Quantcast
Locked: Why the PlayStation brand name is the strongest brand name in video games

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

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.

 



Around the Network
mesoteto said:
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

 

How is changing formats and processors on every console using the same formula.  Releasing a console that is only 1.5x's more powerful than the previous one is taking a very small risk.  If it failed Ninty is not out all that much.  Risk is selling a $800 pc of hardware for $600, not selling a "new" console that made profit from day one.  Compared to M$ and Sony, Nintendo has taken no risk.



kjj4t9rdad said:
mesoteto said:
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

 

How is changing formats and processors on every console using the same formula.  Releasing a console that is only 1.5x's more powerful than the previous one is taking a very small risk.  If it failed Ninty is not out all that much.  Risk is selling a $800 pc of hardware for $600, not selling a "new" console that made profit from day one.  Compared to M$ and Sony, Nintendo has taken no risk.

That's a stupid business decision to start with. You can't call it risk.

I found the statement funny cause apparently you and I have a very different view on what risk is.

 

 



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.

Looks like I derailed the topic a little talking about profit. It turned into a very nice discussion though.  This was the thread that I had on my mind...   http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=57802&page=1



@kjj4t9rdad... I just wanted to ask how old are you?



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Around the Network

     

izaaz101 said:
BladeOfGod said:
N64 + GameCube+ DS+Wii= around 250 million units sold


PS1+PS2+PSP+PS3= around 321 million sold.

So, Nintendo got its ass kicked since PlayStation was launched

Sorry, but only NES can barely compare with any PlayStation console.

And comparing COMPANY like NIntendo and brand like PlayStation? More than fair.

Tell me the name of 1 nintendo console who sold 100 million? NO, tell me name of the nintendo console who sold 90 million? NO, tell me nintendo console who sold 80 million? NO, tell me... ah screw this i can go like this for ever.

Even if nintendo win this generation ( probably will ) its still:

PlayStation 2: Nintendo 1.

So YES, PlayStation IS the strongest name in video games. The only thing Nntendo have is Mario. Wii sports probably wouldn't sell above 20 million if they weren't bundled in EU and USA



I wonder how many replays i am gonna get from nintendo fanboys now...

I noticed that you missed (or conveniently left out) the GBA, which sold about 80M, which makes your Nintendo number up to 330 million.

 

 LOL, i am counting only the consoles PlayStation was competing with.I didnt counted PSX and PocketStation because they were only realised in Japan. PS2 never competed with GBA, Sony didnt have handheld back then. I was counting 4 consoles vs. 4 consoles and PlayStation obviusoly win. Nobody plays SNES and NES anymore, , but i think there are still people out there who are playing N64 and PS1. PS1 was more popular than N64, PS2 was MUCH MORE popular than GameCube and Wii is more popular than PS3 for now.

 

I dont get it why people are comparing company and brand. Nintendo is not a brand, Nintendo is a video game company.

PlayStation have PS1, Ps2, PSP and PS3. That's only 4 machines and its still THE MOST POPULAR BRAND out there

 

Nintendo have NES, SNES, Gameboy, Gameboy colour, N64, GBA, GameCube and wii. That's 8 machines. Twice as much as PlayStation. That's why is not fair to compare company like Nintendo and brand like Playstation. Its same like comparing Microsoft and Ipod.

 

The most pupular brand: PlayStation

The most popular video game company: Nintendo



sethnintendo said:

Looks like I derailed the topic a little talking about profit. It turned into a very nice discussion though.  This was the thread that I had on my mind...   http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=57802&page=1

 

 

Nobody said anything about profits made. You are just trying to change the subject.



BladeOfGod said:
     
izaaz101 said:
BladeOfGod said:
N64 + GameCube+ DS+Wii= around 250 million units sold


PS1+PS2+PSP+PS3= around 321 million sold.

So, Nintendo got its ass kicked since PlayStation was launched

Sorry, but only NES can barely compare with any PlayStation console.

And comparing COMPANY like NIntendo and brand like PlayStation? More than fair.

Tell me the name of 1 nintendo console who sold 100 million? NO, tell me name of the nintendo console who sold 90 million? NO, tell me nintendo console who sold 80 million? NO, tell me... ah screw this i can go like this for ever.

Even if nintendo win this generation ( probably will ) its still:

PlayStation 2: Nintendo 1.

So YES, PlayStation IS the strongest name in video games. The only thing Nntendo have is Mario. Wii sports probably wouldn't sell above 20 million if they weren't bundled in EU and USA



I wonder how many replays i am gonna get from nintendo fanboys now...

I noticed that you missed (or conveniently left out) the GBA, which sold about 80M, which makes your Nintendo number up to 330 million.

 

 LOL, i am counting only the consoles PlayStation was competing with.I didnt counted PSX and PocketStation because they were only realised in Japan. PS2 never competed with GBA, Sony didnt have handheld back then. I was counting 4 consoles vs. 4 consoles and PlayStation obviusoly win. Nobody plays SNES and NES anymore, , but i think there are still people out there who are playing N64 and PS1. PS1 was more popular than N63, PS2 was MUCH MORE popular than GameCube and Wii is more popular than PS3 for now.

 

I dont get it why people are comparing company and brand. Nintendo is not a brand, Nintendo is a video game company.

PlayStation have PS1, Ps2, PSP and PS3. That's only 4 machines and its still THE MOST POPULAR BRAND out there

 

Nintendo have NES, SNES, Gameboy, Gameboy colour, N64, GBA, GameCube and wii. That's 8 machines. Twice as much as PlayStation. That's why is not fair to compare company like Nintendo and brand like Playstation. Its same like comparing Microsoft and Ipod.

 

The most pupular brand: PlayStation

The most popular video game company: Nintendo

 

don't feel like arguing with you, but you should really be consistent.  You forgot the DS just there.  

and did you ever think that the reason the PS3 is loosing this generation is because it forgot what IT IS.  Playstation is a video game company.  It TRIED to become more and that is why it is loosing.  Not everyone wants a Blu Ray Player, a shitty internet browser and whatever else was thrown in the system.  People buy video game systems to play games.  

 

Yes there are some people who buy PS3's or 360's for their Blu Ray or Netflix, because my dad did that specifically.  But tell me how that is gonna help Sony.  As you have shown or others before, Sony sells at a Loss their system.  So for those people like my dad and many others who buy PS3 for Blu ray player only it is screwing Sony over.  No accessories, no games.  And in our case, don't say buying blu rays cuase we just rent them. But i'm sure others do buy, I know that.



@blade---

you fail to get that Nintendo=Brand and company

@Kj/Zone---how is playing to the same market taking a risk?

to me and many others nintendo trying to go after a completely new and uncharted market while risking all the faithful customers at first is a bigger risk then playing to the same old tried and true crowd

but ehh maybe playing safe is now risky?



 

@BladeofGod, did you miss the entire discussion about R&D costs and what not relating to profit. Go back about 10-20 posts and that was what people were talking about.