December 3rd, 1994 the PS1 released in Japan and started Sony's venture into the the gaming hardware business
The PlayStation Brand turns 28 today!
- Thread starter RE4-Station
- Start date
I imagine the Christmas rush must have been incredible for a brand new console back then.
They had a relatively low start, people was somewhat skeptical about a new brand joining the market. Many others tried making their own console and failed. They ended being more successful than any previous console before, but back then many gamers hated the new technologies like CD, 3D visuals or having a new competitor in the hardware side (they prefered no loading times, 2D sprite based visuals and Nintendo/Sega, what they were used to), in the same way now it's seen NFT gaming, GaaS, lootboxes, Sony games getting a PC port etc.
Many gamers also hated analog controls when were added later in PS because thought dpad was more precise and fast for 2D games.
Last edited:
Actually, I wouldn't say gamers hated those new technologies, or preferred cartridges to the point of picking them up over a CD system that was otherwise better.
It's just that very few of the consoles and add-ons of that time implemented CDs or 3D in a way that felt meaningful. Sega/Mega CD and PC-Engine CD basically used CDs for either FMV games with weak gameplay, or Redbook audio for game OSTs. The games themselves were often no bigger or longer than what you got with cartridges outside of those things which, due to limited hardware support for decompression at the time, meant the data itself had to be quite a lot bigger on storage medium.
3D was somewhat similar; systems like Super Nintendo/SFC and Genesis/MegaDrive had some rudimentary 3D games on them, but not much which signaled a generational leap. Some of the other 3D games, like those with prerendered 3D graphics, were basically new coats of paint on tried-and-true 2D action-platformer games. And to add onto that, 3D accelerator carts like the VDP chip in Virtua Racing for MegaDrive, or SVP-powered SNES games, were pretty costly. Earlier 3D consoles like the 3DO were way too expensive to gain mainstream support, and consoles that billed themselves as being "next-gen" at the time like the Atari Jaguar had very little to show for it which that didn't look like slightly better-looking SNES & Genesis games.
People who had a PC or microcomputer at the time, though, before PS1 came out, already were getting quite a lot of benefits from CD-based games and seeing the potential of 3D with games like DOOM, Alone In The Dark and System Shock. But PC gaming was heavily different from console gaming back then, not a lot of crossover between the player bases. I don't think gamers back then were "against" 3D or CDs because they weren't inherently predatory technologies to siphon money from them the way NFTs, lootboxes etc are seen as today (mainly because that's what they've turned out to be). Both were somewhat well understood to be enablers for bigger & more innovative games, people just wanted a console to come along that could actually help realize that in a sensible, mass-market way.
That's what the PlayStation (and to a lesser extent, the N64 and Saturn) helped do, but you're right that in Japan it didn't start out dominating; it was a very competitive 2nd with Sega Saturn until I think around the latter half of 1996 where PS1 started pulling ahead, and by the time FF VII released it was over, it was a clear performer ahead of Saturn from that point onward. However, you're also right in way regarding 3D, because at least in Japan 2D games continued to do very well, same with arcade ports in general. That's one of the reasons Saturn stayed competitive there for a little while.
Even in Japan, though, there was never a 'hate' for 3D; globally anyone who was going to arcades at the time pretty much fell in love with games like Daytona USA, Virtua Racing, Tekken, Star Wars Acade, Virtua Fighter, Virtua Fighter 2, Ace Driver Victory Lap etc. all 3D games. But before 5th-gen if you wanted good performing 3D games that actually felt like they were doing something useful with the third dimension, you either had to go to the arcade or get a computer, leaning towards the former. So I'd say there was maybe more so 'pessimism' for 3D with console gamers prior to 5th gen, but that was only in relation to expecting acceptable 3D on a home console, not towards 3D in general.
Even if the games themselves where the same, back then CD quality OST and cutscenes were very impressive and CDs allowed cheaper pricing for customers and, way lower costs for devs and way faster production for platform holders. The only con were the awful loading times.
It took time for devs to take advantage for game themselves to use the extra space in games, because it also caused obviously a budget increase: now they were able to include way more enemies, stages, songs, videos, voice dubs, etc.
The visual quality of 8 and 16 bit 3D games was too poor, but starting with Wipeout, Ridge Racer, Daytona USA, Tekken, Virtua Fighter 2 they started to become mainstream, people started to prefer them over 2D even if many still hated them and prefered sprite based games during many years.
I mean, since many years ago mobile gaming has way more players and generates more money than console or PC but many consoles and PC players still hate mobile. Same happens with GaaS and F2P: many people hate them but a majority of the market revenue comes from GaaS and F2P, and way over half of the players play them.
It's starting to happen with NFT/play to earn games: gamers used to something see a new tech/business model/paradigm shift as something evil that could possibly replace what they love so as a result they strongly hate it, when there's no reason.
Dpads still work even if they added dual analogs everywhere, paid games and no GaaS continue even if GaaS and F2P dominate the market, 2D sprite based games still exist even if 3D dominates the market, cartridge games still exist even if disk based games dominate (in console, PC and mobile went to almost digital only but consoles still have a big portion of retail sales).
Still don't know if I really agree with this, because the question I would ask is, what benefits to helping improve game design, do NFTs bring? In what ways do they enable better distribution of games that benefits the end customer?
I'm having a very tough time coming up with answers to either. AFAIK NFTs create fully-realized unique instances of digital objects in a digital marketplace where actual monetary value is placed on them. So if a digital item is said to be rare, then only a handful or simply one instance of them should exist in a verified matter within the global digital marketplace, and the price value will reflect that. It's also supposed to enable better authentication of digital assets, and enable affixation of monetary value based on measurable metrics of that item (like who specifically does it come from, what that person's Gamerscore may be as another example, etc.), at least to my knowledge.
But all of that seems based on rarity determining value, and maybe certain player/customer data also helping determine the way an NFT functions in the digital marketplace. It also sounds really meta, though I understand NFTs can be applied to game-specific ecosystems as well. Still though, what are any examples where they can be used to benefit game design, or make for better, easier & cheaper end costs for players? I haven't seen any arguments touching on those particular type of benefits.
I do agree with the idea that even supposing NFTs take off, they won't replace the other forms of software distribution or marketplaces we have today. There'll still be the option to buy a game physically or digitally, for example.
But, will devs be forced by publishers to artificially limit the availability of certain digital items to make them more valuable in real-world monetary value, due to NFTs? Will publishers REALLY let people resell digital items to other people (one of the few chief benefits of NFTs I've seen discussed) in digital marketplaces due to NFTs, or will they try suppressing that as much as possible if a publisher sees it as a threat to potential post-launch add-on revenue through selling new NFT item instances? I think those questions are still going to be concerns for a bit.
That said...kinda funny we veered into this while celebrating PS1's birthday
. We can probably continue the topic in another thread or through messages if mods want the thread to get back on track.
Close enough to the 30 year mark now, I really hope the new directions....the GAAS stuff and PC ports don't hurt the brand too much before then (or after).
I hope PlayStation open up to having big events again, I would really love to attend one finally and they need to embrace the community IMO.
It would be the perfect opportunity for that.
I hope PlayStation open up to having big events again, I would really love to attend one finally and they need to embrace the community IMO.
It would be the perfect opportunity for that.
NFT is a technology, and play to earn is a business model. As happened with any other previous big business model and technologies by themselves they don't provide benefits to game design or distribution of games. It will depend on how platform holders, publishers and devs use them.
The main concept is that an NFT is an owner license of a game item and that you can sell it to other user using an unhackable secure system and that data base is stored outside the game (let's say Minecraft) and platform (let's say PSN) servers or store. This means that if a game dies and later ressurects by the company or by the fans you'd keep your items if implemented in that way. Or that you could buy and sell stuff of this game using other store that supports that specific NFT type and isn't owned by the original platform holder, etc.
NFT allows many possible options, which will depend on how they are implemented. As an example, they could be used to allow 2nd hand market for digital game items: from loot that you don't want to use, to items or characters you customized or leveled up, to game objects, characters, minigames or other stuff you created in a game like Minecraft or Dreams, to dlcs or even your full game copy. If multiple platform holders agree -I think it won't happen-, they could use the same NFT system for games to allow that you can buy a game in a platform (let's say PSN) and use that game license to use it in other platform (Nintendo). Or the same with in-game items. Or if the devs from different games implement it-I think it won't happen-, to share game items from a game to another.
NFTs can include some metadata, like to know that you own the first or one of the first copies of that game or item, which could give it more value. Or can have a certificate of who users previously owned it, so a game copy or game item could have more value because certain people you value/celebrity owned it (think maybe a top eSports player or popular streamer, let's say the winner of the world finals of a game wants to sell his blue shotgun that did use to win an epic final, and even if ingame would act exactly like the other blue shotguns you'd have a certificate that this is one is the one he owned).
In that second hand market the dev/platform owner can apply revenue cuts: let's say you pay $10 to buy a 2nd hand game and they define that the platform holder gets 5% from the transaction, the publisher 10% of the transaction, the previous owners of that game copy split on equal parts 5% of that transaction and the player who sells it gets 80% of that transaction. Or same for game items.
The blockchain/NFT system kills 2nd hand grey market of games, game accounts or gam items and gives the platform holder, publisher, developer and players money. So game makers would be happy to have an extra revenue source, that if grows enough would mean that they wouldn't need to focus on game sale/DLC/season pass/IAP monetization.
If that happens, means that players who are poor and can't pay for paid games/DLC/IAP now would be able to play with the rest of the people, so would highly increase the gamer population as F2P games did, particularly the ones that were for web browsers and mobile games.
In fact, if the game gives you anything that you could sell to other players (let's say loot, XP, customized, leveled up weapons or characters, skins, user generated content of any kind, etc) you as player could earn money by selling games or game items. Very likely in most cases an amount of people that would be little for the average people in rich countries, but that for some people and specially in poor countries would mean that you could earn more money by playing than in a normal job, something that is already happening.
If well done, games could be designed to do this while not making the games focused -at least not too much- on looting, grinding, without requiring hundreds of hours to produce great stuff, etc. These are only some possibilities, and there are way more that we still can't imagine.
It's a huge paradigm shift with a future full of possibilities. But the main concept is that would be way less centralized allowing easier game preservation, and specially that you could earn money by playing or at least selling in a digital 2nd hand market game items that could include even normal games or dlc.
So in the same way people now prefers to play for free over to play after paying, it's safe to think that in the future people will prefer to earn money from playing or selling digital games or game items than to don't earn it.
It's basically a 2nd hand free market, like with physical items: players set the price, so they decide how they much they value stuff and why. Rarity is only one of them.
I mean, let's say it's the Michael Jordan tshirts. You can buy now one in a store, and it has a price. Buying an older one from the edition of a specific year may be more expensive because some fans may value it more for some reason. But if you buy the specific one that he was wearing on some NBA finals it's going to be way more expensive because collectors would pay a lot for it.
All these tshirts are basically the same and do the same. But for whatever reasons people value more ones over the others and pay more for it. I mean, even there's may be another tshirt that is the same but from other player or not from the Chicago Bulls, with other colors or stuff drawn there, but other than that being essentially the same tshirt.
NFTs first add a secure digital 2nd half market that allows players, game makers, platform holders get a cut (or not) from it. And second does it in a way that allows players give these items some extra value (or not) that they can consider.
I think that in the same way that F2P didn't replace paid games and in fact, it did help grow the paid games market because added billions of players to gaming, play to earn/NFT games won't replace F2P or paid games.
In fact I think they'll add their own new extra market segment that will be on top of the already existing one from paid games and F2P games segments. Which I think that will grow thanks to NFTs.
Or well, in the same way that mobile gaming did help grow the gaming market as a whole and particularly the pc and console one by adding a lot of new users.
No, NFT is only an ownership certification of a specific item. Everything else is optional, so platform holders, publishers or game devs decide what they want to do. They may decide to make certain items limited, or to produce unlimited units of them, or even allow players to produce items by themselves. Same goes with pricing: they may make them free, set a price themselves or -something common now- to allow players freely choose pricing when selling it to each other, or to have a bidding system.
I think like in every market most may do crappy implementations and have crappy ideas, and other few ones will do great implementations or ideas. And over time they'll keep iterating until they find the sweet spot for both players and game devs. We're years away from seeing this to become something somewhat relevant.
Right now there are NFT implementations for digital items like illustrations where from each user to user transaction there is a percentage that goes for the platform holder/store, a percentage for the original creator (publisher/dev in the case of games), a percentage for the user who is selling and depending on the type, also a percentage to split between the previous userss who owned it.Will publishers REALLY let people resell digital items to other people (one of the few chief benefits of NFTs I've seen discussed) in digital marketplaces due to NFTs, or will they try suppressing that as much as possible if a publisher sees it as a threat to potential post-launch add-on revenue through selling new NFT item instances? I think those questions are still going to be concerns for a bit.
That said...kinda funny we veered into this while celebrating PS1's birthday
This means that publishers will get money for players selling stuff to each other, which means 'free' revenue/profit for them. Until now they didn't like 2nd hand market because they didn't get money from it, but NFT allows that.
This means that publishers will not only want players to sell their own stuff, but also if they are smart they'll try to provide ways in the game where the players can produce stuff with enough value for players worth to be sold, and if possible for as much money as possible and if possible that makes sense to sell it many times from one to another.
The thing is that since this business model will be outside the game, publishers and devs will want their games to be fun by themselves and to have valuable content to keep that game and content relevant. So pretty likely they'll in many cases make the game free to play and reduce or remove DLC/IAP/season passess/etc.
All I could think of when you asked this was about the history of monetization in the industry. Remember the sweet, simple times when DLC was the big controversy? Which led to suspicions of content being cut from games to sell as DLC (confirmed in some cases - eg. the ending of Asura's Wrath was sold as DLC), on-disc DLC, etc. Still, DLC became standard and even led to the ability to sell a game more than once in the form of GoTY and complete editions.
Then we have MTX. It started small - skins and things like that. But gradually escalated to MTX providing in-game advantages against other players, Time Savers, etc. All which impacted game design. Eventually lootboxes were implemented and became so egregious that several countries investigated them for breaking gambling laws and were outright banned in others for doing so. And finally we have Season Passes, GAAS (which led to an increase in releasing broken games with a fix-it later mentality), Battle Passes, in-game stores, and other introductions of free to play game mechanics in paid games.
I think monetization and its history is one the reasons people have a wary or negative opinion on NFTs. Such practices have often proven to be quite lucrative for publishers and share holders, but detrimental to games and the people who play them. Time will tell, of course, but there is a distinct possibility this is yet another monetization scheme which adds nothing while costing quite a lot.
Last edited:
Man, I forgot about one of my favorite series. It's a forgone conclusion that I played lots of Tekken, all day all night. Everybody played Tekken at each others homes. Even those guys who use to spam Paul's hammer fist, to those spamming Eddie Gordo, Angel and Gon's moves.....Those were the days...
OP
OP
I used to drive everyone crazy in the first Tekken using Yoshimitsu or Kunimitsu and doing the spinning kick, but keeping track to never get to the point where you get dizzy and fall over, and doing it again before my opponent could recover, rinse and repeat.
I distinctly remember going to a friend's house who's older brother had brought home his playstation from his college dorm around 1997.
Seeing games like need for speed 2 and others in action was amazing at the time. All I was used to was my sega genesis, so going from 2d to 3d was mind-blowing.
Afterwards, I had to get one myself. I got one eventually that Christmas, but man did it feel like forever waiting at the time.
Seeing games like need for speed 2 and others in action was amazing at the time. All I was used to was my sega genesis, so going from 2d to 3d was mind-blowing.
Afterwards, I had to get one myself. I got one eventually that Christmas, but man did it feel like forever waiting at the time.
I was 12 years old and very addictive to games already.
It was awesome to see the ridiculous fast grow that shaken the game industry.
It basically beat Sega from the go and put the Nintendo supremacy in check… the amount of time to finally release N64 set Nintendo to have consoles selling less than 30 million units for generations (until Wii) to be the side player instead of MVP for the first time.
It was awesome to see the ridiculous fast grow that shaken the game industry.
It basically beat Sega from the go and put the Nintendo supremacy in check… the amount of time to finally release N64 set Nintendo to have consoles selling less than 30 million units for generations (until Wii) to be the side player instead of MVP for the first time.