As long as we are facing reality, the PlayStation brand is definitely stronger. Much stronger. I mean how did the PS3 beat the Xbox One? By selling more in less time.

i dont know if the playstation brand is stronger, the ps4 is the better product that why people want it.

Yes, and if the Wii didn't exist PS3 would've sold 200m with PS Move. Seriously, by your standards no success ever should be recognized because someone else could've done the same and it's always just luck.

MS played all their cards right last gen and still lost. It's not about bad starts. It's about being the stronger brand and being able to recover. Xbox is the weaker brand and it will simply not recover because it never won an uphill battle and because this time around they didn't just fuck up their start but also having the weaker platform, not just in terms of hardware but also games and future support. X1 has great games, so has Nintendo. But none of them have the steady stream of AAA, indies and exclusives Playstation has. And going forward the games situation will only get worse.

The PS4 isn't just winning because X1 fucked up the start. PS4 is winning because it had a great start and the support of the whole world and not just a few countries. Even if the roles were reversed and Sony fucked up another console while X1 had a great start, the chances of PS4 still succeeding are high because no matter how popular X1 gets in the states it will never have the amount of Japanese or European support Playstation as a brand always had.

You think it's not commendable to build such a strong brand that is able to recover through a rough patch and putting out stable numbers for decades?

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...

No home console sold over a 100 million because the market was still growing at that point.

In the 4th gen about 100 million consoles were sold. In the 5th gen about 140 million consoles were sold. In the 6th gen almost 200 million consoles were sold. In the 7th gen over 260 million consoles were sold (a low point for Playstation). Do you understand what I'm saying?

PS1 came when the market was ALREADY growing fast, that's a big reason it was able to sell 100 million. Many Gameboy owners also bought a PS1. PS1 wouldn't have done so if it came during the 16 bit era. Hence, PS1 was able to sell a 100 million because the market was big enough for it to do so at the time.

Why didn't PS3 sell 100 million units? Because the competition had great support, people were willing to play those same games on some non-Sony console.

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...

That really makes no sense to me. Didn't PS1 also have competition in the market? Didn't Nintendo have a console then? Why would all of a sudden people who grew up on a Nintendo brand decide to give preference to an upstart Sony console instead to a proven Nintendo brand? One would guess that an existing and proven brand will be the first one to take advantage of a growing market.

Certainly Sony had to do many things right to attract all those Nintendo fans. You have to consider that the gaming market didn't grow of itself, but that Sony managed to put in an effort to expand the market outside existing userbase.

You do realize that you're arguing against yourself here?

people didnt changed to sony in masses, new people came in and buyed the new console.

and sony did much right by doing realy basic console, no new ideas, no fancy tech and it worked great. the new casual growed wasnt interrested in complex games and the changing core gamer had enough games becaue 3rd partys were hating nintendo and sega for good reasons.

The market is always growing. Again, lets not give too much credit for the market growing when PS1 was around.

PS1 didn't have strong competition. Sega was struggling to stay relevant. N64 came later and didn't get great support primarily because carts were expensive and space was limited. Sony throwing money around for support didn't hurt either.

If Playstation wasn't around those other consoles would have EVENTUALLY performed fine, I think Saturn most notably becuase it used CDs. However, it was easy for a company like Sony to swoop in and take the market because Sega and Nintendo were making some bad moves. It was more difficult for MS to break into the market because they had tougher competition.

The competition screwed up and helped Playstation thrive. Sony eventually screwed up and allowed Xbox thrive, now we're seeing the opposite. Sometimes getting an edge on competition just happens from the mistakes of others.