10 Year Anniversary of PS1 Launch

1up is reporting on the anniversary this week of the original PlayStation. For many people the system represents a fundamental shift in consumer gaming. From the article: "PlayStation changed the way people played games--the way they thought about them, really. When Sony launched its console, the gaming industry was bogged down by expensive production, too many competing standards, and crippling uncertainty among the mind-share leaders. In just a few short years, PlayStation rose from that morass to become the undisputed champion of the era, not only taking the 32-bit prize but simultaneously paving the way for a comfortable lead in the following generation."

Comments

How is anything different?

[frederec]

"When Sony launched its console, the gaming industry was bogged down by expensive production, too many competing standards, and crippling uncertainty among the mind-share leaders."

Too bad nothing seems to have changed. Articles about the massive expense of making next-gen titles are common these days. Arguments over either DVD, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray or the differing architechtures of the PC, PS3, and XBox360 are also common (haven't heard much about revolution coding). Uncertainty also seems rampant, if you count that by all the sequels and cheap licenses that come out. But I feel that just like the other issues, the creativity/sequel issue is no more or less prevalent now than any other time in console life. No, what the PS1 did what is propelled games into the mainstream. Though it's awful cliche, the PS1 made it cool for the MTV crowd to play games.

Re:How is anything different?

[MBCook]

As for the "expensive production", I don't think they meant games as a whole, but copies.

Before the PlayStation (and Saturn, which never took off in the Sates and ended up a black sheep in my opinion), games came on carts. SNES carts, NES carts, Genesis carts.

Carts cost money. While back then it may have cost 10 cents to press a CD (just a guess), it cost $10 for a cart (again, a guess). And the more memory you put on, the more expensive the cart (remember the ads about how much data was packed into Donkey Kong Country?). With a CD, it didn't matter if you put 50 megs or 650 megs on, it cost the same.

You press a CD, then you sell it.

You burn the ROM chips for a cart. Then you make the circuit boards. Then you solder the two together. Then you add the little battery for saved games. Then you put in in the plastic cart. Then you label it. Then you sell it. Did I mention that Nintendo did all this so you had to pay them to do it?

The difference is in where the expense is: at the front (design, programming, etc) or the back (production). Not that making games was dirt cheap back then.

But for the rest of your point, you're right. Too many standards today? Yep (PS, PS2, GC, XBox, NGage, DS, GBA, PC, Mac, and anything else). Crippling uncertainty? Yep (but... that game is... new! We can't do that.... what if it doesn't sell? Just make Madden 2006 and Generic FPS 7 instead).

"Expensive production?"

[JHromadka]

I thought people were bitching because it costs millions of dollars to produce modern games, and small independents couldn't afford to get into the action. Seems like that was better 10 years ago, not now.

What is the article writer smoking?

[Digital Vomit]

PlayStation changed the way people played games--the way they thought about them, really.

The article just reeks of Sony fanboyism. Sure, the PlayStation was a successful 32-bit console when it appeared near the end of the 16-bit era, when the SNES and Genesis roamed the land, but the writer makes it sound like the PS1 was some sort of monumental occasion worthy of inclusion in the Civilization tech tree (Computing --> PlayStation --> Cure for Cancer).

Re:Bleh. Just fuggin' Bleh.

[MBCook]

I know this got marked troll, but I agree. The PlayStation was the first console that wasn't seen as "for kids". I suppose the Saturn wanted to be the same thing, but the PS was the more successful of the two in the sates (by far) so it gets the credit.

As much as people may hate AOL (I do), they got more people onto the internet than anyone else (whether that is good or bad is up to you). You may not like Dragonball Z or some of the other things that Cartoon Network shows/showed, but for many people that was their first exposure to Anime (my was from the Sci-Fi channel, but they were a close second). Whether that is good or bad is up to you.

I agree that the "unwashed masses.. where they did not belong" part is a troll, but the PlayStation was the system that made gaming "cool" for adults (you can argue whether that was the system, the games, or just that was around the time many games who were raised on NESes became adults). It wasn't targeted exclusively at kids.

"PlayStation" has become the new "Nintendo". It is the word people use when they don't know the right one to describe video games. In the early 90s that seemed unfathomable. But I guess Nintendo took that title from Atarii.

What are YOU smoking?

[oGMo]

The article just reeks of Sony fanboyism.

It does? The majority of the article is simply a summary of events between Nintendo and Sony leading up to and through the the PS1. How is that fanboyism?

Oh, I forgot, anything on slashdot not denigrating Sony and the Playstation is Sony fanboyism.