It was arrogance. Do you remember the comment about getting two jobs to afford it if they didn't like the price tag? Do you remember how they bragged about the cell microprocessor and how it ended up never being used to its full potential by any third parties, and in fact most multiplats performed worse on PS3, making that fancy tech little more than an expensive ball and chain? Sony wasn't arrogant in the PS1 and PS2 era, and it payed off because they took nothing for granted. In the PS4 era, they had an opportunity to be arrogant and greedy like Microsoft, but won huge credibility and trust with gamers by siding with them, and that payed off too. Nintendo had history too. They saved the industry in the 3rd gen, beat tough competition in the 4th, and crushed both competitors in the 7th. Coming fresh off the 7th, they were arrogant and failed miserably with the Wii U. Also, I don't know what method you're talking about, because Sony changed their method for each generation. But sure, keep defending them. It does nothing for you and nothing for them, but I'm sure it makes you feel comfortable to think that your chosen console brand is an irreproachable god of business and gaming. Pride comes before the fall.

Yet I don't see how the PS3 performance was some sort of righteous retribution for their supposed Arrogance.  The PS3 didn't fall behind the 360 after their bold claims, the PS3 started behind 15million because it came out a year later. The $600 price point also wasn't as detrimental as people think because like I stated, the PS3 out paced the 360 worldwide most of the gen(IE sold more on a monthly basis). If PS3 came out the same year as 360, it would have been at least 15million ahead, had the PS3 had a year headstart it would have been 30+ million ahead. The Playstation brand just has higher selling strength than most are capable of  perceiving. 

Whether the decision to delay the console a full year, the $600 price point, the , use of Bluray or the Cell Architecture was a bad idea or not, the selling power in spite of them is phenomenal. Especially when you think this all took place during the peak of a Global Recession. You have to think, for every thing that was holding the PS3 back the 360 had that much more of a chance to take the lead but was still only able to do so temporarily because the PS3 eventually overtook it in Sales(albeit sometimes disputed).

My point being is that Arrogance couldn't have been what took down the PS3 because it was never really taken down to begin with.

Are you going to forget that Sony had to butcher the PS3 to put it back on the map and to compete? That heavy price tag, there marketing approach, everything.

Also lets not forget the PS3 lost more money in the gaming industry than any other console in history, losing around $5b. There arrogance cost them.

Sony needed to fix it or PS was going to die as a brand. Luckily for Sony they made the right moves to compete. They only took over the 360 when MS stopped trying. Sony this gen were extremely lucky that both Nintendo and Xbox tripped over the starting line. Next gen might be alittle different.

Being confident is one thing, being confident fuelled by arrogance is another and there confident in all the wrong ways.

Because keeping current PSN accounts future proof pretty much secures the future of Playstation going into next gen, something PSNow is not going to do going into PS5. Plus everything I said in my previous post.

You are right though that PSNow has to become better. But its not a replacement for an actual account system which is infinitely more valuable as of now in terms of generating profits and selling PS5s.

I think its hilarious you are this offended by PR, but it is what it is  suppose.

You are not wrong about the equality of the experience, but its rather strange issue to have a problem with. the Sony CEO says that PS4 is the best experience. So what? What do you think he is going to say? "yeah, we make the PS4... but actually, I think you must play Fortnite on the X1 because its a better console". I mean, lets be honest: him saying his companies device offers the best experience is what everyone for every company says. You think Apple goes out of there way to prop up the competition? Does BMW say Mecedes makes better cars? You just gonna call every company in existence arrogant because they promote their own products as superior?

At the end of the day, he is new to the role of Sony CEO: any decisions regarding the Playstation division and their stance on Fortnite has like nothing to do with him, unless evidence suggests otherwise. So of course he is going to give a generic "PS4 is the best place to play games". its such a weird thing to be offended by.

If the PS3 had sold like 40million total or something than maybe such a sharp decrease could be considered punishment for their over confidence.....but it sold 80+million. PS360Wii era is the closest any Gen has had all competitors to a Tie. As far as the profitability of that Gen, So much of that can be attributed to things that would have likely happened regardless of what they said. They had no say on whether the Yen was going to start being heavily devalued or not. They didn't have a say about several natural disasters devastating construction of vital parts. They also didn't know the market was going to be derailed by the allure of "Motion Gaming" for several years. And Microsoft would have still paid millions to various Developers to break many a exclusivity contract with Sony. 

There is no vast decrease in PS Brand Sales that shows a drastic fall in popularity that couldn't be as easily attributed to these external factors.

According to this, the original Xbox actually lost the most money, costing Microsoft between $5b and $7b. Not that this "arrogant" argument really matters all that much to begin with, (all of the big three have been that way in some form or fashion), but that needed correcting.

The overwhelming majority of gamers don't actually care about crossplay itself and it's hard to blame them when they're playing on a platform with a healthy user base.  They'd probably never notice it one way or the other.  That's just the truth.  Many of those who do seem to care would change their stance in a heartbeat if their platform of choice opted against crossplay.

There are situations where it does become intrinsically important to players, such as the beginning of this generation when games skipped Xbox because they refused crossplay.  That hurt the user base because it denied them access to a particular game.  That same situation might come up in the future with Playstation.

The ones who really care are the developers and publishers.  Why?  Because it saves them a lot of money and work.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if the person I'm blowing up is on Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, or the Sunway TaihuLight supercomputer.  I just don't care.  However, if it means losing out on games, that's another matter entirely.

As for "Sony is arrogant," sure, why not.  If we're talking about PR then Nintendo and Microsoft are well-known for being "arrogant," as well.  If we're talking about corporate decision making then the ONLY time any of them are NOT "arrogant" is when they've lost market share.  That's business.