Why Sonys Play Station is the standard for home consoles since 1994 ?

[DonFerrari]

COKTOE said:

DonFerrari said:

Like every game this gen that didn't appear on X1 or Switch was accused of being moneyhatted by Sony simply because the dev or pub thought that would make more money. Even if Sony never gave a cent to them.

Well, the current climate is quite different. I'm not privy to current licensing fees, but I'd assume they're basically at parity. Most PS4 games that didn't make their way to the XBO likely didn't do so because they were A: Japanese games, and the XBO has little importance in Japan, and B: In conjunction with this, it has a significantly lower install base. And I guess also C: Even in the west, localized Japanese games will sell disproportionately better on PS4.

Sure the current climate is different. But still it doesn't prevent fans from saying the reason MHW was exclusive to PS4/PC/X1 was Sony moneyhatting (no idea why they would pay to leave only one system out). There is like only a few games Sony moneyhatted this gen (SFV for console exclusiviness with Sony paying the whole development because Capcom confessed they didn't had the budget) and possibly Death Stranding (timed exclusiviness was requested or given?), perhaps FFVIIR and Shenmue III (and in this case they didn't even pay anything they just offered the marketing on doing the reveal).

Wyrdness said:

DonFerrari said:

It never get old "Nintendo invent and Sony rip-off". Then you show it was done 10 or more years before Nintendo and radio silence.

Except nothing of the sort was even said this post proves you never even read the original post and blindly assumed.

COKTOE said:

Giving a company a more attractive business deal, with more opportunity for success, isn't "money-hatting". That same misconception could be errantly applied to all PS1 third party support, because PS1 introduced lower licensing fees across the board compared to Nintendo. Asking for less of a cut, does not, AT ALL, equate to "money-hatting". To say nothing for the inherent benefits of cost reduction the CD medium provided over carts. There were reasons why so many 3rd parties went to PS in that era, and most of them didn't involve direct payments from Sony. Also, you're saying "Sony gave Squaresoft a vastly reduced licensing fee" on FF VII. Vastly? The fee was already low. I'd appreciate a source on that to see how much it was reduced from the standard percentage. 

Problem is no other third party got the same same deal and at the time the wasn't a clear case of it having more opportunity it was a risk back then PS1 only became a lead platform in the late 90s FFVII released in 96 meaning when it was in development the platform was still in a rocky situation as at that point SEGA were still taking the fight to them and N64 was the hyped platform on the way. No one else was helped with their budget and SEGA already had lower fees than Nintendo nor did anyone else have their marketing paid for them, Square were comfortable asking Sony for money in later years leading to the 18% share purchase to save them something that happened with no other company. Companies don't just jump on new unproven platforms because they offer slightly better deals they need a huge incentive to do so especially when they could go with Sega instead.

You are on this forum long enough and that was certainly the vibe of the post. Nintendo is the creator and Sony is the ripper. But when anyone point out that Nintendo was using someone else idea that is ignored.