Redpill me on cartridges vs cds

Cartridges are best for Portables, CDs are best for home consoles.

Attached: 1457234569374.gif (581x542, 1.86M)

Cartridge is solid state, but hold much less space and are more expensive
CD's are cheaper and have big storage space, but loading times.

CD's won 25 years ago.

You are too young to understand.

CDs could hold more data but carts had faster load times and didn't need a memory card

>Cartridges were the objectively better technology.
Nah that is objectively wrong. Cds could store way more data. Only big drawback was the loading time maybe.

Cartridges have fast loader time and are more durable overall, while CDs can store more data and have better sound quality. A lot of people say that the N64 "failed because it didn't use CDs", but I doubt that any system at the time would be able to run games like Ocarina and Super Mario 64 on optical media.

Attached: 1553176436714.gif (487x560, 898K)

What about USBs?

Solid state > moving parts

Game CDs at the time were only useful for holding FMV, which is not video games

>Redpill

aside from issues related to rotational velocidensity, rotational read patterns will always be better than solid state

Attached: .png (500x552, 155K)

Except sequential reading patterns are fucking useless for video games

ah-bloo-bloo

who the fuck says the n64 failed?

confired bluepilled what secrets do you not want us to find out

>everything here is pol
>>>/reddit/

I think people say that since it is considered to be the last gasp of cartridge consoles.

Attached: 1536036200950.gif (500x346, 689K)

Well, when compared to playsation, yeah, bombed hard.

N64 actually made more profit than the PS1

64kids are the most delusional group out there. Cartridges were a mistake on all levels and led to the 64 having less games than even the GBC.
Just look at pic related. It was a total flop, it led to Nintendo losing the lead and the console was getting beaten even by the Saturn in Japan.
Enix kept trying to make RPGs work for Nintendo and got nothing worthwhile to show, forcing them to eventually jump to Playstation after missing the entirety of the 90s and released their DQ7 in the year 2000, all because they lost time trying to be helpful to Nintendo.

Cartridges suffered from enemy variety, music variety and quality, texture variety, which led to 64 games re-using many assets to even be possible.
>Sold less than the NES, SNES
>Competition sold 100 million, which is more than three times what it sold
>First time Nintendo lost the lead
>Bad experiences with the 64 led to the superior
>GameCube getting a stigma and selling even worse.
>Lost all third-party support the NES and SNES had won.
>Led to a massive dip on Nintendo's stocks.
It was terrible user, it placed Nintendo on a hole that it wouldn't have got out of if not for Iwata.

Attached: chart.png (600x490, 11K)

>PS1: 100 million units sold
>N64: 30 million units sold
Doubt.

Who gives a shit? JRPGs are the worst genre ever invented. N64 games have snappy load times.

You might say that many N64 were conservative with assets to even be possible. Games like fucking Soul Reaver had to put loading corridors goddamn everywhere to even be possible on PS1.

GameCube didn’t sell bad due to the N64. It sold badly because too many games in its library either lacked mainstream appeal or were inferior sequels to N64 games (Wind Waker fits into both categories).

PS1 hardware was sold for loss, while N64 was sold for profit. Also N64 cartridges had incredibly high profit margins for Nintendo, while PS1 discs only had small margins.

30 million PS1 consoles were sold in third world countries where every single machine would have been chipped and no software whatsoever sold.

CD's vs Cartridges is another conversation you can't have on Yea Forums thanks to Sony Niggers.

>And Racing
>And Fighting
>And Action
>And basically every genre under the sun.
Banjo Kazooie for example, sold 5 million, while Crash sold 50 million and Spyro sold 20 million. Even Gex sold 17 million.

cartridge had little to no loading time but were expensive to make and had very low storage space, around 40mb

CDs had very long loading times, but were cheap to make and had vast storage space, around 750 mb

># of games
So the 64 library wasn't completed bloated to shit with garbage shovelware like PS1 and PS2's library, wow, who cares? Games looked better on N64 because of the way it render polygons without disgusting distortion effects like the PS1

Attached: 1517039885915.jpg (564x1166, 152K)

N64 3D also enjoyed precise vertices and actual z-sorting. The PlayStation's 3D was ugly as fuck.

>Also N64 cartridges had incredibly high-profit margins for Nintendo, while PS1 discs only had small margins.
You are unironically praising the fact Nintendo took the jew's share from cartridge sales which is why they lost third party support until they had to cut their profits for companies like Capcom to consider going back.
If it was 1000 games I would consider your case, if it was 800 games I would consider it, maybe, but we are talking about 300 games, the least of any Nintendo mainline home consoles. Do you know the gravity of this? The Dreamcast, which was discontinued, had more games than the 64.

Cartridge technology was just not good enough at the late 90s for 3D games and the 64 was not built for 2D either. It got better since then, and is better than CD now.

>Banjo Kazooie for example, sold 5 million, while Crash sold 50 million
All four Crash games combined together sold 20 million.

Post discarded.

The reason why there's more PS1 games than N64, is that CD's were cheaper, and cartridges were more stringently created. Nintendo had a higher quality bar

It's speed versus size.
Funny enough, this fight is still around with the PS4 using a HDD and the Switch using Flash storage.

>You are unironically praising the fact Nintendo took the jew's share from cartridge sales
I’m not praising it, just pointing out the N64 didn’t bomb because its profits were high.

>All that reddit spacing.
I always tried to understand why so many YouTubers, blue checks, and leftists hold the 64 in such high regard, even above the greatest Nintendo consoles. And I think I understand now.
The 64 was a no game machine, less than any other Nintendo console, so the games you played on it are always the same, you play Mario 64 and spin-offs, you play the Zeldas, you play the Rarewares. You don't have this in other consoles, you ask a Playstation, a Wii, a Switch, a DS, a SNES, fan their top picks, and they will give you a variety of answers. Yet, with the 64, you will get much less variety. This creates a hive mind, where everyone likes the same things, thoughts will not be challenged, your favorite is the best game ever made.
I mean, just look at For him "conversation" would consist of a bunch of likeminded 64fags bashing CDs and deluding themselves on how the 64 totally won that gen. Anyone saying otherwise is a monster and is just doing it because they love Sony.

Attached: average64fan.jpg (808x172, 43K)

right is soul
left is soulless

Cartridges load faster and have no other advantages and are otherwise inferior to CDs in all qualities.

It didn't lead to better quality overall, 90% of the 64 library, like any library of any consoles, was still worthless.

Attached: download.jpg (263x192, 12K)

It actually makes sense.

Imagining having to discredit entire genres to make the library of your console less barebones. Its something SNES and GC kids don't have to do.

MicroSD are cartridges, technically. You can get 128 grigabits on microsd's nowadays. Blurays hold what, 20?

discs were never the way of the future.

Fast loading and less memory vs slow loading and more memory.
These days cartridges are generally pushing ahead.

Both shit vs download.

>Being so poor you have to resort to brand loyalty

Back then CDs were way better than cartriges, see how the newbie PS1 raped the N64.
Cartrigefags still cope to this day though

>cartridge
>great smooth gameplay
>cd
>cinematic experience bullshit

Why are you linking me to that statement?

Cart = faster load times, lower capacity, no moving parts
Disc = slower load times, larger capacity, moving parts

Moving parts = higher rate of failure and energy consumption

You should really have a good look to see just how much shovelware the PS1. N64 had some turds like Carmageddon 64 but as a % of library it had less trash.

It wasn't that smooth, I remember some 64 games with very low framerates, same as the PlayStation. I also don't see how Crash, Tekken, Gran Turismo, were "cinematic experiences"

Attached: 1466983418999.jpg (1968x786, 421K)

>Blurays hold what, 20?
300GB

Turok, and Forsaken, granted it took me a minute.

CDs were at one point the superior medium for storing games because the discs were cheap to mass produce and could be written on from a standard pc. At this time, solid state storage was in its infancy and was very expensive to produce, very expensive and time consuming to develop with, and required a shit ton of non-standard stuff to test with.

Cartridges are now in a place where they can shit on discs because high density discs are not cheap to produce, the readers/writers are less common than they were 20 years ago, and with ease of access to 3d printing technology and the improved density and cost efficiency of solid state storage, its much cheaper and easier to use cartridges.

Of course Xbox and Sony will continue to push for discs even tho the disc contains nothing but licensing information and maybe a 10th of the content, the rest of which requires updates immediately after installation. Nintendo has the right idea going back to cartridges.

literally any video about this gen online will explain the pros and cons of both and in the same breath take a giant shit on sega
stop trying to start shit when you werent even a twinkle in your dad's nuts when that gen was around

You would need to say 50% of the library was not trash for the small library to start to pay off, which I do not think is the case. You still can not overlook the many SNES games that had sequels on PlayStation or Saturn instead of the 64.
Finally, I would say having shovelware is not that big of a problem, the DS is a king of shovelware and one of the best consoles ever made, with a library full of hidden gems.

>Cartridges
Pros: faster loading times
Cons: more expensive and less storage capacity
>CDs
Pro: cheaper and more storage
Cons: longer loading times

Sega at least had the right idea. The Saturn uses a faster disk system than the PS1, has a 512 KB disk cache (PS1 only 128 KB) and has an entire CPU dedicated to streaming shit from the CD. That’s why Saturn games load nicely while PS1 takes all day.

Nobody that’s played a port of a 2D fighting game on PS1 can defend that system’s load times.

Funny because it’s the same cope PS3fags and PSPfags used against the DS and the Wii.
It really doesn’t matter because PS1 library was like 10 times bigger and in the end it had more games to play. I’ll rather pick a console with 3000 games and a 2/3 shit ratio than a console with only 200 games.

Are digital downloads the best?Ie fastest etc.

I'm baffled that discs are still considered superior to cartridges, cartridges are way better now.

The 64 didn't lose the SNES library because of Cartridges, what a stupid argument. They lost it because Yamauchi was old school Japanese businessman, and while it did guarantee the NES success, his overstepping acts started to grow bad blood between him and the third parties, who were getting tired of censorship and high costs of productions.

Yamauchi was quite childish, I know a lot of Nintendo fans love his comments about RPGs, but I would like to point you to an incident near the PSP launch
>Do you think it will be a success?
>I don't think so.
>I reckon our Nintendo DS will sweep the floor with it.
>What do they have?
>They have Square Enix.
>They will probably release a traditional RPG [role playing game].
>Children are bored of RPG's.
Keep in mind, at the time SE was supporting the GBA, had announced a first year title for the DS, and the dude was still firing at them, whilst Iwata was actively trying to get them back onboard, Iwata's actions would help to get Dragon Quest 9 as a DS exclusive, which was the second best selling third party released on any Nintendo console and really helped to keep the PSP down.
So no, the 64 suffered because of Yamauchi, Nintendo's share of the cartridge cost being too high and a lack of diplomacy with third-parties.

>They have Square Enix.
Did nobody tell him about the GBA? I mean of course he could not know SE would release 3 times as many DS games as PSP games, but they were on the GBA.
Then again, I searched the interview, and he says: Kids don't want to have long conversations with NPC's [non-playable characters] or random battles with enemies.
They want Pokemon.
lol

Attached: 1522584788225.jpg (1920x1080, 180K)

He was still butthurt over FF7, just like all N64 kids are to this day.

>just like all N64 kids are to this day.
user, you don't genuinely believe that do you?

easier to make profit from CD / far cheaper to produce

The Saturn has way more RAM than the PS1 in general, which is most of the reason why it received superior arcade ports.

cd=loading times simulator filled with shitty fmv

Attached: 1518625589951.jpg (660x660, 44K)

Anybody who was alive during the time. The N64 was an afterthought compared to the Playstation.

Nu-Sony arguments don't work against the PS1 and 2

Attached: 1551987649059.gif (500x375, 297K)

>Optical Media such as CD Roms, DVD, blu-ray
>Can hold greater amounts of data compared to their contemporary storage mediums
>This allowed for the inclusion of higher quality audio, more audio, video clips, etc
>Much cheaper to produce than standard cartridge media
>Generally take longer to load and access data
>Are less durable than standard cartridge media

>Cartridge Media, now including flash storage
>Generally are restricted in storage capacity compared to optimal media, as far as price points are concerned
>Load and access times are far shorter than optical media
>Much more reliable for long-term data storage, less prone to being damaged in handling
>Modern cartridge media can be very, very small, also allowing for smaller packaging
>Aside from simply storing ROM/game data, the circuit boards can potentially include their own chips or peripherals to extend the capabilities of the system such as better graphics, IR sensors, motion sensors, interface ports, etc
>More expensive to produce than standard optical media

The durability of the storage medium is very important to the purpose of the system.
For example, the PS Vita and Nintendo Switch both use cartridges, as did the DS and 3DS, whereas the PSP used an optical media which ended up being a negative for use in handheld play.
For a home console with no portable use at all, optical media is generally fine.
A modern blu-ray disc can easily offer 25gb or 50gb, which is usually more than enough space.
Whereas flash memory cartridges are also capable of offering 32gb and 64gb storage, but doing so will be at a much greater expense to manufacture in large quantities.

nonsense there was a lot of excitement around n64 and it was solid in all senses of the word. It's important to remember the console gaming world was thinking in terms of 8bit / 16bit / 32bit back then - not "generations". PSX was successful but so was N64 for different reasons.

/thread.

A 50-pack of BD-R costs like $93, or roughly $2/disc.

A 64GB flash drive on the cheap end costs about $10.

That added cost gets passed onto the developer as financial risk and ultimately the consumer.

In a day where video game companies spend millions to create a game, the fact that they have to risk eating an additional $8 * (number copies made) if the game doesn't sell well will tell you everything you need to know on why discs are the preferred media.

Quite frankly, I'm surprised discs are even a thing at all. If I were Sony, I would've made the original PS4 with a 1TB HDD and promote the shit out of PSN downloads, offering each game at a $5 discount over the disc version.

Yeah, I mean, just look at that shitty looking PlayStation game on the left, can't match the detail and soul of Nintendo.

Attached: the true power of the 64.jpg (1040x1021, 279K)

how many blur filters did you put the CTR through to smooth out the jaggies?

3? 4?

I made an effort to keep it all in native resolution, we all know emulated PS1 looks even better since you can emulate out the jagged look but you can't take the blur out of 64 games.

Don't try to rewrite history. I had both consoles and even had my N64 first. It wasn't the N-gage but it was soundly behind the playstation in the public eye. It dropped Nintendo into a hole they're still not out of.

Soul: Lol, whatever, just copy paste the sun on the same plain blue sky. Don't even make a skybox for every level, just keep re-using them.
Soulless: Let's make a skybox for every level exploring different times of the day and weather conditions. Don't re-use assets even if you are dealing with two levels using a full moon in plain view.
Can I now be accepted into the horde?

Attached: skyboxes.jpg (3001x774, 328K)

The quality of the graphics in-game had little to do with cartridge vs. CD and almost everything to do with the fact that the N64 used technology two years more advanced than the PSX. In the mid 90s, that was substantial.

The N64 was generally the more powerful machine and could handle true 3D, while the PSX couldn't. The PSX did 3D mostly be super-imposing pixelated, low-polygon count characters onto 2D jpg backgrounds. This cost a lot of memory, which wasn't a concern on CDs, but created the illusion of 3D. On the other hand, the N64 rendered its 3D backgrounds which is why you had control of the camera in games like Mario 64 and Zelda. Simply put, there's nothing that the PSX was able to do from a game-engine perspective simply by using CDs; its games had graphics and sound that could run on the N64 easily due to limitations of the PSX hardware.

The only thing CDs offered the PSX was the ability to use FMV cutscenes in games and [shitty] voice acting, which was all the rave in the 90s. These cutscenes were basically pre-recorded video and audio rather than utilizing the in-game engine to render the graphics, and again cost a LOT of memory.

FF7 is 3 discs because of pre-recorded movies. MGS is 2 discs because of pre-recorded audio. But when you get to actually controlling the character, both games are ugly as sin compared to what the N64 could do.

>inb4 accused of being nintendo fanboy.

do also you think sporting associations should allow athletes to take performance-enhancing drugs? I mean it can only makes things even?

who is the one trying to re-write history here? I had both consoles too btw as well as Saturn, PS2, SNES and a lot more besides. Not that it makes any difference to my argument.

Now, the N64 had its own graphics issues like blurry low-res textures, but this didn't actually look too bad when playing games on a 19-25" CRT at 6-10' away. When you play it on modern 50"+ HDTVs at 8'-10' or laptops 2' away from a screen, yea, they look like shit.

I still have my Street fighter 2 cartridge for Sega mega drive and it still works.
I don't have any of my playstation cds but Icould easily burn the iso files of a few games i still play trough epsxe.

Meanwhile the N64 had shitty games with bad controls made worse by the horrible limitations of the cartridge format. Mario 64 was supposed to be a New Super Mario Bros.-like game until Nintendo decided everything had to be fucking 3d and control like ass with a pathetic, retarded camera.

Fuck the N64. PS1 wasn't much better with shit like goddamn MGS, a goddamn pile of shit bad controls moviegame, but the N64 was directly responsible for gaming going to shit in the mid-90s and fucking up gaming ever since.

> who the fuck says the n64 failed?

Anyone who has a remote understanding of business and who isn't blinded by being a Nintendo fanboy.

When you lose a huge chunk of market share on a product, when all of your business partners bail for the competition, your product is a failure. It's not just about the profit Nintendo did make but also the profit they were supposed to make if the N64 sold comparably to the SNES or NES.

You idiot, I just said I made an effort to not pick emulator pictures, but it's hard when everything is mixed up on the web. If you have a proper native picture, please share.

Carts have near-instant loads at the cost of storage space so if you like FMVs then they could be thought of as bad

>Meanwhile the N64 had shitty games with bad controls made worse by the horrible limitations of the cartridge format.

You missed the point. There was nothing about the cartridge format that made the controls good or bad for the N64. The N64 could have used CDs and the games would have been the same; the only difference is that Nintendo could have loaded the games with pre-recorded audio and video for that 'cinematic experience.'

Mario 64 was the first 3D platformer ever created. I'm sorry that you expected perfection out of that effort. I had some gripes with the game but they don't revolve around the camera or graphics, but instead around the lack of challenge and how nearly impossible it is to die with the exception of falling off a cliff.

Cartridges are great, if you want to play games.
They fucking suck, if you want to transport data.
Optical discs are okay, if you want to transport/archive data.
They fucking suck as a medium to regularly read from.

Is there a specific reason why Alaska is not red?

Yes, there are no PS1 games where you can control the camera. Spyro is my favorite 64 game.

Attached: 0c560dcbe14a3b916dc7dd49cb6385f4bfc56d37_hq.gif (540x375, 972K)

>he didn't watch the Matrix
I feel bad for you

>MicroSD are cartridges, technically.
Cards are not carts, technically.

You couldn't run Crash or Spyro on a 64 because of texture variety, you forget textures also needed storage space. Part of the porting process of Legends to the 64 was simplifying textures so they wouldn't need as much space.

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720, 138K)

Micro SD card on Amazon: $9
BD-R: $2/disc

Still substantially cheaper to use optical media.

>None of these posts moved the IP counter up.
HMMMM

>You couldn't run Crash or Spyro on a 64 because of texture variety
Conker has more on-screen texture variety than any PS1 game.

Spyro just tiles the same two somewhat high-res textures over and over in every visible frame.

Attached: conker4.webm (480x360, 2.88M)

As a business? Sure, it failed.
I played both Playstation and N64 games in the late 90s, though.
Both were decent consoles, but N64 had the better games.
Also, since I still was comparatively young, the gap between 10/10 releases of about 6 months was perfect.

>left - game made in 1996 by a company that doesn't give a shit about graphics
>right - game made in 1999 by a company that doesn't care about anything *but* graphics

> You couldn't run Crash or Spyro on a 64 because of texture variety, you forget textures also needed storage space.

The low-res blurry textures on N64 were more due to design hardware limitations than cartridge storage space. The N64 only had 4kB texture cache, so it simply couldn't process Mega Man Legends' textures.

nah nah, rather it sounds like you're a Sony fanboy to me, trying to shit on N64

The game that KO'd Nintendo until the Wii came out.

Attached: 1501677760172.jpg (700x336, 154K)

>The N64 only had 4kB texture cache
PS1 only has a 2 KB texture cache

Some real sandy vagina Snoybois up in here

>Music isn't saved on the CD
>Textures aren't saved on the CD
>Models aren't saved on the CD
>Only FMV uses CD storage!
Are you actually stupid user? Spyro didn't use the CD to run FMVs, it did use the extra storage to introduce at least one new enemy in each of its 30 levels, sometimes levels would have six enemies that only showed up once.

Bullshit. Any game from Rare has way more textures than Crash or Spyro.

>it didn't go up again
huh...
Also, fuck off, I haven't had a Sony console since the PSP, the 64 just happens to be one of the worst things Nintendo ever released.

uh. nah. You fuck off.

Benefits of flash storage:
>faster load times
>more robust against physical damage
>no moving parts required to read the data, meaning the console itself is less prone to breaking
>smaller physical size, less physical space taken up in the console's hardware
>less prone to disc rot
>don't have to pay royalties to Sony since you're not using blu-ray (obviously not an issue if you're Sony)

Benefits of optical storage:
>larger capacity
>cheaper to mass-manufacture

For most of Playstation's existence, discs were the superior option solely because of those two reasons. Especially with more games including more voice acting and cutscenes, games ended up getting very large very quickly so the additional storage capacity was essential for home console games. But these days cartridges have managed to bridge the gap in capacity and they're not that much cheaper to manufacture. Plus plenty of games have mandatory day-1 downloads so it's not like you need the storage capacity to be that big.

Having said that, it's more likely that the industry will completely abandon physical media rather than switching back to cartridges.

Someone with much more knowledge of how graphics hardware works can explain it better than me, but the texture cache was the limiting factor in how detailed N64 textures could be. It had nothing to do with carts.

The actual in-game graphics of all games at the time could easily fit on a cartridge (12-32 MB, or 96-256 Mb). The FMVs and pre-recorded audio are what pushed memory usage over what could normally fit onto a cartridge.

The PS1 pretty much DESTROYED the N64, but what people tend to take for granted was the job that Sega did weakening Nintendo's hold over the masses.

Attached: 1518734104596.png (2080x1200, 163K)

Imagine having to use a 90s console CPU to process your audio instead of a sound chip (that a high end PC needed, even the SNES had one which was also a selling point), imagine having to compress the shit out of everything when the japanese were pushing for CD in consoles since the late 80s, imagine not wanting and not being able to make 2D games on your console since they don't benefit from the obligatory blur filter that asked more from the already overloaded CPU power, imagine thinking you don't need japanese developers on your console despite the west being PC territory for a long time now (N64 Quake is a joke), imagine liking the console that helped kill arcade games more than anything else so far, imagine thinking that just because you had less games to choose from that must mean they care about you not wasting your time, imagine thinking that having dozens of Mario spin offs is better than having SNES variety.

The N64 was easily the console that did the most damage to the industry in its release, Nintendo though that people liked their consoles for their quality games and not for how if you had a SNES you had pretty much everything console gaming has to offer, a failure of hardware and software that ruined Nintendo forever and turned gaming into something worse than it used to be for no particular reason except having a clueless man that felt like telling everyone who didn't like his point of view to fuck off.

Cartridge has superior read speeds and durability but we’re more expensive and creatively restrictive due to they’re smaller file size

CD were cheap, had bigger files sizes, allowed dev to put things like AMV when they were all the rage however the load time were much slower and the disc was prone to scratches and disc rot

I was keeping it limited to the first Spyro since it was the same year as Banjo, but you want to bring later games? Sure. 2 and 3 all had levels with unique themes and 4-5 types of unique enemies. They also had more levels than Banjo or Conker. Do the math.

Attached: Summer_Forest.JPG.jpg (800x600, 408K)

forum.beyond3d.com/threads/how-bad-a-limitation-was-the-4k-texture-cache-in-n64.40696/

Attached: dab_on'em_gaymer.jpg (747x717, 125K)

You sit on an empty road driving, how isn't Gran Turismo a cinematic experience?

>the texture cache was the limiting factor in how detailed N64 textures could be. It had nothing to do with carts.
Actually the limitation was memory bandwidth, not carts or the texture cache.

N64 had more memory bandwidth than the PS1 but z-buffer ate a huge chunk of that. Unless N64 games were carefully programmed they would also waste memory bandwidth on random access latency and bus contention (issues the PS1 didn't have to deal with). Bad ports like Megaman 64 would have been wasteful so to get bandwidth under control they would have just nuked the texture resolution.

The texture cache being responsible is only a half-truth at best. If the cache was bigger then the low memory bandwidth wouldn't have been a problem. But at the same of its release, the N64 had the biggest texture cache literally ever up to that point of time.

The only actual developer in that thread is ERP though. You should ignore everybody else's comments.

When did I say I hated Nintendo you stupid spammer?

By that logic, Mario Kart is a cinematic experience.
>But it has a level with oncoming traffic!
Then Need for Speed or Twister Metal.

Fair enough. Point is that this is that texture resolution limits are due to N64 hardware design and not the cartridge media itself.

CDs store more data
Carts read and as such load faster.

In store appeal is still extremely important
Without physical impulse buyers you could see game sell drop easily 15-20%

Lastly in threads of making people buy digital there’s still a lot of digital distrust.
Remember games like Scott Pilgrim the video game?
A little bit of legal controversy happens and bam the game is gone forever
People don’t like that

Attached: Banjo_Tooie_XBLA.jpg (1280x720, 146K)

There will be some exceptions though. The developers of Quake 64 were quite open in saying that the texture resolution in that game at least *was* affected by the cartridge size. They were aiming for a 16 MB cart but the publisher forced them to get a smaller one.

> Without physical impulse buyers you could see game sell drop easily 15-20%.

Amazon's entire business model relies on people buying shit on impulse from their couch.

Now there's something to be said that Amazon's target demographic of 25-50 year old adults vice video game's target market of 12-25 year old adolescents makes a difference, but I do think that they'd sell a lot more on impulse if you could more easily buy the next game without having to go out to the store to get it and also fit your entire library on your HDD.

Cartridges are superior in every single way except cost/storage ratio

has there been a bigger fall from grace

Nice revisionist history
Mario 64 single handedly unfucked 3D Gaming
Was it perfect?
At the time: you bet your ass.
Mario was the Elder god game that literally changed the industry practically overnight

>hey we can use a bigger cart.
>Nah, here is a even smaller one.

I still how many games got fucked because publishers went full jew.

I remember SFA3 on GBA being buttfucked because capcom didn't gave devs a bigger cart.

Attached: 1538078262039.png (500x500, 200K)

From a purely logistical standpoint, that makes sense, but console gamers (myself included) enjoy having our favorite games in a physical format. Although with digital games becoming the norm, I sometimes just buy the digital version for the sheer convenience.

I think the reason they didn't push for digital as hard was due to the abysmal launch of the PS3 and their need to curry favor with their audience again.

> They were aiming for a 16 MB cart but the publisher forced them to get a smaller one.

I can't speak to their in-house goals, but an N64 cartridge was capable of holding 512 Mb, or 64 MB of data, at the time that Quake 64 was released, and a 32MB game (256Mbit) was not uncommon.

Again, there were design limitations on the game that had to be imposed based upon N64 hardware limitations as well.

disc-rot vs cartridge battery explosion

choose wisely

In an alternate reality where high speed internet doesn't exist, carts would eventually win out over optical media in the long run. Soon enough a small micro-SD card will be able to hold more data than a bluray disc, and is more durable. (can't get scratched)

> I still how many games got fucked because publishers went full jew.

Well, cartridge memory was expensive so Quake 64 could make more profit per sale if they skipped out on memory, since it wasn't really an option to raise the price of the game another $10.

CD's are better, since they can be used as frisbees after disc rot takes place.

enjoy you're shovelwares

Attached: snapshot_20.01_[2016.12.24_06.35.32].png (1920x1080, 2.5M)

>Soon.

More like now. 1tb ones are expensive but you can get 128gb+ on sales for cheap.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1920x1080, 195K)

>but an N64 cartridge was capable of holding 512 Mb, or 64 MB of data, at the time that Quake 64 was released
The first 64 MB game was Resident Evil 2 which was released 2 years after Quake 64.

FYI Quake 64 ended up with a 12 MB cartridge, 4 MB short of what they wanted.

It couldn't user, model variety was definitely something PS1 games have over 64 games. It could not render all the shapes at the same time as the 64, but it was able to store more complex shapes which led to games with more variety.

Attached: model variety.jpg (1280x599, 144K)

Except the N64 normally had higher quality audio than the PS1 due to having more RAM and a better sound processor.

The PS1 could store more sound effects and longer (but not higher bitrate) samples (+redbook audio) which made its midi instrumentation on par with the n64 BUT most ps1 games have highly bitcrushed sound effects and generally poorer 3D audio rendering.

Shovelware is a nonargument that is only used by people who prefer consoles who lost (Genesis, 64, PSP, PS3, Vita)
I mean, you wouldn't say the 64 is better than the DS, for example, right?

This

I’ve been known to double dip games like I orginally own Splatoon 2 and BOTW physical but when I got shit of getting up to Switch carts I brought them both on sale for 40$

> The first 64 MB game was Resident Evil 2 which was released 2 years after Quake 64.

Again, a choice of developers to skip out on cost and minimize risk, not a limitation of the medium. That's the point.

>FYI Quake 64 ended up with a 12 MB cartridge, 4 MB short of what they wanted.

Well short of 16MB or 32MB, so the point stands that the game could've been bigger and wasn't actually limited by the cartridge media itself.

I agree with you but again this wasn't a function of CDs vs Cartridges but the technical limitations of each piece of hardware.

The N64 was stuck on midi though. Can't compare the soundtracks of something like Chrono Cross to anything on the 64.

Cartridges were literally only used because Nintendo was too scared of piracy, they already had a pretty bad experience with it in the Famicom Disk System so they decided to not take shit from anyone (even their own third party developers) it made sense from that side of the argument because discs were so cheap and easy to copy Play Station became synonymous with console piracy, the faster data reading being the main reason is just a myth used by western marketing. Nintendo took note of how it worked to convince people they weren't being fools and how it had a practical use, they liked it so much that they followed this principle with the mini discs in their next console for better performance without having to sacrifice the audio visual quality and the fact that Animal Crossing could run on the Game Cube with no disc tells you enough about how using cartridges felt like a tasteless joke in the mind of a 90s video game dev team, Capcom were rightfully considered geniuses for how they managed to make a really good port of Resident Evil 2 to the Nintendo 64 despite the inconveniences in storage media and complicated hardware of the console.

64 gig cards need to hit cheaper than pennies tier so devs will finally stop having excuses to be lazy fucks.

>The N64 was stuck on midi though. Can't compare the soundtracks of something like Chrono Cross to anything on the 64.
Like 95% of Chrono Cross's soundtrack *is* MIDI-style sequenced music user.

Is easier to make a copy of a CD than replacing the battery of a cart

Animal crossing is literally a n64 game. Shit run entirely on memory you can even take the disk out once you loaded it.

That MIDI needed quality samples.

and yet the game on right had better gameplay too
funny how that happens

But it has to do with cartridge vs CD as it is a storage problem not a hardware problem (since both consoles need to apply limitations to run the left game.)
Like, pic related are all levels from world 1 of 4 from Spyro 3 as one single level. Nothing in here is beyond the 64's capabilities, you could run anything in here on it, the only problem would be storage size. Which is my whole argument here, that saying "well CDs were just used for FMVs and Audio" is silly.

Attached: kisspng-spyro-year-of-the-dragon-spyro-2-ripto-s-rage-s-three-dimensional-map-of-the-world-5b4b872b3 (1024x576, 444K)

True but later N64 games didn't do too badly there.

youtube.com/watch?v=BwQgznxNJoU
youtube.com/watch?v=1YRGbfufHG8

Castlevania 64 has a shockingly high quality violin sample starting at around 0:28
youtube.com/watch?v=VuQSKUTe89g

That's my point, the amount of RAM in 6th gen consoles wasn't anything special, it's as low as it gets and that's what the developers of the N64 struggled with, needing to use the equivalent of that but as game storage.

There's no comparison, although Chrono Cross does use MIDI, I think.

Part of the reason most PS1 soundtracks are better is that each song can have its own unique (if lower bitrate and frequency truncated) samples, whereas most N64 soundtracks mostly feature the same samples repeated on every song.

The Switch's little cards have it right. I hate the fragility of discs, and the bulkiness of old-school cartridges.

>Literally still SEETHING after decades
Don't hate player, hate the game.

Attached: 1551899769449.png (1280x1201, 207K)

A lot of devs can work around limitations if they want or just worked on console for quite a while. PS2 was a massive piece of shit to work yet ton of games run well or had high frame rate, Wii had ton of shortcomings for being literally a overclocked GC but got stuff like Xenoblade and Metroid prime, the former is fucking impressive due open ass areas.

Having power is good but it needs some kind of leash or shit like happen right now happens, ton of games launch and they run like shit either because dev "optimized" for Pro or just because they don't care and patch later anyway.

> Nothing in here is beyond the 64's capabilities, you could run anything in here on it, the only problem would be storage size.

This statement is patently false. The N64's texture limitations as a function of hardware design are well-known. I suggest you google it.

When you strip out pre-recorded FMV and audio, every PSX game can fit on an N64 cartridge. The only reason textures get blurred or simplified is because the N64 couldn't process them.

The rub is that you could buy 3 PSX games for every 2 N64 games.

Didn't Conker used MP3? I figured codec trickery was an usual thing in late N64 games since RE2 is notorious for its sound quality thanks to its dolby thing, it's actually pretty impressive what they did with the audio in the console and it's also often overlooked, specially these days with developers obsession of having everything "as it is" without any clever implementation of anything.

I mean shit they were right
It took fucking 15 years to get emulated N64 games and they still run like ass

>I suggest you google it.
Not him, but most of the info online about the N64's limitations are wrong. Literally the misunderstandings of tech illiterates regurgitated over 2 decades. You're more likely to get correct info about old consoles just reading /vr/.

>Didn't Conker used MP3?
Only for speech.

I don't think that is right user. Pic related is the texture file for one Spyro level. I checked one of Banjo's files, Rusty Bucket Bay, and it had 72 textures, which is less than this. Considering Banjo has fewer levels than Spyro 2 (10 against 25, I think?) it's not hard to guess which game has the most unique textures.

Attached: spyro_autumn_plains.jpg (1024x512, 89K)

Yeah
Devs need something to make thier asses work.
Patches are a blessing an a curse
Fixes fuck ups yet encourages laziness

>the triangle is the rotary engine of disc graphics

yeah all textures had been blocky and jaggy up until the likes of n64 / PC openGL et al; lol at trying to chalk n64 smooth textures as something of detriment, it was a selling point! Hardware Quake 2 compared with open GL was like night and day.

>nu-Sonyfag trying to bask in the glory of Japanese Sony.
Let me tell you the mentality behind the creation of the PS1 logo:
>S is placed flat like a shadow. The p is colored red, while the s has a three- color pattern of yellow, green and blue. The Colors used in the design stand for “brilliance, passion, joy, charm and elegance”.
Now take a guess why the PS4 logo is all white ;)

> Everyone else is wrong. I'm not going to give a reason other than to refer you to another japanese image board.

No, user.

Well, they sort of are. The developer of UltraHDMI pointed it out himself (a guy who actually knows his shit)

People online who consider themselves in the "know" didn't know the difference between the N64's anti-aliasing and its dither filter. In fact, those self-important know-it-alls didn't even know what a dither filter was.

Can confirm, I remember playing my psp in high school. Slightest bump from the bus or force from walking while playing was enough to bump the disc and have the thing freak out since it couldn't read the little disc inside of it

Cd = hdd back in the day slow but lots of space
Cartridges = m2 ssd super fast but very small and can add additional hardware onto the cartridge itself like sound vfx chips or anything else including extra memory and custom stuff

>cartridges
>you play the game
>cds
>you watch a loading screen

It played kinda wonky, but ages better than most platformers that came after it

Yeah, but only jews care about that, I'm talking about customers that are 100% sure that cartridges are worse than discs.

Because discs usually get discounted down to $5 (still turning a massive profit even a that price)

I think every dev would rather have ways to produce and control their own games than to be stuck with cartridges that are controlled by the console maker.

>We have this great new storage technology that allows us to transfer massive amounts of data to the gamers' homes at a lower price than current technology.
>What can we use that for?
>...
>BACKGROUNDS and MOVIES!

The CD killed console gaming.

pic related is all you need to know. just look at that $19 nintendo tax on every cartridge.

Attached: 1D2B8972-393C-45BD-B7BF-018B4F3EC62D.jpg (725x468, 69K)

The jewmost thing is asking for extra fees so devs can produce cartridges.
The dumbest thing is asking for extra fees do devs can produce cartridges AFTER a company has got 90% of your third-party support by not demanding said fees.

>israel is red

>Buy a new game.
>have to download or install 100 gb of uncompressed audio from from god knows who languages.

Attached: 1553133637411.jpg (1280x720, 408K)

Yeah, the Internet killed it as well, but this was way before that.

>Who gives a shit?
most people gave a shit, judging from how the n64 got blown the fuck out by the ps1 that generation.
>JRPGs are the worst genre ever invented.
"muh n64 didn't have them, so they're shit!"
those grapes sure are sour, user. meanwhile, nintendo's best consoles - the snes and the ds - were both stacked with jrpgs.

that's actually insightful user.

Attached: 1501343184682.gif (1080x1080, 504K)

>Also N64 cartridges had incredibly high profit margins for Nintendo
and that greed cost them third-party support forever. it also demoted them from "industry leader" to "secondary console" forever. the n64 was such a disastrous failure that they've still never really recovered from. you can't possibly believe sticking with cartridges was the right decision in the long run.

it's just the beta version of HDDs vs SSDs

>it also demoted them from "industry leader" to "secondary console" forever.
They're still rather comfortably a leader if you ask me, the Wii's sheer success is still felt to this day through Xbox's Kinect starting off as a Wii motion-controls knockoff and anything put onto the Switch sells like hotcakes.

Well, at least Palestine is as well.

Any game that makes less money than Fortnite is a total failure - and you can't say you like any other game other than by being a Fortnite hater.

It still happens. Rayman Legends on the Switch has much worse load times than every other version because they compressed everything to squeeze the game onto a smaller (and cheaper) card.

>Cartridges were literally only used because Nintendo was too scared of piracy
cartridges were literally only used so they could keep collecting their $19 nintendo tax on each cartridge and use their control over manufacturing as leverage to control third parties' games. "piracy" is just an excuse they used because it sounded better for pr.
>they followed this principle with the mini discs in their next console for better performance without having to sacrifice the audio visual quality
instead, devs had to sacrifice the overall size and scope of their games because the minidiscs held less data.
nintendo switched to minidiscs because they were another proprietary format that they could use as an excuse to charge higher licensing fees than the competition, but they also weren't cartridges.

In 20 years from now, if you say you liked any present-day game other than Fortnite or anything else has been successful, they'll accuse you of trying to re-write history.

>Now take a guess why the PS4 logo is all white ;)
for the same reason why the apple logo isn't rainbow-striped anymore: it's iconic enough now that they can just use the silhouette and everyone can still recognize it.

Snoy shill on overdrive ITT

>liking Nintendo as a company, specially 90s Nintendo

People take for granted that classics like FF7 were Sony exclusives. Or even that Sony is a Nintendo competitor and not a partner. These are things Nintendo saw wise to let go. There was an unusually good thread about this recently. (See pic, the Nintendo Playstation.)

To recap for the zoomers who weren't born yet, in the late 80's/early 90's there were two divergent ideas on the future of video games. One is that they would become cinematic, story telling experiences (which we can see today, ended up dominating AAA games.) The other belief, which Nintendo ended up holding, was that games would be an interactive experience unique from cinema. I'm sure money played a part in their choice, they didn't want Sony making their hardware when that money could be theirs. But Nintendo didn't like the loading times of CDs. They didn't care about storing pre-rendered video. Gaming, to them, would be a fancier SNES.

It's also easy to shit on them for being control freaks that drove away 3rd party support and censored violent/sexual content, but remember that controlling nature was why the NES survived and Atari ate shit. An institution isn't going to suddenly forget the principle that built its empire.

Attached: dims.jpg (1600x857, 205K)

>They're still rather comfortably a leader if you ask me
good thing nobody's asking you. only zoomers think current nintendo is anything close to their snes glory days.
>the Wii's sheer success is still felt to this day
not really. the wii still got outsold by the ps1 and ps2, its library has aged like milk, and outside of a few rare uses (like some vr games), the industry left the waggle shit gimmick fad behind when that generation ended.

>present-day game

Is there ANYTHING decent in the AAA sector at the moment?
Sure, Nintendo, but otherwise?

This is kind of off-topic but while we're talking about cartridges vs CD's, I have a question about Game Boy vs Game Gear.

When making the Game Boy, Gunpei Yokoi said they had the technology to make it in color, but he chose black and white on purpose because color wasn't necessary since your brain knows that color the things should be. When Game Gear was released, he wasn't worried about it being in color.

What was up with that? I get what he's saying but there's no way people willingly chose black and white over the Game Gear, right? Plus, Nintendo eventually made colored handhelds so if what Yokoi said was true, wouldn't they have kept making black and white handhelds? It's just an odd statement.

>the wii still got outsold by the ps1 and ps2
Neither of those consoles faced competition which was both established in the gaming field AND was willing to throw limitless money at winning

I think he was just trying to say that for handhelds with little screens, a lack of color isn’t that big of a deal. It was good enough in other words. Doesn’t mean it was better than color.

Well of course the mini discs were the mostly the same thing, but at that point lots of third parties had already moved on so it didn't made much of an effect, the difference between a N64 cartridge and a CD is also much bigger than the one between a DVD and a mini disc.

>It's also easy to shit on them for being control freaks that drove away 3rd party support and censored violent/sexual content, but remember that controlling nature was why the NES survived and Atari ate shit.
That's mostly true because NoA was too good at their jobs, but the issue started with the japanese who didn't had to put up with them since they had a bigger console market.

Or he's just a prideful Japanese guy who want to justify the choice as purposeful and superior instead of a compromise forced by prohibitive costs. Also the Game Gear was expensive, ate batteries, and was huge. Nintendo made the right choice.

>To recap for the zoomers who weren't born yet, in the late 80's/early 90's there were two divergent ideas on the future of video games. One is that they would become cinematic, story telling experiences (which we can see today, ended up dominating AAA games.) The other belief, which Nintendo ended up holding, was that games would be an interactive experience unique from cinema. I'm sure money played a part in their choice, they didn't want Sony making their hardware when that money could be theirs. But Nintendo didn't like the loading times of CDs. They didn't care about storing pre-rendered video. Gaming, to them, would be a fancier SNES.

Nintendo still holds to this philosophy. The Wii was "underpowered" compared to the PS3/Xbox 360 because the Wii wasn't designed to be a multi-media machine, but something to play games. Additionally, Nintendo did market research and recognized that HDTVs were only in a minority of homes, so cutting out HD graphics saved more cost.

I think it is a combination of both that Nintendo didn't want to go the way of melding cinema and video games paired with its arrogance that it could gain more profit on software sales and have more control of its content.

If N64 were CD, we probably see FF7 on the system and probably don't see MGS or Resident Evil just based on their target demographics.

>That's mostly true because NoA was too good at their jobs, but the issue started with the japanese who didn't had to put up with them since they had a bigger console market.
Yeah, it was hubris on Nintendo's part thinking their rules would run everyone's shop forever. I just wanted to add some context to the usual criticism.

This is already well known. Third parties were not bothered by cartridges as much they were about the royalty fee and the fact Nintendo still tried to censor certain aspects of games they had nothing to do with until Rareware pushed that boundary.
Its ironic Nu-Sony is the one doing the heavy censoring now. Hopefully, they hit a wall as Nintendo did.

> the Wii's sheer success is still felt to this day through Xbox's Kinect....

Microsoft is trying to find itself in the market. The only reason that it started to find success with the Xbox 360 is because Sony screwed the pooch with PS3's massive cost with like 4,256 processors and sacrificing sales in order to ensure a foothold in blu-ray technology. Overall, the PS3 had a much stronger game library and Sony is reaping the benefit of all the customers who came back with PS4 and are buying remakes of PS3 games.

The waggle was just a silly gimmick, but what MS doesn't realize is that the Wii sold well because it was so damn cheap and marketed as an exercise machine to soccer moms.

> anything put onto the Switch sells like hotcakes.
That's because the Switch is like the N64 with only first-party support for games. The people who still buy Nintendo products REALLY like games made by Nintendo. You'll find no argument from me there.

>Nintendo still holds to this philosophy.
True. Combined with their weird hardware gambles, it is part of the company's defining characteristics.

The two somewhat competing game dev philosophies also still shape the industry today. I was just pointing out, that was the point in time, when new tech offered a more media rich opportunity, is where the fork first appeared.

Attached: 1200px-Virtual-Boy-Set.jpg (1200x1525, 164K)

>People take for granted that classics like FF7 were Sony exclusives.
ff7 was only a sony exclusive because the n64 literally couldn't run it. square was originally developing it for the ps1 and the n64 side-by-side, and they had to abandon the n64 because it was unworkable.
>The other belief, which Nintendo ended up holding, was that games would be an interactive experience unique from cinema... But Nintendo didn't like the loading times of CDs. They didn't care about storing pre-rendered video.
complete and utter bullshit. nintendo sticking with cartridges had nothing to do with their "vision for the future of gaming." it was all about greed and control.
for nintendo, switching to cd would have meant charging lower licensing fees and giving up control over third parties' games, and they simply weren't willing to do that. they were arrogant, they underestimated sony and ignored all the warning signs of third parties getting sick of their shit. they assumed their old business model would work again, and they were wrong.
>It's also easy to shit on them for being control freaks that drove away 3rd party support and censored violent/sexual content, but remember that controlling nature was why the NES survived and Atari ate shit.
sure, the control-freak tendencies were necessary when nintendo was first starting out. but by the time the n64 came out, the industry had stabilized and nintendo was refusing to adjust.
the fact that a company as dysfunctional as sega was able to go toe-to-toe with them in the previous generation should have been the wake-up call to nintendo that they needed to make changes. but instead they got arrogant over barely squeaking out a win and it cost them everything.

CDs had advantages that put them on par with carts despite shit like load times, but the Ps1 was such garbage hardware that it didn't really matter. It was a 32x system, so it had worse textures, worse draw distances, fewer polygons AND higher load times than N64. The only thing it had to offset these things was better audio fidelity and FMVs.

The solution of the 80s is not the answer for the 90s, if you have such an uptight control most sequels of games in your previous console are being made on a competing console, you need to fix that, which Nintendo did eventually.
Finally, I don't like this historical revisionism of transposing Nu-Sony's cinematic game worldview into the PS1 / PS2 era. It makes no sense and it focuses only on Metal Gear and the likes, not all the quirky shit those consoles had.
Its true Sony eventually said fuck it to all the AA games that were present on the PS1 and PS2, but that doesn't change the past. Crash has about as much story as DKC, Spyro as much as Yoshi Island, series that made the SNES -> PS1 -> DS jump didn't alternate between being gameplay focused, then cinematic, then gameplay focused again.

you're only allowed to like things that sell more than competitors. For example, Tranformers the movie. No other film counts. You're lying if you say any other film is anything other than worthless.

This could have been the thought process for Nintendo for the N64.
I know square bitched at Nintendo to make a cd based game console but if Nintendo thought that square only wanted it so they could add cinematics to the game (which in squares case, thats really all they wanted) they may have been worried that developers will just want to add more music and videos to their games rather than make good games.
Nintendo rose to dominance because of their good quality control so they didnt want to lose that fact.

>These are things Nintendo saw wise to let go.
"I want to increase the number of people worldwide that understand the appeal of Dragon Quest, which represents all Japanese gaming culture...even if that only turns out to be a single person." is a quote of a Satoru Iwata speech, Nintendo didn't "let go" of Square and Enix, especially Enix. They never had some big plan to avoid cinematic games.

both are obsolete

>nintendo sticking with cartridges had nothing to do with their "vision for the future of gaming."
Almost every Nintendo console is some off the wall madness for this literal reason. You understand nothing if after decades of watching this happen repeatedly you still think that's "utter bullshit." That it benefits them financially is called a business.

>ff7 was only a sony exclusive because the n64 literally couldn't run it.
That's literally what I was saying. You need to cool off.

Attached: s-l300.jpg (300x300, 9K)

>Spyro as much as Yoshi Island
It's worthless to discuss, I try this on a different thread and there is no result. Yoshi Island is a good example that you don't have to sacrifice gameplay or presentation to make something pretty, but the same principle is used to somehow tag early PlayStation games like Spyro and Katamari as "cinematic" because they have an art style.

the ps1 was sony's very first console going up against two firmly established competitors. they were the underdogs and still won by a landslide.
the ps2 got beaten to the market by the dreamcast (similar to how the 360 got the jump on the ps3) and then had to contend with microsoft's limitless finances later on. it still lapped the field.

Iwata is overrated anyway, he didn't have the same vision as Yamauchi.

>Almost every Nintendo console is some off the wall madness for this literal reason.
nintendo didn't start with the gimmicks until after sony had thoroughly blown them the fuck out. they didn't need gimmicks when they were on top.

>The solution of the 80s is not the answer for the 90s, if you have such an uptight control most sequels of games in your previous console are being made on a competing console, you need to fix that, which Nintendo did eventually.
You can debate the flawed thinking all you want. But unless you have 1 madman in charge like Steve Jobs, giant companies do not turn on a dime. Japanese businessmen also aren't know for valuing people who rock the boat.

>Finally, I don't like this historical revisionism of transposing Nu-Sony's cinematic game worldview into the PS1 / PS2 era. It makes no sense and it focuses only on Metal Gear and the likes, not all the quirky shit those consoles had.
I'm not transposing anything. What it evolved into has nothing to do with what it was at the time. Playstation sold itself as media rich. Like getting real music, better sound in games was a huge deal. Pre-rendered cutscenes were a fucking huge deal at the time. It's not about everything being MGS.

So what would last longer?

Carts or optical media?

I mean, if you don't consider TLoZ's increasing amount of history, first party games like Earthbound, or Nintendo advertising the shit out of Dragon Quest in Japan, you can kinda see what you mean, if you squint your eyes hard enough.

If you don't live like an animal carts will last forever. Early disc reader shit like the Ps1 is extremely fragile and those old disc prints need to be pretty much pristine to be read correctly. I've got a copy of Spyro 1 and can't spot a scratch on it but when I was playing the other day, the music was skipping.

>New Zealand is not red
That didn't age well.

This, the biggest problem with optical media for games is the console being defective, this was common in all PS2 models too, consoles that use carts all hold up while optical readers all get wear or are plain trash.

If Sony were only a games company,the financial success of their gaming stuff against their rivals would be impressive, but they are not. Their game stuff is a small percent of what they do.

Given their marketing power, Sony could probably sell ice to an Eskimo, that doesn't make the ice special, it only means Sony have a lot of marketing clout.

Why didn't you hack it?

maybe he hacked it later user no need to jump to conclusions

Microsoft was bigger than Sony, the PS3 sold half as much as the PS2

>The quality of the graphics in-game had little to do with cartridge vs. CD and almost everything to do with the fact that the N64 used technology two years more advanced than the PSX
That just makes the PS1 all the more impressive.
>On the other hand, the N64 rendered its 3D backgrounds which is why you had control of the camera in games like Mario 64 and Zelda
Not sure what you are on about here. N64 was infamous for simple 2D backgrounds that didn't even parallax properly. Now something like Spyro truly renders its background, with amazing results.

>N64 was infamous for simple 2D backgrounds that didn't even parallax properly. Now something like Spyro truly renders its background
What the fuck are you on about? Neither N64 or PS1 can do "parallax" because neither have 2D hardware.

The way Spyro does its graphics isn't "paralax". It's just a bunch of gouraud shaded (read: untextured) triangles.

actally n64 was better than ds, best ds game was pokemon diamond/plat
best n64 game was oot

Attached: snapshot_09.47.png (1920x1080, 2.17M)

Snoy shill still butthurt the PS1 classic flopped spectacularly.

>the ps1 was sony's very first console going up against two firmly established competitor
Neither nintendo or sega were throwing endless money at winning though

>then had to contend with microsoft's limitless finances later on
But Xbox was not an established brand

thank god nobody bought that cash grab.
all anyone accomplished by buying nintendo's "classic consoles" was emboldening them to shut down rom sites, get rid of virtual console, and try to make people subscribe to nes roms as a service.

Load times

>Neither nintendo or sega were throwing endless money at winning though
sony didn't win by throwing endless money either. they won by saving third parties money, and by providing a fair deal (unlike nintendo) and a stable platform (unlike sega).
>But Xbox was not an established brand
no, but microsoft was and they had a lot of money to spend.

I will always defend the shit out of PS1 and 2 but even I can't defend that thing, it's like everything that could go wrong with it went wrong.

>2019
>optical media
It's already becoming obsolete

>sold at a Loss
Here we go again

Is an SD card a a cartridge? Or things like 3DS and Switch games.

Attached: switchcart.jpg (968x681, 33K)

> N64 went with cartridges over CDs to emphasize low loading times over FMVs and voice audio.
> GCN went with proprietary discs and controller again because they didn't give a shit about making the system a DVD/CD player.
> Wii had waggle and for a 3rd generation in a row eschewed the ability to play DVDs. It even sacrificed HD to bring cost down.
> Wii U tried to continue on Wii's formula with waggle and multiple screens.
> Switch melds console and handheld gaming over bluray movie capability.

I mean, you have to notice the trend by now. Nintendo views its consoles as machines used to play video games. Sony views its console as a multi-media machine.

Hifi, TV, Walkman markets > PC market

CDs lose fidelity due to rotational velociodensity.

>Equating that piece of shit with the original fine piece of hardware
You have to go back.

reality:
>n64 went with cartridges over cds so they could keep charging their $19 nintendo tax on each cartridge and control third parties' games.
>gcn went with proprietary discs so they'd once again have an excuse to charge a higher licensing fee than the competition.
>wii had waggle shit to distract everyone from the fact that they were selling repackaged gamecube hardware. this was also nintendo's era of "cinematic experiences" like other m, xenoblade and subspace emmissary. the wii era is now remembered as the time when gameplay took a back seat to gimmicks and/or cinematics in nintendo's major franchises.
>wii u continued the trend of using gimmicks to distract from outdated hardware.
>switch continues to use gimmicks to distract from outdated hardware; also brings back cartridges so they can gouge third parties all over again just like the old days.

fake news

>Neither N64 or PS1 can do "parallax" because neither have 2D hardware.
I am not using that in a fucking buzzword sense. By parallax, I mean that the backgrounds don't defy the laws of perspective.
Something like SM64 uses a cheap scrolling effect for its skies, and it looks extremely jarring.
>It's just a bunch of gouraud shaded (read: untextured) triangles
Yes? That's what makes it good. Rather than unintelligently drawing a static and potentially blurry 2D picture, they use actual geometry to draw the sky.

oh, almost forgot: the wii and wii u both also went all-in on the "multimedia machine" shtick.
the wii added youtube, hulu, amazon video, crunchyroll and netflix support by the time it was all said and done. one of the wii u's big selling points at launch was that you could use it as a tv remote/guide, and it also supported all the streaming services.
the only reason the switch doesn't have all those features is because they rushed it out in response to the wii u's failure.

With the current prices ssds cartridges need to make a comeback, even if they make games 15 bucks more expensive.
Cartridges are GREAT and plastic discs are SHIT.
cringe and yikespilled

>portability is now a gimmick
Switch uses cartridges because discs on a handheld is fucking retarded as proven by PSP

the way the switch does "portability" is absolutely a gimmick. the switch in handheld mode is huge, suffers from poor ergonomics and has shit battery life. it also makes many games look and run a lot worse than they do in docked mode.
the selling point of the switch is the novelty of having both docked and "portable" modes. take that away, judge it purely as a handheld device, and the switch sucks ass.

Carts have always been better than discs on performance, but not on cost-performance. Assuming the game dev and the consumer are willing to collectively shoulder the cost they produce better results. Problem is that optical media costs a fraction as much even if it's lower quality and has far less longevity.

Technically no, but for the sake of convenience people still refer to them as cartridges.

When you look at many of the real "classics" of the gen that weren't 2D though, almost all of them were N64.

There were a handful of great 3D PS1 games but they succeeded despite the PS1's limitations. Beyond a few many 3D PS1 games aged like dogshit and the only way to call them better than mediocre is to look at them nostalgically.

IYO

>GCN went with proprietary discs and controller again because they didn't give a shit about making the system a DVD/CD player.
They could have done that without going proprietary disc, you know that, right?

Switch sucks ass as a portable - compared to?...
???
profit

>Comparing one game vs another game instead of systems
I have played 100 DS games and I still have a backlog, the 64 I played around 20 and that is it, maybe project Wonder Project J2 once I have time but all else is non-existent.

faster to read memory

Why are PS1 - 64 battles so much more intense than any other console war?

Because early 3D makes everyone mad.

>muh load times
>Nintendo consoles of today use the modern equivalent of cartridges
>still have load times
And you have to be seriously dumb to think cartridges are better if you're going by when CD technology was just breaking mainstream on consoles. Exorbitant manufacturing costs got passed down to the consumer big time for games that cost 50% more than the CD based systems. And all you got for it was no load times, in exchange for more compressed bitmap textures, little-to-no CD quality audio, fewer prerendered backgrounds (and what few there were looked muddy as hell), and of course no FMV. PS1 games in general performed at better framerates too. People who pretend cartridge based media at the time had better graphics because muh bits are falling for a marketing gimmick from twenty years ago. All this is coming from a hardcore N64 kid growing up btw.

Attached: 86753098675309.jpg (447x447, 28K)

N64 when the devs knew exactly what they were doing and were very competent>PS1>Average N64 game

CD
>No strict storage limitations
>Quite cheap to mass produce
Cartage
>Instant game loading
>Lasts much longer then CD

In addition to what other poeople have said, it is important to note that the typical games at the time had only a few megabytes of true game content when stripped from videos and audio tracks.

What a boomer argument

Just store everything digitally

because nintendo didn't just lose, they got demoted to a secondary brand forever. nintendo's brand loyalists never really got over it.

We all know console arguments have no honor whatsoever. In this thread Nintendo fans will call out the PS1 for having shovelware, in another one Sony fans will say the PSP wins against the DS due to not having shovelware.
Even loadtimes, just early this week there were people on the N side saying "who cares about 10 seconds." when the cuphead load times were exposed youtube.com/watch?v=6KpffQHpkBU

Because snoys are trying to re-write history.
The PS1 was allegedly the greatest console of that generation...

...aaaaand PS1 Classic flopped incredibly. The two things don't add up.

Yeah the n64 classic did so much better.
Oh wait. They don't even have the confidence to MAKE it.

The PS1 Classic was comically overpriced and missing a ton of the console's best games.

PS1 fans feel betrayed by California Sony, every franchise they cared about is dead, so they get very angry when the PS1 is attacked. See soul / soulless threads.
64 fans don't want to take any L, and they pretend there was no downside to the 64, every loss was a victory, every flaw was a feature.

Even nowadays, solid state drives are much more expensive and have far less space with only a mild improvement to load times. The difference in loading between the Playstation and N64 wasn't entirely the fault of CDs, but because the Playstation itself didn't read discs very fast.

the ps1 classic flopped because unlike nintendo fans, sony fans aren't about to buy a glorified raspberry pi with a few roms on it.
the actual ps1 sold 102.5 million units and had tons of iconic classic games and hidden gems.

Again, because you can't just pick 20 games and say it represents Playstation. It is literally the largest library of any console, you can't pick 20 without missing out on 60 other games people care about.
Meanwhile, most 20 games list made for the 64 mini (if it ever happens) are exactly the same, the only way it could miss out on this is if they can't get Rare's games, which means the console will likely end up being 1/4 Mario Party games, lol.

the switch is made basically so you can play videogames in bed similarly to how people use an ipad in bed for a while before going to sleep, not to actually bring it with you to places

the wii u did that better. the gamepad was more comfortable to hold and even had an actual d-pad.

lurk more newfag

CDs used to hold more data but cartidges have risen again.

By the time PS2 came around I didn't really noticed load times in most games apart from a few big transition stuff, compared to PS1 where menus feel like they take a second to appear in PS2 it felt instant, I think is unfair to trash on all console optical media just for how it worked on their first attempt.

The main reason Nintendo can make people pay for new hardware for old games is because they helped define console gaming in the 80s, anyone that came after consoles were considered something more than a glorified arcade ports machine doesn't has nostalgia power (Sony, Philips, 3DO etc), SEGA realizes this and that's why they can get away with their shitty genesis clones, Sony could probably do it but they put literally no effort in the PS1 classic.

You can, it's just that at modern Sony is out of touch with its consumer base. There was some shovelware on the PS1 Classic that no one gave a fuck about, but they put it on anyway.

CDs are cheap to mass produce and hold a lot of data.
Cartridges are expensive to mass produce so it limits how much storage you can work with.

Cartridges are faster and more durable, it is the better format by far. But companies make far more profit going with discs.

Ok but.... the N64 made more profit so

I noticed them when I was waiting what seemed like a minute for levels to load in Crash Bandicoot. I may have been spoiled by Gamecube and N64 though. Next to no waiting at all.

Holy shit that is fucking massive for the era.

That game is pretty infamous for that though, same as PS2 Sonic Heroes

i miss when we would have retarded fun

Spyro was fast as fuck. It is all in the programming. Later PS1 games had better load times.

Optical storage used to be able to hold more. It has now become obsolete. SSD>all.

It wasn't just launch price that was higher at around $60 for N64 or $40 for PS1, PS1 games routinely got greatest hits versions that were around $20 while N64 games stayed $50 or higher forever. If you bought your games new instead of renting you could have gotten 2 or 3 PS1 games for every N64 game which was great because the quantity of great games the PS1 had was so much higher than N64.