Remember nintendo's arrogance during nintendo 64's release?

[JSoup]

I never understood the hate for Sunshine. One of my favorite platformers.

I liked it, but I felt that it had issues. Twitchy controls and camera, little direction on where to go at certain parts, slight difficult issues. Mostly, I the brightness of the game made my head hurt, mostly due to my photosensitive eyes.

[tom]

Same here, and Luigi's Mansion is totally excellent, a true classic.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Again I say: End of story. Everything I said in that paragraph was logical and factual, regardless of if someone loves or hates Super Mario 64, so there was no logical argument or reason to produce five paragraphs over it.

There is no rational reason to love it or hate it. Period. It's inanimate, and cares nothing for you. A rollercoaster can be admired for the effort and knowledge it took to design and build, but still make you sick if you ride it. That's a perfect analog for my experience with Mario 64.

[JSoup]

Same here, and Luigi's Mansion is totally excellent, a true classic.

Agreed. Luigi's Mansion is too often passed over, it's great fun.

There is no rational reason to love it or hate it. Period. It's inanimate, and cares nothing for you. A rollercoaster can be admired for the effort and knowledge it took to design and build, but still make you sick if you ride it. That's a perfect analog for my experience with Mario 64.

This rings of a jaded lover. Don't worry, Mario 64 cares more about you than you know.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Yeah, well that Lakitu with the camera doesn't love you. That's for damn sure.

[Enigmus]

I've had an easier time playing SM64 than Tomb Raider due to the camera. The camera it used was vastly superior to methods used at the time, but as time marches on, we seem to forget that that was some of the best available for 1996, not 2011. It's a common thing also seen amongst kids who try to compare the Xbox 360 to an NES. Time blurs the lines quite well. Either way, the Latiku sure smiles upon me compared to other games from 1996-97.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I didn't put any significant time into Mario 64 until after I've played plenty of GC and PS2 games. Might account for my position on it. Then again, I didn't enjoy 3D Mario at all really until Galaxy.

[j_factor]

Tomb Raider did have a bad camera, but I had less of a problem with it because of the "robot" controls. Up was always "forward" for whatever direction Lara was facing, so it didn't really matter where the camera moved to.

[kupomogli]

I've had an easier time playing SM64 than Tomb Raider due to the camera. The camera it used was vastly superior to methods used at the time, but as time marches on, we seem to forget that that was some of the best available for 1996, not 2011. It's a common thing also seen amongst kids who try to compare the Xbox 360 to an NES. Time blurs the lines quite well. Either way, the Latiku sure smiles upon me compared to other games from 1996-97.

I don't know what version of Tomb Raider you've played, but I've never had a problem with the camera. If you look at the list of games I posted that came out in 1995/1996, Air Combat, King's Field, King's Field 2, Die Hard Trilogy(any game,) Crash Bandicoot, and Twisted Metal 2. All PSX games. Do they have bad cameras? Play them all. Blood Omen and Suikoden obviously don't have bad cameras, but you'll find none of the other games do either.

Crash Bandicoot is the only one that could use a little work though. I think Crash could have its camera slightly pulled back during throughout the entire game to give more visibility. The developers do pull it back when you're running back through the stage but it's closer in when going forward.

Two really good games on the N64, CV and CV Legacy of Darkness are usually said to have bad cameras and while that's their opinion, they probably changed the camera to action view which sucks compared to normal view. The camera has nothing to do with the games being good though. Unlike Mario 64, these games are genuinely fun and really good 3d CV titles.

This also isn't just the N64, but I have played some games with pretty bad cameras for action games. Is it really that hard to have a static camera that follows behind the back or that you can turn the direction to get a better view of what's happening? Take Devil May Cry 3 for example. I love the game, but it's probably got the worst camera on a PS2 game and it's just something you have to get used to.

[sheath]

Yeah, Tomb Raider on PS1 and Saturn do a fairly decent job at pointing at the action, pulling away while running, etc. I don't recall ever having to adjust the camera during action gameplay in Tomb Raider. Usually just flipping and jumping and locking on kept the camera pointed just fine.

But then, I don't have a problem with the Sonic Adventure games' camera, and they are supposedly "horrible" game ruining glitch fests.

[sheath]

We could take a poll on our average size of libraries back then but I'm sure that would be skewed. Lots of hardcore gamers here. I do remember friends that had NES and/or SMS having lots of games, but not as much with Genesis and SNES. Maybe the rising game prices caused people to buy fewer games. Surprisingly I had a lot of friends with Saturns (and only one with a Playstation) but only one of them had a large library of Saturn games like I did. My one buddy that had PS1 did have a shit-ton of games though. I also knew a lot of people with N64 but none with large libraries. My best friends who I hung out with virtually every day after school had N64. We played 007 and Kart until the controllers fell apart but could never find any other games that compared to those two. A lot of people I knew had Dreamcasts but like them I only had a small amount of DC games. I suppose anecdotes are all we have to go on as no one kept records like they do today.

Sony's latest press release reveals an average of 10.13 games per console sold. We just need similar press releases for the PS1 and N64 to find their total average attach rate. Even better would be press releases from each year with software sold figures attached to consoles sold (not shipped!).

[Rob2600]

We just need similar press releases for the PS1 and N64 to find their total average attach rate.

New N64 games were released between June 1996 and October 2001 (64 months or 5.3 years).
Total N64 games sold (as of December 31, 2009): 224.97 million
Total N64 consoles sold: 32.9 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 6.8 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 1.3 games for each console sold (6.8 lifetime attach rate divided by 5.3 year lifespan)


New Sony PlayStation games were released between December 3, 1994 and October 8, 2004 (118 months or 9.8 years).
Total PS games sold (as of March 31, 2007): 962 million
Total PS consoles sold: 102 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 9.4 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 0.96 games for each console sold (9.4 lifetime attach rate divided by 9.8 year lifespan)


Based on this data, the N64 had a 35% higher annual attach rate during its 5.3 year lifespan than the PS did during its 9.8 year lifespan.

[sheath]

The numbers don't work that way unfortunately, unless I am missing something. I do not think we can take a total lifetime attach rate per console sold and divide that by year. I am mucking around with the PS2's numbers to come up with an average monthly attach rate right now.

-edit-

PS2 figures:
1520000000 game sales / 150000000 console sales = 10.13 games per console sold
150000000 console sales / 131 months = 1145038.1679389312977099236641221 consoles per month
1520000000 game sales / 131 months = 11603053.435114503816793893129771 games per month
11603053.44 games per month / 1145038.17 consoles per month = 10.13 games per console sold
10.13 games per console sold * 1145038.17 = 11603053.44 games per month

- edit - edit-

So, unless I have made a mistake or don't know the equation (happens a plenty), there is no way to derive useful yearly numbers from lifetime sales.

[Ryaan1234]

The numbers don't work that way unfortunately, unless I am missing something. I do not think we can take a total lifetime attach rate per console sold and divide that by year. I am mucking around with the PS2's numbers to come up with an average monthly attach rate right now.

-edit-

PS2 figures:
1520000000 game sales / 150000000 console sales = 10.13 games per console sold
150000000 console sales / 131 months = 1145038.1679389312977099236641221 consoles per month
1520000000 game sales / 131 months = 11603053.435114503816793893129771 games per month
11603053.44 games per month / 1145038.17 consoles per month = 10.13 games per console sold
10.13 games per console sold * 1145038.17 = 11603053.44 games per month

How can you have .435114503816793893129771 games? Next time just round it down to the nearest whole number.

*I can't believe this thread is STILL alive*

[sheath]

Goofy math needs precision!

[kupomogli]

New N64 games were released between June 1996 and October 2001 (64 months or 5.3 years).
Total N64 games sold (as of December 31, 2009): 224.97 million
Total N64 consoles sold: 32.9 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 6.8 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 1.3 games for each console sold (6.8 lifetime attach rate divided by 5.3 year lifespan)

New Sony PlayStation games were released between December 3, 1994 and October 8, 2004 (118 months or 9.8 years).
Total PS games sold (as of March 31, 2007): 962 million
Total PS consoles sold: 102 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 9.4 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 0.96 games for each console sold (9.4 lifetime attach rate divided by 9.8 year lifespan)

That's an obviously skewed statement in favor of the Nintendo 64, but seeing who's making the post then of course. Everyone here is well aware the next gen consoles came out 1999, 2000, and 2001 and Nintendo completely dropped support of the N64 by 2002.

[Bojay1997]

Ugh...how is the attach rate of software in any way related to whether or not Nintendo was arrogant during the Nintendo 64 release? Rentals, used game sales and piracy make both of those numbers completely unreliable and pretty worthless for anyone but the respective accounting departments of each company. I'm not really too sure why this topic is still going. It seems like for the last week, it has been one barrage of worthless stats after another to try to convince Playstation and Nintendo fanboys to admit the other's system and games were better. You will never convince each other, so maybe it's time to just end the whole thing or concede that people just like different things and that's cool because all of us like video games.

[sheath]

Total game sales should include copies sold to retailers, used game sales are obviously included. How it has to do with the topic is, at this point, all about qualifying the N64 library versus the PS1 library (for some). For me it's about finding some facts about the library outside of wikipedia.

[Bojay1997]

Total game sales should include copies sold to retailers, used game sales are obviously included. How it has to do with the topic is, at this point, all about qualifying the N64 library versus the PS1 library (for some). For me it's about finding some facts about the library outside of wikipedia.

Without getting too technical, the attach rate over the life of a console is completely useless. Attach rates are only useful for analyzing profitability when a manufacturer sells hardware at a loss or subsidy and at the tail end of the console lifecycle, unit sales on many titles are far less valuable than early on when they tend to be full price while hardware may actually be profitable. You also haven't accounted at all for the massive rental market for both systems. Even assuming you could determine with accuracy how many games the average Playstation and N64 owner bought and kept in their library and bought used and then kept, what would be the value of that number? It doesn't do anything to prove that one system was superior to the other or that Nintendo was or wasn't arrogant. People keep games for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they are damaged and can't be sold or the used buyback value is minimal. People also sell games they love for a variety of reasons. These figures to nothing to clarify the positions of either side.

[j_factor]

New N64 games were released between June 1996 and October 2001 (64 months or 5.3 years).
Total N64 games sold (as of December 31, 2009): 224.97 million
Total N64 consoles sold: 32.9 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 6.8 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 1.3 games for each console sold (6.8 lifetime attach rate divided by 5.3 year lifespan)


New Sony PlayStation games were released between December 3, 1994 and October 8, 2004 (118 months or 9.8 years).
Total PS games sold (as of March 31, 2007): 962 million
Total PS consoles sold: 102 million
Lifetime average attach rate: 9.4 games for each console sold
Yearly average attach rate: 0.96 games for each console sold (9.4 lifetime attach rate divided by 9.8 year lifespan)


Based on this data, the N64 had a 35% higher annual attach rate during its 5.3 year lifespan than the PS did during its 9.8 year lifespan.

This doesn't work on two levels. For one, Tony Hawk 3 was released for N64 in August 2002. More importantly, when two platforms have dissimilar sales and you're covering a different period of time, it's an apples and oranges comparison. A better comparison would perhaps be attach rate for the first two years or something.

Although really, I'm not sure what your point was in the first place.