By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why the PlayStation brand name is the strongest brand name in video games

bdbdbd on 23 March 2009

@Mike: I actually addressed that point in my previous post. The name is so much easier. Even if you'd know Äbäldwebbgh isn't Playstation, you'd call it a Playstation for it being so much easier to pronounce, then again, you'd quickly change calling Playstation a Playstation instead of Äbäldwebbgh for the same reasons.

Btw. Added me yet?

@kjj4t9rdad: Not quite true. NES->SNES->N64->GC and GB->GBA->NDS were similar hardware upgrades as PSX->PS2->PS3. NDS->DSL->DSi is similar to PSP-1000->PSP-2000->PSP-3000 or GB->GBC or GBA->GBA SP->GB Lite or to an extent PS3 60GB->PS3 80GB->PS3 40GB or PS2->PS2 Slim.

Yes, Nintendo is making money for having the cost of the hardware low, but the question you should be asking is: why aren't others doing the same? Nintendo does it, Sega did it, Atari did it, Mattel did it etc.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
kjj4t9rdad on 23 March 2009
Pyro as Bill said:
kjj4t9rdad said:
sethnintendo said:

@kjj4t9rdad

20 years plus of Sony dominance??? What are you smoking?  Your Sony 'owning" doesn't really amount to too much profit for Sony.  Nintendo's profit throughout the entire video game business is far greater than Sony could ever dream of.

 

Profit is a different subject all together and has lilttle to do with the OP's thread.  But really what that should tell you is Sony expands and pushes the consoles where Nintendo just updates thier existing console.  It is easy to make profit when you have very little R&D costs.  For example, you have the GB, GBcolor, GBA,. Ds, Dsi ect....  These are not new products, just slightly updated.  Same goes for the Wii.  Aside from the controls the Wii is an updated Game Cube.  In contrast the Playstation has drasticly improved the performance of thier consoles, not only in formats, but processing power as well.

I guess trillions of dollars in profit is not much.  Yes, Nintendo has made more profit, but thats because they charge $250 for a $100 pc. of hardware and $30 controller.

 

Tell me this is a joke post.

 

Nintendo don't update their consoles?

Maybe you weren't around for the NES and SNES and N64 and GC and Wii. So the PS1 to PS2 was a bigger leap than N64 to GC???

Low R+D costs?????  WTF!!

I didn't say no R&D.  I said little R&D compared to thier competition.  They take very little risks.

 



irstupid on 23 March 2009

you don't think the DS or the Wii were big risks?

yet using the same controller, and name are risks.



Pyro as Bill on 23 March 2009

Wii easily has the more powerful brand today. The Wii brand is recognised by everyone aged 2+.

Everyone who knows about Playstation knows about Wii. That doesn't work in reverse.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

kjj4t9rdad on 23 March 2009
bdbdbd said:
@Mike: I actually addressed that point in my previous post. The name is so much easier. Even if you'd know Äbäldwebbgh isn't Playstation, you'd call it a Playstation for it being so much easier to pronounce, then again, you'd quickly change calling Playstation a Playstation instead of Äbäldwebbgh for the same reasons.

Btw. Added me yet?

@kjj4t9rdad: Not quite true. NES->SNES->N64->GC and GB->GBA->NDS were similar hardware upgrades as PSX->PS2->PS3. NDS->DSL->DSi is similar to PSP-1000->PSP-2000->PSP-3000 or GB->GBC or GBA->GBA SP->GB Lite or to an extent PS3 60GB->PS3 80GB->PS3 40GB or PS2->PS2 Slim.

Yes, Nintendo is making money for having the cost of the hardware low, but the question you should be asking is: why aren't others doing the same? Nintendo does it, Sega did it, Atari did it, Mattel did it etc.

 

Because Ninty is the only one still producing consoles. The rest are dead, console whise anyway.



Around the Network
mesoteto on 23 March 2009
kjj4t9rdad said:
Pyro as Bill said:
kjj4t9rdad said:
sethnintendo said:

@kjj4t9rdad

20 years plus of Sony dominance??? What are you smoking?  Your Sony 'owning" doesn't really amount to too much profit for Sony.  Nintendo's profit throughout the entire video game business is far greater than Sony could ever dream of.

 

Profit is a different subject all together and has lilttle to do with the OP's thread.  But really what that should tell you is Sony expands and pushes the consoles where Nintendo just updates thier existing console.  It is easy to make profit when you have very little R&D costs.  For example, you have the GB, GBcolor, GBA,. Ds, Dsi ect....  These are not new products, just slightly updated.  Same goes for the Wii.  Aside from the controls the Wii is an updated Game Cube.  In contrast the Playstation has drasticly improved the performance of thier consoles, not only in formats, but processing power as well.

I guess trillions of dollars in profit is not much.  Yes, Nintendo has made more profit, but thats because they charge $250 for a $100 pc. of hardware and $30 controller.

 

Tell me this is a joke post.

 

Nintendo don't update their consoles?

Maybe you weren't around for the NES and SNES and N64 and GC and Wii. So the PS1 to PS2 was a bigger leap than N64 to GC???

Low R+D costs?????  WTF!!

I didn't say no R&D.  I said little R&D compared to thier competition.  They take very little risks.

 

 

yes b/c using the sma formula with a pretty new bow is taking huge risks....right



 

bdbdbd on 23 March 2009

@kjj4t9rdad: And why they are dead? After finding out, you could notice why your statement doesn't make sense.
The only one out of the three that actually is dead, is Atari and you could debate about Sega (then again, also Sony could be said being dead on console market).



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

kjj4t9rdad on 23 March 2009
bdbdbd said:
@kjj4t9rdad: And why they are dead? After finding out, you could notice why your statement doesn't make sense.
The only one out of the three that actually is dead, is Atari and you could debate about Sega (then again, also Sony could be said being dead on console market).

 

Does Atari or Sega make consoles? NO, so console whise they are dead.  I don't know how you can compare Sony to Sega and Atari.  Sony still produces consoles and will continue to do so.



saicho on 23 March 2009
Alterego-X said:

Poggy-Green said:

 It did pass me by that the Wii brand name is getting as big as PlayStation's too. 

overall i still think the playstation brand name is #1, with wii in a close second, i would then put nintendo third, xbox next, and then so and so on.

thanks to everyone for getting their opinion and comments out there, mature or immature, doesn't matter.

and to the people who didnt troll and act stupid, thanks!

 

The problem is, that you basd all of your opinion on sales, that is misleading, because while technically the Wii is only "presumably going to be #1", it is the most popular brand at the moment, and that is the only thing that matters, not the number of won generations or sold consoles in the past. 

People are easily manipulated. In the Atari era, everyone considered Atari THE game company. Now it is remembered as a failed brand. Later, everyone believed that the future of console gaming will be a series of NES versions, to rule gaming. In the PS2 era, I even read an article about the technology of future that referred to the future as "around the PS5 era" or we will have virtual reality in the ps8 era". It was that obvious that PS will rule forever. 

Now, most people are convinced that Nintendo will make a "Wii 2" for the casuals, and the PS4 will have holo-discs and it will be expensive. 

 

So, I think, there is no other brand recognition, than CURRENT brand recognition. Everything else is gone, forgotten. 

http://www.google.com/trends?q=Nintendo,+Playstation,+Wii,&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2008&sort=1

I agree with Dexter.



MikeB predicts that the PS3 will sell about 140 million units by the end of 2016 and triple the amount of 360s in the long run.

Zones on 23 March 2009
mesoteto said:
kjj4t9rdad said:

I didn't say no R&D.  I said little R&D compared to thier competition.  They take very little risks.

 yes b/c using the sma formula with a pretty new bow is taking huge risks....right

Yes, because investing ~$2 billion for 5 years with two other companies in just a CPU is not a risk...right.