Of course, I grew up with Nintendo and Sega almost 25 years ago. But the older I got, the more I learned to appreciate and love Sony's pioneering work and philosophy. Sony has undoubtedly created a very own, very successful reputation for breaking new ground and finding new IPs. Sony has never shied away from initiating developments or taking money into its hands to implement visions.

Surprisingly, Just 5 years later, Microsoft joined the console market. And yet, in my opinion, they haven't really managed to establish a similar library and philosophy to Sony. I'll keep my fingers crossed that the new acquisitions will work. Because such a competition can only be good. 

So, yes, I'll always have love for Nintendo, but Sony just picked me up better than Nintendo and Microsoft. 

I could afford all consoles, but it's a matter of principle for me that one should suffice. Buying other consoles just for the one or two games that I might find interesting would be overkill and just excess. Like buying three cars, when one is all that is really needed to get the job done.
I'm all about deep story, characters, world building and mature themes, and for that purpose Sony is the place to be, hands down. Surface level shooting or simple fun is not enough to get me out of this world and immerse me in another. Another thing is that with the PS, I can always count on a huge library of choices, from indie to exclusive to huge third party stuff. I know I won't be missing out.
I think gamers are generally more alike than not, there's only different tastes.

I usually use PC as my main platform, but I've always gotten the Nintendo handheld of each gen. The only consoles I got outside of that were my Wii and a short-lived PS2 (it was so old I beat one game before it died).

Skipped virtually everything in this post aside from the title. I just remember waaaay back in the Xbox 360 vs PS3 days when the Xbox was called the "shooter box". That always baffled me. Most multi plat games sold better on Xbox 360. Shooters were dominant on both consoles. Sony actually had more exclusive shooter franchises.

All in all, I think but fan bases were the same. For me, RPGs, Tomb Raider, Final Fantasy (which, of course is an RPG) Metal Gear, and a few more just felt at home on the PlayStation. Action games and online intensive games felt right on Xbox.

thats because live was the better service

ahh the shittalking xboxlive days

I laughed.  I thought he mistyped but no that seems like he meant it.  I have 2 out of 7 Switch titles third party and that includes Mario + Rabbids.

Had a black friend back in college days that would log onto Live to play Halo.  Let's just say it took about 10 seconds from time he said what's up till there was a N word dropped.

Just because Ps3 had shooters doesn’t mean the fans wanted it. Resistance, Killzone, Haze all couldn’t touch Halo and COD sales on 360 were millions stronger. I think Killzone 2 lifetime sales are roughly on par with Halo 3s opening month? That’s why Sony makes 3rd person exclusives now, like you said it just seems to be what the people want. 

The reason why it was called shooter box is because look at the top 10 titles on 360.

That's not the fault of the box, though. It's what was popular. It still had a really diverse library. PS3 seemed like it wanted to be a "shooter box". M.A.G., Haze, Warhawk, Killzone, Resistance. Shooters were what was hot back then. One console just became the preferred place to play them.