How did Sony make good development tools (usable by even small indie teams), good performance, and internal software which is emulated easily compared to the Nintendo 64 which doesn't even run any game natively at that high of an FPS and has been since optimized by indie developers online. This doesn't seem to be as much as an issue with the NES or SNES either
>>11497676Sony literally asked developers what they wanted, and gave them what they wanted. Which is why Sony won. Nintendo did something similar, but refused to move away from cartridge format. Which turned off a lot of developers that felt cartridges didn't have enough storage space. But Nintendo still had some hit games. Sega didn't even BOTHER asking 3rd party developers what they wanted. Sega made their own thing that only appealed only to inhouse Sega Japanese development teams. They sent out broken dev kits, and told 3rd party developers to "make it work and to deal with it." That's why Saturn lost.
>>11497697>$299
>>11497676Sony was the greatest technology company in the world at the time, Nintendo was a fucking childs toy company. Do you really have to ask how Sony, the worlds no1 manufacturer of TV,s Hi-Fi's, Headphones, Stereos, Portable walkman cassette players and other audio/visual tech at the time, made a superior piece of technology than Nintendo and provided better documentation for it?
>>11497676They didn't, they bought psygnosis and had them do it for them. Nintendo and sega were toy companies with no real competition, sony was the first actual electronics company to take vidya consoles seriously so nintendo and sega never had a chance. Any problem they had they could just throw money at it until it was solved. Hardware not good enough? You have access to the best engineers in the world. Console costs too much to make? Take a huge loss on every console sold. No games? Throw money at an infinite amount of developers until one of them makes a killer app that's exclusive to your console. The transition to 3d was difficult and painful, but sony could get through the pain by outspending everyone else.
>>11497676I think Sony got a bit lucky with their hardware design for the first playstation, given the clusterfucks that the PS2 and PS3 are.Just like SEGA with the Genesis, very easy to develop for but only to end up with the Saturn as successor.> the Nintendo 64 which doesn't even run any game natively at that high of an FPSPriorities really, even early tiles run at a near 30fps (Mario 64, Turok 1). Same can be seen in the RARE games, BK runs quite smooth while BT can be a giant mess because their prioritized graphics over framerates.Also lets not pretend that the PSX is a framerate monster either, the framerate for the final fantasy games almost break in battle mode, TR struggles when it has to draw larger open areas, MSG can struggle hard in 1st person view
>>11497697>Sega didn't even BOTHER asking 3rd party developers what they wanted.From what I heard, that's false. They did, problem was the developers they talked to at first all only cared about 2D games, generally arcade style, and then later the other devs they talked to wanted 3D while the system was halfway into development.
>>11497676Sony nailed the development environment with the PlayStation by keeping things straightforward and developer-friendly from the start. They used off-the-shelf components like the MIPS R3000 CPU, which was not only powerful but also familiar to many developers. Combine that with clear documentation and a well-supported SDK, and even small indie teams could get their projects off the ground. Sony understood that ease of use translates to more games being developed, which ultimately meant more success for their console.On the other hand, the Nintendo 64 went for cutting-edge tech that was notoriously tricky to work with. The hardware itself had bottlenecks—like the limited texture cache and cartridge storage constraints—that made high-performance 3D games harder to achieve. Its proprietary hardware was also a pain to develop for unless you were a seasoned studio with experience on the platform. The choice of cartridges over CDs didn’t help; it increased costs and limited game size compared to Sony's CD-based games.As for emulation, the PlayStation's architecture, being based on relatively standard hardware, is simpler to replicate. The Nintendo 64's custom silicon, on the other hand, was far more idiosyncratic, and the emulator scene has spent years catching up. That’s why you’ll see near-perfect PS1 emulators while the N64 still has quirks and inaccuracies.Ultimately, Sony prioritized accessibility for developers, while Nintendo aimed for raw power—at the expense of usability. The NES and SNES? Much simpler systems without the 3D complexities that tripped up the N64, so they’re naturally easier to emulate.
>>11497697>They sent out broken dev kits, and told 3rd party developers to "make it work and to deal with it."What the fuck?
>>11498002>Throw money at an infinite amount of developers until one of them makes a killer app that's exclusive to your console.This strategy obviously didn't work for Microsoft.
>>11498069Sega only consulted their internal game development teams which were only 2D specialists. Except the arcade team which argued that the future was 3D games. But they were just one department, and so the majority got their way. Even the lead developer of the Saturn thought the machine should have been 3D and use arcade hardware as the base, but no one at Sega of Japan had the skills to make 3D games (except the arcade department). Reading between the lines it seems the lead developer didn't have the political support to do what he really wanted which was to use arcade hardware (specifically the Sega Model 1) for the base of the Saturn. So it became a 2D focused machine. When extremely early prototypes of the Saturn got shown) leaked to Sega of America and Sega of Europe, both SoA and SoE were fiercely against the Saturn's design. They said that the dual CPU design was underpowered and too complicated. That Western game studios would hate it. That the Saturn was too focused 2D and the dual CPUs were a bad idea. Both branches tried to get SoJ to reconsider their design, but SoJ wouldn't have it. Sega of America also tried to get to SGI to work with Sega of Japan, but SoJ said no. I won't go into details. We all know that story. SoJ said no, so SGI went to Nintendo and they worked together or make the N64.
>>11498114It did, the xbox outsold the gamecube and made nintendo go into the market of gimmicks and handhelds.
>>11497676Sony good. Tendie bad. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to find the thread to praise Nintendo and shit on Snoy
>>11498114Microsoft tried to micromanage their developers. Xbox was actually starting to do well in Japan. Lots of Otaku style games were selling in Japan on Xbox. Anime game studios started making Xbox games. Then Microsoft America Executives took a look at the report from Microsoft Japan. Then asked wtf are all these weird Otaku games and said why isn't Microsoft Japan pushing Halo? And why isn't Halo selling in Japan? Then shut down development of the popular Japanese games on Xbox and told them to push Halo. There are some funny and sad interviews about how badly Xbox was managed in Japan.
>>11498149>There are some funny and sad interviews about how badly Xbox was managed in JapanDo you remember some of them off the top of your head (as in where can I find them)?
>>11498126>so SGI went to Nintendo and they worked together or make the N64.Had SGI been sucesful with SEGA, it still would be a very different end system than the N64. No idea what we'd ended up with had SEGA gone that route. Also interesting what Nintendo would have done in case they were never approached by SGI. IS there any info on a possible snes successor before SGI happened?
>>11497676>Nintendo 64 which doesn't even run any game natively at that high of an FPSF-Zero runs at 60
>>11498286Thinking about that further, the snes sucessor might've been a Saturn like hybrid approach as well if it wasn't for SGI.
>>11497676>muh graffix >muh fpsSnoy cope never changes. Literally no one gave cared about technical performance or even knew what fps was at the time. N64 was the multi-player console, ps1 was for friendless virgins who wanted movie games like ff7.
>>11498323>ps1 was for friendless virgins who wanted movie games like ff7And running at a whopping 15fps.
>>11498323>Literally no one gave cared about technical performance or even knew what fps was at the timeThey did. I remember people praising F-Zero for running at 60fps in magazines.>PS1 was for single player gamesI had the multi tap. 4 player Speed Freaks was awesome. Bit I did play a lot more N64 multiplayer than PS1 total.
>>11498286>Also interesting what Nintendo would have done in case they were never approached by SGI. IS there any info on a possible snes successor before SGI happened?The only other viable alternative was for Nintendo work with ATI. And ATI had been in business since the late 1980s and was releasing 2D and 3D graphics accelerator cards. So I guess this alt-Nintendo 64 graphics would look like pic related
>>11497697>Which turned off a lot of developers that felt cartridges didn't have enough storage space.It was never about cart space you retard. It was always about cart quotas. The main reason why you have a billion Mario 3 carts and 100k Castlevania carts in existence is because Nintendo only allowed a certain number of carts for third party devs per quarter. If you were a publisher you had to chose how many of this quota will go to each game you publish. It was always retarded. Meanwhile Sony allowed you to order as many copies as you want and even choose the printer. All they provided were the holographic stickers on the box.
>>11497676The older consoles were much simpler to code for. Sony had a dev kit for the PS1, it was overpriced shit but they had the basic brainpower to throw it in the garbage after Psygnosis came along and showed them a much better one, which gave them the entire western market on a platter, because smaller devs in the west could afford a basic computer and a few dev cards, but a full suite of workstations would've been a bridge too far.It's legitimately comical comparing development costs and efficiency for the Saturn and the PS1. The Saturn devkit was an absolute piece of shit in all respects, which is why they saw essentially no western development, and all of Sega's goodwill from the Genesis went up in smoke because of it, and everyone happily jumped right over to Sony.
>>11497697The reason Sony 'won' is because CD games were easy to pirate and when talking about official games the N64 ones were more expensive. Dont believe me? Just look at this third worlder thread, they all say they had a PS1 because they could pirate the games.>>11493695
>>11497676>How did Sony make good development toolsThey didn't at all, Psygnosis did.
>>11498695Then why wasn't the dreamcast successful?
>>11498114>This strategy obviously didn't work for Microsoft.it worked in 6th and 7th gen.But Social Media reached its critical peak at 2012-2013 and they turned on microsoft (vidya stuff)
>>11497697>Which is why Sony won.what did sony win?
>>11498002>sony was the first actual electronics company to take vidya consoles seriouslyNever ask a westerner what the E in NEC stands for.
>>11498149Cute story but if Microsoft didnt want weird otaku games then they probably wouldnt have bought the exclusive rights to weird otaku games for their xboxes. Your version makes a funny youtube video though.
>>11498764>completely irrelevant outside of japannot an actual global electronics giant like sony
>>11498770>not an actual global electronics giant like sonyare people really still relying on moving the goalposts in 2025 and hoping the people they are talking to wont notice?
>>11498773The point is that sony had tons of resources that nintendo and sega didn't have.
>>11498671I read that as well, another issue was potential unsold stock. Not being able to sell all your carts is a huge financial burden while CDs were so cheap it mattered much less if you don't sell them all. This scared off developers as well.Limited cart sizes was not an issue most of the time
>>11498695Chipped PS1s were widespread, but the average consumer doesn't know how to solder and other than hotswapping with a specific game or ripping the disk drive out and soldering a SD card loader that's the only way to pirate PS1 games to this day.
>>11498770NEC is an electronics giant, just that their outings in the vidya market were a failure in America (and Japan too when the PCFX released).
>>11498323>ps1 was for friendless virgins who wanted movie games like ff7.>Friendless virginsDude wtf age were you in 1997? I was 8 years old, most here were around that age, of course we were virgins, our balls hadn't even dropped yet.Also "Friendless", PS1 outsold the shitendo64 and Sega Shaturn by like 5x
>>11498797Indeed, there were many loners in the 90s enjoying their 15fps FF7 game
>>11498725By the time the Dreamcast was released people had already lost faith in SEGA.
>>11498114It absolutely did. They brute forced (teehee) Xbox into the market with the most powerful machine available, built a good reputation with Halo and more and their online service (which is where gaming was heading), then completely dominated 7th gen.Then they lost their fucking minds and turned the Xbone into a set top box with motion controls to watch TV on and have been a dead and dying brand ever since.Original Xbox is and always will be peak Xbox though because they really did make an effort to bring unique and exclusive games to their console.
>>11498323>N64 was the multi-player consolemost kids never had more than 2 decent controllersshit's expensive
>>11498323>N64 was the multi-player consoleN64 had less multiplayer games, which also run worse.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp3IFG-_i9Ehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoW64SHHtCg
>>11498792The average consumer didn't need to because the local vhs repairman gladly offered modchipping services.
>>11498764Europe? Europe? Is it Europe?
>>11498290Not much to render there. FZX's graphics are pretty simple and bare
