28th August 2009, 12:34 AM
The PlayStation featured 1,239 NTSC releases.
The numbers tell a dramatically different tale.
US SALES
NES: 34M
PSX: 41M
NUMBER OF GAMES RELEASED IN NORTH AMERICA
NES: 794
PSX: 1,239
RATIO OF AVAILABLE TITLES:CONSOLE SALES
NES: 23:1
PSX: 30:1
The numbers, insofar as 'flooding' is concerned, are quite similar. Factor that the PlayStation faced strong competition and the NES did not, and you have two consoles that 'flooded' at a very comparable rate.
As for your claim that the NES left behind a healthy industry and the PlayStation did not, that's absolutely absurd. The PlayStation left behind a market that was able to support three major successful consoles for over five years. The 16 Bit era (and 32, for that matter) could never support a major third player. The NES left behind a healthier industry than it found at the beginning, though the industry in 1985 was as dead as Tony Randall.
That the smaller third-party developers died or were absorbed is actually indicative of a stronger market. If five hundred companies on a licensed format are able to compete, it means that none of them are doing particularly well and that general sales as a whole are low enough that the risk/reward ratio for making a new game is basically even. A strong market demands either great resource or great risk. The power third-parties of today were all small at some point, but were able to parlay risk into great success and build upon it. The ones that vanished were the ones that failed to do this. It's natural economics. Even on a macro scale, corporations will consolidate as the overall market expands.
The numbers tell a dramatically different tale.
US SALES
NES: 34M
PSX: 41M
NUMBER OF GAMES RELEASED IN NORTH AMERICA
NES: 794
PSX: 1,239
RATIO OF AVAILABLE TITLES:CONSOLE SALES
NES: 23:1
PSX: 30:1
The numbers, insofar as 'flooding' is concerned, are quite similar. Factor that the PlayStation faced strong competition and the NES did not, and you have two consoles that 'flooded' at a very comparable rate.
As for your claim that the NES left behind a healthy industry and the PlayStation did not, that's absolutely absurd. The PlayStation left behind a market that was able to support three major successful consoles for over five years. The 16 Bit era (and 32, for that matter) could never support a major third player. The NES left behind a healthier industry than it found at the beginning, though the industry in 1985 was as dead as Tony Randall.
That the smaller third-party developers died or were absorbed is actually indicative of a stronger market. If five hundred companies on a licensed format are able to compete, it means that none of them are doing particularly well and that general sales as a whole are low enough that the risk/reward ratio for making a new game is basically even. A strong market demands either great resource or great risk. The power third-parties of today were all small at some point, but were able to parlay risk into great success and build upon it. The ones that vanished were the ones that failed to do this. It's natural economics. Even on a macro scale, corporations will consolidate as the overall market expands.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR