Would the SNES add-on have been powerful as a playstation?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

The Playstation was originally supposed to be a CD-Rom "add on" to the
super NES. Would it have been as powerful had it been released as an
add-on instead of a stand alone? EGM this month has implied that it
indeed would have been the same machine, stating that Sony realized
they could do the playstation themselves (apparantly, all of the SNES
chips were available "off the shelf", so they were able to complete the
project without Nintendo at all).

What are your thoughts on this? Also, in a roundabout way could it be
said that the Playstation was an "extention" of the Super Nintendo and
the SNES hardware????????????????????????

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

It would have been equal to the SegaCD/32x, but I think much better and thus
would have one-upped Sega.

Dane.


"The Space Boss" <drsmith666@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1111869422.910098.187510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The Playstation was originally supposed to be a CD-Rom "add on" to the
> super NES. Would it have been as powerful had it been released as an
> add-on instead of a stand alone? EGM this month has implied that it
> indeed would have been the same machine, stating that Sony realized
> they could do the playstation themselves (apparantly, all of the SNES
> chips were available "off the shelf", so they were able to complete the
> project without Nintendo at all).
>
> What are your thoughts on this? Also, in a roundabout way could it be
> said that the Playstation was an "extention" of the Super Nintendo and
> the SNES hardware????????????????????????
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

Nick Sadler wrote:

> All nintendo's chips are off the shelf , even now -
> this is how they can bring Millions and millions of DS's to market,
on
> time -
> and the proprietary chips in the PSP left them sadly short-stocked
when it
> launched in december.
>
> The original deal was for Sony to make a CD add-on, kinda like the
Mega-cd
> for the snes..
>

Dear Nick,
Will you agree that the original Playstation probably used some of
the chip sets from the SNES since it was definitely an extention of the
add on design?? Will you also agree with me that in a certain way, the
Playstation is an extention of the Super Nintendo? I appreciate it,

Thanks.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

The quality of a console isn't about the power,

it's about the quality of the games written for it. -
you only have to look at the current crop

PS2 Shits all over the Xbox in terms of game catalogue, and "fun" titles..
but the Xbox technical abilities (and ease of development) leave the PS2
cowering.

All nintendo's chips are off the shelf , even now -
this is how they can bring Millions and millions of DS's to market, on
time -
and the proprietary chips in the PSP left them sadly short-stocked when it
launched in december.

The original deal was for Sony to make a CD add-on, kinda like the Mega-cd
for the snes..

but it went sour somewhere and Sony saw the opportunity for their own
presence as an independant console maker, publisher and developer.
the rest as they say, is history.

now.. the only reason that Sony can't continue to reign, is if they have no
retort for J Allard's XNA plans for Xbox2 when E3 rolls around.




ncik

(Nick)



"Dane L. Galden" <chigroup(at)ix.netcom.comCHANGE(at)TO@> wrote in message
news:QPj1e.5596$z.848@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> It would have been equal to the SegaCD/32x, but I think much better and
> thus
> would have one-upped Sega.
>
> Dane.
>
>
> "The Space Boss" <drsmith666@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1111869422.910098.187510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> The Playstation was originally supposed to be a CD-Rom "add on" to the
>> super NES. Would it have been as powerful had it been released as an
>> add-on instead of a stand alone? EGM this month has implied that it
>> indeed would have been the same machine, stating that Sony realized
>> they could do the playstation themselves (apparantly, all of the SNES
>> chips were available "off the shelf", so they were able to complete the
>> project without Nintendo at all).
>>
>> What are your thoughts on this? Also, in a roundabout way could it be
>> said that the Playstation was an "extention" of the Super Nintendo and
>> the SNES hardware????????????????????????
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

August,
Will you agree that since the Playstation started life as an
add-on to the SNES, that it's origins are inextricably connected to the
SNES, making in some ways an extention of the SNES's legacy? Will you
agree to this please?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

In article <1111899329.350363.80290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"The Space Boss" <drsmith666@aol.com> wrote:

> Will you agree that the original Playstation probably used some of
> the chip sets from the SNES since it was definitely an extention of the
> add on design?? Will you also agree with me that in a certain way, the
> Playstation is an extention of the Super Nintendo? I appreciate it,

For crying out loud. The original Playstation CD-Rom attachment had no
chipset in it for generating graphics or sounds. All that was to be
handled by the SNES itself. The drive was a bank of RAM that took data
from CD's, and allowed the SNES cpu to access said ram to execute game
code, define graphic fields and source sound into the SNES's DSP.

The playstation was nothing but an extension for the SNES, in the same
manner that the Sega CD packages were extentions to the Genny.

When Sony turned to their own market plan to bring a playstation to the
marketplace, they had to put together a graphics engine, sound engine
and controller interface engine, and all relevant hardware for said
engines. In this way, the playstation turned drastically away from its
original design. The SNES had a 16-bit cpu with layered 2D graphics
fields and sprites. The psx - as it was initially designated, until
Sony legal determined that Sony held trademarks to the name playstation
- had a 32 bit processor and a polygonal engine that had the potential
to render 3D imagery.

What was to be the playstation and what actually came to be known as the
same share little between them. Both were designed to take game data
from CDs. Both had on board ram. But that is about the extent of the
two's similarities.

As to this thread, google groups the subject and you will find that it
has been rehashed in this forum numerous times over the years.

jt

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.video.classic,alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 (More info?)

In article <1111914779.127061.9040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"The Space Boss" <drsmith666@aol.com> wrote:

> August,
> Will you agree that since the Playstation started life as an
> add-on to the SNES, that it's origins are inextricably connected to the
> SNES, making in some ways an extention of the SNES's legacy? Will you
> agree to this please?

No. The playstation as we now know it was a separate project from the
SNES add-on. The engineering is completely different, the exterior
moldings as well as the pigmentation to the plastic casting base are
different The internal architecture bridge, drive type, power couplings
and all chipsets are different. And originally, the name Playstation
wasn't going to even be used, as the name was legally attached to the
SNES be contract. I do not recall what allowed the name to be
liberated, but it was a near last minute change that required a mad
scramble to change marketing materials from psx to playstation.

The only tangible relationship between the proto-type expansion unit and
the stand-alone console that hit the streets is the fact that both take
a CD. Nothing else supports your presupposition.

jt