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

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

Playstation 1 profited from Nintendo's mistakes and from there on they just could go on "cruse mode", meaning doing what the average gamer expects from you and don't risk anything. I don't mean it as a critic - it's a brilliant strategy once you are the king.

Re Nintendo's mistakes: I think it has one name: Hiroshi Yamauchi the old Predident and CEO of Nintendo. He actually never understood the videogames market, all the weird and plainly wrong decisions are coming from him. He was actually a real mortgage for Nintendo. He's doing actually had a negative effect on Nintendo long after he stepped down as President and CEO. However, there's one real big talent he had: He really had a good nose for hiring the right people. Who would hire a young uknown designer and give him great freedom (Shigeru Miyamoto)? Who would hire a weird electronic engineer with weird ideas and give him great freedom (Gumpei Yokoi, inventor of Game Boy)? Who would hire a banker and bring him into your videogames company (Tatsumi Kimishima, unknown quite but very imporant man behind the scense, later on became interim President and CEO)?



Around the Network

It is funny people are saying if Sony didn’t Have FF7 if this if that, Sony won, it is not that deep.



OTBWY said:
Soundwave said:

For all the talk about "Sony" brand meaning so much in the 90s, there sure wasn't much evidence of that early on.

The Saturn was outselling the Playstation quite easily in Japan for example.

The N64 was destroying the Playstation's sales pace in North America and also had a way stronger launch in Japan.

Money-hatting IPs like Final Fantasy and Tomb Raider is when the Playstation started to accelerate in sales, not their brand.

They would have gotten beat by the N64 plain and simple if Nintendo had compromised with their close partners like Squaresoft and Capcom and used CD-ROM. You could still have had cartridge based games too if that's what Miyamoto wanted. They would not have been able to compete against Nintendo's 1st party IP of the day like Mario 64, GoldenEye, Zelda: OoT, Mario Kart 64, etc. on top of things like Nintendo having exclusive Star Wars games and 3rd party titles like Final Fantasy VII, Resident Evil 2/3 (day and date), Dino Crisis, Chrono Cross, etc. 

I think people underestimate the huge power Sony had as a company back then. They were "the" electronics company. Always setting out for market standards when it came to formats and other media. Some failed hard like Betamax, but then you have Trinitron or the Walkman. And with that power, they put a huge marketing budget behind it. First: moneyhatting Japanese developers (and in the west to some extent), using old fashioned Tokyo relations (as opposed to Nintendo's Kyoto relations) and driving that with massive marketing worth billions today and utilizing their extensive global distribution network. They were definitely not some kind of underdog. They were more like IBM coming into the personal computer market. 

I was there, I remember what it was. In fact I remember reading about the Playstation in 1991 when it was the SNES CD-drive. 

They basically aped the Super Nintendo and stole the 3rd party developers and locked them out from making Sega games. Once they got a few key ones on board the others followed suit. 

That was basically it. 

But early on? The Playstation was getting its ass kicked rather handily in several key markets. The N64 had way more hype and was selling way faster than the Playstation in the US and Japan. In Japan the Saturn was also outselling the Playstation. 

People were not that impressed with the brand "Sony", yeah they were a popular electronics brand but one of many, they were not anything like say Apple where the brand has a fanatical following. If you had a Panasonic stereo instead of a Sony one, no one cared and Beta was seen as a huge failure/laughing stock. 

The "Walkman" was old news by the mid-90s, dozens of different electronic companies had portable cassette players, it wasn't a big deal to specifically have the Sony branded one. 



Soundwave said:

For all the talk about "Sony" brand meaning so much in the 90s, there sure wasn't much evidence of that early on.

The Saturn was outselling the Playstation quite easily in Japan for example.

The N64 was destroying the Playstation's sales pace in North America and also had a way stronger launch in Japan.

Money-hatting IPs like Final Fantasy and Tomb Raider is when the Playstation started to accelerate in sales, not their brand.

They would have gotten beat by the N64 plain and simple if Nintendo had compromised with their close partners like Squaresoft and Capcom and used CD-ROM. You could still have had cartridge based games too if that's what Miyamoto wanted. They would not have been able to compete against Nintendo's 1st party IP of the day like Mario 64, GoldenEye, Zelda: OoT, Mario Kart 64, etc. on top of things like Nintendo having exclusive Star Wars games and 3rd party titles like Final Fantasy VII, Resident Evil 2/3 (day and date), Dino Crisis, Chrono Cross, etc. 

Can you educate me on how FF7 was money-hatted ?



Nah. Sony have no merit. The only reason they had success is because their competitors didn’t.



Around the Network
Hynad said:

Nah. Sony have no merit. The only reason they had success is because their competitors didn’t.

Nuff said /thread.

Don't forget they bankrupted Sega, killed miyamoto's pet and burned MS headquarters.



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."

Wyrdness said:

PS being the standard is incorrect they simply made gaming mainstream but other companies are the ones who have done the standard features in home consoles today:

NEC: First Internal Memory 
Nintendo: First modern console and controller, Practical Motion Control, Shoulder Buttons, Modern Analogue Stick, Wireless Controller, Rumble, Retro Service (VC)
SEGA: Online, CD Format, Memory Cards, Online Connectivity out the box, Analogue Triggers
MS: Integrated HDD, Modern Online Ecosystem, Universal Integrated Chat, Introduced Digital Distribution

There's a lot in here that's factually wrong but since it's anti-sony, I'm not going to complain too much.



Soundwave said:
OTBWY said:

I think people underestimate the huge power Sony had as a company back then. They were "the" electronics company. Always setting out for market standards when it came to formats and other media. Some failed hard like Betamax, but then you have Trinitron or the Walkman. And with that power, they put a huge marketing budget behind it. First: moneyhatting Japanese developers (and in the west to some extent), using old fashioned Tokyo relations (as opposed to Nintendo's Kyoto relations) and driving that with massive marketing worth billions today and utilizing their extensive global distribution network. They were definitely not some kind of underdog. They were more like IBM coming into the personal computer market. 

I was there, I remember what it was. In fact I remember reading about the Playstation in 1991 when it was the SNES CD-drive. 

They basically aped the Super Nintendo and stole the 3rd party developers and locked them out from making Sega games. Once they got a few key ones on board the others followed suit. 

That was basically it. 

But early on? The Playstation was getting its ass kicked rather handily in several key markets. The N64 had way more hype and was selling way faster than the Playstation in the US and Japan. In Japan the Saturn was also outselling the Playstation. 

People were not that impressed with the brand "Sony", yeah they were a popular electronics brand but one of many, they were not anything like say Apple where the brand has a fanatical following. If you had a Panasonic stereo instead of a Sony one, no one cared and Beta was seen as a huge failure/laughing stock. 

The "Walkman" was old news by the mid-90s, dozens of different electronic companies had portable cassette players, it wasn't a big deal to specifically have the Sony branded one. 

The cassette Walkman was old news but the CD version was still colloquially referred to as the 'CD Walkman' even if it was made by Phillips/Panasonic.  Things might have been different in the US and Europe but here Sony making a console gave the 70s kids/young adults permission to play games again and that was helped by the type of software PS1 offered. Parents also trusted Sony and saw the value in a device that could play music and games as opposed to a standalone games machine. I've known parents ban kids from videogames but never music.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Immersiveunreality said:

Can you educate me on how FF7 was money-hatted ?

Sony gave Squaresoft a vastly reduced licensing fee and agreed to handle the marketing campaign as well as give Square some of the funding in exchange Sony also obtained a small share percentage in the company which they later increased to 18% when the FF movie and animes flopped as those caused Square to ask for money, this was one factor behind the merger with Enix as it reduced Sony's stake in them giving the latter less influence in decisions. Sony would later sell their shares as they no longer would have any say after the merger as it reduced their stake to about 8% (a link on them selling the shares below)

https://venturebeat.com/2014/04/16/sony-is-selling-off-all-its-shares-in-final-fantasy-publisher-square-enix/



d21lewis said:

There's a lot in here that's factually wrong but since it's anti-sony, I'm not going to complain too much.

Such as?