By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is the Xbox Brand Simply Weaker Than the Playstation Brand?

 

Which Gaming Brand is the Biggest?

Playstation 690 76.07%
 
Xbox 51 5.62%
 
Nintendo 124 13.67%
 
iOS 42 4.63%
 
Total:907
Mr Puggsly on 18 April 2015
small44 said:

Xbox360 sold nearly as much as ps3 because it released more then 1 year after ps3 and 3rd party games was superior and was less expensive not because xbox brand is bigger.

A brand is big when it sold better then another without being aggressive.

But Sony was very aggressive to get PS3 ahead of 360 (Sony couldn't afford another screw up like PS3). Sony hasn't been aggressive with the Vita because that's a lost cause.

Sony didn't have to be aggressive with PS4 simply because MS botched the X1 launch.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Around the Network
Aeolus451 on 18 April 2015
Mr Puggsly said:
generic-user-1 said:
Burek said:

That most likely isn't so. Playstation really did bring in a lot of new gamers by making gaming appealing to adults.

Nintendo saved console gaming in late 80s, but without PS it would still now be mainly a kiddie hobby. PS expanded the user base, and gave legitimacy to mature gaming. And without PS1, I doubt Microsoft would have ever entered the gaming scene. Without Sony entering the scene, home console gaming would have probably died by the turn of the millenium, Nintendo would still be producing Gameboys for kids, and PC scene would have been much much smaller.


can you please explain what you mean? i dont remember a big spike in mature IPs exklusive on ps, that made things different than other IPs on sega or nintendo...

Another thing is Sony gets way too much credit for appealing to mature gamers. Some Sony fans think teenagers and adults didn't play games prior to Playstation.

I knew adults that enjoyed playing NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, etc. But it wasn't cool until Sony made it so...



Alot of teenagers and adults didn't play many games until playstation came out. Was there a market for mature games before playstation? No. Playstation was the console to buy if you wanted more mature themed games.. Was it sega? Nope. Was it nintendo? Hell no. Even now, nintendo barely dabbles with mature themed games. It has nothing to do with what seemed "cool". It's as simple as playstation having games that appealed to teenagers and adults. Playstation introduced gamers to the likes of Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Twisted Metal, ect when nintendo wouldn't touch games like those. Look at what games sold the best on Playstation. The vast majority of the games on the Playstation were mature or rated for teenagers. You can deny it all you want but surely playstation opened the floodgates on mature games and that's why it was so popular.

Azuren on 18 April 2015
GuyWithHighIQ said:

I registered just to post this little rant.

Microsoft only has themselves to blame for the situation of the Xbox brand. They could have killed SONY this gen if it weren't for their greed, but now it looks like SONY will have a monopoly in the hardware market starting next gen (Nintendo is irrelevant and doesn't count).

You know, the funniest thing about this whole flip-flop sales situation is that it was all due to Microsoft's greedy practices. I'm not talking about always-online DRM like what everyone else talks about.
I'm talking about building a good exclusive line-up instead of milking Halo, Forza and Gears and then bribing the media to give those games decent scores. After what happened in the 2nd-half of the generation with the 360, many 360 owners couldn't trust Microsoft to deliver exclusive games on the Xbox ONE.

However, the biggest reason for the Xbox ONE's failure is the bullshit pay2play online fees with Xbox LIVE GOLD. Now that SONY is also charging for online play, there is a huge financial barrier in owning 2 consoles. Both machines are half-gimped without online play, and PlayStation has a far bigger online community for every important online game, so there is more incentive for people to stick with PS+. And this is where the biggest irony comes in. XBL was supposed to be a giant money-making scam by MS, but now it's the main reason why they're getting poor sales. MS is reaping what they sowed.

If Microsoft wants to remain competitive, they should do the right thing and make online gaming FREE. It costs nothing on MS end to host peer2peer online gaming, so they won't be operating at a loss - They just won't be making free money.
In fact, I think this is the only move that can save the Xbox division. It would be big enough for current playstation owners to consider owning a second console just like last generation when many 360 owners bought the PS3 as a secondary console. It would also put enough pressure on SONY to drop their BS online-gaming fees as well, which would benefit all gamers.

Stopped reading at "huge financial barrier". First of all, if $50$60 a year is huge to you, I suggest you get a better paying job. That's $5 or less for each month, $3 cheaper than Netflix.

And at least with Playstation Plus, you get HUGE savings or if it with all the free games you get. I've become wary of actually buying games, because every time I do, it comes out for free on Plus. I have 423 games on my Playstation account, and I've only paid for around 100 of those. Are a lot of them crappy indie titles? Yes. Are there games in there I would otherwise never own? Yes. But there are also games like Shadow of the Colossus, Bioshock Infinite, and Muramasa.

 

This is also not counting all of the discounts, which typically equates to $50-$100 in available discounts weekly. So financial barrier? No. Not having Plus is the financial barrier.





Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

DivinePaladin on 18 April 2015
Hiku said:
DivinePaladin said:

snip

You have to consider that they suffered substantial losses with the PS3, and that when they sacrificed so much to gain back consumer trust (which btw worked), there was always the plan that some of those losses would have to be recuperated with the PS4. That's part of the reason why they're going at this pace right now. They haven't dropped the price yet in spite of MS doing it multiple times, they added fees to online gaming, and at least for the first two years, games are coming out slow, etc. But the momentum is just building up as more and more as third party developers are ready to burst the floodgates with games in the upcoming years. More and more Japanese developers are favoring Sony exclusively, more and more important developers in general are agreeing to marketing deals with Sony, and the PS4 gets cheaper and cheaper to develop thanks to Sony buying so much GDDR RAM, etc.

I don't think they're being cocky or complacent. Because they certainly learned a very harsh lesson about that last gen that they'll not soon forget. The current situation is more about making up for the big mistakes made with the PS3. They're staying profitable right now, but nowhere near to the degree of Nintendo, as Sony are still offering a lot of nice bundles for the games they currently do have.
But I also think there will be a point where we'll see an acceleration in the push for the console, because while PS4 can gain back some of the losses that PS3 caused them, they also can't let that stand in the way of PS4's own opportunities. That would also be a mistake. And that time migth be around the time the PS4 Slim comes out, as a lot of things seem to be falling into place both hardware and software wise around that period.

Oh, of course. I expected no price cut, though in fairness the PS brand profited all but I believe 2006-7. You can attribute 2008 to the PS2 hanging in there if you'd like, but they never exactly suffered hemorrhages like Sony as a whole did. That's neither here nor there, but it is something worth mentioning.

 

What I didn't expect, frankly, was for them to pull a 2012 and after, where they throw massive marketing into select games and throw others to die. The Order did not deserve that push from day one, Sony knew it was a con, and they threw it at us anyway. They're focusing on style instead of substance because they've won every battle since the 8th gen was conceptual. THAT's not something I can just excuse because of the PS3 wariness, because the PS brand has been built on a foundation completely different from this. The PS4 feels like an early 360 era console to me for that reason, and it's why I haven't gotten one yet. And that genuinely upsets me. 

 

I'm sure they CAN fix that if they desire, but they're just oozing 2012 and later era Sony right now. The Sony that announced one day that PSAS was profitable, and the next canned support in order to give more microtransaction DLC for an unprofitable GoW: A. I mean, they dropped Uncharted back to Spring, and we STILL haven't seen them planting the seeds to use the Ratchet game as their big name replacement in the holiday lineup. That's the Sony I don't respect, the one that is so hot and cold with plans (remember how PSAS started as a Powerstone-styled game until 2011? Sly 4?). And I genuinely hope they make it worth the purchase at E3. If not I'll just enjoy Ratchet and Uncharted while mumbling angrily to myself about how they could've had it all. 



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

DivinePaladin on 18 April 2015
alternine said:
DivinePaladin said:

You don't just forget 599 US Dollars. You avoid it.

 

In spite of an awful launch, the PS3 slow-burned to second and (doubtfully) possibly even first when all's said and done because Sony was playing catch-up. They were hungry. It's a mentality I miss from them since the PS4 launched. It's a mentality that has me admiring Phil Spencer and the turnaround he's made for the XBO; I'd actually consider maybe buying one in 2017ish now.

 

I wish Sony would have stayed hungry after the PS4 launched and dominated, because it now feels like they were just prepping to win from the gate and coast from there. We've had maybe three exclusives worth buying in over a year, and several hype machine disappointments. PS+ has dropped in quality (somewhat understandably) since they forced subscription. We got a bad TV show, a cable service without Disney, and a rental service as an attempt to expand the PS branding. It almost feels like they're Wii levels of cocky right now. 

 

My point is that while the PS brand is clearly stronger, it's also straining right now. Consumer-wise it will always win*, but quality-wise it's on a downward trend, and that disappoints me. We've seen what Sony can do when they dominate, and they're leaning PS3 cocky instead of PS2 confident. And I'm sure this disappointment will resonate just as well in my head when I cave and buy my PS4 in a few weeks. 

 

(*You never know with Nintendo) 

You're subjective opinion of course.

I am indeed a subjective opinion. Thanks for the input. 

 

C'mon, I've forumed more than enough to know it's an opinion. I RUN a forum!



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

Around the Network
Aeolus451 on 18 April 2015
Azzanation said:
small44 said:
Azzanation said:

More of these threads. A lot of you don't understand business and the gaming market. No company has a bigger name then the other. On Paper Nintendo has the biggest name out of all 3 if we are going by figures.

Ill try to make this simple for the kids that read this.

1: Sony are very good marketers
2: Xbox is as big of a name then the PS (last gen both finished on the same amount sold)
3: Every gen is different, there's always different winners.

Now before you call me a fanboy I am a PC gamer who thinks consoles are quite stupid (my Opinion)

All generations favour those who are hungrier, eg - Nintendo went aggressive with the Wii last gen since the Gamecube failed while MS went strong with the 360 because of the Org Xbox, PS3 failed to excite because Sony went into last generation big headed with the PS2s success. Results = Wii destroyed the market followed by the 360 then after PS3 caught up but.. PS3 caught up as the last gen finished as MS and Nintendo were focusing on next generation systems like there line ups which clearly shows that the PS4 lacked launch line up games compared to there competitors

This generation we have gotten the exact opposite, MS went out over confident while Sony were the hungrier team. PS4 did what the 360 did last gen, It was available World Wide a lot longer then the X1, it launch with good spirits where as X1 did a PS3 and launched only in a few countries and left a bad taste in casual gamers mouths.

Every Gen will be different and you can mark my words, if there is a next gen I would be expecting Xbox or Nintendo to topple top spot since there the hungrier teams.

Now all this doesn't matter in the end because either Sony or MS are trying to put each other out of business, if that was the case then Sony wouldn't have a chance against a monolith corporation like MS.

Both X1 and PS4 are reaching there sales goals, and to me Sales don't mean anything. Premium products aren't the best sellers and ill use the Wii and DS last gen as a example, they were the best selling systems last gen yet PC gaming was my preferred choice. No different this gen, PS4 is selling but so did the Wii last gen, does it really matter? All consoles have enough 1st party games to entertain you all though the generation.

Get rid of the measuring sticks, Sales don't determine quality or superior products, Both brands are big enough to attract there markets, if you prefer Sony games then game on PS, if you prefer MS games then game on Xbox and same with Nintendo and PC etc.

I owned a PC, PS1 and N64 all at the same time, Honest truth, my N64 was the best thing i could have brought, it had qaulity games, it had innovations and it was cheap and powerful, My PS1 i had MGS1 and FF7 (which was also avaialble on PC) and the Crash Bandicoot collections and many other 3rd party games that are nothing more then poor cheaply design games with very poorly made 1st party exclusives. My PS1 had nothing special on it apart from the fact you can pirate the games where as my PC did everything the PS1 did and more... BUT the PS1 sold monster tons, did that make it a better device then the N64? Hell no, no where near, premium games came on the N64 and PC where as PS1 had a library of 3rd party games while Sega started losing there way. Do sales = quality? No never did. PS was a new brand yet outsold a strong brand in Nintendo. That should anwser this thread.

Xbox360 sold nearly as much as ps3 because it released more then 1 year after ps3 and 3rd party games was superior and was less expensive not because xbox brand is bigger.

A brand is big when it sold better then another without being aggressive.

Agressive marketing can be the difference in system sales as can be good timing. The 360 had the advantage and continued to outsell the PS3 for years, its only when MS started to drop support that the PS3 caught up, in the end the 360 sold more for most of last generation which leads to bigger success then barely overtaking in its dieing years when both consoles are worth practicle nothing.

Also PS4 is dominating the market this gen based on aggersive marketing and the fact its had a world wide sales advatage for a good year and a bit. Do you expect a console available in 13 countries to outsell another thats available in 70+ at launch? Thats no different between 360 and PS3 with the 360 having a 1 year head start. If the PS3 caught up on sales then expect the X1 to do somthing similar.

 

Quote *A brand is big when it sold better then another without being aggressive.* Then how do you explain the PS1 outselling the N64? From that time no one knew what a PS1 was were as everyone knew what a Nintendo was.


Mature themed games. 



Mr Puggsly on 18 April 2015
Aeolus451 said:


Alot of teenagers and adults didn't play many games until playstation came out. Was there a market for mature games before playstation? No. Playstation was the console to buy if you wanted more mature themed games.. Was it sega? Nope. Was it nintendo? Hell no. Even now, nintendo barely dabbles with mature themed games. It has nothing to do with what seemed "cool". It's as simple as playstation having games that appealed to teenagers and adults. Playstation introduced gamers to the likes of Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Twisted Metal, ect when nintendo wouldn't touch games like those. Look at what games sold the best on Playstation. The vast majority of the games on the Playstation were mature or rated for teenagers. You can deny it all you want but surely playstation opened the floodgates on mature games and that's why it was so popular.

So much wrong in this post. In a nutshell, I completely disagree.

I guess you weren't around during the early 90s? I saw plenty of teenagers and even adults playing video games. And I assume many teenagers and adults played Pac Man, Galaga, and other classics.

I'm not sure where the revisionist history of just kids playing games comes from. Its simply not accurate.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

generic-user-1 on 18 April 2015
Aeolus451 said:
Mr Puggsly said:
generic-user-1 said:
Burek said:

That most likely isn't so. Playstation really did bring in a lot of new gamers by making gaming appealing to adults.

Nintendo saved console gaming in late 80s, but without PS it would still now be mainly a kiddie hobby. PS expanded the user base, and gave legitimacy to mature gaming. And without PS1, I doubt Microsoft would have ever entered the gaming scene. Without Sony entering the scene, home console gaming would have probably died by the turn of the millenium, Nintendo would still be producing Gameboys for kids, and PC scene would have been much much smaller.


can you please explain what you mean? i dont remember a big spike in mature IPs exklusive on ps, that made things different than other IPs on sega or nintendo...

Another thing is Sony gets way too much credit for appealing to mature gamers. Some Sony fans think teenagers and adults didn't play games prior to Playstation.

I knew adults that enjoyed playing NES, SNES, N64, Genesis, etc. But it wasn't cool until Sony made it so...


Alot of teenagers and adults didn't play many games until playstation came out. Was there a market for mature games before playstation? No. Playstation was the console to buy if you wanted more mature themed games.. Was it sega? Nope. Was it nintendo? Hell no. Even now, nintendo barely dabbles with mature themed games. It has nothing to do with what seemed "cool". It's as simple as playstation having games that appealed to teenagers and adults. Playstation introduced gamers to the likes of Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider, Twisted Metal, ect when nintendo wouldn't touch games like those. Look at what games sold the best on Playstation. The vast majority of the games on the Playstation were mature or rated for teenagers. You can deny it all you want but surely playstation opened the floodgates on mature games and that's why it was so popular.

Mg was on the nes, resident evil was multiplatt(well it should have been but sega fucked it up), Tomb raider wa a saturn game...

and nintendo had mature games since the nes and has em till today.   just because you are to young to remember games like doom doesnt mean it never existed...

Ps opened the market for casuals, and sony won every time they did  that and lost everytime they went for the core. the ps3 was a massiv flop and sony had to eat a huge amount of loses just to stay relevant, and the vita sales are realy bad. 

the PS brand is the biggest brand because sony just Has playstation, they dont have other brands like nintendo has with mario/pokemon/zelda or sega with sanic...



97alexk on 18 April 2015

Im shocked how many people said that playstation is a more popular gaming brand then nintendo, because i think nintendo is way more known than playstation. More people know games from nintendo than from playstation.



ihatefatkatz on 18 April 2015
Ka-pi96 said:
ihatefatkatz said:

How so? By what measure? Sales? Recognition?

Sony total hardware sales = around 457 million

Nintendo hardware sales Sony entering the market =  around 450 (not including GB sales , which could be an additional 50 million)

Software sales Nintendo is far beyond Sony's reach.

Recognition? Nintendo is synonymous with Mario, a face that is iconic, a household name and instilled in gaming popular culture. Plus they have an impressive pool of IP's with far outreach like Donkey kong , pokemon and Zelda.

If you said as a brand for home consoles, then I would be inclined to agree. As a gaming brand? I'd argue differently.

PlayStation is the bigger brand, more people know of them. Average sales per console are way higher than Nintendo and total lifetime sales are fast catching up. The PlayStation name is synonymous with gaming, they can get huge consoles sales just by showing up, nobody else can do that. Both Microsoft and Nintendo have to actually try to get a decent level of sales, Sony have done the hard work and can now just sit back and reap the benefits.

You are not looking at gaming wholistically and just looking at home console sales, which smells of confirmation bias. Gaming is more than just making consoles, there's also a thing called "games". 

Besides, I've already pointed since Sony entered the market, Nintendo has more or less sold the same amount of consoles. In software sales, Sony is not even in the competition.

To illustrate my point further, take for example Nintendo's announcement of entering the mobile market.

Sony has already made mobile games with playstation mascots and no one gives a shit; when Nintendo announces their entrance into the mobile market, the community and analyst go in a frenzy. Why? Because with its affinity for game development and strong IP pool, Nintendo can make huge waves in the biggest gaming market.

@bold, the PlayStation brand didn't exactly help the vita.