Fifteen Classic Game Console Design Mistakes

[Sonicwolf]

How is that not related? Cartridges were the very reason Japanese publishers didn't want to support the N64 in the first place.

Now is this because of cost-of-manufacture or the well known limitations..

[j_factor]

Now is this because of cost-of-manufacture or the well known limitations..

Hard to believe it's cost of manufacture in this case. When SNK created the Saturn version of King of Fighters 95, they made one of only two games for the system that had its own cartridge (not a RAM cart). Possibly the only two games in history (the other one was Ultraman, which is unrelated to this discussion) to run on both a cartridge and CD, at the same time. Additionally, most games that supported a RAM cartridge were available both separately and bundled with the RAM, and a couple were only available as the bundle. So I definitely don't think Capcom and SNK were unwilling to put out games that cost a little bit more.

[A Black Falcon]

You've missed the point, so I'll spell it out for you: only a delusional fan would claim that the Nintendo 64's library features obviously better gameplay than contemporary disc-based systems. By any reasonable critical measure, the best-playing games of the era were distributed among all of the major systems.

Each console has different strengths and weaknesses, sure. Saturn had the best 2d games, N64 the best 3d games, PSX the most games, in general. Which one any person prefers depends on their likes and dislikes. For mine, the N64 absolutely has the best, best-playing games.

OK, this MUST be a joke post.

... And now you prove once again why I said you obviously hate Nintendo, or at least the N64.

Joke post, the idea that the N64 can do good fighting games? Seriously? How much DO you hate the N64? Must be quite a bit...

I don't know what aspect of that you're complaining about. The controller? The N64 controller is my favorite controller of all time, hands down. (The Saturn 3D controller and Dreamcast controller would probably be the next two). The controller has a fantastic d-pad, infinitely superior to the awful PSX one, and a great six face button layout, perfect for fighting games and again vastly superior to the 4 buttons on PSX. Six face buttons has always been something I strongly prefer. Oh, and the Z trigger is awesome.

Or do you mean fighting games on N64? Again.. well, as far as 2d or 2.5d fighting games go, the N64 only had four -- Super Smash Bros., Rakuga Kids (JP/EU only), Mortal Kombat Trilogy, and Killer Instinct Gold. All are at least competent, in what they try to do. SSB is of course the best by far though...

MK Trilogy does have like two or three fewer playable characters than on PSX/Saturn/PC, but it also has no loading times, versus long ones. Choose which you prefer. (The characters were only removed because this was an early release and thus limited to 8MB)

KI Gold is the only home port of KI2, so that's your only choice... again a few characters from the first game weren't there, but it was just because of the early release cart size limit, that's all.

As for 3d fighting games, the N64 has a lot more of those. Most are mediocre or poor, like most 3d fighting games that generation on any platform, but there are a few I would consider good, namely Fighter's Destiny (quite unique and original game), Flying Dragon, and Mace: The Dark Age. It isn't theoretical that the N64 can do decent fighting games, it's proven. All that was needed for it to be a truly great fighting game to be on N64 was to see better fighting game developers work on the system -- not the B and C grade ones the system got, but top-rank A-grade ones. You can't say that they'd be bad when they were never tried, and for reasons nothing to do with how good a competent team could have done on them!

Very funny. Pretty much every genre is better on CD, barring massive cartridges. Still not seeing how load times outweight content.

Why? You can't say that like it's an obvious fact, because it isn't. But you have done nothing to try to prove that point, so I don't think I need to say much.

You're right, my math was wrong. But still, 47MB was significantly larger than any N64 game at the time, due to cost.

But it would have been absolutely doable in a form that would have looked and played great. Remember, N64 games were also usually compressed more so than other games, to save space... you can't just compare megabyte-to-megabyte numbers. But that should be obvious, or Resident Evil 2 would never have been possible in 64MB as opposed to two CDs...

Point is, I would rather have a few seconds of loading in an otherwise better version of a game, than have an instantly loading version that sucks in all other areas of comparison. The Sega CD version of Earthworm Jim has loading times between levels, but it also has additional content, improved animation, and an excellent re-done soundtrack. I've never heard anyone disagree that the Sega CD version is the best version.

It depends a lot on how much, and how frequent, that loading is. You consistently try to under-estimate how long PSX loading times are, that's for sure!

You also massively overstate how much N64 games were "downgraded". Usually, they were better; there are very few games on both N64 and PSX that are actually better on PSX, and in every one of those cases it's because it was a PSX game lazily ported to N64 and better on the original system.

But really, most good N64 games aren't on other systems. The N64 was not like the Gamecube in having huge mountains of ports from the PSX as the GC did from PS2; instead, most of its games are original, or are original versions unlike the others (such as with Forsaken 64, Doom 64, Quake II...). And those games were often the best console ports available. Multiplatform games were better on N64 if they were designed for it first, too, or if the development team was actually competent, such as the Midway teams that did games like Hydro Thunder and Rush or Acclaim with Shadow Man (with full voice acting too, no downgrades there on N64!). I think that Wipeout 64 is the best Wipeout game of that generation. Etc.

Point is, PSX versions were not usually better. Sometimes they were better, sometimes worse, but it wasn't something that had to do with the medium in most cases, just the development teams. The weaker PSX hardware just cannot keep up with the N64. Playstation image quality is almost always horrible, with the screen full of jaggies and popping polygons and polygon seams all over the place... while on N64, the filtering and Z-buffering and all that gets rid of all that. There's a dramatic difference in image quality that far, far more than makes up for the often lower resolution textures. Would everything the N64 does be possible with CDs? I believe Nintendo when they say no, because with the slow speed of CD drives then you just couldn't have done it. Loading, area size, etc...

I admit though, it is hard to separate system power -- where the N64 clearly wins -- from media format -- which is what this debate is supposed to be about. An N64 just as powerful as it is, but with CDs... how would it have looked? What would the impact be? Could games be made the same as they are, just with more loading, or would design changes be needed to deal with the fact that you can't just stream stuff off the cart? I think that that would be required, and game design would thus have been restricted in that way more than it was. But we can't know for sure what the impact would have been because this is all speculation.

Oh, and yeah, you're right that EWJCD is the best console version of the game. But it's not because of the CD music, it's because of the save system (being able to save makes any game better!) and extra level. The CD music is just a bonus. You're also in those levels for a long time and the loading isn't too long, so sure, in that case the CD isn't a big hindrance. But other times it is. It depends on the game and kind of game. Each medium has advantages and disadvantages... I'm certainly not saying carts are perfect, they aren't. But they also were not a bad decision for a new console in 1996, there were as many advantages to using them as disadvantages.

How is that not related? Cartridges were the very reason Japanese publishers didn't want to support the N64 in the first place.

Yes, the fact that they wanted FMVs in their games and couldn't do it on N64 was one major reason the system lost in Japan, yes. Licensing fees were equally important, though, being much lower on PSX than N64... and it also got companies away from Nintendo's history of restrictions; even though those were mostly gone on N64 game content wise, Nintendo still kept some hardware details to themselves, such as the alternate programmable microcodes which would definitely have helped some games. I've always heard Square's decision to leave Nintendo as being key... and while the carts were one part of why, they were also just really annoyed at Nintendo for other things, such as all their demands on how to make Mario RPG, etc. The Square-Nintendo split was pretty bitter, as the fact that Square did not make one more game for a Nintendo system from 1997 to until they merged with Enix and Yamauchi retired from Nintendo... they had a personal dislike for Yamauchi.

And really, carts does not explain why Square was supporting WonderSwan and not Game Boy. Their dislike for Nintendo does. As a result, I think that there's a good chance that even had the N64 been a CD system, Square well may have gone Sony anyway... maybe not, but I think it would have been quite probable. And a lot of other publishers followed Square's lead away from Nintendo and Sega and towards Sony -- 1997 was also the crucial year in Japan that generation, when the PSX finally got clearly ahead of Saturn.

[Kid Fenris]

Joke post, the idea that the N64 can do good fighting games? Seriously? How much DO you hate the N64? Must be quite a bit...

I don't know what aspect of that you're complaining about. The controller? The N64 controller is my favorite controller of all time, hands down.

The Nintendo 64 controller is pathetic when it comes to 2-D fighting games. The yellow face buttons are much too small, the d-pad is stiff, and the analog stick is no substitute for an arcade joystick. The controller was designed to work well with certain types of game, and the 2-D fighter was not one of them.

If you're seriously trying to argue that the Nintendo 64 controller was suited to 2-D fighters, you've passed some sort of game-nerd event horizon, slipping into a place where taste and logic can never reach you.

[A Black Falcon]

The Nintendo 64 controller is pathetic when it comes to 2-D fighting games. The yellow face buttons are much too small, the d-pad is stiff, and the analog stick is no substitute for an arcade joystick. The controller was designed to work well with certain types of game, and the 2-D fighter was not one of them.

If you're seriously trying to argue that the Nintendo 64 controller was suited to 2-D fighters, you've passed some sort of game-nerd event horizon, slipping into a place where taste and logic can never reach you.

Or maybe we just completely disagree about what good controllers are. How about that? Sounds a lot more likely to me... because no, the fact that the C buttons are small is no problem at all as far as using them goes. Lots of N64 games use the C buttons as action buttons, and they work great, absolutely no problem at all for any kind of game, fighting games included. As I said I've played fighting games on the N64 and have some, the controls are really good.

Apart from improving the durability of the d-pad, there is absolutely nothing about the N64 controller that I would change.

The d-pad is fantastic as well. Stiff? Nah, just use it more. It's mostly just underuse from the fact that so few N64 games make use of the thing. It's a really good dpad, every bit as great as the SNES one and extremely similar in design. And the SNES dpad worked well for fighting games.

[Ed Oscuro]

Capcom didn't make fighting games on N64 because they didn't make much of anything on N64. If they'd started supporting the platform earlier, I'd bet we'd have seen something.

Like oh, uh...Resident Evil 2?

Possibly the only two games in history (the other one was Ultraman, which is unrelated to this discussion) to run on both a cartridge and CD, at the same time.

I have a copy of Samurai Spirits III for Saturn - for $45 it's yours!

Now, that's a RAM cartridge, not a data cartridge, but the idea is the same really.

I now return the discussion to its regularly scheduled arguments about N64 joysticks.

[A Black Falcon]

Like oh, uh...Resident Evil 2?

RE2 was released in late 1999, three years after the system came out, and was ported by Angel Studios, not Capcom itself. It was also a PSX port, not a new title.

Capcom's only other two N64 releases were the 2000 game Mega Man 64, a port of the 1998 PSX game Mega Man Legends, and Magical Tetris Challenge, a 1998 Disney-themed Tetris game also in arcades and on PSX. And that's it. I think that proves my point of how Capcom started N64 development very late, and even then put only a halfhearted effort into it, as the extremely small number of releases shows. I said "they didn't make much of anything" (as in, very few games), not "they made nothing".

[Ed Oscuro]

RE2 was released in late 1999, three years after the system came out, and was ported by Angel Studios, not Capcom itself. It was also a PSX port, not a new title.

Therein lies my point. I'm having difficulty working up the spirit of discovering who is promoting which proposition, so I just popped that in.

[A Black Falcon]

Therein lies my point. I'm having difficulty working up the spirit of discovering who is promoting which proposition, so I just popped that in.

Ah, okay.

[Kid Fenris]

Or maybe we just completely disagree about what good controllers are. How about that? Sounds a lot more likely to me... because no, the fact that the C buttons are small is no problem at all as far as using them goes. Lots of N64 games use the C buttons as action buttons, and they work great, absolutely no problem at all for any kind of game, fighting games included. As I said I've played fighting games on the N64 and have some, the controls are really good.

Apart from improving the durability of the d-pad, there is absolutely nothing about the N64 controller that I would change.

The d-pad is fantastic as well. Stiff? Nah, just use it more. It's mostly just underuse from the fact that so few N64 games make use of the thing. It's a really good dpad, every bit as great as the SNES one and extremely similar in design. And the SNES dpad worked well for fighting games.

Just keep on polishing that turd, Sunshine.

[kupomogli]

Uh, whatever you say.

Just like a hard drive, it's got a better read write speed. If it's not optimized to find the data quickly it'll be slower. Kindof like how doing a defrag on your PC makes it go faster since the data used is together.

[A Black Falcon]

Just keep on polishing that turd, Sunshine.

What are you going to say next, that you actually like the Playstation dpad? It's one of the worst dpads this side of the Xbox 360 one or your average third-party controller... while the N64 (and Saturn), on the other hand, have the best dpads of any consoles in the last three generations. The last two generations really have been pretty bad, as far as dpads go... Sony sticks with their awful one, Nintendo uses small ones that work fine but aren't quite as good as SNES/N64 ones, Dreamcast's was definitely not as good as Saturn's... as for Microsoft the Xbox had a decent if small dpad, but the 360, not so much.

The N64 is still the last console released with an actual great dpad on the controller that comes with the system.

[j_factor]

Why? You can't say that like it's an obvious fact, because it isn't. But you have done nothing to try to prove that point, so I don't think I need to say much.

You said, "2d and 3d games of pretty much every genre except for FMV games and music games are better on carts." I find that extremely outlandish and silly, and you've done nothing to try to prove that point yourself.

Once again I will make the simple statement that I'd rather have a better game with loading, than an otherwise worse game with no loading.

But it would have been absolutely doable in a form that would have looked and played great.

You know what else looks and plays great? The Saturn version. Would the hypothetical N64 version have been better? I'm not inclined to believe so.

It depends a lot on how much, and how frequent, that loading is. You consistently try to under-estimate how long PSX loading times are, that's for sure!

Since when was this strictly a PSX discussion? I thought we were talking about the merits of cartridges versus CDs.

I don't think I'm underestimating. I own about a hundred PSX games, more than that for Saturn, another 50 for Sega CD, and maybe 30 for Turbo CD. I also own a few Amiga CD32 games. I owned all these systems except CD32 when they were current, and my friend had a 3DO. I've had plenty of experience with CD games and their load times. Some of them are bad, but they're the exception, not the rule. And in most cases it's due to poor programming rather than being the inevitable result of being on CD.

You also massively overstate how much N64 games were "downgraded". Usually, they were better; there are very few games on both N64 and PSX that are actually better on PSX, and in every one of those cases it's because it was a PSX game lazily ported to N64 and better on the original system.

There aren't that many games on both systems, and few of them are noteworthy. Generally, if they were better on N64, it was due to it being a more powerful system (or in some cases just bad porting), not the cartridge format. But when they were worse on N64, it was usually due to the cartridge format. Quake is a good example (compared to the Saturn version).

Yes, the fact that they wanted FMVs in their games and couldn't do it on N64 was one major reason the system lost in Japan, yes.

It's not just FMVs. There are plenty of Playstation and Saturn games, even RPGs, that have no FMVs, or not much.

Licensing fees were equally important, though, being much lower on PSX than N64...

Cartridges were the reason for the difference in licensing fees, though.

And really, carts does not explain why Square was supporting WonderSwan and not Game Boy. Their dislike for Nintendo does. As a result, I think that there's a good chance that even had the N64 been a CD system, Square well may have gone Sony anyway... maybe not, but I think it would have been quite probable. And a lot of other publishers followed Square's lead away from Nintendo and Sega and towards Sony -- 1997 was also the crucial year in Japan that generation, when the PSX finally got clearly ahead of Saturn.

Square is irrelevant. It's not just Square. It's almost every developer.

[A Black Falcon]

You said, "2d and 3d games of pretty much every genre except for FMV games and music games are better on carts." I find that extremely outlandish and silly, and you've done nothing to try to prove that point yourself.

I did say some things, though, I mentioned reduced load times and larger gameworld areas without needing streaming. Those are real points.

It's somewhat different, but it's also better when a game actually works, and in this (durability) carts win by a longshot.

Once again I will make the simple statement that I'd rather have a better game with loading, than an otherwise worse game with no loading.

Your basic assumption there that games on CD are better is ridiculous. They aren't better, just different. (I never said carts are better at everything so that's not what I'm saying, just that both have advantages and disadvantages and both are good choices for game mediums.) But it's not like saying that again is going to convince you of anything.

You know what else looks and plays great? The Saturn version. Would the hypothetical N64 version have been better? I'm not inclined to believe so.

What about PSX, then? I think it wouldn't have much trouble matching that, or Saturn stuff without ramcarts. Saturn stuff with the ramcart? I'm not sure. It would depend on cartridge size, I think -- that is, how much is the publisher willing to pay?

Since when was this strictly a PSX discussion? I thought we were talking about the merits of cartridges versus CDs.

True, it could be... but consoles of the same generation should be compared really, go beyond that and other technology will matter more than just the media format. So PSX v. N64 is one of the best examples. You could do others though... Sega CD or Turbo CD or CD-i versus the cart systems that gen, PSP v. DS, etc.

I don't think I'm underestimating. I own about a hundred PSX games, more than that for Saturn, another 50 for Sega CD, and maybe 30 for Turbo CD. I also own a few Amiga CD32 games. I owned all these systems except CD32 when they were current, and my friend had a 3DO. I've had plenty of experience with CD games and their load times. Some of them are bad, but they're the exception, not the rule. And in most cases it's due to poor programming rather than being the inevitable result of being on CD.

I have plenty of experience with CD games too, particularly on the PC but also on consoles, I have a PSX, PS2, Saturn, Sega CD, DC...

Looking at PS2 or DC versus Gamecube though, you really can see how much Nintendo cared about minimizing load times, and how great the results were. You may say "but those load times weren't bad".. compare that to any decently programmed GC game and if you're being honest you'll realize how big a difference there really is. GC games usually have very impressively short load times, thanks to those small discs... and it really does make a difference. You can always tell the bad PS2 ports when games have bad load times...

I don't know if I can think of one GC exclusive with load times as long as Hydro Thunder on DC for example, or Off-Road Thunder in Midway Arcade Treasures 3 on GC (also on PS2 and Xbox)...

But, though it mostly avoids the load times issue, the GC does suffer one downside from using discs -- the durability issue. I've had a couple of GC games fail. I have no idea why, the discs look great and have quite minimal scratching, the games just crash. There's a local game store that can resurfaces discs around here, he wasn't able to fix either of them either, yet they now look like they have almost no scratches at all... and I also have like four or five Sega CD discs that have failed, that CD I stepped on, the one that my computer's CD drive blew up (this was maybe eight or nine years ago, but it's something hard to forget... shreds of that thing were rattling around inside afterwards and we had to replace the drive), etc. In comparison apart from games I have lost, there is only one cart-based game that I got working and now doesn't at all. (That is Mario Bros. Deluxe for GBC, and I have no idea what happened there, it corrupted or something... but one out of many is a great ratio.)

Still though, as far as discs go GC's pretty much the best this side of PC games which install themselves entirely to the hard drive. (Not that load times from hard drives aren't sometimes long... they most certainly are. But they're even longer off of the disc.)

There aren't that many games on both systems, and few of them are noteworthy. Generally, if they were better on N64, it was due to it being a more powerful system (or in some cases just bad porting), not the cartridge format. But when they were worse on N64, it was usually due to the cartridge format. Quake is a good example (compared to the Saturn version).

Quake is a good example? How so, when Doom 64 and Quake II are both amazing, and had entirely new, N64 exclusive levels as well, instead of just being a PC port like Quake 1? A good example of that it wasn't the greatest port ever, I guess... but not much beyond that. Both of those aforementioned other titles help prove that. Doom 64 is the best looking version of Doom there is (and the gameplay is great too), and Quake II is great, has four player splitscreen, etc... so no, I don't think that quite proves your point on that. For another example look at Forsaken 64 (another one where the N64 version gets an entirely new set of levels, while the PSX just gets a downgrade of the PC original). Games that looked worse on N64 usually do because of poor programming -- and even there the filtering and Z-buffering and stuff usually save it and make it look better than the poor programming originally intended, something that doesn't apply on PSX, Saturn, or anything else that generation.

I do agree that games better on N64 often were because of the hardware and not necessarily the carts, but as I showed with the Hydro Thunder example, this is not always true. I guess if you don't mind waiting (for a version with worse graphics too, not that it's the game's fault given that the PSX is less powerful) this wouldn't apply, but I, and many others, do mind.

It's not just FMVs. There are plenty of Playstation and Saturn games, even RPGs, that have no FMVs, or not much.

And that's where the other factors like momentum, going for the most successful platform, and lower licensing fees and production costs step in. Or lots of voice acting, that wasn't really possible early on on N64 either.

Cartridges were the reason for the difference in licensing fees, though.

No, that's not really true. Yes, carts are more expensive to make than CDs. But licensing fees and game production costs are different things. Licensing fees are what the company has to pay the hardware company just for the right to publish on their system, go through the checking process, etc. And Sony had lower licensing fees, not just lower than Nintendo but also lower than Sega. This might help explain how the Saturn lost, despite also using CDs.

The high cart production costs made this worse, but it wasn't just that.

And as I said, unhappiness with Nintendo's arrogance was also definitely a factor. This is the same thing that happened to Sony in these past few years, and very much affected Nintendo then as well.

Square is irrelevant. It's not just Square. It's almost every developer.

No, Square is relevant. As I said, it was Square and Final Fantasy VII that was, along with the announcement than Dragon Quest VII would be Playstation only, the key title in Sony's victory in Japan. And I've read many rumors that Square was active in pushing other developers, such as Enix, to go to Sony and not support Nintendo (or Sega). The fact that they did all go to Sony and not Sega, when both had CD-based systems, shows how the media format was not the only consideration. It was one, but definitely not the only one.

Of course it was about lots of developers, but remember to look at this in each separate region. In the US, it was simple -- anyone tired of Nintendo's high licensing fees, or impressed by Sony's great advertising that aimed older than any game company had before, went with the Playstation. Others went N64. In Japan though, for the first two years after their releases the PSX and Saturn were very close. Only in '97 after those Square and Enix announcements did Sony conclusively pull ahead. Coincidence? Given how popular those series were and are in Japan, I doubt it. Many other developers just followed their lead. As for Nintendo, they released later and just never caught up, and were also hurt a lot by the software droughts that were sometimes pretty bad on the system; at least in the US we had a few more titles at the start, but in Japan right after launch there was a long wait for the next release... would things have been better there with Nintendo on CDs? Likely, sure. They may even have won with CDs, who knows. But given how many other factors were also involved, I can't say that I think they would definitely have won Japan with CDs; maybe, but maybe not. We'll never really know...

[j_factor]

I did say some things, though, I mentioned reduced load times and larger gameworld areas without needing streaming. Those are real points.

I'm not really seeing "larger gameworld areas" being evident. I'm not sure what you mean by "without needing streaming", any transmission of data is streaming by definition. A cartridge does have quicker access than a 2x CD drive, yes, but there are other limitations in play. I don't recall seeing much in the way of large, open 3D areas until the Dreamcast.

It's somewhat different, but it's also better when a game actually works, and in this (durability) carts win by a longshot.

Durability is a complete non-issue, IMO. The only times I've had problems with CD games were when I bought them used and they were scratched to hell. Even that isn't very common.

What about PSX, then? I think it wouldn't have much trouble matching that, or Saturn stuff without ramcarts. Saturn stuff with the ramcart? I'm not sure.

The RAM cart isn't anything terribly special, it just increases the system's memory. Thus we see that the problem with PSX (in this case) isn't the CD medium, it's the system's limited RAM.

Looking at PS2 or DC versus Gamecube though, you really can see how much Nintendo cared about minimizing load times, and how great the results were. You may say "but those load times weren't bad".. compare that to any decently programmed GC game and if you're being honest you'll realize how big a difference there really is. GC games usually have very impressively short load times, thanks to those small discs... and it really does make a difference. You can always tell the bad PS2 ports when games have bad load times...

I don't know, I think the shorter load times with the Gamecube (which is definitely noticeable compared to PS2) were merely a side effect of those discs (the laser having a short distance to move), rather than a major part of Nintendo's design reasoning. Also, if you compare it to Dreamcast or Xbox rather than PS2, the difference is less great.

No, that's not really true. Yes, carts are more expensive to make than CDs. But licensing fees and game production costs are different things. Licensing fees are what the company has to pay the hardware company just for the right to publish on their system, go through the checking process, etc. And Sony had lower licensing fees, not just lower than Nintendo but also lower than Sega. This might help explain how the Saturn lost, despite also using CDs.

Licensing fees and production costs are not necessarily separate. Unlike Sega did with the Genesis, Nintendo did not allow third parties to manufacture their own cartridges. All cartridges were manufactured by Nintendo, and their cost was part of the licensing fee. This even carries over to Saturn -- higher license was a result of the copy-protection "ring" on Saturn discs, which had to be pressed a special way.

No, Square is relevant. As I said, it was Square and Final Fantasy VII that was, along with the announcement than Dragon Quest VII would be Playstation only, the key title in Sony's victory in Japan. And I've read many rumors that Square was active in pushing other developers, such as Enix, to go to Sony and not support Nintendo (or Sega). The fact that they did all go to Sony and not Sega, when both had CD-based systems, shows how the media format was not the only consideration. It was one, but definitely not the only one.

Dragon Quest VII didn't come out until 2000, and its original announcement was that it would be for Saturn. (The original Dragon Quest VII was cancelled and a new game was developed from scratch for Playstation, kind of like RE2.) As popular as Dragon Quest is in Japan, its release, given the timing and platform, didn't affect market share. Enix did publish a few Saturn games in Japan, just not Dragon Quest. I don't think Square and Enix had a particularly cozy relationship prior to the merger.

It is simply not true that they "all" went to Sony and not Sega. The only major Japanese developers who didn't support the Saturn are Squaresoft and Namco. Namco went Sony exclusive from the launch of the system, and I have no idea why, but it certainly had nothing to do with Square. Square stuck strictly with the Super Famicom until relatively late. I don't know why Square never made anything for Saturn (nor any other console besides Famicom, SFC, PSX, PS2); they were always a one-system company, for whatever reason.

But yeah, everyone else in Japan supported Saturn. Capcom, Konami, Atlus, SNK, Falcom, Hudson, Taito, Bandai, Game Arts, Data East, Irem, Koei, Sunsoft, Treasure, Takara, Climax, Victor, Spike, Jaleco, RED, Genki, Warp, Psikyo, Technosoft, Compile, Cave, Banpresto, Naxat Soft, Human Entertainment, Gainax, ASCII, NEC Interchannel, Media Quest, Riverhill Soft, Imagineer... Any independent company that was releasing console games in Japan between 1995 and '98 was on Saturn. After much pondering, the only exceptions I could find, other than Namco and Square, are Technos Japan (went bankrupt in 1996, having switched mainly to Neo Geo, but they did make Geom Cube for Playstation) and Kemco (who went through some difficulties and made hardly anything during that time). I might be forgetting an obscure Japanese developer that released three Japan-only Playstation games, but by and large, Saturn was supported by almost every company in Japan.

Of course it was about lots of developers, but remember to look at this in each separate region. In the US, it was simple -- anyone tired of Nintendo's high licensing fees, or impressed by Sony's great advertising that aimed older than any game company had before, went with the Playstation. Others went N64. In Japan though, for the first two years after their releases the PSX and Saturn were very close. Only in '97 after those Square and Enix announcements did Sony conclusively pull ahead. Coincidence? Given how popular those series were and are in Japan, I doubt it. Many other developers just followed their lead.

Although Final Fantasy VII undoubtedly sold a lot of Playstations, the Saturn's dramatic decline in Japan was almost entirely Sega's own fault. Sega of Japan always had their collective thumbs up their asses and never had any idea of how to make a system successful in their homeland. The one time they stumbled on success with the Saturn, they had no idea how to maintain it, and they were way too quick to hint at a successor console.

[houstonlibrarian]

Not sure if this has been mentioned as I just skimmed through, but the controllers for the Intellivision being connected permanently is/was a mistake. That is the only reason I ever stopped playing, when my controllers went out on me.

[chrisbid]

though it didnt help nintendo, the decision to stick with carts for the n64 did not kill nintendo, they stayed viable, and managed a sizable profit. conversely, the switch to cdrom did not save the saturn

looking at the net effect, the N64 cart debate seems silly, it was more of a mild-moderate setback rather than a catastrophe

[Push Upstairs]

"Carts only" didn't kill Nintendo, but it proved 100% that they couldn't call the shots in the VG industry anymore.

[Ed Oscuro]

No, Square is relevant. As I said, it was Square and Final Fantasy VII that was, along with the announcement than Dragon Quest VII would be Playstation only, the key title in Sony's victory in Japan.

Square was like the canary in the coal mine for the N64 - a trendsetter. Once Square made their decision a lot of other people must've felt "well, that settles it." Not just gamers, but executives too.

[NeoTechni]

How about PSP? 2nd analog stick needed perhaps? UMD's falling apart easily?

I've never had that happen, and I've owned a PSP since the day it came out. And over 50 UMDs.