/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.10695525]

Why did they only have 2 controller ports?

[Anonymous No.10695530]

4 player multiplayer is a gimmick that died after gen 7

[Anonymous No.10695532]

>>10695525
Because if you want more port you buy special accessory, it make more money for Sony. You pay up now.

[Anonymous No.10695540]

>>10695525
Because in reality, there are very few good games that support 4 players. The only good ones are what...party games like Mario party and Smash. That's about it. People played FPS with 4 player too I guess even though nowadays, playing with 4 squished screens like that would be considered unacceptable.

So the answer is because 95% of games don't need more than 2 ports.

[Anonymous No.10695602]

GAYSTATION POO owning LOSERS had to friends.

[Anonymous No.10695657]

>>10695602
>had to friends
Tendies have two brain cells.

[Anonymous No.10695692]

>>10695525
You had to buy an extra 'multitap' gimmick to play with 4 controllers. Even with that, only wrestling games were truly the only fun experience in that mode. Maybe some racing games as well because I sure as shit can't remember any memorable shooters for PS1 aside from MOH, MohUndeground, and maybe some mid-Doom or Quake ports. Man the PS1 sucked when it came to shooters.

[Anonymous No.10695693]

>>10695525
It's understandable in PS1's case because most consoles released before it had a maximum of two controller ports, with early models of the Atari 5200 being an exception.
In the PS2's case, it came out after the N64 and Dreamcast, which unlike the 5200 were consoles people actually cared about. The best reason I can think of for its lack of controller ports is that Sony did it to sell multitaps.
IMO, the PS2 should've had four controller ports, but somehow this didn't stop it from becoming one of the best-selling consoles in history.

[Anonymous No.10695707]

>>10695525
It's for grown up who plays alone.

>>10695530
No, it didn't die. We regularly play Streets of Rage 4 with my friends.

[Anonymous No.10695720]

>>10695707
You are on 4chan. You dont have friends

[Anonymous No.10695735]

>>10695720
You're jealous anon.

[Anonymous No.10695740]

>>10695530
>>10695707
The whole Basedstation superiority argument is based on sales numbers. Wouldnt they have sold more consoles with 4 players support? Are there even many 2 player games on the console?

[Anonymous No.10695750]

>>10695693
>N64 and Dreamcast, which unlike the 5200 were consoles people actually cared about.
On the other hand, people cared even more about the PS1. Why fix what's not broken, not like 2 controller ports killed the PS1 (or PS2) position on the market.

[Anonymous No.10695764]

>>10695525
Because Sony is a blight on gaming and should crash and burn.

[Anonymous No.10695794]

>>10695540
>So the answer is because 95% of games don't need more than 2 ports.
/thread but everyone ignored it for some reason

[Anonymous No.10695797]

>>10695525
Same reason SNES, Genesis, and Saturn had two

>>10695530
Even in gen 5 it wasn't super popular

[Anonymous No.10695834]

>>10695530
t. nofriends
I regularly max out my gamecube. I wish it had 8 ports and the hardware to handle 8mp
>>10695525
So you had to buy a multi tap separately. Though I dunno how they would have integrated 4 controller ports and kept their overall aesthetic so incredibly clean.
and
snoy not competent enough to design fun 4mp games

[Anonymous No.10695889]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Multitap

[Anonymous No.10695927]

>>10695540
>So the answer is because 95% of games don't need more than 2 ports.

Because 5% of PS1/2 owner had multitap.
Many games are 4 players on N64 or Xbox, but 2 Players on PS1/2, because 100% of N64/Xbox owners had 4 ports.

[Anonymous No.10695945]

>>10695750
Good point, but can you imagine a PS2 with four built-in controller ports? Shit would be based.

[Anonymous No.10695958]

>>10695927
There aren't as many 4 player games as you think. It's not that it's not there because the Playstation didn't have ease of access to the option, 4 player games are just very rare in the scheme of things and were generally considered novelty modes for most of gaming outside a very, very narrow group of highly popular games. Now, gaming is more isolated than ever and more than 2 controller ports is more superfluous than ever. I'd argue the Wii was the last time 4+ player ports were relevant.

95%+ of games fall under 1 player, 2 player, or MMO style. 4 player games are a niche novelty. It just so happens that the N64/Gamecube/Wii era of games were the one time where that style of gaming experienced a kind of popular window before it disappeared. Basically, outside of Smash, Mario Party, Mario Kart, Goldeneye, and Wii sports titles, 4 player gaming isn't really much of a thing. Those were really, really popular games that made 4 player gaming seem like a bigger thing in many people's minds than the gimmick it actually is.

[Anonymous No.10696084]

>>10695889
These always intrigued me growing up. I wasn’t allowed to have friends over otherwise I would have bought one.
Why was it shaped like a boomerang?

[Anonymous No.10696093]

>>10696084
Marketing strategy to keep you from throwing it away.

[Anonymous No.10696094]

>>10695525
More ports = more materials = higher production costs

4-player games are rare and people that play that are even rarer despite everyone asking for them

its like everyone saying "I WISH THIS GAME HAD CO-OP" and no one plays co-op games

[Anonymous No.10696292]

>>10695889
Problem is that needing to buy an additional accessory like this means it costs more for developers to include that as a feature in their game, unlike if the console has more than 2 ports as a standard. That's why 4-player PlayStation games are fairly rare, whereas N64, Dreamcast, Gamecube, and Xbox 4-player games are very common.

>>10695530
Retarded take and untrue.

>>10696084
Probably so that the controllers stay in the multitap when you have 4 people plugged in and sitting around it. Actually really clever design.

[Anonymous No.10696456]

>>10695525
The weird thing isn't that it only had 2 ports, it's that it has so many games that allow 8 players. Same goes for PS2.

[Anonymous No.10696478]

>>10695540
And Golden Eye, Perfect Dark, Turok 2/Rage Wars, Star Fox, F-Zero X. Oh wait, there's tons of them and it was a defining aspect of the N64 and why it was popular despite so few games.
Oh wait, there's tons of the PS2 as well and it would have been more used if you didn't have to buy an expensive addon. Timesplitters, The Bouncer, Agent Under Fire, Twisted Metal Black being just the ones we played.

[Anonymous No.10696546]

>>10695693
>The best reason I can think of for its lack of controller ports is that Sony did it to sell multitaps.

It was also due to lack of physical space as the ports were pretty wide, and they had to retain the port shape to be compatible with PS1 accessories (full backwards compatibility was a very important selling point for the PS2).

[Anonymous No.10696637]

Reminder: You're a fag for corporate goons by agreeing with the choice to reduce manufacturing costs by calling it efficiency

[Anonymous No.10696669]

As much as people cried about 2 ports and multitap, the PS1 and PS2 still ended up first of their generations by a wide margin. So maybe it didn't matter that much. Or maybe there are few 4-player games and it didn't matter because the 2-port PS1 and PS2 sold so well. Chickens and eggs.
>>10696637
Life's full of compromises, don't be a nigger about it. In a world where a 4-port $350 PS1 proved uncompelling compared to the Saturn, maybe you'd be lamenting Sega not putting 4 ports on it.

[Anonymous No.10696692]

>>10695525
If it's enough for the SFC, It's enough for the Playstation.

[Anonymous No.10696778]

>>10695525
You might think it's because Sony is cheap and wanted to sell multitaps, but the real reason is because the PS1 and PS2 were too weak to support 4 player local multi-player in the majority of games.

[Anonymous No.10696797]

>>10696637
I will take a console that is backwards compatible over having two useless extra controller ports every single time.

[Anonymous No.10696806]

sonyfags only have 1 friend tops

[Anonymous No.10696891]

>>10696456
>so many games that allow 8 players
back then devs could put in gimmicks simply because they wanted it. Even if only a few hundred people had 2 multitaps and 7 friends to play with, the 8 player mode could be used as a selling point for those games

[Anonymous No.10696938]

>>10695958
It's a gadget for a Playstation owner.
apart from Smash Bros, Goldeneye and Mario Party, I also had
Mario Kart,
Starfox,
Chameleon Twist,
Turok 2,
Duke Nukem 3d,
Bomberman,
Diddy Kong Racing,
WWF,
Conker,
Fifa,
Perfect Dark,
F-Zero and Snowboard kid.

every Wednesday and Saturday my friends came to play the N64, then the Gamecube, then the Xbox.

and then yes, 4 player games were over because the internet arrived.

[Anonymous No.10696952]

>>10695525
Back then, most of Playstation 2's library consisted of top notch singleplayer games ranging from GTA3/VC/SA to DMC to GoW ect and some fighting games or racing games for two player stuff. I think a lot of people got fed up with 4 player split screens and even with the Xbox you saw many transitioning to the XBL aspect when introduced in 2002 and only Halo CE being the big 4 player split game.
But if you really wanted a party system for everyone, you got the GC and a copy of MKDD and Mario Party 4-6 ect. I think everyone of my older sister's friends in college back in 2002-06 had a Gamecube for that purpose alone.

[Anonymous No.10696985]

>>10695525
The PSX and PS2 did have multitap accessories that allowed for 4 controllers. 8 controllers, if you bought two of them.
Did anyone else here have 8-player console games? The PSX and PS2 had like 4 total, combined. Turns out games run better and look better when you don't make them render multiple screens in one TV, so devs didn't bother.
Linking consoles was more fun anyway. Each player had their own TV screen for it.

[Anonymous No.10696994]

>>10696938
4 player via multitap was a more supported and more used feature than online multiplayer on the PS2.

[Anonymous No.10697082]

>>10695525
Where would you put the other two on Ps2?>>10696985
How did you "link consoles"? What games did you play "linked"? What 8 player multiplayer splitscreen games did you play?

[Anonymous No.10697274]

Because they were No Friends the Consoles.

[Anonymous No.10697309]

>>10696478
>And Golden Eye, Perfect Dark, Turok 2/Rage Wars, Star Fox, F-Zero X. Oh wait, there's tons of them and it was a defining aspect of the N64 and why it was popular despite so few games.
Oh wow what an amazing argument by listing 5 games out of the literal thousands that exist. So many games utilized 4 players! Let's ignore the fact that fucking nobody was playing Turok 2, Star Fox 64, or F-Zero X as multiplayer games for extended periods of time. I was talking about games having actual lasting popularity, not flash in the pan gimmick novelties.

>The Bouncer
Jesus how the fuck hard are you reaching?

Yes, the 4 player gimmick had its audience for a time, but the number of games that actually utilized the 4 player format well and had lasting popularity was extremely narrow. It was a fad that died immediately with the advent of MMO games.

[Anonymous No.10697334]

>>10697082
>Where would you put the other two on Ps2?
You had one. Another friend brought theirs.
>How do you "link consoles"?
With the Link Cables for PSX and LAN cables for PS2.
>What games did you play "linked"?
Any, since they detect other consoles as if they were just player 2/3/4, except now you didn't have to share one screen and the games ran better for obvious reasons.
>What 8 player multiplayer splitscreen games did you play?
Gran Turismo, Snowblind, Battlefront 1/2, SOCOM, Timesplitters 2, Time Crisis 2, TM Black Online to name a few.

[Anonymous No.10697379]

>>10697309
The N64 does not have "thousands of games" you disingenuous faggot. And those are all popular games. Nothing on the N64 had "lasting popularity" for multiplayer because everyone moved on to the next gen of consoles for multiplayer. Even Smash was replaced by the next entry.
I didn't even mention other games like Mario Kart and Diddy Kong Racing.

[Anonymous No.10697954]

>>10695602
What the fuck are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.10697957]

>>10695525
Adults like single player experiences.

[Anonymous No.10697962]

>>10697309
Holy backpeddle. Sorry you grew up with games that no longer even allow 2 player splitscreen.

[Anonymous No.10697965]

>>10697957
This. If I want multiplayer I have sex

[Anonymous No.10698105]

>>10697957
based

[Anonymous No.10698124]

>>10697082
The original Xbox had 4 controller ports and also featured “system link”.

[Anonymous No.10698142]

>>10697379
>The N64 does not have "thousands of games" you disingenuous faggot.
No shit, dumbass. I didn't say it did. You did. For no reason. I wasn't arguing about the N64's library. I'm talking about 4 player gaming in the history of gaming. Of which there are about, if I'm being generous, maybe 10-15 games that experienced a lot of popularity as 4 player party games for a short period of gaming before it completely fucking vanished.

The point is it was a gimmick that took advantage of a very specific cultural window and it wasn't some long term necessity for a console. Nobody cared about 4 players ports before the N64 and nobody cares about it after the Wii. The gimmick sleepover console fad ran its course and people have stable internet now so they don't need 4 ports for anything.

Also, to clarify, when I said lasting popularity, what I specifically mean is people played it a lot during the N64's lifetime. People were not playing games like Turok 2, Starfox 64, or F-Zero X in 4 player multiplayer to anywhere NEAR the same degree they did with games like Smash, Goldeneye, or Mario Kart. Out of all the games I just listed, arguably only Smash and Mario Kart were even intended to have robust focus on Multiplayer at all.

[Anonymous No.10698160]

>>10697962
Nothing in my post was a backpedal, moron. I grew up with all sorts of games, including the N64's 4 port multiplayer fad. I just recognize it for what it is.

[Anonymous No.10698202]

I guess you saw it as a "fad" because you never visited an arcade. 4 player Simpsons, Turtles in Time, Golden Axe, and D&D in the arcade were crazy fun. And on the very rare occasion I'd get to visit a venue with 6 player X-Men, it was always completely taken.
The demand was there before, but consoles couldn't deliver. If the SNES had support for 4 player games beyond sports titles, it would have been sick. It likely didn't because it wasn't powerful enough.
N64 brought that sort of action home, and it was awesome.
Sorry you didn't get to experience PS2 multi-tap action, though, because loads of very popular games especially early on did support it. Dismissing games like Timesplitters and Twisted Metal Black, which were amongst the biggest games on PS2 at the time, is absolutely disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.10698410]

>>10698202
>reaching for arcades when discussing 4 ports in home console gaming history
I specifically left it out for a reason. I visited plenty of arcades. Being in some kind of high traffic social hub where 4 strangers could come by and play with you is not a comparable or even a relevant situation to the discussion we were having about the necessity or practicality of home consoles having 4 ports. Playing at an arcade very often meant playing with some strangers ,something you can't do in your own house. Nor are you likely to be bringing 3 friends to the arcade every time you visit it. Arcade cabinets had like a billion settings and the very vast majority of them are 2 player anyways, not 4. Though I will grant they have a higher concentration of meaningful 4 player machines than consoles do 4 player games.

Come on, you could have thought about this for ten seconds before you posted. What, were you thinking you'd just fling open your front door and invite people to play on your 4 port console if only every console had included the option?

[Anonymous No.10698450]

>>10695740
64 was better but psx had more good games. its a wash

[Anonymous No.10698467]

>>10697309
>>10698142
Not true at all about Turok 2 and Star Fox multiplayer. Those were really popular in crowds I knew, including me.

[Anonymous No.10698527]

4 controller gaming has always been a meme, the best 4 player game (worms) doesnt even need more than 1 controller

[Anonymous No.10698737]

>>10695525
Not that many console games which had multiplayer were actually designed around more than 2 players at once, and that goes for consoles in general. Nintendo were kind of the outlier with offering 4 slots right off the bat with the N64 and GameCube, and especially for making first party games which were built around that.

>>10695530
No, it turned into online multiplayer, which can easily support a wide number of players on the hardware end just fine. You can have 30 people playing together and it's not a problem because they're not all sharing one single setup.

>>10695532
Most people did not buy Multi-Taps because few games enabled them, if they were supposed to be a money making strategy for Sony then it would not have been a very good one because this did not create good incentives for people to buy them.
If anything, keeping it to just two controller ports means that your console can still have multiplayer, and it makes the console cheaper for Sony to make so that they can sell it for a lower price.

The vast majority of revenue for console gaming comes from the sales of games, it's always been common for consoles to be sold at a cost or sometimes even at a loss as to facilitate more game sales. If you can make your machine cheaper to buy to get more of them out there, that means more people willing to buy games for them.
Nintendo made almost no profit on sales of the Game Boy itself, which numbered well in excess of 100 million units, but they made unbelievable fortunes on the sales of Game Boy games. Game sales is what makes you money.

The Multi-Tap being a separate accessory is more than anything an accommodation for the rare outliers which supported 4-player, and one which Sony could easily have skipped doing altogether if they wanted to really save money. Enabling the functionality and just selling a cheap little cable adapter demands almost nothing at all from Sony though, so they might as well.

[Anonymous No.10698826]

>>10695525
The PS1 was a remake of the SNES. As for the PS2, I think Sony was hoping for more cinematic hits like FF7 to carry the system. Instead, Square almost immediately ate shit.

[Anonymous No.10698830]

>>10698826
Sony should have bought R* immediately after GTA3. They’re pretty retarded for not doing so.

[Anonymous No.10698837]

For the price difference of buying Mario Kart 64 and Mario Party instead of Crash Bash and CTR you could probably afford a fucking multi-tap to play those in 4 player anyways.

[Anonymous No.10698838]

the uncommon scenario where you have a group of people getting together with 4 controllers, it's not a leap to buy another cheaper peripheral.

[Anonymous No.10698841]

>>10698527
People forget they didn't always have a 40" television/monitor, imagine four of you crowding around a 13" portable CRT

[Anonymous No.10698847]

>>10698841
Yes. That's what we were doing with GoldenEye.

[Anonymous No.10698889]

>>10698160
You had no friends then. Duke Nukem 64, Turok Rage Wars, DK64, Smash bros, jet force gemini, mario kart 64, mario party 1-3, perfect dark, conkers bad fur day, diddy kong racing, banjo tooie, mario tennis, goldeneye alone were the majority of the time i spent playing 4 players on just the n64 with neighbors, and thats before i had a dreamcast, gamecube and xbox. I probably spent more time doing 3+ person multiplayer back then then i did 2. I guess it comes off as a gimmick though if you dont have the games or people to play them.

[Anonymous No.10698892]

>>10698142
>people have stable internet now so they don't need 4 ports for anything.
?? They dont need ports because everything is wireless now and there are still 4 player games coming out now. If you want to be anal about it, pretty sure ps4 has enough usb ports for 4 wired controllers.

[Anonymous No.10698908]

>>10698892
I just checked my PS4, I only count 2 USB ports on the front. I am not the anon you were talking to. But they're useless for gaming, those ports are only for charging.

[Anonymous No.10698913]

>>10698908
You can use wired controllers on them. Im pretty sure there are two usb ports on the back also(maybe not all models), i use one for a little fan.

[Anonymous No.10698932]

>>10698913
>maybe not all models
I just checked carefully. Not in mine.

[Anonymous No.10698950]

>>10698932
Just checked my Pro and it has 2 on front and 1 in back. Thought it had a 2nd on back, but it's an Aux port.

[Anonymous No.10698958]

>>10695525
There weren't really that many 4 player games to warrant them, when you look at it, most 4 player offerings in the N64 were made in house to take advantage of their own design

[Anonymous No.10698964]

>>10698908
Hasn't been 4 USB ports on dick since the early PS3 models.

[Anonymous No.10698969]

Unpopular opinion

The ps2 still hasn't been beat

(Other than pc and maybe xbox360 I kind of believe this)

[Anonymous No.10698976]

>>10698142
I still don't know what good 4 player games it has (other than maybe gauntlet) since I wouldn't count Mario party as "good"

[Anonymous No.10698979]

>>10695927
How many of the multiplayer supporting games on N64 and GC actually supported four players? Legit question, I had an N64 as a kid but only like four games, and I never had a GC.
Had an NES and PSX, but those only had two ports. The consoles supporting four games out of the gate would readily accommodate four players of course, but how often was that used?

I also wonder just how well it worked with four players at once. Mario Party 2 and Smash Bros. worked well with four players, but with Goldeneye it was a somewhat awkward proposition to play 3 or 4 players given how the screen was split up, and how the performance dropped some (at least to my recollection, I could very well be wrong on that point).

>>10696637
It's not that simple, if the product is more expensive to make then it's going to be more expensive for the consumer to buy, and you want to balance what you think the customer wants versus what they're willing to pay.
An extreme example is the 3DO console, it cost more to buy that on launch than to buy both a SNES and a Genesis at the same time (or just one of them with a bunch of cool games), and very few consumers were willing to pay that much. The 3DO might have had some cool potential going, but that's a moot point when they couldn't convince people to bet on the thing.

I'll also reiterate that you don't really make profits on the sales of the console itself, which is why it's commonplace to run the margins as thin as possible on that, sometimes even beyond the margins and take a loss on the console.

[Anonymous No.10698997]

>>10696952
I wonder how much splitscreen factored into it. We had a somewhat big TV with our N64, but slicing up that screen real estate for four different people was still kind of a squinty situation, and probably borderline unplayable on a small TV. I can only imagine it was worse with composite.
Though, to be fair I don't think Goldeneye multiplayer would have been a good time at all with even two players on a small TV, you kinda gotta settle for singleplayer in that case.

>>10696478
Twisted Metal Black was a good fucking time, but I remember both me and my brother complained about it giving us sore thumbs.

[Anonymous No.10699010]

>>10695525
Add-on content, more money for sony.

[Anonymous No.10699041]

>>10699010
Unlikely.

[Anonymous No.10699048]

>>10698964
PS5 has a total of 4 USB ports. 2 USB ports on the back, 1 USB and 1 USB-C port on the front.
Xbox 360 S has FIVE USB ports.

[Anonymous No.10699174]

>>10698889
>You had no friends then.
I did have friends. We played some N64 multiplayer games. Goldeneye, Smash, Mario Kart, and Bomberman were the main ones we played. Nothing you are bringing up actually refutes anything in my post and the bulk of the games you brought up either weren't popular or were already listed in my post.

>I guess it comes off as a gimmick though if you dont have the games or people to play them.
I had the friends and the games. It comes off as a gimmick because it is a gimmick that was relatively short lived, had a narrow library that was actually fun and popular, and never truly a popular development option anyways. Even the games you fondly remember as multiplayer 4 player hits were mostly afterthoughts that had nothing to do with the core game. Rare admitted that they tacked on multiplayer in Goldeneye in 6 weeks as an afterthought. Bomberman 64 spent most of its development on its single player. Same with Duke Nukem, Turok, DK, Perfect Dark, etc etc. The only games that were actually truly focused on the 4 player multiplayer angle in their development can be counted on your hands, and pretty much 100% of them were first party projects.

Basically, in that N64-Wii era was the last sweetspot where people actually gamed together in person enough that the 4 port thing was semi-relevant.

[Anonymous No.10699178]

>>10698838
While true(and I've been someone critical of the 4 player gimmick in this thread), having the multitap as a peripheral and having it built in does make a difference in both how the consumer approaches the product and how a developer does as well.

[Anonymous No.10699184]

>>10696084
>I wasn’t allowed to have friends over
Why?

[Anonymous No.10700589]

>>10697965
Holy shit, based!

[Anonymous No.10700598]

>>10695525
i've always wondered what they do to the controller wire for these promo shots. i'm guessing they just cut it?

[Anonymous No.10700618]

>>10695525
When the PS2 came out, they were selling the hardware at a loss and making all their profit from games. Not everyone needs four controller slots. Two is plenty for the vast majority of gamers. The multitap was a four controller extension that was available to buy from pretty much the beginning. If you wanted to play four player, just get the accessory. Sony saves 39 cents on every unit sold and nobody complains.

[Anonymous No.10701487]

>>10700618
>they were selling the hardware at a loss and making all their profit from games
Isn't/wasn't that normally the case for any console?

[Anonymous No.10701517]

[Anonymous No.10701661]

>>10701487
At this point there are more consoles sold at profit than loss.

[Anonymous No.10701721]

>>10701487
not for Nintendo, they make profits on consoles and games, that's why even during the N64 and GC periods they were in the positive.

for Sony in general, on the day of the release of a new machine they must sell at least two games per console. It must be the same for MS.

[Anonymous No.10702152]

>>10701721
They have tried aiming for profit with the consoles themselves, but not as a hard rule or indefinitely through the machine's market lifespan.

Nintendo mostly sold the Game Boy at a cost and eventually at a loss, it's an 80s machine which was looking dated by 1993, but being able to price it really low combined with its comparatively excellent battery life meant it was a very attractive product.
Didn't need to be cutting edge like a Game Gear when it was inexpensive and could play some good games, Tetris was a smash hit in its own right, and then you'd get Pokémania breathing lots of new life into the old Game Boy and raking in insane profits, with some of Nintendo's first party staples pulling in their share as well.