So you think the 20 preloaded games are not classics and is one of the reasons the system failed? An interesting opinion that I would love if you could support by offering other 20 titles that you think are considered classics by the GP
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Does the Playstation Classic prove that Sony has no classics?
- Thread starter Brhoom
- Start date
So you think the 20 preloaded games are not classics and is one of the reasons the system failed? An interesting opinion that I would love if you could support by offering other 20 titles that you think are considered classics by the GP
Nah it just proves that Sony was completely clueless with the production of this product. The price was too high, the library was not great and the emulation was shabby at best. They were just looking for a quick and easy cash grab and they failed miserably. Sony has been aces with most things this gen and made a mistake plain and simple...
No Sony does have some classic but the problem with the PS1 era was that a large bulk of them were third party and they were absent from the mini console.
Like I knew that it would be garbage from the on set when the Crash Bandicoot games weren't part of the initial line up announcement and the fact that Sony was being coy with their line up listing than compare to how Nintendo opted to show the entire listing then and there.
Sony knew that they had a turd on their hand but still tried to shit it out into the wind, only for it to fall back into their face.
Like I knew that it would be garbage from the on set when the Crash Bandicoot games weren't part of the initial line up announcement and the fact that Sony was being coy with their line up listing than compare to how Nintendo opted to show the entire listing then and there.
Sony knew that they had a turd on their hand but still tried to shit it out into the wind, only for it to fall back into their face.
It wasn't cheaply made either. Like, that hardware with a proper emulation can play up to PSP and Dreamcast games. The main problem was using an old version of PCSX over a solution in-house like Nintendo did. Or just using an updated version of the emulator licensing it from Retroarch.
It also released in a rough date, when games like RE2 or Castlevania SOTN were released / going to release soon, so publishers may have refused to give them the game.
The PS1 has classics, but it was a shitty product (emulation, catalogue, price, poor aging of early 3D games in general, etc).
Is the lack of a good emulator the reason the system couldn't sell then? I think systems like the Wii, DS, and the Gameboy prove that if you provide good games your system will sell regardless of graphical powers or emulation quality.
- gran turismo 1
- gran tursimo 2
- tekken 2
- tekken 3
- metal gear solid
- ff7
- ff8
- crash
- spyro
- resident evil 2
- resident evil 3
it wasnt until 2007 when they finally had to rely almost exclusively on first party titles after peter moore got the FF and GTA tattoos and MS managed to snag big western exclusives like bioshock and mass effect.
IIRC, aside from ico, socom and gran turismo 3, i didnt buy a single sony made game until 2005 when they came out with god of war and sotc. thats almost a four year gap. resistance next year was ok, but 2007 to me was an absolutely fantastic year that justified my $599 purchase.
Motorstorm, Warhawk, uncharted, heavenly sword, ratchet and clank all in one year. the rest as they say is history.
I actually dont even know how to respond to this thread...of course there is classics on PS1. The classic console just wasnt good. Dont overthink it.
Seriously. There are some great games in that library, but Sony did an absolute garbage job of making the device and putting said games in there.
Sis the hotness of that tea.
Emulation quality is not the reason it flopped. It's not hard to do the math.
Emulation quality is not the reason it flopped. It's not hard to do the math.
So I'm confused here.
What are you trying to say?
That SONY ENTERTAINMENT has no classic games, or that the PLAYSTATION 1 has no classics?
What are you trying to say?
That SONY ENTERTAINMENT has no classic games, or that the PLAYSTATION 1 has no classics?
Bingo. Clearly properties like Crash and Spyro were seen as way too valuable, which is why we got complete remakes that sold like gangbusters.
The PlayStation has some iconic classics that still hold up today.
The psc had very few of them. License issues seemed to kill most of their chances of appearing on the device.
Luckily it's easy to sideload games on the device. I ripped and added most of my ps1 collection in just a few hours.
The psc had very few of them. License issues seemed to kill most of their chances of appearing on the device.
Luckily it's easy to sideload games on the device. I ripped and added most of my ps1 collection in just a few hours.
Well when I say cheaply made I mean it didn't get the same amount of attention as Nintendo's classic consoles got. They should have done the same thing as Nintendo did instead of using third party programs.
As for your other point, that could be true. In any case Sony shouldn't have released it in this state.
The truth is that they didn't put the classics. They put games that were on PS1 but weren't considered classics by most people.
Is the lack of a good emulator the reason the system couldn't sell then? I think systems like the Wii, DS, and the Gameboy prove that if you provide good games your system will sell regardless of graphical powers or emulation quality.
So no it doesn't prove that Sony didn't have classics because they do infact have them but didn't include them on the device.
I'm simply trying to find answers for why the system failed. Excuses like emulation quality, poor controls are stuff the Nes Classic suffers from yet sold well, so what is the reason then?
The problem starting with that generation is that a lot of classic games have a ton of licensing issues. Take something like Gran Turismo. It was the best selling game on the PSone. But for Sony to include it they'd have to go back and license every track in the game, every song in the game, every car in the game, and every sponsor that appears on the track. That's not going to be cheap considering that it's going to be used for a console that even a best case scenario wasn't going to be selling a ton.
It's clear that some posters didn't read my OP, but I more than happy to edit my OP if you think some parts need more clarification.
The NES Classic emulation problems are in no way as severe as the Playstation Classic ones. The presentation on the NESC is way better too. And better value with 40 games for 60 dollars versus 20 games for 100.
Out of the 20 games on the PS Classic (western lineup), and the 20 best selling PS1 games, there is an overlap of 4 games. Many of the games included are ones the GP has never heard of (Persona 1, Mr. Driller, Intelligent Qube, Jumping Flash, BAT, etc.)So you think the 20 preloaded games are not classics and is one of the reasons the system failed? An interesting opinion that I would love if you could support by offering other 20 titles that you think are considered classics by the GP
Out of the 20 games (it's 21 games but I'm excluding Star Fox 2 for obvious reasons, it isn't a classic by nature, but is still a selling point to consider) on the SNES Classic (western lineup), and the 20 best selling SNES games, there is an overlap of 10 games. Many of the games outside of the top 20 on the Classic are still considered classics by the GP (MMX, Super Metroid, Contra III, etc.)
It proves that all of their 'classics' had licensed music I guess.
The PS Classic *should've* had Wipeout 2097, Gran Turismo 2, Tony Hawk Pro Skater etc on it. But there was no way they were getting on because of the soundtracks. Something that NES/SNES/MD don't have to worry about.
The PS Classic *should've* had Wipeout 2097, Gran Turismo 2, Tony Hawk Pro Skater etc on it. But there was no way they were getting on because of the soundtracks. Something that NES/SNES/MD don't have to worry about.
I think it there is a bit of hindsight bias when you refer as Sony's exclusives as being famous for being technical marvels. That is more of a recent phenomenon.
Regardless of that, I think the fact that we call a lot of old point and click adventure games classics suggests to me that even these recent games that are famous for being pretty have an excellent chance of being remembered as classics.
Regardless of that, I think the fact that we call a lot of old point and click adventure games classics suggests to me that even these recent games that are famous for being pretty have an excellent chance of being remembered as classics.
Last edited:
Exactly. Nerds like us didn't buy it because it was a poor product.
Mainstream consumers didn't buy it because they didn't see the ability to play those games being worth $99.
You could have just asked if you think it's because of lackluster 1st party offerings on the system or bad emulation and been done with it.
Playstation always relied on 3rd parties to deliver memorable experiences, it wasn't until the PS3 that Sony first party studios begin to deliver and they only really took off during this gen, so yeah they do have some classics but none of them are on the same caliber of Nintendo
also the ps classic hardware being trash didn't help either
also the ps classic hardware being trash didn't help either
Hell no, it was just a poorly curated system. Sony didn't want to pay third parties-- including licensing of music for their own stuff (like Gran Turismo).
Even SEGA paid Disney licensing for their retro console. Sony just cheap.
Even SEGA paid Disney licensing for their retro console. Sony just cheap.
Way to twist meaning, I didn't infer that ALL of the titles weren't classics, but simply that the selection overall was shitty. There's only a little over a handful that I would keep in there, while omitting others for more prominent Playstation titles.So you think the 20 preloaded games are not classics and is one of the reasons the system failed? An interesting opinion that I would love if you could support by offering other 20 titles that you think are considered classics by the GP
Of the included titles I would have kept:
MGS
FF7
Tekken 3
Twisted Metal
Cool Boarders 2
Oddworld
Resident Evil
As for which titles the remaining 13 should have been, take your pick from the list:
Crash Bandicoot 2: Cortex Strikes Back
Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped
Crash Team Racing
Spyro 1, 2, 3 (Or whichever sold most)
Ace Combat 1, 2 (whichever sold most)
Tomb Raider 1, 2, or 3 (whichever sold most)
MediEvil 1 or 2 (whichever sold most)
Megaman X4, 5, (whichever sold most)
Armoured Core
Ape Escape
Klonoa
Silent Hill
Gran Turismo 1
Gran Turismo 2
Parappa the Rapper
Jet Moto 2
Everybody's Golf 1 or 2
Legend of Dragoon
At least one more FF, probably 8.
All of these and more scream PS1! to me more than what we got.
And what's with the smarmy gifs, are we on POPera? The snarky tone really undermines any point you're trying to make.
Grow up.
Last edited:
It proves that Sony relies too much on the "Playstation" brand as a synonymous of gaming device. If there's content, or even nostalgia, for the PS1 library it's another discussion.
For PSX alone:
Gran Turismo 1 and 2
Ape Escape
Legend of Dragoon
Arc the Lad
Colony Wars
Destruction Derby
Intelligent Qube
Also probably Jumping Flash depending on who you ask
Edit: To be clear, these are only the Sony published games, too.
Gran Turismo 1 and 2
Ape Escape
Legend of Dragoon
Arc the Lad
Colony Wars
Destruction Derby
Intelligent Qube
Also probably Jumping Flash depending on who you ask
Edit: To be clear, these are only the Sony published games, too.
It didn't launch with many of the games that people associate with the console, for one reason or another. Spyro and Crash being completely absent is one thing but cutting out wholly owned titles like MediEvil feels super lacking, even their 3rd party offerings from Capcom and other publishers felt lacking when the NES Classic and SNES Classic could get the absolute best of the best from Konami, Capcom, etc etc.
Their game selection was horrible and half the games were the PAL versions. If they aren't going to put in the effort to make it, I won't put in the effort to buy it.
Then I would have been labeled a troll or a low effort poster. I provided some reasons to why some think the system sold poorly to engage the conversation other than have yes and no replies.
I don't think Crash and Spyro could have been included due to the Remakes but other than that the list has some notable titles that sadly weren't included in the system.
And I'm not trying to be smug about my use of Gifs, it's just something I use to spice up my posts.
They have very few classics of their own, yes. Most of the ones that still hold up today have been completely superseded by sequels and/or remasters on modern hardware. Unlike say, Mario 64, which still does certain things better than Odyssey, there are few reasons for someone to return to the original Gran Turismo beyond nostalgia.
Last edited:
Sony does have a decent line-up of their own IP. But they kinda neutered themselves by restricting the PS classic to the old, non-analog controller.
There was no excuse not to have MediEvil, Ape Escape or Legend of Dragoon for example, aside from AE being dualshock-only.
There was no excuse not to have MediEvil, Ape Escape or Legend of Dragoon for example, aside from AE being dualshock-only.