| The_Liquid_Laser said: It might seem like Sony's strategy is better or maybe Nintendo and Sony have equally viable strategies. However, Nintendo has the better strategy in the long run. Nintendo can survive and be profitable even when it is at the bottom. Sony can't. Nintendo does not sell hardware at a loss and they made a small profit during the Gamecube and Wii U years. On the other hand the Vita was too crushing of a blow for Sony. They had to leave the handheld market. Even the PS3 years were pretty bad for them, and they actually weren't too far behind the Wii in total market share. If Sony ever had a Vita-like turnout in the home market, then they would have to leave gaming entirely. Nintendo has already had a couple of Vita-like results in the home space and they are still around. So, in the end, Sony caters to developers because they have to. If they don't then Nintendo will force them out of the marketplace. Could you imagine a generation where Nintendo got CoD and GTA as exclusives on top of all of their first party games? They would be unbeatable. Sony will never let that happen, because they need these franchises just to survive. But they are also vulnerable, because Microsoft can get these franchises too. Generation 7 shows that Sony actually has to be very careful in how they approach things now. Because they have the first party lion, Nintendo, on one side, and they have the third party thief, Microsoft, on the other. They have to make sure they distinguish themselves from both companies. They were actually lucky in Generation 8, because both the Wii U and XB1 flubbed their launch. We'll have to wait and see if they are careful enough with the PS5. If not, then they might end up with another PS3 situation or worse. |
That's actually by no means a certainty. They went into the red with the PS3 with the razor blade model, but they didn't have the massive network income they do now. Even if you cut their market share in half they would still have significant revenue streams that didn't exist for them in the past. Digital income has changed how PlayStation makes profit. They're financially stronger now than they have been in the entire history of the company.
The Vita is insignificant in terms of overall loss to PlayStation.
The PS3 years were unquestionably the worst years for PlayStation.
For that scenario to take place I'd imagine that there's an alternative service to home consoles that's cheaper, more accessible amd more popular and as they become obsolete Nintendo would also not be immune to that impact either. It would be an evolve or die situation.
History shows they can both co-exist and be highly successful in the same space. Sony are undoubtedly more concerned with MS.
