-
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
Premise of the OP reminds me of people that said the selling power of Nintendo first party titles was gone because of the WiiU.
lol
Also the comparison with Nintendo doesnt make alot of sense - Nintendo has a Disney kind of level the VG market and most other publishers dont have classics on their level. Sony/PS not having similar kind of pull with Classics, doesnt mean they dont have any....they still have more pull compared to what most other publisher can/could offer.
lol
Also the comparison with Nintendo doesnt make alot of sense - Nintendo has a Disney kind of level the VG market and most other publishers dont have classics on their level. Sony/PS not having similar kind of pull with Classics, doesnt mean they dont have any....they still have more pull compared to what most other publisher can/could offer.
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?
This is a clown take.
The PS Classic failed in part because it was a terrible product (both technically, and emulation-wise) and came with a list of games that no one associates with the PS1 save for the iconic ones such as Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy 7. It showed that Sony chased the trend as opposed to putting in more care and thought into their products in the same way that Nintendo puts thought and care into the SNES Classic and NES Classic. And for 100 dollars, you better ensure that your system comes with quality such that consumers find it a compelling product to buy.
You could certainly argue that licensing costs would be a barrier, but considering that licensing costs were a problem with older platforms, that still didn't stop valuable games from being released as PSOne Classics on the PSN on the PS3, PSP and Vita.
I'm not surprised it turned out the way it did, but not because of a "lack of classics". Sony's historically been more reliant on third party hits, which already is going to complicate the licensing of such a device. Getting FF7, MGS and GTA are big enough gets that they probably had to work for, and probably contributed to the thing's price. Square still makes money off FF7 after all.
Vast majority will not notice quality of emulation, I certainly never would notice something like this.
I think it just proves people are far, far more nostalgic about Nintendo than Ps1. So that along with it lacking some fan favourite games is the reason it failed
I think it just proves people are far, far more nostalgic about Nintendo than Ps1. So that along with it lacking some fan favourite games is the reason it failed
I agree on the technical, graphical showcase point that you brought up to some extent....on SOME games.......BUT i also believe that it's not the playstation doesn't have classic games. It's just that the actual product was so badly handled and has a terrible front end, it's just a rushed cash in from Sony and they deserved it to flop.
Give us a real one with some love and attention and it would have flown off the shelves.
Give us a real one with some love and attention and it would have flown off the shelves.
Of course not, it was just a mess. Bad selection and some truly baffling decisions like putting the shithouse PAL versions of games on it.
Between licensing and remasters, there's multiple reasons you're missing some of the best PS1 games from the Classic.
Stuff like Crash, Spyro, and RE2 were probably ruled out by the publishers because they want to sell new remasters.
Something like Spider-Man couldn't happen because Activision doesn't own the rights to Spider-Man games anymore.
Stuff like GT and Tony Hawk are out because of car and music licenses.
There are certainly better games they could have chosen, but the biggest issue is just licensing and while Sony could have solved some of those issues with money, they probably decided the cost/benefit wasn't worth it.
Stuff like Crash, Spyro, and RE2 were probably ruled out by the publishers because they want to sell new remasters.
Something like Spider-Man couldn't happen because Activision doesn't own the rights to Spider-Man games anymore.
Stuff like GT and Tony Hawk are out because of car and music licenses.
There are certainly better games they could have chosen, but the biggest issue is just licensing and while Sony could have solved some of those issues with money, they probably decided the cost/benefit wasn't worth it.
I think the product itself is the last thing the classic has to worry about. I'm in the EU so I always experienced the PAL versions, but most of the details about how poor the system actually is was recognised after release. The system didn't sell well from the start because the available games were shit, and the system was like atleast €20 more expensive than Nintendo's counterparts.
Having Rainbow Six on your classic is cool, it was a really great and technologically advanced game for its time but it was also meant to be played with a dualshock. I tried to play it at the classic, but with today's standards, it's literally unplayable.
Most other games on the system, except for Final Fantasy, do not have a great fanbase. And some specific titles have a hardcore fanbase that own every, or most games in the series for the designed platform.
Everyone knew Mario and Kirby, but not everyone owns a NES or SNES nowadays so having the opportunity to get a few of those games for like 60 or 80 euro's is a good deal. Paying 100 euro's for a few games that were on the ps1 that you barely remember or kind of liked for that time, is not a great deal.
Having Rainbow Six on your classic is cool, it was a really great and technologically advanced game for its time but it was also meant to be played with a dualshock. I tried to play it at the classic, but with today's standards, it's literally unplayable.
Most other games on the system, except for Final Fantasy, do not have a great fanbase. And some specific titles have a hardcore fanbase that own every, or most games in the series for the designed platform.
Everyone knew Mario and Kirby, but not everyone owns a NES or SNES nowadays so having the opportunity to get a few of those games for like 60 or 80 euro's is a good deal. Paying 100 euro's for a few games that were on the ps1 that you barely remember or kind of liked for that time, is not a great deal.
They have classic games but didn't understand why the Nintendo classics were successful and wanted to release a cheap cash cow. Didn't work.
Just putting "PlayStation" on a box does not mean great sales (although they should've known that from Vita).
Just putting "PlayStation" on a box does not mean great sales (although they should've known that from Vita).
Ha, no.
It is more likely the opposite. Everyone's definitive Playstation Classic is going to vary so dramatically that it is going to be very difficult to make a definitive experience without loading it with well over the standard twenty games. It isn't like a Nintendo console, which has a number of highly promoted flagship games (first party developed, no less). The Playstation was flooded with quality games in a wide variety of different genres from a huge number of different publishers. Everyone's definitive experience is going to be wildly different.
It also doesn't help that the Playstation Classic we got wasn't a particularly good effort...
It is more likely the opposite. Everyone's definitive Playstation Classic is going to vary so dramatically that it is going to be very difficult to make a definitive experience without loading it with well over the standard twenty games. It isn't like a Nintendo console, which has a number of highly promoted flagship games (first party developed, no less). The Playstation was flooded with quality games in a wide variety of different genres from a huge number of different publishers. Everyone's definitive experience is going to be wildly different.
It also doesn't help that the Playstation Classic we got wasn't a particularly good effort...
What even is this thread!? How does someone legitimately think this on a "gaming enthusiast" site? I have a headache.
Quite the contrary, PS1 had too many games that are considered classics, good classics, but due to them being such a wide variety of third party games it becomes extremely complicated to compile a worthy library (what with licensing and some publishers not caring at this point). No joke the thing would have had to hold some 50 games at least. The games that were included in the actual thing just... were not that good overall, compared to what could have been.
Although the device itself being so half assed didn't help.
Although the device itself being so half assed didn't help.
I mean, I'd say there are about as many PS1 games that aged well, as there are NES games that aged well.
The issue is, like the early 2D games, the early 3D games did not age well on the whole.
So when you have less games that aged well, and then you have Sony's darn small first party during the PS1 era.
You need to keep in mind at that point in time, they had a very small first party. The biggest games on PS1 were from third parties, rightly so, because Sony, in knowing they didn't have a first party to compete with Nintendo made a console that was catered to the third party developers. The rest is history.
Does that mean Sony has no classics? What about anything from the PS2 era forward? ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, and so on. You can see as they grew their first party, their internal output started to produce better results.
I'd argue that:
1. Nintendo had better first party games on the N64.
2. The PS1 had a better overall library than the N64.
The issue is, like the early 2D games, the early 3D games did not age well on the whole.
So when you have less games that aged well, and then you have Sony's darn small first party during the PS1 era.
You need to keep in mind at that point in time, they had a very small first party. The biggest games on PS1 were from third parties, rightly so, because Sony, in knowing they didn't have a first party to compete with Nintendo made a console that was catered to the third party developers. The rest is history.
Does that mean Sony has no classics? What about anything from the PS2 era forward? ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Jak and Daxter, Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, and so on. You can see as they grew their first party, their internal output started to produce better results.
I'd argue that:
1. Nintendo had better first party games on the N64.
2. The PS1 had a better overall library than the N64.
What's worse is the fact that so many are responding in earnest. This has to be the most bait-y premise for a thread I've ever seen on here...
They chose a varied selection of games that didn't include many of the games that are considered the true classics.
It's like if the NES mini had Kirby and Startropics, but missed Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.
It's like if the NES mini had Kirby and Startropics, but missed Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.
The offical PlayStation classic lineup doesn't prove anything. That lineup was more of a bureaucratic situation and Sony didn't want to pay for the rights to some of the better exclusive games they could've had on the system.
Also they wanted 20 games of different variety so there was something for everyone. They could've had 6 of the best JRPG's on there and it would have been justifiable.
Also they wanted 20 games of different variety so there was something for everyone. They could've had 6 of the best JRPG's on there and it would have been justifiable.
A lot of the classic titles of PS1 that jog people's nostalgia bones were third party games and obviously Sony had trouble getting licenses for them in some way or another. That's the main reason the PS Classic failed.
On a side note, I would be interested in seeing a list of all Sony-owned franchises form the PS1-era if anyone has one handy? I feel like there are a lot of interesting titles in there that would be quite cool as a collection (even if it probably wouldn't sell super well)
On a side note, I would be interested in seeing a list of all Sony-owned franchises form the PS1-era if anyone has one handy? I feel like there are a lot of interesting titles in there that would be quite cool as a collection (even if it probably wouldn't sell super well)
Probably not a popular opinion but this is a really good point.
NES and SNES (and the upcoming Genesis) is/will be easier for Nintendo/Sega to put their classics on as many of their classics were first party games. No further agreements/licensing issues. Sony relied a ton on marketing , brand power and 3rd party support until PS3 tbh. Hypothetically speaking, 20 years from now a classic PS3 or PS4 would be amazing (obviously this fad won't hold that long, but my point is the first party stable of games in the last two Sony systems crushes the PS1 and PS2 first party library)
Then the actual emulation and poor reviews due to such was the final nail in the coffin.
Indeed, and watch out if you don't agree with his OP, you get a childish snarky post like this...
and when he/she was called out for it, the response ....
But who is he/she fooling, the poster got banned for, so I guess it's his/her shtick....
Why are you quoting a post I made in a different thread about a user defending Sony's decision to prevent cross play?
Lets not kid ourselves, of course the PS1 has tons of classics. That is not the problem at all.
But with that said, I think the PS1 Classic proves something else. From the start Sony have sold their games and systems on the premise of being technologically advanced, and they have also cultivated an audience who cares alot about graphics, cutscenes and so on. Just look at the typical Sony firstparty-game, and you will see this is the games Sony specializes in. Awesome graphics, shallow gameplay (Uncharted, GoW, The Order and so on).
When Sony have sold their games and consoles for more then twenty years, on the premise of being high tech and advanced, its not surprising that their retro consoles dont really resonate with their audience. Nintendo on the other hand, have cultivated an audience who knows that graphics doesnt really matter, by going being from the Wii and forwards, and that their games are about gameplay and level design.
Nintendo have cultivated and sold an idea where gaming is timeless. Sony have not. This is why their machines have so different fate in the market place.
But with that said, I think the PS1 Classic proves something else. From the start Sony have sold their games and systems on the premise of being technologically advanced, and they have also cultivated an audience who cares alot about graphics, cutscenes and so on. Just look at the typical Sony firstparty-game, and you will see this is the games Sony specializes in. Awesome graphics, shallow gameplay (Uncharted, GoW, The Order and so on).
When Sony have sold their games and consoles for more then twenty years, on the premise of being high tech and advanced, its not surprising that their retro consoles dont really resonate with their audience. Nintendo on the other hand, have cultivated an audience who knows that graphics doesnt really matter, by going being from the Wii and forwards, and that their games are about gameplay and level design.
Nintendo have cultivated and sold an idea where gaming is timeless. Sony have not. This is why their machines have so different fate in the market place.
The nostalgia isn't there. Nintendo brought back the video game industry and built up icons that are about as recognizable as Mickey mouse. Nintendo is like videogame Disney actually.
Both Uncharted and GOW are highly praised for their great gameplay. Especially God of War. But if you restrict it to classics they have tons with great gameplay as well. Sly, Ratchet, J&D, Twisted Metal, Ape Escape, their RPGs etc.
Ps1 had no classic, that's why this thing failed alright. It's why it's at the lowest charting home console in the top 10 charts where Gamecube sits at #1 spot where it has sold 155mil ww and Superman64 is the best selling piece of software ever released beating out gta5 at 150m copies sold.
Personally I think early gen 3D games just don't hold up like 16bit. I was all over the NES mini SNES mini and have a Megadrive mini on pre-order.
If I do want to go back and play an early gen 3D game, doing so on PC that can up-res and other post processing stuff via emulator is the go imo.
Side-note if Nintendo release an N64 mini, I don't think I'd get that either. I don't feel the need to go beyond 16bit for these mini consoles.
If I do want to go back and play an early gen 3D game, doing so on PC that can up-res and other post processing stuff via emulator is the go imo.
Side-note if Nintendo release an N64 mini, I don't think I'd get that either. I don't feel the need to go beyond 16bit for these mini consoles.
Last edited:
I didn't read the whole thread. I wonder what the age of the OP is / did he grow with the PlayStation era or was born later in life.
How can a console that dominated a generation have no classics ? You can argue that loading times and 3D polygons didn't age well but these things don't typically bother the people that grew up with the consoles. It mostly bothers younger generation trying to go back.
How can a console that dominated a generation have no classics ? You can argue that loading times and 3D polygons didn't age well but these things don't typically bother the people that grew up with the consoles. It mostly bothers younger generation trying to go back.
I mean, I don't think it's debatable that Sony don't have many classic games of their own from that era.
Crash Bandicoot is pretty much it.
It doesn't help that PS1 visuals don't hold up anywhere near as well as 16 or even 8-bit sprite-based graphics do. Most PS1 games are ugly as hell by today's standards, and don't even play especially well due to 3D gameplay being in its infancy at the time. Outside of Nintendo games, there are very few timeless 3D games of that era imo.
Crash Bandicoot is pretty much it.
It doesn't help that PS1 visuals don't hold up anywhere near as well as 16 or even 8-bit sprite-based graphics do. Most PS1 games are ugly as hell by today's standards, and don't even play especially well due to 3D gameplay being in its infancy at the time. Outside of Nintendo games, there are very few timeless 3D games of that era imo.
Sony beefed it pretty hard yet the PC Classics lineup is pretty strong regardless. Like Nintendo and Sega put far to many first games in series on there instead of later, better ones. Twisted Metal, Destruction Derby, Toshinden like c'mon. And the going for nostalgia angle people would argue for these inclusions doesn't fly imo. Going for a casual nostalgia audience with these mini systems is dumb as heck. Who cares if a buncha people bought Toshinden 1 ages ago with their PS1s? Unless 2/3/4 were verifiably worse games than it, one of those shoulda been in there instead! Casuals likely ain't gonna remember exactly which one they played, an for the ones that did they'd prolly be thrilled to be getting a better version of a game they played once!
I'm pretty sure that the PS1 was the best selling console of its generation and the first console to break 100 million units sold. The problem is, there were so many titles to choose from it becomes hard to curate a 20 title list that would please most people. I mean, there were no Crash games, no Spyro, no Tomb Raider games, no Gran Turismo, RE1 instead of 2, and plenty of other omissions. That and the subpar emulation (which made its reception extremely chilly among the media) doomed the Playstation Classic, but it did not prove that there aren't classic Playstation games.
Edit: I'd buy it in a heartbeat if it had Colony Wars and Einhander
Edit: I'd buy it in a heartbeat if it had Colony Wars and Einhander
Last edited:
i'll say it. PS1 library wasn't that good. I probably owned some of the fewest amount of games for any console...with PS1.
It was a Gran Turismo/Tony Hawk/smackdown/Jet Moto/sports games machine for me
It was a Gran Turismo/Tony Hawk/smackdown/Jet Moto/sports games machine for me
PS Classic had a bad line up, many great titles from it's catalog were absent from it ando some obscure got into instead.
PSX was THE system for J-RPGs and they still hold up well even for today's standards, can't say the same for most 3D games. PSX wasn't really designed for 3D gameplay to begin with, even with the Dual Shock, most of them aged terribly gameplay wise. It's truly painful to play games like Medal of Honor, Syphon Filter and Tomb Raider nowadays, even when they came out they already felt clunky.
PSX was THE system for J-RPGs and they still hold up well even for today's standards, can't say the same for most 3D games. PSX wasn't really designed for 3D gameplay to begin with, even with the Dual Shock, most of them aged terribly gameplay wise. It's truly painful to play games like Medal of Honor, Syphon Filter and Tomb Raider nowadays, even when they came out they already felt clunky.
Emulation was bad.
Game selection was bad.
PS1 had a stellar library and the PS Classic only proves that Sony don't give two shits about legacy games.
Game selection was bad.
PS1 had a stellar library and the PS Classic only proves that Sony don't give two shits about legacy games.
Not necessarily, but if we're being honest, the PlayStation 1 and 2 were defined more by their third party games/exclusives than they were their first party ones.
It wasn't until the PS3 that SIE really got into a consistent groove.
It wasn't until the PS3 that SIE really got into a consistent groove.
Yes, more or less. I mean PS2 is my favorite console of all time, but it sure isn't because of first party stuff.
Plus the PS1/N64 gen really doesn't hold up for the most part. I'll skip an N64 classic too if it ever releases.
Plus the PS1/N64 gen really doesn't hold up for the most part. I'll skip an N64 classic too if it ever releases.
I wouldn't go that far. I'd say the issue is more that Sony has typically relied on 3rd party devs to come to them since they have the best hardware, with the PS2 and being the only real exception to this. I think they realized with the PS3 that wasn't gonna cut it anymore and they started focusing more on in house production. Not to the level of Nintendo or Sega mind you, but enough to be more of a draw then if they didn't.
In regards to the PS Classic specifically, I think Sony kinda just wanted to capitalize on Nintendo's plug in play success but either didn't have time or didn't think they'd need to polish the PS Classic like Nintendo did for it's consoles. I also think Sony's just a victim of the times since a lot of early 3d games don't really hold up well thanks to retroactively bizarre controls and cameras.
In regards to the PS Classic specifically, I think Sony kinda just wanted to capitalize on Nintendo's plug in play success but either didn't have time or didn't think they'd need to polish the PS Classic like Nintendo did for it's consoles. I also think Sony's just a victim of the times since a lot of early 3d games don't really hold up well thanks to retroactively bizarre controls and cameras.
