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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Why Sonys Play Station is the standard for home consoles since 1994 ?

It wasn’t until 1997 that PSX became the leading console. And much of that had to do with Nintendo suddenly cutting support for the SNES, which probably should have been more of a wind-down. 1996 was a big year for SNES, and then there was nothing. It makes me wonder if Nintendo ordered third parties to stop supporting the SNES in early 1997 (even earlier, end of 1996 in the US).

The main reason is because Nintendo made such bad decisions with the N64 and GameCube. If Nintendo hadn’t gone with ultra-expensive cartridges, they would have held onto the major 3rd parties that Sony gained.

It’s kind of a no brainer for consumers when you see a console with 20 games vs one with 500 games, and the one with 500 games is selling them from between 1/2 to 1/5th the price.

The PSX and were was also the more interesting and compelling platform, as it didn’t have the perceived limits of the N64 and GameCube. Also, PS2 has a killer app with Grand Theft Auto 3 and the series that followed. Interestingly enough, from one of Nintendo’s former Dream Team second party Devs DMA (Space Station Silicon Valley, Uniracers, and Body Harvest) who Nintendo effectively kicked off the team during the N64 gen.

I think PS2’s sleek look also helped it against the ugly Xbox and GameCube designs.

PS3 failed for against Wii for kind of similar reasons. Wii was sleek, compelling, and had a high volume of games compared to its competitors. On top of that, the competitors were too expensive. Sony was saying things like “People will pay this expensive price because they will want to in order to play our games.” And while some did, most bought Wiis and DS Lites instead.

Anyway, I’d say that Sony’s dominance has ended with the release of the Switch, as Switch has been the top console of the market for a while now, with the PS4 only occasionally catching up. Again, PS4 got lucky that Nintendo screwed up so badly with the late Wii generation and throwing support instead behind another monumental fuck-up: the Wii U.

Last edited by Jumpin - on 07 June 2020

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network
Jumpin said:

It wasn’t until 1997 that PSX became the leading console. And much of that had to do with Nintendo suddenly cutting support for the SNES, which probably should have been more of a wind-down. 1996 was a big year for SNES, and then there was nothing. It makes me wonder if Nintendo ordered third parties to stop supporting the SNES in early 1997 (even earlier, end of 1996 in the US).

The main reason is because Nintendo made such bad decisions with the N64 and GameCube. If Nintendo hadn’t gone with ultra-expensive cartridges, they would have held onto the major 3rd parties that Sony gained.

It’s kind of a no brainer for consumers when you see a console with 20 games vs one with 500 games, and the one with 500 games is selling them from between 1/2 to 1/5th the price.

The PSX and were was also the more interesting and compelling platform, as it didn’t have the perceived limits of the N64 and GameCube. Also, PS2 has a killer app with Grand Theft Auto 3 and the series that followed. Interestingly enough, from one of Nintendo’s former Dream Team second party Devs DMA (Space Station Silicon Valley, Uniracers, and Body Harvest) who Nintendo effectively kicked off the team during the N64 gen.

I think PS2’s sleek look also helped it against the ugly Xbox and GameCube designs.

PS3 failed for against Wii for kind of similar reasons. Wii was sleek, compelling, and had a high volume of games compared to its competitors. On top of that, the competitors were too expensive. Sony was saying things like “People will pay this expensive price because they will want to in order to play our games.” And while some did, most bought Wiis and DS Lites instead.

Anyway, I’d say that Sony’s dominance has ended with the release of the Switch, as Switch has been the top console of the market for a while now, with the PS4 only occasionally catching up. Again, PS4 got lucky that Nintendo screwed up so badly with the late Wii generation and throwing support instead behind another monumental fuck-up: the Wii U.

Microsoft, besides the almost infinite piles of money because other departments, is aways a paper tiger, in videogame scenario. Nintendo is the real contender here. Lest see the next generation. 



Few things others might have already said.

-Great relationship with third parties.
-They don't try to reinvent the wheel. If it's not broke, they don't try to fix it.
-consistency
-If they see something that works, they "borrow" it. If you get a Sony console, you're not missing much.

Sometimes a PlayStation console is the most powerful. Sometimes, it's the least. It's always going to be good enough to define the generation.



Twitter: @d21lewis

Sony don't half-ass efforted on the consoles, a good library with strong support from third parties and freedom to first party to show their creativity. Also consistency, Sony have kept consistent with their consoles and support never abandoning a system to early.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

For the same reason fifa and cod sell each year



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Around the Network
kirby007 said:
For the same reason fifa and cod sell each year

Which is...?




Easy question, i think. The BEST and the MOST Games in the Gaming-History, thats the reason :)

Perfect West & Japan-Support. And the PS2 & PlayStation 4 are the best Console's of all time!

Last edited by KazumaKiryu - on 07 June 2020

Game Awards 2020: Millions of Gamers have decided, "The Last of Us 2" is Game of the Year and has received the most Awards :) And my respect for Ghost of Tsushima!!

Reason 1: Selective memory. The PS3 needs proper acknowledgement and it was a failure. It couldn't win its generation despite Sony buying lots of market share. If you look at it in the most superficial way, then the PS3's sales numbers suggest that the console didn't do bad in comparison to the PS1, PS2 and PS4, but once you proceed to the next layer, you begin to realize how huge the difference is.

Reason 2: Nintendo's inability to understand their own position and at times deliberate denial to comprehend it; this is how they knocked themselves out repeatedly. Nintendo wouldn't have a problem to compete, but their developers don't seem to like the terms and that in turn makes Nintendo fail to realize their potential. Remember, this is the company who sits on a 30-year-streak of domination in the portable console market (in other words, since its inception), so success is not something that is tied to luck for Nintendo. Here's an abridged, but still kind long version of how Nintendo gets it right and wrong:

The N64 used cartridges as its storage medium, so production costs of copies required a higher financial investment for third parties; the N64 had a far lower amount of games than the PS1 which it lost to. The GC switched to an optical medium and eliminated the problem of the preceding generation; its total game count went up by ~50% in comparison to the N64, but its hardware sales went down by ~50%, again in comparison to the N64. The conventional wisdom always dictates that Nintendo needs to appease third parties more, but sales data completely contradicts that notion. This is why Nintendo looked beyond only two generations to find a fix for their declining home console sales and came up with the Wii. The gist of it is that it was never the loss of third party games to other consoles that did the major damage to Nintendo's sales, but Nintendo's oversights in first party game development.

What made Nintendo big in the first place? Their DNA as an arcade game company, from Donkey Kong to Mario Bros., proceeding to simple sports games (look it up, titles like Golf, Tennis and Baseball were notable hits on the NES) and culminating in Super Mario Bros. which made Nintendo a household name worldwide. All the SMB games sold like hot cakes and moved Nintendo hardware, then on the SNES Donkey Kong made a huge comeback too in the form of another 2D platformer: Donkey Kong Country. At the time SMB and DKC were Nintendo's biggest brands; the Nintendo 64 didn't see a sequel to either series. It seems completely absurd that a console manufacturer would voluntarily forego to make sequels to their biggest games, but that's what Nintendo did. With the GC, Nintendo went another step further and wrecked the replacements for their former biggest series. Neither Super Mario Sunshine, The Wind Waker or Double Dash!! could catch on.

The Wii was the necessary correction which is why it was so big as long as Nintendo kept making games for it. Wii Sports and Wii Play were tributes to hits of the early video game era; the Virtual Console gave recognition to the time before everything had to be 3D; proper sequels were made to key franchises like SMB, Mario Kart, SSB, 3D Mario, Zelda and DKC. For a few years it appeared as if Nintendo truly understood what the market expects from them and none of that had to do with third parties. But then Nintendo turned around and pretended that the Wii never happened and delivered the console that the conventional wisdom I mentioned two paragraphs above dictated. If Nintendo had cared the slightest bit about sales data, the Wii U would have never been conceived.

The Wii U was a bigger failure than even the GC and at the same time Nintendo's dominance in the portable console market didn't yield a lot of profits either, because there too Nintendo couldn't be bothered to consider sales data and decided to go all-in with stereoscopic 3D. During those dark hours Nintendo once again remembered what they should be about, so the NES and SNES Classic consoles were made. At no point was Switch a console that the major AAA third party publishers would have ever approved of, but that's exactly why Switch is such a big hit. Nintendo's place is not the one of playing PC games on a console, what the market wants and expects from Nintendo are the descendants of the arcade spirit.

Long story short, as long as Nintendo sticks with what they should be about, they can compete with Sony's level of console sales. The big question is if Nintendo's business side keeps their developers in check instead of granting them too much freedom.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

They basically stole the Super Nintendo set-up which Nintendo had created and then paid off third parties to cut Sega out of the industry via money-hats.

They've stuck to that formula and don't make a lot of mistakes which then doesn't give competitors much of an opening. On the home console side, they've made basically one major mistake in 25 years in the business (Blu-Ray for PS3) and still were able to push out a more than respectable 85 million units.

The Playstation is basically the successor brand to the Super NES. They took that setup and locked competitors out of getting it back by using money-hats.

The N64 would have sold 100+ million units if Nintendo had not been stubborn and used CDs, even as a second format (there's no law that says you can't have cartridges and CDs on one system, the Saturn had both). The fact that it sold 33 million with meager developer support and long stretches of 1-2 game releases for $60-$70+ games only for months on end was insane. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 07 June 2020

Soundwave said:

They basically stole the Super Nintendo set-up which Nintendo had created and then paid off third parties to cut Sega out of the industry via money-hats.

They've stuck to that formula and don't make a lot of mistakes which then doesn't give competitors much of an opening. On the home console side, they've made basically one major mistake in 25 years in the business (Blu-Ray for PS3) and still were able to push out a more than respectable 85 million units.

The Playstation is basically the successor brand to the Super NES. They took that setup and locked competitors out of getting it back by using money-hats.

The N64 would have sold 100+ million units if Nintendo had not been stubborn and used CDs, even as a second format (there's no law that says you can't have cartridges and CDs on one system, the Saturn had both). The fact that it sold 33 million with meager developer support and long stretches of 1-2 game releases for $60-$70+ games only for months on end was insane. 

Having Blu Ray on PS3 pretty much made sure HD DVD was pushed out.  It was the cheapest Blu Ray player when the PS3 launched.  I believe most standalone Blu Ray players at the time were still 800-1000 dollars. 

I almost feel bad for the early adopters of first generation Blu Ray players because after awhile they updated Blu Ray to a new version and some of the original standalone players didn't even have a Ethernet or wifi capabilities which turned them into bricks.  PS3 of course could update and was able to play the newer discs.  Basically if you wanted to be early adopter to Blu Ray then it only made sense to buy a PS3 at the time till the standalone players became cheaper.