Greatest Console, all time

[vexcollects]

Reconsidered...... Sega Game gear. Best system eve....r.... Ha ha ha ha ha. I couldn't even get through that sentence. Oh.. Now I've totally offended those who love the game gear.

[slinkyturd]

It is fair to say that it will be subjective and that there is no magic formula. I do think that the argument can be summed up to be between 3 or 4 consoles for greatest ever and everything else can be taken on face value as not being in the discussion. Neo Geo, in my mind, doesn't even enter the conversation for the top spot. Too many negatives are attributed to it to make that argument.

The problem is what qualities are considered negatives and how severe those negatives are is entirely  a matter of personal opinion. Thus what "greatness" constitutes in this instance is arbitrary. If it were something like what is the most influential console of all time, you can narrow it down to personal preference. But in this case "greatness" is entirely dependent on what the individual in question values.

Arbitrary is "What is your favorite system?" I am looking at it as an all encompassing view. Meaning all things about the system are up for consideration i.e. sales(strict numbers, numbers vs manufacturer goals, and also vs competitors in its era or any era for that matter), library size, library quality, hardware, accessibility from launch to present, first and secondary market price vs. value, desirablility, graphical and sound quality during life span and does it stand the test of time?, what was the system's impact on the market, culturally, if any (for example, see the NES revitalizing a near dead gaming market with Atari crashing)?, etc.

It can't be the greatest unless all things are considered. How ever we want to weigh all of those things, listed and unlisted, I'd argue 3-4 systems are in the running.

[esteban]

A: NES/Famicom = greatest console. Anyone who suggests PlayStation (and beyond) is a toollet mignon and knows it.

[slinkyturd]

A: NES/Famicom = greatest console. Anyone who suggests PlayStation (and beyond) is a toollet mignon and knows it.

That is one that I thought should be in the running.

[johnnymad]

All jokes aside, it's NES for me. That's what I grew up on, so there's all kinds of nostalgia tied to it.

[vexcollects]

32X = Ball slappin fun.

[Galder]

Despite the fact that I was a computer fan during my childhood years ( Amiga <3 ) I will also say NES because that white toaster was just amazing. Huge library of games and cool shape ( PAL version ).

[VenomMacbeth]

For me, the 32x would have to take the cake.  I haven't had many add-ons, but of all that I've owned, the 32x trumps the Sega CD, Super Gameboy, Powerbase, master gear...I think that's all I've owned.  Unless you count ram expansions for N64 and Saturn.

I'd like to take a moment & point out that anyone who thinks the Jag is better than the 32x is a bonafide d00fus.  Even the not-so-great 32x games (barring Motocross Championship) are better than anything on the Jaguar, and cheaper too.  Sorry for going OT, but this has been on my mind a lot lately as I keep seeing stuff about the Jaguar everywhere. 

EDIT: wow, second time posting in the wrong forum/topic in the same day.  I really need to stop using my phone.

[MrFulci]

For me, the 32x would have to take the cake.  I haven't had many add-ons, but of all that I've owned, the 32x trumps the Sega CD, Super Gameboy, Powerbase, master gear...I think that's all I've owned.  Unless you count ram expansions for N64 and Saturn.

I'd like to take a moment & point out that anyone who thinks the Jag is better than the 32x is a bonafide d00fus.  Even the not-so-great 32x games (barring Motocross Championship) are better than anything on the Jaguar, and cheaper too.  Sorry for going OT, but this has been on my mind a lot lately as I keep seeing stuff about the Jaguar everywhere. 

EDIT: wow, second time posting in the wrong forum/topic in the same day.  I really need to stop using my phone.

It all depends on your taste, and what you want to get into. At the time, when those consoles were fresh, the 32X was of interest to me, mostly due to the Corpse Killer, Ground Zero Texas (Oops, I meant the Fahrenheit game), Night Trap 32X, etc. The full motion games. It had some fighters, too, but, the full motion stuff was of interest to me, on the 32X. However, it did not interest me much when it was new, and most other people I knew of at the time looked at the system with some interest, but not enough to buy it since the other consoles (PS, etc) were on the way.

Jaguar, it's not a bad system, it just has a different batch of games. I do not recommend a Jaguar for just anyone. I'd tell a person to study the library first. Same goes for 32X, especially since there are less games.

I would have picked up a 32X, if I caught it when it was marked down. However, during the time it was marked down on clearance, I must not have been in a Toys 'r Us. I know that's how I ended up getting a Virtual Boy, it was a no-brainer to get that when it was $20-$30 or so at TRU. I remember going there for something else, seeing the VB really cheap, and figuring, "Hey, why not!?!".

[slinkyturd]

headaches, is why not. lol. I think Nintendo should have partnered with aspirin when they made that monsterosity.

[DragonmasterDan]

Arbitrary is "What is your favorite system?" I am looking at it as an all encompassing view. Meaning all things about the system are up for consideration i.e. sales(strict numbers, numbers vs manufacturer goals, and also vs competitors in its era or any era for that matter), library size, library quality, hardware, accessibility from launch to present, first and secondary market price vs. value, desirablility, graphical and sound quality during life span and does it stand the test of time?, what was the system's impact on the market, culturally, if any (for example, see the NES revitalizing a near dead gaming market with Atari crashing)?, etc.

It can't be the greatest unless all things are considered. How ever we want to weigh all of those things, listed and unlisted, I'd argue 3-4 systems are in the running.

A lot more than 3-4 systems have a legitimate case for being greatest. Among those are

Atari VCS/2600: First commericially successful home game console. Provided the foundation for console video game platforms.

Nintendo Entertainment System/Famicom: First globally commercially successful home game console. Was the platform that many big time game developers and publishers first had mainstream success with

GameBoy: While not the first ever handheld with interchangable games was the first successful one. Is almost entirely responsible for the portable game console market.

Playstation: While not the first CD-ROM based game console was the first one to be globally successful. Had success in Western markets by being a mainstream platform that was marketed to adults rather than to children.

Playstation 2: Extremely commercially successful, backwards compatible with the original playstation. The first successful (No, the Nuon doesn't count as successful) console platform to utilize DVD as its media storage. Also helped popularize DVD as a home video format.

Nintendo Wii: Introduced motion control, with the virtual console had a legal means of downloading previous generation software and as a result has an enormous library.

And legitimate arguments could be made for a few other consoles as well. Simply put it's not limited to 3-4 systems.

[esteban]

Arbitrary is "What is your favorite system?" I am looking at it as an all encompassing view. Meaning all things about the system are up for consideration i.e. sales(strict numbers, numbers vs manufacturer goals, and also vs competitors in its era or any era for that matter), library size, library quality, hardware, accessibility from launch to present, first and secondary market price vs. value, desirablility, graphical and sound quality during life span and does it stand the test of time?, what was the system's impact on the market, culturally, if any (for example, see the NES revitalizing a near dead gaming market with Atari crashing)?, etc.

It can't be the greatest unless all things are considered. How ever we want to weigh all of those things, listed and unlisted, I'd argue 3-4 systems are in the running.

A lot more than 3-4 systems have a legitimate case for being greatest. Among those are

Atari VCS/2600: First commericially successful home game console. Provided the foundation for console video game platforms.

Nintendo Entertainment System/Famicom: First globally commercially successful home game console. Was the platform that many big time game developers and publishers first had mainstream success with

GameBoy: While not the first ever handheld with interchangable games was the first successful one. Is almost entirely responsible for the portable game console market.

Playstation: While not the first CD-ROM based game console was the first one to be globally successful. Had success in Western markets by being a mainstream platform that was marketed to adults rather than to children.

Playstation 2: Extremely commercially successful, backwards compatible with the original playstation. The first successful (No, the Nuon doesn't count as successful) console platform to utilize DVD as its media storage. Also helped popularize DVD as a home video format.

Nintendo Wii: Introduced motion control, with the virtual console had a legal means of downloading previous generation software and as a result has an enormous library.

And legitimate arguments could be made for a few other consoles as well. Simply put it's not limited to 3-4 systems.

REBUTTAL: nope, I'm pretty sure Xbox is greatest (greatest money pit, putting Microsoft a billion $$$$ in the hole, and for what gain? They were hoping to be a common appliance, in every living room, the center of entertainment for mainstream America....see, if MS established itself as the center of multimedia living room...well the gamble would have paid off brilliantly).

I know Sony has lost a pretty penny, but they've been better at recouping initial overhead costs than MS.

[DragonmasterDan]

REBUTTAL: nope, I'm pretty sure Xbox is greatest (greatest money pit, putting Microsoft a billion $$$$ in the hole, and for what gain? They were hoping to be a common appliance, in every living room, the center of entertainment for mainstream America....see, if MS established itself as the center of multimedia living room...well the gamble would have paid off brilliantly).

With the X-Box at least initially a big part of the plan there was to use it to help keep their Windows monopoly which 13 years ago was far more impactful than it is today with the advent of Android and IOS smart phones and tablets.

They had a genuine fear that home consoles with web and basic application capability could pose a legitimate threat to their PC OS/Office Business and wanted to disrupt the market as much as possible. With Sega clearly on their way out they didn't see Nintendo as a clear threat and felt that if Sony were given the market with only Nintendo as a competitor a Playstation 2 with say the Linux kit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2) might eventually become the standard bundle and provide PC level capabilities to an inexpensive game console that based on the sales of the original unit could easily sell 100 million units.

MS didn't enter the game console market to make money selling game consoles, they entered the market to put more pressure on Sony to be price competitive and be more hesitant about making advanced features that would turn the Playstation 2 into more than just a game console into standard features.

[esteban]

REBUTTAL: nope, I'm pretty sure Xbox is greatest (greatest money pit, putting Microsoft a billion $$$$ in the hole, and for what gain? They were hoping to be a common appliance, in every living room, the center of entertainment for mainstream America....see, if MS established itself as the center of multimedia living room...well the gamble would have paid off brilliantly).

With the X-Box at least initially a big part of the plan there was to use it to help keep their Windows monopoly which 13 years ago was far more impactful than it is today with the advent of Android and IOS smart phones and tablets.

They had a genuine fear that home consoles with web and basic application capability could pose a legitimate threat to their PC OS/Office Business and wanted to disrupt the market as much as possible. With Sega clearly on their way out they didn't see Nintendo as a clear threat and felt that if Sony were given the market with only Nintendo as a competitor a Playstation 2 with say the Linux kit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_for_PlayStation_2) might eventually become the standard bundle and provide PC level capabilities to an inexpensive game console that based on the sales of the original unit could easily sell 100 million units.

MS didn't enter the game console market to make money selling game consoles, they entered the market to put more pressure on Sony to be price competitive and be more hesitant about making advanced features that would turn the Playstation 2 into more than just a game console into standard features.

Agreed. So....does that mean we can call Xbox the Greatest Console Moneypit?

I think we can.

Like I said, if the gamble paid off for MS, we would be praising them. As it stands, we can mock them for flushing away money faster than a __________ at __________.

[Necromancer]

Nintendo Wii: Introduced motion control, with the virtual console had a legal means of downloading previous generation software and as a result has an enormous library.

Introduced motion control to the mainstream maybe, but it wasn't at all a new idea or even a unique implementation.