Poll: Which is the most significant gaming device?

[Leg End]

The NES.

Because it singlehandedly brought the industry back from the brink of non-existence.

No other system can compare. Without it, the others wouldn't exist.

 

[TiefBlau]

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device. In fact PC's are not a single item, its a catagory. Everything from the old commodores, to the Mac, to the numerous MS Windows devices are PCs, its not really specific to any device.

Hahawut?

A gaming device is a device on which you game. End of discussion.

The PC has contributed an incredible amount to the history of gaming. To ignore one of the industry's oldest and most consistent media is ridiculous.

Still, it has rivals. I'd say the NES has made incredible contributions in bringing the arcade home as well.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

pc. without it. none of these would exist. very poor choice in poll options

I think this is the best example of a few peoples comments on this. If you read my further information, this is only for 'gaming devices', a PC is in part a gaming device, so were the Atari series, Apple II, Commodore 64, the list goes on, but their primary function encompasses more than that, so I couldn't include any of these, despite the fact some were quite well known for being associated with gaming.

So this is why PC isn't a valid option. I own a gaming PC, I built it, and I built it solely with games in mind, does it do anything else? Yes, it does. Some have also mentioned, that the the 'pure' game device is rarer these days, as everything is blending into one, phones are gaming devices, gaming devices are internet browsers, soon phone will be an add-on to something with another primary task, possibly (eg. iPads ect). But I still retain that something built, with the primarily objective of gaming in mind, will remain for some time, and therefore I stand by my poll choices.

PC is a valid opinion, and ill quote the website YOU chose for your source....


Tennis for Two
In 1949?1950, Charley Adama created a "Bouncing Ball" program for MIT's Whirlwind computer.[3] While the program was not yet interactive, it was a precursor to games soon to come.
In February 1951, Christopher Strachey tried to run a draughts program he had written for the NPL Pilot ACE. The program exceeded the memory capacity of the machine and Strachey recoded his program for a machine at Manchester with a larger memory capacity by October.
Also in 1951, while developing television technologies for New York based electronics company Loral, inventor Ralph Baer came up with the idea of using the lights and patterns he used in his work as more than just calibration equipment. He realized that by giving an audience the ability to manipulate what was projected on their television sets, their role changed from passive observing to interactive manipulation. When he took this idea to his supervisor, it was quickly squashed because the company was already behind schedule.[4]
OXO, a graphical version tic-tac-toe, was created by A.S. Douglas in 1952 at the University of Cambridge, in order to demonstrate his thesis on human-computer interaction. It was developed on the EDSAC computer, which uses a cathode ray tube as a visual display to display memory contents. The player competes against the computer.
In 1958 William Higinbotham created a game using an oscilloscope and analog computer.[5] Titled Tennis for Two, it was used to entertain visitors of the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York.[6] Tennis for Two showed a simplified tennis court from the side, featuring a gravity-controlled ball that needed to be played over the "net," unlike its successor?Pong. The game was played with two box-shaped controllers, both equipped with a knob for trajectory and a button for hitting the ball.[5] Tennis for Two was exhibited for two seasons before its dismantlement in 1959.[7]"

TLDR: the first games were written on computers for computers in 1951. ALL arcade games are computer based.

Consoles didn't even hit the scene until 1972. That's 20 YEARS after gaming's inception and NONE of the above choices hit the market here in the US until 1985. So The choices in your pole only incorporate the last 25 years of gaming. Which, is a good chunk, but none of the real "game changing innovations" Basically all a console consists of is a dumbed down affordable pc with one main purpose. ANY major feat that console gaming has accomplished has been nothing but a copy of what PC gaming had been doing the decade before it.

Not trying to start any flame wars cause I like my consoles for what they do, but, if you really want to get into the history of video gaming... it's all about what PC did first.. (Simpsons did it)

 

[Kae]

Scratch my post what I had written, somebody else wrote with a much better explanation and more detailed information therefore making this post useless.
It was the Tennis for Two thing that Digitaldreamer7 wrote about 2 posts above this by the way.

Where the hell is the PS2 in this poll? Some of the best games of all time came out during its reign in the console wars.

That may be but it didn't do much to change the industry, since most of it's features the Dreamcast had before it, even if it was unsuccessful, thereby making the Dreamcast more deserving of the title, but that is just my opinion.

 

[BoredDragon]

Where the hell is the PS2 in this poll? Some of the best games of all time came out during its reign in the console wars.

 

[Wertbag]

Yes, gaming survived on PCs after the crash. My point is that, if not for the NES, it likely would have stayed there.

I think you underestimate businesses growing into new markets. Sega especially were working on new consoles with the master system and megadrive both released in the years following the NES. Sure they didn't have the success of the NES, but who is to say if the NES didn't exist that the people who brought that wouldn't have brought a competing option?
The point is that the market had already been tested and shown to be profitable by Atari who sold 30 million 2600's 5-6 years before the NES came out. You definately needed the right product and the right marketing, but they already had an idea of what people would pay for and in what numbers. That market data by itself would have inspired numerous companies to have a try.

By the way, the whole "if they hadn't done it, someone else would have" argument comes up a lot, in all kinds of different debates, and it virtually never holds water. If I said that Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin was overrated because someone else would have invented it if he hadn't, would you disregard his invention? How do we know that someone else would have invented the cotton gin, and even if we did, how much longer would it have taken?

There is a big difference between inventing something completely new, and evolving an already existing idea to a new level. Nintendo weren't the first, they grew what Atari had already proven was a profitable market. Sure it might have been a few more years before one of the many competitors got their product out, but they almost certainly would have and the market growth would have been there regardless.
As for pure invention there is a clause in patent law which allows ideas to be challenged on the grounds of common knowledge. One court case I heard of was a challenge to a guy who had patented using an avatar to talk to others over the internet. He claimed he was the first with the idea, and gained a patent to prove it, but once challenged the common knowledge clause showed that the idea was so likely to be raised from numerous quarters that his patent was deemed void.
So the "if they hadn't done it, someone else would have" arguement can be valid but it is certainly something that is case specific.

 

[Sovereignty]

Being completely realistic it has to be the PlayStation (Especially cause we're limited to solely one choice for voting.)

Why? It is the ONE system that kept gaming going, really brought the CD media platform to the forefront. (PC, Dreamcast and Sega Saturn really weren't doing well enough.) And it was a great system MANY of todays gamers still remember fondly.

The GameBoy didn't do anything revolutionary. Sort of just a cash in IMO.

The NES was a revitalization of the games industry, but I still think it lacked the real impact the PS1 had, especially considering the times it was released in...

The only other viable contenders would have to be the PS2 and Xbox.

The first still has games being made for it (Which should really say something for it's worth.

And the latter pretty much single-handedly took console gaming online en-mass.


All just my opinions though.

 

[Wertbag]

A gaming device is a device on which you game. End of discussion.

I disagree, my calculator has a game built in but I highly doubt anyone would think to call it a gaming device. Its purpose is not gaming, its primary function is calculations and that is how people will define it.

The PC has contributed an incredible amount to the history of gaming. To ignore one of the industry's oldest and most consistent media is ridiculous.

I would again point out that computers are not a specific thing, its a whole catagory of devices, many of which are not compatible with each other. Terminlogy wise you would compare computer to console, not to a specific model. For example I've owned the Commodore Vic20, C64 and Amiga 500 back in the day, but they were very different to a modern Windows based computer.
The arguement you are aiming towards is which did more for the games industry, consoles or computers? Now thats a tricky question, probably worthy of its own thread...

 

[Conza]

You need to divide it into more than just "playstation, xbox, NES etc". Why are half the Nintendo consoles in their own category while the Sony and Microsoft ones are divided? The 360 was "significantly" more popular than the original, but they're lumped together? And why are the Wii and NES divided, but no the N64? There is literally no sense to your organization.

...That you saw. The list is alphabetical; if you had read my initial post you would've seen that.

Hypothetically however, if we were talking about individual gaming CONSOLE (which you could have mentioned in the title) then it would be the PS2 hands down. It's sold the most units by a wide margin and is still in use today. The only two that might come close are the NES and the Gameboy color.

Again, please re/read my initial post, I started by using the term 'device' which I referenced as including handhelds and consoles. It's not a real definition; I made it to suit my needs of the thread. And you're talking about highest selling, which I am aware, the PS2 selling ~150 million units, is the most popular console ever, but I'm talking about significance to the gaming industry, not popularly, I could've easier just looked that up.

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device. In fact PC's are not a single item, its a catagory. Everything from the old commodores, to the Mac, to the numerous MS Windows devices are PCs, its not really specific to any device.

A gaming device is a device on which you game. End of discussion.

The PC has contributed an incredible amount to the history of gaming. To ignore one of the industry's oldest and most consistent media is ridiculous.

Ok, let's think about this. If I started playing music on a toaster, is it 'instantly' a musical instrument? My answer, is no. It was designed to make toast, it still makes toast, I just happen to be able to play music with it as well. A computer ?computes? data, you don?t put a game in, turn it on, and play the game, it does much more, and is therefore not a gaming device, but a rather, a device in which you can game, as well.

So when Mr. Wertberg says

Surely a "gaming device" is a device which is primarily designed for gaming? PC should not appear on this list as it is certainly not a gaming device.

He is correct.

PC is a valid opinion...it's all about what PC did first.. (Simpsons did it)

Should we go back to punch cards? Why not, instead, go as far back as the very beginnings or early mathematics? I'm sorry, it's not a valid option, in my poll, because it was not designed, exclusively, for, gaming - Thank you.

 

[Jazoni89]

I think it is the Playstation. It brought memory cards, popularised the use of CD's for games...

Popularised the use of disc for games?, Hardly. Their was the 3DO, Sega CD (Mega CD), Jaguar CD, Saturn, and the Amiga CD-32 that came out way before, and that's not even counting the hugely popular 1993 PC game Myst. It was that game which pioneered the use of cd's in games, and not the PlayStation.

On topic, i think the Dreamcast, for the only reason that it gave us something us console owners now take for granted, and that is online play (though in a much different guise as it is today, and it was a much less convenient).

It was also way ahead of its time. Its hard to believe that Sonic Adventure with its bright colourful clean graphics came out in 1998, when something like metal gear solid came out on the psone on the exact same year. That just boggles the mind.

Depending on how you read that, one of us has misunderstood the comment, if he means console games, not games in general, then I believe he's correct. Can you name one console that was released post the PlayStation that used cartridges? Are there any? PlayStation introduced laser discs as a 'standard', for consoles (so how I read it, the Myst comment helped popularise the CD-ROM for gaming, in general, but not for consoles). I think the earlier consoles you referred to helped kick off the idea, it certainly wasn't original to the PlayStation, but the PlayStation?s success can be clearly correlated to the death of cartridge consoles, and the era of laser disc consoles.

Interesting how you think of Dreamcast, I was tempted to list it, but ultimately, despite its internet gaming pioneering, as a failed console, meant I couldn't add it, its largest significance I think would be it was the departure of Sega from consoles.

The Dreamcast wasn't a failed console, a failed console is the Jaguar, 3DO, ect. In fact on the contrary, it had one of the biggest selling launch days of any console up to that point, and sold 10 million machines worldwide. History proves that the only reason why the Dreamcast had such a small lifespan was due to Sega's business model, and not the machine itself.

Sega spent way too much money on the Dreamcast, and that was the reason of it's demise. Sega was bankrupt, and they couldn't support the machine any long no matter what they did (they even went as far as to support Arsenal football club just to get abit of money from the sponsor).

Even if the console was much more popular than it was, the outcome would have been the same. There was no going back for Sega.

It was not a huge matter for the consumer though as within its incredibly short lifespan it played host to some of the best software in gaming, and it proves that you don't need ten years in order to have a good library of games.

 

[StormShaun]

This thread shouldnt be up here its gonna be a flame war....

But Ill still say the 360 because I like it more but still I like the PS3 for home and blu ray and exclusives but everything else on PC or xbox360.....and no im not a fanboy

 

[Jazoni89]

This thread shouldnt be up here its gonna be a flame war....

But Ill still say the 360 because I like it more but still I like the PS3 for home and blu ray and exclusives but everything else on PC or xbox360.....and no im not a fanboy

Now that sort of comment is going to start a flame war.

This is not a "which one is best" topic, its the one that is the most beneficial to gaming as a whole.

and neither of the next gen consoles fits that category.

 

[JediMB]

The NES, the PlayStation and the x86 PC were all immensely important to the growth of the video game industry, but since I have to choose one I'll go for the NES. Mostly because it was first out (1983 in Japan) and created the foundation the other two kept building on.

 

[JediMB]

Sega spent way too much money on the Dreamcast, and that was the reason of it's demise. Sega was bankrupt, and they couldn't support the machine any long no matter what they did (they even went as far as to support Arsenal football club just to get abit of money from the sponsor).

Actually, Sega spent way too much money on the Mega-CD, 32X and Saturn, which were all largely unprofitable. Also, they lost loads of money because they killed the Genesis/Mega Drive in a failed attempt to redirect sales to the Saturn.

 

[Jazoni89]

I think the Playstation, because it brought proper 3D (not "3D" 3D, I mean like polygons and stuff) to console gaming.

Where did you learn to fly?

This game came out two years before the Playstation.

Also Starfox, and all of the Super FX games on the Snes had polygons in them.

 

[Jazoni89]

Sega spent way too much money on the Dreamcast, and that was the reason of it's demise. Sega was bankrupt, and they couldn't support the machine any long no matter what they did (they even went as far as to support Arsenal football club just to get abit of money from the sponsor).

Actually, Sega spent way too much money on the Mega-CD, 32X and Saturn, which were all largely unprofitable. Also, they lost loads of money because they killed the Genesis/Mega Drive in a failed attempt to redirect sales to the Saturn.

Those were all contributing factors, but most of their funding went on the Dreamcast.

For example, the Saturn, 32x, and Mega cd didn't have no where near as much advertisement as the Dreamcast did.

 

[JediMB]

Sega spent way too much money on the Dreamcast, and that was the reason of it's demise. Sega was bankrupt, and they couldn't support the machine any long no matter what they did (they even went as far as to support Arsenal football club just to get abit of money from the sponsor).

Actually, Sega spent way too much money on the Mega-CD, 32X and Saturn, which were all largely unprofitable. Also, they lost loads of money because they killed the Genesis/Mega Drive in a failed attempt to redirect sales to the Saturn.

Those were all contributing factors, but most of their funding went on the Dreamcast.

For example, the Saturn, 32x, and Mega cd didn't have no where near as much advertisement as the Dreamcast did.

Lots of money was put into R&D and production, without actually generating any significant income. Also, I forgot about the Nomad.

And, like I said, killing the Genesis/MD prematurely made them lose at least a few years worth of software sales. That's a lot of money.