Does the Playstation Classic prove that Sony has no classics?

[Brhoom]

With the Nes Classic selling over 3.6 million units as of June 2018, and the SNES Classic reaching 5.28 million as of January 2018, it's safe to say that both of these consoles sold incredibly well and proved that the GP remembers Nintendo Classics fondly.

But, given how disastrous the sales for the Playstation Classic are, heavy discounts reaching $30 and less to try and move units, being offered for free with every purchase of a PS4, and over 1000 people choosing to get a free DS4 over it in this thread I created back in February:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/playstation-classic-is-being-offered-for-free-here.98118/

What does that tell us about the Playstation brand in terms of a strong catalogue that endures generations? Did the system need more the 24 years for it to be considered classic?

I thought that reviews were the main reason of the system's demise, but a recently released title with the name of Days Gone was slammed, dragged, and panned by some critics for its unimaginative gameplay, and scored a 72 on Metacritic. Yet the game is selling incredibly well for a not so well received AAA title, and was not hindered by the reviews.

Could it be that the Crash collection was the reason? As some users claimed here that the trilogy was the only classic IP the Playstation brand has to offer.


Some of Sony's critics argue that most of Sony's titles suffer from being a relic of their time, hailed as technical marvels when released for their graphical achievements, but as their beautiy fade away, they rely on the gameplay aspect, which is not that fondly remembered, something Nintendo excels in and is the reason why titles like Super Mario 64 is considered a timeless classic.

What do you think, Era? Is the lack of classic games the reason for the downfall of the Playstation Classic, or is there another reason why the system failed?

 

[ILikeFeet]

it proves no one gives a shit about a half-assed devices with few games that people want

 

[Grexeno]

It proves that it's too expensive to actually do all the licensing to re-release their classics.

 

[--R]

The system failed because the emulation was atrocious. The catalog was ok if you take out Rainbow Six.

 

[SinCityAssassin]

It has classics, just Sony doesn't care to put them out.

 

[Deleted member 3017]

uhhhhhhhhhh

no?

All it proves is SIE needs to take a device like this seriously, like Nintendo and Sega (finally!) are

 

[Kickfister]

It's expensive and doesn't even run all the games at full speed. It didn't sell because anybody willing to research a product would know to avoid it.

 

[Prophet Five]

It proves that when you rush something to market without very little through thought you're destined to have a fuck up on your hands.

 

[nsilvias]

it had a horrible catalog.
putting persona on it was stupid. no one gave a damn about that game when it was new. just because persona is popular now doesnt mean the og is a classic.

 

[Bakercat]

It wasn't that the games were bad, it was the use of shit roms and bare bones emulation. Once word got out people passed on it.

Would of helped if it had Tomb Raider and Silent Hill though

 

[Pandora012]

No, it has more to do with the product itself. It was shitty.

 

[Common Knowledge]

It was a half-assed and done with the absolute minimum amount of effort on Sony's part.

It proves that Sony doesn't have much respect for their own classics.

 

[Napalm_Frank]

People are not gonna show up if you don't offer them Alundra.

 

[JB2448]

All it proves is that Sony Interactive Entertainment has no idea how to respectfully treat their classic catalog.

 

[ghostemoji]

Sony is beholden by too many 3rd parties to make a real collection of the classics.

Games like Tony Hawk Pro Skater and others are what made the PS1 special IMO.

 

[rpm]

The catalog on the PS Classic was missing many of the PS1's most classic games
Couple that with a $100 price tag and shit performance/using PAL versions that kept many hardcore gamers away

 

[Meg Cherry]

The entire early generation of 3D has aged miserably, and people don't have much of an interest in revisiting it. Combine that with the Classic's abysmal game selection, horrible tech execution, and price - it absolutely had no chance.

It was the PlayStation All-Stars of physical hardware. An idea that could have been okay, executed so miserably that it makes the idea seem worse in hindsight.

 

[Brhoom]

The system failed because the emulation was atrocious. The catalog was ok if you take out Rainbow Six.

Click to shrink...

Does the average user care about emulation quality? The Nes Classic's emulation is average yet the system sold well.

 

[TheNotoriousAFG]

I always associated PS1 with RPGs, and the game list didn't seem to emphasize that or even include the better RPGs from that era (Lunar 1/2, Suikoden 2, etc.).

 

[Fedeuy]

Hot take, the thread.

 

[Bjones]

It failed because it was a blurry pos.

 

[--R]

Does the average user care about emulation quality? The Nes Classic's emulation is average yet the system sold well.

Click to shrink...

They care when the first thing you see when you look up the console is how bad it plays the games.

 

[Estarossa]

Sonya just doesn't have the Nintendo magic, y'know? If she disappeared off the face of the planet people will just flock to the Xbox.

 

[Doof]

People are not gonna show up if you don't offer them Alundra.

Click to shrink...

fuck you I was gonna post this haha

I'll say it failed because it didn't have Koudelka instead.

 

[Deleted member 17210]

The PS1 has more than enough classics in its library to fill a mini console, if done right. It's definitely more third-party focused than any Nintendo or Sega system, though.

 

[Jessie]

It proved that Sony did a bad job holding onto its classic IPs.

 

[Glass Arrows]

Sony didn't seem to take the device very seriously and saw it as a quick buck. As a product it felt very half-assed, with an alright but not spectacular library of games, not even using their own emulator (and configuring the emulator poorly from what I remember), using the PAL versions of various games, among other things.

 

[Richter1887]

No, it just shows how incompetent they were at making the device.

Aside from that, the library was bad. Why have GTA1 when you can have GTA2? Where is Crash? Where is Lara? Where is RE2? Where is Gran Turismo? Why not include Spider Man? Castlevania? Spyro? The countless classic RPGs?

There are tons of classics but they choose games that aren't that good or nostalgic.

 

[dom]

Crash and Spyro collections says the opposite.

 

[WestEgg]

It definitely has classics, they just had bad timing with them either releasing or an enhanced version of them releasing on multiple platforms (Crash, Spyro, Final Fantasy).

 

[lupinko]

No, it was the crappy emulation and lack of care on SIE's part. Also garbage titles like Rainbow 6 PSone. Or stupid decisions like picking TM1 over TM2.

And the PS1 had a lot of memorable SIE games which they conveniently ignored.

 

[FormatCompatible]

Sonya just doesn't have the Nintendo magic, y'know?

Click to shrink...

...Blade?

 

[Hippopuncher12]

Lol really? The PS1 has tons of classics but when you don't put many of them on a half assed device it's not going to sell well.

 

[¡ B 0 0 P !]

Most of the famous 'Sony' brands from the 1990s were never owned by Sony. Anyone who thought Sony could convince enough publishers, many of them greedy, to sell a system with Crash, Castlevania, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Oddworld, Spyro, Gran Tusimo, Resident Evil, Tony Hawk, Rayman, Tomb Raider and Tekken while keeping the MSRP low enough for the average consumer was insane.

Nintendo did not need to deal with this for their classics.

 

[dmr87]

It's about them half-assing it.

 

[Aztechnology]

Additionally PS1 graphics and often 3D design just do not hold up. It was the awkward phase for gaming. Even though I loved it at the time. I can see it in retrospect.

 

[funky]

Sony has always sucked getting 3rd parties to support their classic schemes which where a huge part of the success of the PS1 and 2

Be that PS1 / 2 classics on PS3 or PS2 on PS4. PS Classic Mini was a continuation of that cycle.

 

[Brhoom]

Would of helped if it had Silent Hill though

Click to shrink...

Points were made.

 

[KillstealWolf]

The Playstation Classic is to Sony what the Wii U was to Nintendo.

Ain't no one going to care about the games if the Hardware sucks.

 

[Brhoom]

Crash and Spyro collections says the opposite.

Click to shrink...

READ the OP please.

 

[Champion]

Not sure but the majority of the 'classic' games on the PS1 are def from 3rd parties.

 

[PeakPointMatrix]

I don't see how any reasonable thinking person would come to that conclusion. PS1 was overflowing with classics. Unfortunately Sony lacking a modicum of effort for the damn thing.

-Shit Emulation
-Shit selection
-No analog sticks on the controller, eliminating an untold amount of the catalogue from even being included.
-And they wanted $100 for some shit they shat out?

That's why it failed.

 

[FormatCompatible]

The Playstation Classic is to Sony what the Wii U was to Nintendo.

Ain't no one going to care about the games if the Hardware sucks.

Click to shrink...

Like the Wii U it's really good if you want to use it for homebrew.

 

[Doof]

For real though, the PS1 had so much awesome obscure bullshit. It's a shame a lot of it's never been rereleased.

 

[--R]

Where is Crash? Where is Lara? Where is RE2? Where is Gran Turismo? Why not include Spider Man? Castlevania? Spyro? The countless classic RPGs?

Click to shrink...

Licensing issues and third-party games. Most of the games people wanted are out of Sony's hands.

 

[Memento]

That is a hot take alright

 

[evilmonkey]

Aside from emulation quality, decent game selections, and good price points, the NES/SNES Classic sold well because (most of) those Nintendo IPs were kept relevant and in the public's mind throughout the years.

Sony expected to reap the rewards of their brand's legacy but didn't realize they had never bothered to foster it to begin with.

 

[EVA UNIT 01]

It proves Sony gives no fucks about its legacy.

 

[Richter1887]

Licensing issues and third-party games. Most of the games people wanted are out of Sony's hands.

Click to shrink...

Sure, I guess GT would have been the biggest issue but Mega Drive classic has shown that some of the publishers for some of the games I mentioned have been open to bringing those games to "mini" devices. Namely Konami.

They could have probably done a way better job if they wanted. The reason I think this is the fact the device itself was really underwhelming and cheaply made.

 

[Inuhanyou]

no.


But the more fundamental issue beyond the obvious ones of the PS classic itself, is that Sony's history is defined by its third party games much more than its first party offerings. Say what you want about Nintendo and MS, but when you think MS you think Halo Gears and Forza. With Nintendo you think Mario, Zelda, Kirby, Smash, Mario Kart, Mario Party, Metroid ect.

Sony can't properly utilize nostalgia because its nostalgia is held up in too many other companies. The console gaming industry from the mid 90s up to now IS Playstation. And its bigger than Sony.