did the PS1 succeed so much?"
That's not really what you said though. You used the consequences for it discontinuing as the reason for the consequences, if that makes sense, lol.
What are YOU talking about? What did you read? Everything I wrote makes sense to me, and Darkman seemed to respond without any confusion.
and maybe no system sellers for you, but it certainly does as far as Im concerned
heck the Sega games alone make it a worthy purchase (how many of those you played, I have no idea and that is another matter)
also I hope you actually played all of the games you posted, I think its silly when people talk about games they never played.
also , if youre talking about system sellers, why include Xenogears and games like that which were not massively popular, despite being good games.
We are not talking about YOU -you and I have both agreed that you are FAR from the norm (consumer) The saturn obviously did not have the system sellers (for the normal consumer) that the PS1 did. The proof is in the salesand maybe no system sellers for you, but it certainly does as far as Im concerned
heck the Sega games alone make it a worthy purchase (how many of those you played, I have no idea and that is another matter)
also I hope you actually played all of the games you posted, I think its silly when people talk about games they never played.
also , if youre talking about system sellers, why include Xenogears and games like that which were not massively popular, despite being good games.
Darkman2007
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]We are not talking about YOU -you and I have both agreed that you are FAR from the norm (consumer) The saturn obviously did not have the system sellers (for the normal consumer) that the PS1 did. The proof is in the sales and yet most games you listed were not system sellers by any means. even in that one genre, very few games on any system can be called that , the PS1 had more of them , but there were popular Saturn games regardless, which you glossed over completely. and before you tell me "but those games didn't sell as much" thats where the marketing comes in . and I wasnt talking about "success" you were saying the sales show the console was better, so one would have to assume you think the Wii is the better system.and maybe no system sellers for you, but it certainly does as far as Im concerned
heck the Sega games alone make it a worthy purchase (how many of those you played, I have no idea and that is another matter)
also I hope you actually played all of the games you posted, I think its silly when people talk about games they never played.
also , if youre talking about system sellers, why include Xenogears and games like that which were not massively popular, despite being good games.
rawsavon
[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]We are not talking about YOU -you and I have both agreed that you are FAR from the norm (consumer) The saturn obviously did not have the system sellers (for the normal consumer) that the PS1 did. The proof is in the sales and yet most games you listed were not system sellers by any means. even in that one genre, very few games on any system can be called that , the PS1 had more of them , but there were popular Saturn games regardless, which you glossed over completely. and before you tell me "but those games didn't sell as much" thats where the marketing comes in . and I wasnt talking about "success" you were saying the sales show the console was better, so one would have to assume you think the Wii is the better system. Better how better successful...the wii is the winner (so far) from a company perspective, it is a far better system (especially considering ot was profitable the whole time) Better for me? No And obviously the saturn did not have system sellers...look at its sales Sega had great marketing in the genesis days (before we go on, were you alive then? you may have missed out on those ads...if so, then this part will be wasted key stokes)and maybe no system sellers for you, but it certainly does as far as Im concerned
heck the Sega games alone make it a worthy purchase (how many of those you played, I have no idea and that is another matter)
also I hope you actually played all of the games you posted, I think its silly when people talk about games they never played.
also , if youre talking about system sellers, why include Xenogears and games like that which were not massively popular, despite being good games.
Darkman2007
what Im saying in short is that while the Saturn didnt lack games that could have been system sellers, Sega just didn't have the marketing power and funds Sony had, and even with the marketing they did do , they failed because the ads were lousy for the most part (unless you watch the JPN adverts, those are insane)
Here's a proper list that can challenge the Saturn list, however I feel both have had some incredible exclusives. And to clarify beforehand, this is gonna be a U.S. only list, I don't play Japanese games:
- Armored Core
- Bloody Roar 1 & 2
- Brave Fencer Musashi
- Diablo
- Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
- Chrono Cross
- Command & Conquer: Red Alert
- Cool Boarders 1-3
- Crash Bandicoot 1 & 2
- Descent
- Descent: Maximum (Descent II)
- Driver 1 & 2
- Einhander
- Final Fantasy VII
- Final Fantasy VIII
- Final Fantasy IX
- G-Darius
- Gran Turismo
- Gran Turismn 2
- King's Field
- King's Field II
- Klonoa
- The Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver
- MediEvil 1 & 2
- Mega Man Legends
- Mega Man Legends 2
- Metal Gear Solid
- Need For Speed II
- Need For Speed III: Hot Pursuit
- Need For Speed: High Stakes
- Oddworld: Abe's Odyssey
- Oddworld: Abe's Exodus
- Pac-Man World
- Parasite Eve
- Quake II
- Resident Evil 2
- Resident Evil 3: Nemesis
- Road Rash 3D
- Silent Hill
- Soul Blade
- Spider-Man 1 & 2
- Spyro The Dragon
- Star Trek: Invasion
- Syphon Filter
- Syphon Filter 2
- Tekken 1-3
- Tenchu: Stealth Assassins
- Thunder Force V
- Tomb Raider II
- Tomb Raider III
- Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1-3
- Twisted Metal
- Twisted Metal 2
- Vigilante 8
- Warcraft II: The Dark Saga
- WCW Nitro
- WWF Attitude
- WWF Smackdown 1 & 2
some of those were Saturn as well like Warcraft 2 , Symphony of the Night , Thunder Force 5 (which was actually on the Saturn first) , Japan or otherwise. and again , some of those games came out after the Saturn was dead. and I think people are still missing the point, I never said the PS1 has less exclusives or good games then the Saturn (or N64 for that matter), I just think anybody saying the system had only a select number of good games and exclusive to be utterly wrong based on my experience with the system. interestingly enough , I saw an old UK Saturn magazine article where they claimed GT interactive announced Abe's Odyssey for the Saturn too , but I guess like alot games , it got canclled somewhere down the development lineHere's a proper list that can challenge the Saturn list, however I feel both have had some incredible exclusives. And to clarify beforehand, this is gonna be a U.S. only list, I don't play Japanese games:
Emerald_Warrior
- Armored Core
- Bloody Roar 1 & 2
- Brave Fencer Musashi
- Diablo
- Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
- Chrono Cross
- Command & Conquer: Red Alert
- Cool Boarders 1-3
- Crash Bandicoot 1 & 2
- Descent
- Descent: Maximum (Descent II)
- Driver 1 & 2
- Einhander
- Final Fantasy VII
- Final Fantasy VIII
- Final Fantasy IX
- G-Darius
- Gran Turismo
- Gran Turismn 2
- King's Field
- King's Field II
- Klonoa
- The Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver
- MediEvil 1 & 2
- Mega Man Legends
- Mega Man Legends 2
- Metal Gear Solid
- Need For Speed II
- Need For Speed III: Hot Pursuit
- Need For Speed: High Stakes
- Oddworld: Abe's Odyssey
- Oddworld: Abe's Exodus
- Pac-Man World
- Quake II
- Resident Evil 2
- Resident Evil 3: Nemesis
- Road Rash 3D
- Silent Hill
- Soul Blade
- Spider-Man 1 & 2
- Spyro The Dragon
- Star Trek: Invasion
- Syphon Filter
- Syphon Filter 2
- Tekken 1-3
- Tenchu: Stealth Assassins
- Thunder Force V
- Tomb Raider II
- Tomb Raider III
- Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1-3
- Twisted Metal
- Twisted Metal 2
- Vigilante 8
- Warcraft II: The Dark Saga
- WCW Nitro
- WWF Attitude
- WWF Smackdown 1 & 2
so you are saying that advertising determines consumer behavior (before we continue) And 21? That is not old enough to have been around for what I am talking about...you need another decadewhat Im saying in short is that while the Saturn didnt lack games that could have been system sellers, Sega just didn't have the marketing power and funds Sony had, and even with the marketing they did do , they failed because the ads were lousy for the most part (unless you watch the JPN adverts, those are insane)
Darkman2007
[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]so you are saying that advertising determines consumer behavior (before we continue) And 21? That is not old enough to have been around for what I am talking about...you need another decade and Im assuming youre a decade older then me? yes, advertising is very important, especially for those you would term casual (if you don't know about a game , you won't buy it) and in alot of cases, advertising, or rather the amount and quality of it, seperated the Saturn's system sellers from the PS1's. for another example, Panzer Saga could be considerd a Saturn system seller, but how much do you think Sega spent to market it - I would be surprised if its more then 0.5% of the 100 million Sony spent on Final Fantasy 7 , or many other games (not to mention exclusivity licenses where Sega could never outspend Sony, as it happend with Core Design) now despite the low sales, alot of people who have played Panzer Saga would say its one of the best RPGs of that era, and a contender for the best Saturn RPG along with Grandia. this is what I mean , the Saturn had system sellers, but not enough marketing to go along with it.what Im saying in short is that while the Saturn didnt lack games that could have been system sellers, Sega just didn't have the marketing power and funds Sony had, and even with the marketing they did do , they failed because the ads were lousy for the most part (unless you watch the JPN adverts, those are insane)
rawsavon
[QUOTE="magnax1"]
[QUOTE="Emerald_Warrior"]
How does it not make sense? Saturn was discontinued because it failed to make enough money to continue, and Playstation continued on because it continued to sell and make money.
And Darkman, I never said PSX was better than Saturn because of it (although I do prefer PSX, personally), I just said PSX was more successful than Saturn. Which is exactly what we're debating, the name of the thread is "Why did the PS1 succeed so much?"
Emerald_Warrior
That's not really what you said though. You used the consequences for it discontinuing as the reason for the consequences, if that makes sense, lol.
What are YOU talking about? What did you read? Everything I wrote makes sense to me, and Darkman seemed to respond without any confusion.
I can respond, that doesn't mean it makes sense.
Every sony ps1 commerical was a " must see" commerical their marketing was just that good an it made u wanna buy some of their great games or some of their bad games ( whatever your choice of bad games are ) it had every thing for everyone from rpgs to sports u name it even if you were not intrested in that genre of game u saw the marketing for it an you wanted to atleast rent it an try it out because of sony's hype around it. even till today u look for some of sonys great games on amazon or ebay and people want extreme prices for those games because they are that GOOD not rare but GOOD!.
Massive marketing, great architecture to develop for with plenty of horsepower,good launch titles, and a never ending supply of gaming support. Sony made a great decision entering the gaming market, instead of partnering with Nintendo for a CD attachment. Now they are a juggernaut in the industry.
great architecture to develop for with plenty of horsepower
godzillavskong
I don't think it was that great. The PS1 had terrible texture warping/seaming and it's GPU was actually used for 2D graphics (3D graphics were handeled by the "geometry transformation engine" which was on the CPU). What it had over the competition was imo the speed of 3D rendering and ease of development (and the CD format when compared to the N64).
[QUOTE="godzillavskong"]
great architecture to develop for with plenty of horsepower
nameless12345
I don't think it was that great. The PS1 had terrible texture warping/seaming and it's GPU was actually used for 2D graphics (3D graphics were handeled by the "geometry transformation engine" which was on the CPU). What it had over the competition was imo the speed of 3D rendering and ease of development (and the CD format when compared to the N64).
video decompression hardware also helped at a time when FMVs were considerd "cool"disc format was the main reason
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment