I wanted to write "why the Switch 2 is an underpriced product" but I didn't. And I kind of regret not doing that now seeing how the Switch 2 is doing so well. I've been wanting to write about the public suicide of the PlayStation brand for a while. I'm doing it now, so that I don't regret not doing it in the future even though none of what I'm about to say is controversial or even objectionable tbh, but seeing curl6 profile picture way too many times on the front page is stirring up my autism and I had to do something about this, so here we go:
What began as a promising generation for Sony is quickly turning into the worst chapter in PlayStation’s history. The PlayStation 5 seemed to do everything right at first, competitive pricing, smart hardware design, and a strong launch lineup with varied exclusives. It felt like Sony was poised to build on the enormous success of the PS4 era and further solidify its newly founded identity. Personally, I never believed PlayStation was a particularly well-run business, and that belief was reinforced during the PS3 era, when PlayStation finally encountered real competition. That period thoroughly exposed PS weaknesses. However, their response to that pressure was, in my opinion, commendable.
For the first time, the PlayStation brand began carving out a real identity. It started to build a library of original IPs that people could recognize and associate with the platform. PlayStation became known as the home for single-player games with strong narratives and high production values. Whether or not you personally care for that direction is a separate matter, the key point is that, before this, PlayStation lacked any unique character or brand definition.
Due to the pandemic and global supply chain issues, Sony struggled for years to get the PS5 into players’ hands. While that was largely out of their control, it had a major consequence: many gamers pivoted toward PC gaming. This could have been a temporary setback. All Sony really needed to do was double down on its first-party strengths and continue building a compelling ecosystem.
Yet, as time went on, it became clear that Sony had no coherent long-term vision for PlayStation. What once felt like careful brand-building, particularly the focus on narrative-driven, high-production-value single-player games that gave PlayStation an identity during the PS3 and PS4 eras, began to unravel.
Sony’s short-term thinking became increasingly obvious. The decision to port formerly exclusive titles to PC may have brought in quick revenue, but it also weakened the core appeal of the platform. Without meaningful exclusives, there’s little incentive for players to stay within the PlayStation ecosystem. Sony seems to be chasing short-term gains at the expense of long-term brand strength, and the result is a slow but inevitable decline in the relevance and uniqueness of PlayStation.
Becoming a third-party publisher comes with a fundamental shift in priorities; ones that no longer align with the needs of a platform holder. You stop thinking about how to drive console sales or how to diversify your line-up to appeal to more players. Microsoft has embraced this shift deliberately. Their goals, promoting Game Pass, cloud gaming, and cross-platform access, are clearly defined. They’ve stepped away from the traditional console war entirely. I am not a fan of Microsoft or how they achieve their success, but one must admit that they look more composed and coherent than Sony does at this stage.
Sony seems stuck in a confused middle ground. They continue to behave like a platform holder in some areas, while adopting third-party logic in others. The result is a brand with no clear direction, and a growing disconnect between what PlayStation once stood for and what it’s becoming.
Unless this trajectory changes, the PlayStation 5 era may go down not just as a lost opportunity, but as the generation where the PlayStation brand collapsed under the weight of corporate greed. If Sony continues down this path of blurring the lines between PlayStation and PC with no clear platform advantage, the inevitable consequence will be a gradual shrinking of the PlayStation market.
And unlike many of you here, I actually don’t believe Sony’s live-service (GaaS) strategy was inherently flawed. If anything, that strategy at least hinted at some form of long-term planning, even if those plans aren’t particularly appealing to many of us. But whether we like them or not, they were plans rooted in market realities. It’s hard to argue that Sony didn’t take serious steps to set that strategy up for success. From acquiring Bungie to partnering with seasoned developers and funding ambitious, risky projects, Sony clearly understood that building a competitor to something like Call of Duty wasn’t going to be easy, and as it turns out, you can't just "Make your own COD". The mistake wasn’t necessarily the GaaS focus, it was letting the rest of the PlayStation newly found identity erode in the process.
You might ask, what’s the harm in all of this? After all, we’re still getting the games, right?
But again, I come back to the point I made earlier: a third-party publisher operates under a completely different set of priorities than a platform holder. Their goal isn’t to build a strong ecosystem, it’s to maximise returns on individual projects. And you can already see the consequences of that shift in how Microsoft has been cutting both small and large projects that don’t generate immediate significant revenue.
While this isn’t a thread about how the Switch 2 is an under-priced product, everything above only highlights why what Nintendo is doing has so much value. They are the only platform holder left that still behaves like one, building a walled garden of compelling content and delivering a coherent identity. That gives them the freedom to set their own value, and people will pay it, because there’s nothing else quite like it. Certainly not with the way PlayStation is heading and where Xbox already is.
