• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Thing That Transformed Gaming Most Was the Original PlayStation, Says Ex-Activision CEO

nowhat

Member
And that boys and girls is how Playstation was really born! Nintendo was even warned this could happen because Nintendo had to show Sony how the Nintendo operating system worked so, the drive could connect to it! When Nintendo backed out of the deal all Sony needed was new keys (OS) to run what is now the PSX. Basically, Nintendo handed its keys over to Sony on how to get the engine started.
...the fuck are you talking about?

Sony was developing a CD addon for SNES. The sound chip of which (SNES, not the addon - yeah, go look it up), may I add, was developed by Ken Kutaragi. So Kutaragi was in the deal. Then because of license issues (Sony wanted the publishing rights for CD games), Nintendo went with Philips. And that leads up to... well, the CD-i Zelda games. Which are kinda awesome, in their own right.

But PSX was started from scratch. It had nothing to do with SNES, or "the engine". Just Kutaragi insisting that a console be made.

 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
The other scam everyone seems to be OK with for some reason is digital games costing the same as physical games, even though it's saving the publisher money on needing to press discs, booklets, physical shipping and stocking fee. They're still exactly the same price for the customer.

More people need to make a fuss about this.
That was originally strong-armed by GameStop when they were the “go-to” place. They threatened both MS and Sony that they would reduce their shelf space and placements if they charged less for digital games.

Look what happened to PC games once steam came out. They gave then a title rack to eventually phasing them out completely over time.

Unfortunately now, they’ve conditioned us to accept those pricing models. Savvy or budgeted people who can control FOMO just wait for sales. Especially for games you’re on the fence over.
 

phant0m

Member
Saturn is the greatest console in console history.
Frustrated World Cup GIF
 

Wildebeest

Member
The Saturn was full of these too, specially the processors...

It sank
I think you are overstating how behind the pack the Saturn was, but the real 32 bit processors that really started to transform gaming were Intel's Pentium chips which bought more than just "32 bit".
 

Idleyes

Gold Member
nintendo-playstation-01-scaled.jpg

Sony originally wanted to do a addon CD device for SNES. It eventually fell through. This is why we now have PlayStation.

(Although yes, Sony was kinda being a dick as well, it's a long story - but in the end, Nintendo shafted Sony, Ken Kutaragi wouldn't let it go, and now we have a PlayStation. In part, due to Nintendo.)

So in a nutshell Sony was always a hardware boss. Nintendo, being both a hardware and software kingpin but using Sony's hardware for audio at the time, was like, nah, we good bruh. Then Sony, being a real Gangsta, said, ‘Bitch say what? We gone sell both hardware and software. Y’all ain’t ready for the smoke. Thus the PlayStation was born from hurt feelings turned vengeance.
Xlvt69y.gif


Fun note: Sony currently owns New Jack city.
 
Last edited:
So in a nutshell Sony was always a hardware boss. Nintendo, being both a hardware and software kingpin but using Sony's hardware for audio at the time, was like, nah, we good bruh. Then Sony, being a real Gangsta, said, ‘Bitch say what? We gone sell both hardware and software. Y’all ain’t ready for the smoke. Thus the PlayStation was born from hurt feelings turned vengeance.
Xlvt69y.gif


Fun note: Sony currently owns New Jack city.

Sony already tried strongarming Nintendo with that deal. They already had Nintendo by the balls.

This wasn't vengeance, but pure petty domination. (Of course no company was innocent of this. Sony simply drew first blood and ended up winning.)
 

nowhat

Member
PlayStation brought those things together into something special. I had a cd drive and a 32 bit processor in my PC and it was nowhere near as fun at the time as my PlayStation.
Growing up, I was always the "computer guy" among my siblings (I wonder why). So when it came to picking up our next "home computer" (a PC, basically), I was up for the task. What we ended up getting was a glorious 486/33 - the multimedia variant, of course, with a single-speed CD-ROM drive, because of Ultima Underworld. You younguns don't know what you have nowadays. (and for the record, Underworld still rocks to this date)

...but when us siblings got a PSX for xmas, that blew everything out of the water. Crash 3, but especially Tekken 3. Arguably Tekken has been the same since 3, but that doesn't matter. 3 was fucking awesome.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
Growing up, I was always the "computer guy" among my siblings (I wonder why). So when it came to picking up our next "home computer" (a PC, basically), I was up for the task. What we ended up getting was a glorious 486/33 - the multimedia variant, of course, with a single-speed CD-ROM drive, because of Ultima Underworld. You younguns don't know what you have nowadays. (and for the record, Underworld still rocks to this date)

...but when us siblings got a PSX for xmas, that blew everything out of the water. Crash 3, but especially Tekken 3. Arguably Tekken has been the same since 3, but that doesn't matter. 3 was fucking awesome.
Long live the turbo button. I was always the computer guy, too. But I was the only one who used it. I bought my first 386 desktop in 89 but I didn't have in internal CD drive until I upgraded to a 486 a few years after. Until I got the 486 I installed all of my games from floppies. PC gaming was a challenging minefield during that time and I think the trauma of the 90's still kind of mars the reputation of PC gaming today.

But yeah, I fired up the PS1 for the first time I was blown away. I bought Tekken 1 and Wipeout and I was in love with gaming all over again. Tekken 3 was my favorite PS1 game. I still have my bleemcast disk to play the game on my Dreamcast. Despite having 32-bit processors and CD's in my life for years leading up to its launch what the PS1 did was way better than what I could do with my PC. PS1 and PS2 are the reasons I still buy consoles despite not really needing to. That feeling when I pick up the controller is thanks to PS1. It's why I will always have a PlayStation for as long as I play games.
 

Crunchbox

Neo Member
Let's put aside the fact for a moment that it's a futile endeavour to try to single out one "thing" that changed gaming the "most", you could make a much better argument for "online" to be that thing. Hell, you could probably make a better argument for "home consoles" being that thing, seeing how gaming would probably not gone very far if it had been stuck at the arcade.

So this is both a very stupid question as well as a pretty stupid answer.
Nah ps1 and then the ps2 doubled down on gaming elevation to hollywood movie, pop star tier S rank. Gaming was e rank and the when sony came in its rank was reevaluated into s rank. Sony was solo leveling. The Micheal jordan of consoles. Nintendo is the old crusty larry bird celtics. Nothing changed the game more like micheal jordan and sony.
 

Wulfer

Member
...the fuck are you talking about?

Sony was developing a CD addon for SNES. The sound chip of which (SNES, not the addon - yeah, go look it up), may I add, was developed by Ken Kutaragi. So Kutaragi was in the deal. Then because of license issues (Sony wanted the publishing rights for CD games), Nintendo went with Philips. And that leads up to... well, the CD-i Zelda games. Which are kinda awesome, in their own right.

But PSX was started from scratch. It had nothing to do with SNES, or "the engine". Just Kutaragi insisting that a console be made.


I did and I remember it too.

It was during Olafsson's time that Sony worked to establish a relationship with Nintendo to create a peripheral that would allow the Super NES to play CD games. The company also worked on creating a Sony-branded device that would play both SNES games and SNES-CD games. A falling out at the Consumer Electronics Show in 1991 broke the companies apart, but not before 200 of the prototype Play Stations were created.

https://screenrant.com/nintendo-sony-playstation-hybrid-prototype-dan-diebold/

Sony was commissioned to design a working CD game that Nintendo could sale and Sony could get royalties on CD music and hardware costs. Nintendo got scared when Sony was about to not only make the unit work but, wanted to make some royalties off the games too. This was a deal breaker for Nintendo. It was then that Nintendo went to Philips and basically told Sony to fuck off. Sony having made a basic barebones console that had a working CD drive just needed to add a different operating system (one not patented by Nintendo specially).
 
Last edited:

Celine

Member
With 3D graphics and a standard controller that only had a d-pad and no analogue stick...

PS1 was indeed revolutionary because it was the first console with a successful execution of a third-party driven approach.
Before it the leading console manufacturers (Atari, Nintendo, Sega) were companies that built their fortune on videogames hence followed a first-party driven approach for their platforms.
Nintendo still operates this way while all the other pure videogame companies with platform business of the early phases died off after external mega corporations like Sony and Microsoft put their weight behind ventures into the console business.

Activision predates the NES. They may actually be the oldest American publisher of games that still thrives today.
Activision was the first third-party publisher for consoles in the World and had many successes on Atari VCS (Pitfall above all).
Of course Kotick's Activision is another beast and began life in the '90s.

It's true and Ken Kutaragi is the most influential person in the industry.
Ken Kutaragi admitted in his diary that he was influenced by the Famicom/NES success and by witnessing the develpment of Sony's System G for the conceptualization of what would become the PS1.
 
Last edited:
There was alot of games for the ps1 not just for kids but adults alike

Tekken 1 & 2
Bloody roar
Tenchu
Syphon filter
Metal gear solid
Ridge racer type 4
Gran turismo
Toca racing 1 & 2
Colin mcrae
Final fantasy
Destruction derby 1 & 2
Micro machines
Grandtheft auto 1 & 2 even gta London
R type
Premier manager

And many many more
 
Last edited:

baphomet

Member
I did and I remember it too.


Sony having made a basic barebones console that had a working CD drive just needed to add a different operating system (one not patented by Nintendo specially).

That's not how it worked. The add-on wouldn't have had the necessary parts to operate alone. The Nintendo PlayStation IS a SNES, including Nintendo's proprietary chips. They wouldn't just be able to make their own OS and use it.
 

A.Romero

Member
With 3D graphics and a standard controller that only had a d-pad and no analogue stick...

PS1 was indeed revolutionary because it was the first console with a successful execution of a third-party driven approach.
Before it the leading console manufacturers (Atari, Nintendo, Sega) were companies that built their fortune on videogames hence followed a first-party driven approach for their platforms.
Nintendo still operates this way while all the other pure videogame companies with platform business of the early phases died off after external mega corporations like Sony and Microsoft put their weight behind ventures into the console business.


Activision was the first third-party publisher for consoles in the World and had many successes on Atari VCS (Pitfall above all).
Of course Kotick's Activision is another beast and began life in the '90s.


Ken Kutaragi admitted in his diary that he was influenced by the Famicom/NES success and by witnessing the develpment of Sony's System G for the conceptualization of what would become the PS1.
Ok?

He was the one pushing for ps to exist and he provided the identity that pretty much created the industry as it is right now.
 

nowhat

Member
Long live the turbo button.
Honestly, everything should have a turbo button. Not that it would necessarily do any difference (even back then it often felt it didn't), but just, any appliance, add a button that says "TURBO". And then you can press it. It would be satisfying.
 

nowhat

Member
Sony having made a basic barebones console that had a working CD drive just needed to add a different operating system (one not patented by Nintendo specially).
"A different operating system" is underselling it. We're talking about completely different hardware. Yeah, Sony had the whole SNES compatibility thing going, because they were working with Nintendo, but instead they had to come up with not only the operating system, but the actual hardware as well.
 
Last edited:

Effigenius

Member
The other scam everyone seems to be OK with for some reason is digital games costing the same as physical games, even though it's saving the publisher money on needing to press discs, booklets, physical shipping and stocking fee. They're still exactly the same price for the customer.

More people need to make a fuss about this.
the big one is the retailer cut. When Sony or MS or Nintendo do sells a physical $60 game on Amazon or GameStop or wherever, they get about $35. When they sell a digital $60 game they get $60. They are ripping gamers off in a big way. And gamers happily bend over and assume the position for them.
 
Last edited:

Ozzie666

Member
Very rarely does something turn an industry on it's head. Sony and the PS1 increased the overall install base significantly from Sega and Nintendo and remaining poor companies like Atari and 3D0. Between the PS1, Saturn and N64 what roughly 150M consoles sold, not including Gameboy series?

Other than the Wii and it's Blue ocean market, the install base as remained pretty consistent. That's with the removal of dedicated hand helds. Even the 360/P63 gen had a peak of 280M consoles? Current market is stagnant and eating itself and that is without the hand helds.

From the eyes of a 3 party publisher, I can understand his comments. Barbaric practices were tosse aside by Sony, who welcomed 3rd parties. PS1 or Sony's change in how business was done, take your pick. They are both one in the same.

But he isn't wrong really.
 
I did and I remember it too.



https://screenrant.com/nintendo-sony-playstation-hybrid-prototype-dan-diebold/

Sony was commissioned to design a working CD game that Nintendo could sale and Sony could get royalties on CD music and hardware costs. Nintendo got scared when Sony was about to not only make the unit work but, wanted to make some royalties off the games too. This was a deal breaker for Nintendo. It was then that Nintendo went to Philips and basically told Sony to fuck off. Sony having made a basic barebones console that had a working CD drive just needed to add a different operating system (one not patented by Nintendo specially).


Not completely true.

Sony/Kutaragi begged Nintendo to agree to the CD-ROM deal, but they refused, until Sony promised they wouldn't use it to manufacture games.

Nintendo unwittingly signed away ALL software royalties and oversight with that contract, not to mention basically granting Sony permission to manufacture and sell their own hybrid consoles, effectively using and cutting off Nintendo.

Very rarely does something turn an industry on it's head. Sony and the PS1 increased the overall install base significantly from Sega and Nintendo and remaining poor companies like Atari and 3D0. Between the PS1, Saturn and N64 what roughly 150M consoles sold, not including Gameboy series?

Other than the Wii and it's Blue ocean market, the install base as remained pretty consistent. That's with the removal of dedicated hand helds. Even the 360/P63 gen had a peak of 280M consoles? Current market is stagnant and eating itself and that is without the hand helds.

From the eyes of a 3 party publisher, I can understand his comments. Barbaric practices were tosse aside by Sony, who welcomed 3rd parties. PS1 or Sony's change in how business was done, take your pick. They are both one in the same.

But he isn't wrong really.

Well, Sony didn't exactly remain benevolent to be fair, though they did change things in a more favorable way.
 

cireza

Member
I don't think that PS1 particularly extended the market to adults. The MegaDrive was already clearly targeting this audience.

What it did succeed at is growing the player base through marketing.
 
Top Bottom