The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
The Sony Playstation is a console that has been designed by Nintendo and put together by Sony. It is a console with a wealth of 3rd (and 2nd) party support, so Sony didn’t design the Playstation and very few games were actually made by Sony. So what is the Playstation department? A huge advertisement company mixed with a production line?
Well the Playstation 2 is where Sony got their chance to prove themselves but it was never as good as we all hoped. The games have yet to set the world alight, the console is very difficult to work on and in a year it will be outdated by the Gamecube and X-box. So what are Sony experts at doing? Making TV’s, CD player’s and DVD player’s. A TV type system appeared on the Playstation one, the ability to play CD’s has always been possible to do on a Sony console and DVD is now on the Playstation 2.
This is why I think the X-box will be able to do a lot of things a PC can do because that is what Microsoft are good at. Now Nintendo and Sega are two companies whom expertise in gaming hardware and software.
So what right has Sony got to nearly put Nintendo out of the hardware business (thank goodness for Pokémon) and force Sega to becoming a 3rd party developer? These Japanese giants are masters at making consoles unlike Sony but it is Sony that sits on top of the gaming market.
Is a console where advertisement, the use of a DVD player and with capabilities to do things that a PC can do, a console that should be leading the gaming market? The future of gaming may hold a console that cooks you dinner, washes the dishes and puts the cat out, oh and it also plays computer games. What is happening to the gaming industry? Will the future of gaming herald the death of the games console? Will an expensive multimedia console be the only thing left?
Here’s to the future
Dringo
Well the Playstation 2 is where Sony got their chance to prove themselves but it was never as good as we all hoped. The games have yet to set the world alight, the console is very difficult to work on and in a year it will be outdated by the Gamecube and X-box. So what are Sony experts at doing? Making TV’s, CD player’s and DVD player’s. A TV type system appeared on the Playstation one, the ability to play CD’s has always been possible to do on a Sony console and DVD is now on the Playstation 2.
This is why I think the X-box will be able to do a lot of things a PC can do because that is what Microsoft are good at. Now Nintendo and Sega are two companies whom expertise in gaming hardware and software.
So what right has Sony got to nearly put Nintendo out of the hardware business (thank goodness for Pokémon) and force Sega to becoming a 3rd party developer? These Japanese giants are masters at making consoles unlike Sony but it is Sony that sits on top of the gaming market.
Is a console where advertisement, the use of a DVD player and with capabilities to do things that a PC can do, a console that should be leading the gaming market? The future of gaming may hold a console that cooks you dinner, washes the dishes and puts the cat out, oh and it also plays computer games. What is happening to the gaming industry? Will the future of gaming herald the death of the games console? Will an expensive multimedia console be the only thing left?
Here’s to the future
Dringo
Page:
nah nah this sounds too good the.......N-STATION
Nintendos 32X... the 32N?
puck that...i mean with sony out the picture, the under-achieving nintendo games could have been seen for their true beauty.
mario and crash bandicoot fighting, like i said before...
well, nintendo gained nothing from spliting with sony. i still wonder to this very day, what could have been......
Wòókiee Møn§†€R wrote:
The PlayStation - as it became known - was developed by
> Sony in conjunction with Nintendo as a CD add-on for the SNES.
> Nintendo eventually decided that it was a bad idea, and withdrew
> from the development, leaving Sony with an unfinished
> system.
You know, I heard that Nintendo split with Sony over some sort of rights issue. I can't remember exactly. Either Sony wanted exclusive rights for some part or other, or they wanted to name it (or have their name on it?), or something like that?
That's what I read somewhere anyway. I seem to remember it being a Nintendo mag i read it in, too - so perhaps not entirely accurate..
The PlayStation - as it became known - was developed by
> Sony in conjunction with Nintendo as a CD add-on for the SNES.
> Nintendo eventually decided that it was a bad idea, and withdrew
> from the development, leaving Sony with an unfinished
> system.
You know, I heard that Nintendo split with Sony over some sort of rights issue. I can't remember exactly. Either Sony wanted exclusive rights for some part or other, or they wanted to name it (or have their name on it?), or something like that?
That's what I read somewhere anyway. I seem to remember it being a Nintendo mag i read it in, too - so perhaps not entirely accurate..
Not under their current boss, methinks. Though that will change in time, and someone a little more forward-thinking may be installed...
As I've said many times before, I love Wookiee's arguments.
Superb Wookiee, well said.
{:)
Superb Wookiee, well said.
{:)
Nintendo make the most money in the gaming industry at the momemnt so the financial benefits of licensing to PS2 would not be significant. However it could and should improve Nintendo's childish image. Would it ever happen though?
Dringo wrote:
> The Sony Playstation is a console that has been designed by Nintendo
> and put together by Sony. It is a console with a wealth of 3rd (and
> 2nd) party support, so Sony didn’t design the Playstation and very
> few games were actually made by Sony.
The PlayStation - as it became known - was developed by Sony in conjunction with Nintendo as a CD add-on for the SNES. Nintendo eventually decided that it was a bad idea, and withdrew from the development, leaving Sony with an unfinished system.
Rather than waste the investment, Sony pushed ahead and developed the system into the PlayStation. The rest, as they say, is history. So if you must blame someone for the current situation, Nintendo would be a good place to start; the last 6 years could have belonged to them, if not for a sudden attack of cold feet.
> the console is very difficult to
> work on and in a year it will be outdated by the Gamecube and X-box.
There are more reports and comments rubbishing this claim than there are to support it. To quote the latest, from Greg Zeschuck (co-owner of BioWare, designer of MDK2: Armageddon) from OPS2M issue 7:
"Q. How did you find converting the game to PS2 technology - is it as awkward as some teams have claimed?
A. The PS2 technology isn't so difficult as it is different - it has an architecture that is quite unique among videogame machines and as a result, it takes a little getting used to. I think most of the problems that arise are for people working on PS2 are due to assumptions that it is like any other game console. It's unique but also very powerful."
That is the fourth such response I've read, and so far only one developer has decided against the PS2; that was Oddworld Inhabitants, and involved a not-so-small financial enticement from Microsoft.
> A TV type system appeared on the Playstation one
Can you please clarify this?
> ability to play CD’s has always been possible to do on a Sony
> console and DVD is now on the Playstation 2.
Audio CD playing is not a new thing, and is not limited to Sony. Both the Amiga CDTV and Amiga CD32 also had audio CD capabilities built in. In fact, the CDTV interface was probably the best I have seen - including PS1 and PS2!
> So what right has Sony got to nearly put Nintendo out of the hardware
> business (thank goodness for Pokémon) and force Sega to
> becoming a 3rd party developer? These Japanese giants are masters at
> making consoles unlike Sony but it is Sony that sits on top of the
> gaming market.
Sony have done no such thing. They have simply made a successful attempt at marketing a games machine to the masses, something which - for all their experience - Sega and Nintendo had previously failed to do. Sony gave the majority of people what they wanted, and that is the key to selling any product well. Sony are obviously doing something right in the eyes of the general public, because the PSone continues to sell very well, even though the technology is six or seven years out of date.
More to the point, would you be so quick to criticise if Sega or Nintendo were in Sony's position? I'm guessing no. Then it would be "Sega/Nintendo are leading the way because their system offers people the widest choice of games."
Personally, I think that Sega have made the right decision in choosing to develop for other platforms. It's something I think they should have been doing all along, and I also think that - regardless of how GameCube performs - Nintendo should consider doing the same - and yes, Sony too. Get as much money as you can by producing for all of the popular platforms - or at least licencing 3rd-party companies to produce for the other platforms (e.g. Acclaim producing PS2's Crazy Taxi).
As Sega's situation has proven (they're now shedding jobs, according to Upwire), keeping your best games exclusively for your own platform does *not* mean that people will buy that platform; surely it makes much more sense to get *some* money from licencing rather than none? I was going to get a 2nd-hand N64 and a copy of Conker until I realised that, even at SR's discount price, the game was £50. Sale lost for Nintendo. Now, if they licenced someone to produce a PS2 version, they would at least get some money from me - and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Surely that makes more sense?
> The Sony Playstation is a console that has been designed by Nintendo
> and put together by Sony. It is a console with a wealth of 3rd (and
> 2nd) party support, so Sony didn’t design the Playstation and very
> few games were actually made by Sony.
The PlayStation - as it became known - was developed by Sony in conjunction with Nintendo as a CD add-on for the SNES. Nintendo eventually decided that it was a bad idea, and withdrew from the development, leaving Sony with an unfinished system.
Rather than waste the investment, Sony pushed ahead and developed the system into the PlayStation. The rest, as they say, is history. So if you must blame someone for the current situation, Nintendo would be a good place to start; the last 6 years could have belonged to them, if not for a sudden attack of cold feet.
> the console is very difficult to
> work on and in a year it will be outdated by the Gamecube and X-box.
There are more reports and comments rubbishing this claim than there are to support it. To quote the latest, from Greg Zeschuck (co-owner of BioWare, designer of MDK2: Armageddon) from OPS2M issue 7:
"Q. How did you find converting the game to PS2 technology - is it as awkward as some teams have claimed?
A. The PS2 technology isn't so difficult as it is different - it has an architecture that is quite unique among videogame machines and as a result, it takes a little getting used to. I think most of the problems that arise are for people working on PS2 are due to assumptions that it is like any other game console. It's unique but also very powerful."
That is the fourth such response I've read, and so far only one developer has decided against the PS2; that was Oddworld Inhabitants, and involved a not-so-small financial enticement from Microsoft.
> A TV type system appeared on the Playstation one
Can you please clarify this?
> ability to play CD’s has always been possible to do on a Sony
> console and DVD is now on the Playstation 2.
Audio CD playing is not a new thing, and is not limited to Sony. Both the Amiga CDTV and Amiga CD32 also had audio CD capabilities built in. In fact, the CDTV interface was probably the best I have seen - including PS1 and PS2!
> So what right has Sony got to nearly put Nintendo out of the hardware
> business (thank goodness for Pokémon) and force Sega to
> becoming a 3rd party developer? These Japanese giants are masters at
> making consoles unlike Sony but it is Sony that sits on top of the
> gaming market.
Sony have done no such thing. They have simply made a successful attempt at marketing a games machine to the masses, something which - for all their experience - Sega and Nintendo had previously failed to do. Sony gave the majority of people what they wanted, and that is the key to selling any product well. Sony are obviously doing something right in the eyes of the general public, because the PSone continues to sell very well, even though the technology is six or seven years out of date.
More to the point, would you be so quick to criticise if Sega or Nintendo were in Sony's position? I'm guessing no. Then it would be "Sega/Nintendo are leading the way because their system offers people the widest choice of games."
Personally, I think that Sega have made the right decision in choosing to develop for other platforms. It's something I think they should have been doing all along, and I also think that - regardless of how GameCube performs - Nintendo should consider doing the same - and yes, Sony too. Get as much money as you can by producing for all of the popular platforms - or at least licencing 3rd-party companies to produce for the other platforms (e.g. Acclaim producing PS2's Crazy Taxi).
As Sega's situation has proven (they're now shedding jobs, according to Upwire), keeping your best games exclusively for your own platform does *not* mean that people will buy that platform; surely it makes much more sense to get *some* money from licencing rather than none? I was going to get a 2nd-hand N64 and a copy of Conker until I realised that, even at SR's discount price, the game was £50. Sale lost for Nintendo. Now, if they licenced someone to produce a PS2 version, they would at least get some money from me - and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Surely that makes more sense?
Page: