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

kjj4t9rdad 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.

So it takes nintendo 5 products to compete with Sony's 4 products.  Your are making the OP's point for him.

 

 4 systems to 4 systems is what you want? Very Well then GBA + GB + DS + NES is a little north of 340 million consoles sold. So you can either keep it confines to a single timeline in which case it is a simple fact that Nintendo released more consoles, or you can limit it to the best seller where Nintendo has just been more successful. Either way Nintendo wins so I don't think it matters much.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network

^nice sting...and you deserved that ban



 

"nobody plays SNES and NES anymore"~BladeOfGod
I don't exist? :(



"After you win, son, I feel like going for a ride on your bike, haha." ~Doc Louis (Punch Out Wii)

 

 

BladeOfGod said 

 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

 Whether or not Sony was trying to compete against any product directly has no impact on the brand popularity. The GBA was out there, and enjoyed by tens of million of customers. That increase brand name recognition. If your measure of brand name is units sold over a persiod of time then the GBA is fair game, and puts Nintendo over the top. Its a stupid way to compare brand name recognition though so the point is kind of moot.

 Edit: HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Nobody plays the SNES or NES anymore? So the whole Virtual Console is a failed idea and they should only focus on the N64 era of video games for it?



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

mesoteto said:
^nice sting...and you deserved that ban

 What? You don't love beautiful half naked women in people's sigs? Different strokes for different folks I guess.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Around the Network
Gnizmo said:
mesoteto said:
^nice sting...and you deserved that ban

 What? You don't love beautiful half naked women in people's sigs? Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

no she was just ugly this is what you should have had

 

http://thewickedpinto.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/fat-girls-and-fries.jpg



 

mesoteto said:
@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?

Funny how you avoid my questions or statements by bringing another one. Have I said Nintendo was not risking? Nope. I am just saying how one can say that Sony didn't take a risk by investing in a huge project like CELL and other components of PS3.



Zones said:

Funny how you avoid my questions or statements by bringing another one. Have I said Nintendo was not risking? Nope. I am just saying how one can say that Sony didn't take a risk by investing in a huge project like CELL and other components of PS3.

 Because they had the backing and co-operation of many other companies which insured a certain amunt of return on the investment. The Cell was not developed exclusively to be used in the PS3. The PS3 uses the Cell because it was a convinient and strong processor that could be slapped into the machine. The risk was not in developing it for the PS3 as it was in jacking up the price a ton to try and get some money back from the research of the processor itself.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

"Funny how you avoid my questions or statements by bringing another one. "


maybe you should read my post i did address and to put it plainly, no it was not a risk and if nintendo hadnt taken the actual risk then it would have paid out 10 fold b/c the market would really only have been divided b/t the 360 and the ps3

risk= taking a chance

all Microsoft and Sony did was beef up the previous machines, and since the previous machine for the playstation line was a hit they assumed making better graphics and using the same business model would = printing more money

and if you remove the wii hey it just might have worked for them


i repeat myself---nin trying sailing the uncharted blue ocean was and still is the biggest risk of the big three



 

@kjj4t9rdad: I can compare them for the reasons that none made money on the market with their last console (by this i don't mean PS3 would be Sonys last console, latest, but not last). The amount of money Sony sank into PS3 by selling it, would have sank the company without the companys other functions backing it.

Atari lost with the crash it caused for not having control over the market it owned. Nintendo stole the market and Atari couldn't make a comeback to compete Nintendo. It did try a comeback with Jaguar, but due to bad sales, and relatively big inventory, it was forced to leave the market.

A little similar thing happened to Sega. Only this time Sega pissed off its fans (killed its market) and due to competition from Sony (and Nintendo) it couldn't come back. Due to bad sales and huge inventory of Dreamcast, Sega was forced out of the market (if DC or Saturn had reached the amount of consoles sold as PS3 stands today, Sega hadn't exited the market it would be doing well).

Mattel then again, exited the market after the videogame crash, because they didn't see a future in the market. In the end, Mattel ended distributing NES.

Nintendo is still alive and well for the reason of not selling their products at a loss.

The razor and blades model is a stupid model when your razor owners don't need the blades to use the razor.

And Nintendo did take the biggest risk for the reason that failing in the consoles would have meant the end of Nintendos business. During the PS3 R&D SCE was still making good profits, so the R&D wasn't a risk. Selling the product at a loss wasn't a risk in the sense that it wasn't seen as one. The same model worked with PS2, so of course it works with PS3 and they still had PSP bringing in even more cash if PS3 would need extensive financial support (during the R&D process, PSP was still supposed to beat DS).

@BladeOfGod: Nintendo is a brand, Sony is a brand. Basically every company/product name there is, is a brand.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.