Which Games' Erasings Would Cause The Biggest Domino Effect?

[Tangerine]

Gaming probably would've been reintroduced in the west without Nintendo (although it wouldn't be as prevalent or as up to date as the east), I'll give you that.

As far as the videogame market in the west goes, I'd like to point out that it was Sony that made gaming mainstream, not Nintendo. Without Nintendo it probably would not have been revived at the time that it was, but in the end it was Sony that removed the "nerd" stigma of gaming, as everyone and their mother had a PS1 and PS2*. With that in mind, it was Nintendo's group of boneheads that got Sony into the gaming industry, so it's unclear whether Sony would have eventually gotten into it without Nintendo around to be boneheads or not. If so, there should be no doubt that gaming would be revived in NA and Europe in some form. And like now, Microsoft would eventually follow if Sony were able to achieve the same success they did in this timeline. With Sony and Microsoft around, I don't think there is much doubt that gaming would be fine.

*For comparison:

NES: 61 million worldwide

SNES: 50 million worldwide

N64: 33 million worldwide

GameCube: 21 million worldwide

PS1: 102 million worldwide

PS2: 170 million worldwide

Note: Of the top 5 best selling consoles of all time, #1(PS2), #2(PS1) and #5(PS3) are Sony's.

What these numbers prove is that Sony did NOT need Nintendo to be popular in order to achieve those sales numbers (The N64 sold a paltry 33 million units). Which means that it could, theoretically, do similar (but obviously worse) numbers if Nintendo had died and Sony still got into the industry, which would severely diminish the severity of this domino effect. Sony already had a hand in gaming, they just didn't make a console until Nintendo slapped them in the face. The only real question is if they would've gotten into it regardless eventually or not. Even if Sony's PlayStations sold half of their current numbers and Nintendo never existed, it would be considered a 'revival' of gaming akin to the NES' own. Thus, by extension, Mario's existence is not necessarily integral. We'd probably be hailing Crash Bandicoot as the savior of gaming.

And seriously video games - any Nintendo influence = bad

I disagree. I think it'd be different, but I don't think it'd be bad.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Tangerine

[Raven]

Gran Turismo.

That set the bar for many driving games from GT1 onwards.

[Ike-Mike]

The first two Playstations only sold so well because they came out during a time of an economic upturn where more people could afford a new console and multiple console ownership was becoming a common thing and population increase.

That and the Playstation was the first console to get the same level of support worldwide instead of lessend support in Europe in Nintendo's and Japan in Sega's case.

So it's more like Sony united every previously established gamer under one flag rather than expanding gaming.

Atari and Nintendo have been the ones actively and aggresively pursuing gaming expansion.

If anything gaming was originally mainstream and the 'nerd' stigma followed years after. After all, the original location of the first video game to make it big, PONG, was a pub, a normal place where normal people go after finishing their normal job to spend their normal spare time.

Anyway, Street Fighter II and its many sequels and rereleases would make for one nice domino pile.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Ike-Mike

[Tangerine]

The first two Playstations only sold so well because they came out during a time of an economic upturn where more people could afford a new console and multiple console ownership was becoming a common thing and population increase.

That and the Playstation was the first console to get the same level of support worldwide instead of lessend support in Europe in Nintendo's and Japan in Sega's case.

So it's more like Sony united every previously established gamer under one flag rather than expanding gaming.

Atari and Nintendo have been the ones actively and aggresively pursuing gaming expansion.

If anything gaming was originally mainstream and the 'nerd' stigma followed years after. After all, the original location of the first video game to make it big, PONG, was a pub, a normal place where normal people go after finishing their normal job to spend their normal spare time.

Anyway, Street Fighter II and its many sequels and rereleases would make for one nice domino pile.

So if that's the case, why did the N64 and Saturn do so abysmally? I mean since people could afford to buy new consoles now and everyone wanted to own multiple ones, why is it that the PS1 tripled the N64's sales if it did not expand the market? Keep in mind this question is rhetorical, because the logic behind your assertion is ridiculous. The PS1 was the best selling console of all time at that point, by far. You don't nearly double the most popular console before you and "not expand the market". The PS1 was being sold and had solid software sales for eleven years. The PS2 is still enjoying videogame releases, console manufacturing and solid sales. The PS2 outsells the 360 in Japan on a weekly basis (and while the 360 is not popular there, it is still not a 12 year old system).

The reason the PS1 did so well is because it was aimed at a broad audience and Sony was extremely diligent in working with developers on their console, which resulted in third party support that dwarfed their competitors. It targeted adults, teenagers and kids. It had significantly better sales in all demographics besides very young children than any previous console before it. In other words, the PS1 expanded the gaming demographic. And the PS2 further expanded it.

It took 9 years for the PS1 to reach 100 million consoles sold. It took 5 years for the PS2 to reach 100 million. How is that not an expansion of the market?

Total consoles sold in the NES generation:

75 million

Total consoles sold in the SNES generation:

85 million

Total consoles sold in the PS1 generation:

135 million

Total consoles sold in the PS2 generation:

210 million

Total consoles sold in the current generation:

210 million

Notice how the PS1 and PS2 alone beat the entirety of the previous generations' total sales? And notice how the current generation is matching the previous, despite being in the biggest part of the economic disaster, which directly counters your assertion that the generations before it only did well because people had money. And you know what's even more amazing? The jump from the SNES generation to the PS1 generation is as big as the jump from the "dead gaming" generation to the NES.

An enormous chunk of PlayStation's success can be attributed to Europe, where no console before it had ever been able to get significant support; Europe ate up the PS brand. The PS1 and 2 had unheard of sales in the middle-east. If that is not expanding the market then I don't know what is. It is completely and utterly ridiculous to say that only Nintendo and Atari work to expand gaming. Sony did just as much, if not more. And Microsoft may be the newest of the main companies, but they are not sitting around doing nothing either.

The Wii is doing something similar, but not quite the same (and not to nearly the same effect). The Wii is attracting casual gamers to the market. The real question is if they will transfer over to the next generation the way the audience PS attracted did.

I mean I know we're on a Nintendo game forum and all, so I expect responses like this. But you know, it's okay to admit when another company does something good instead of trying to downplay it. It's kind of my job to keep up on trends in electronics . I love Nintendo as much as the next FE fangirl, but there's just no denying what Sony has done for the industry.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Tangerine

[Ike-Mike]

So if that's the case, why did the N64 and Saturn do so abysmally?

Because if it weren't then the N64 and Saturn would've done even more abysmally.

Sony was extremely diligent in working with developers on their console, which resulted in third party support that dwarfed their competitors.

Sony opened the floodgates in a way only Atari before them did and everything didn't crash and burn this time is because used game stores were actually a well established thing by then.

It targeted adults, teenagers and kids.

Just as Nintendo and Atari did especially for the adults and kids and Sega to teenagers.

It took 9 years for the PS1 to reach 100 million consoles sold. It took 5 years for the PS2 to reach 100 million. How is that not an expansion of the market?

14 years ago the world population was well under 6 billion. Now it's over 7 billion.

Notice how the PS1 and PS2 alone beat the entirety of the previous generations' total sales?

There has yet to be a console that break the 33% household penetration of the NES.

And notice how the current generation is matching the previous

It is not.

And you know what's even more amazing? The jump from the SNES generation to the PS1 generation is as big as the jump from the "dead gaming" generation to the NES.

Once again, don't judge sales just by the numbers.

An enormous chunk of PlayStation's success can be attributed to Europe, where no console before it had ever been able to get significant support; Europe ate up the PS brand. The PS1 and 2 had unheard of sales in the middle-east.

So you're agreeing with me that Sony united all previously established gamers under one banner.

Europe, the Middle East and Latin America already had an established console playerbase with Sega's stuff.

And Microsoft may be the newest of the main companies, but they are not sitting around doing nothing either.

They're gobbling up the children's demographic from Nintendo who dropped the ball midway through this generation. Furthermore they're trying to bring the PC developers back that Sony took away from them which is why they entered the console race in the first place.

The Wii is doing something similar, but not quite the same

Nintendo has been carefully evaluating the elements which made the NES and its games a rampant success, such as arcade values, and applying them. It even went so far that the golf game in Wii Sports uses the courses from the NES Golf and that we got two all-new Super Mario sidescrollers this generation.

Nintendo dropped the ball this generation exactly when they started to deviate from their NES roots with games like Mario Galaxy 2 and Metroid: Other M, as well as Wii Music showing that they completely missed the point what made Wii Sports such a success in the first place.

And they're only further proving that they've missed the point with the 3DS and DongU.

Besides, one of Nintendo's declarations when launching the Wii was to "combat disinterest in gaming." If Sony was so succesful in expanding gaming then why would Nintendo declare something like that?

(and not to nearly the same effect).

( ¬‿¬)

The Wii is attracting casual gamers to the market.

Stop using words that don't mean anything.

The real question is if they will transfer over to the next generation the way the audience PS attracted did.

They certainly didn't transfer over for the PS3.

I mean I know we're on a Nintendo game forum and all, so I expect responses like this. But you know, it's okay to admit when another company does something good instead of trying to downplay it. It's kind of my job to keep up on trends in electronics . I love Nintendo as much as the next FE fangirl, but there's just no denying what Sony has done for the industry.

Except I feel that Nintendo has been doing much wrong in recent years and I'm still refraining to buy a 3DS.

If anything, I'm a fanboy of expanding gaming.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Ike-Mike

[Tangerine]

Edit: Actually, I had a big post typed up to counter your argument, but this is turning into a stupid console wars discussion that is derailing the thread. Knock it off from now on.

Edited March 31, 2012 by Tangerine