But now the Nintendo Switch is dominating with the Nintendo Switch and will maybe outsell the PS4
There's so many reasons for their sustained successes. They've basically nailed it in terms of console design and marketing every generation they've entered and they always make sure they have a massive gaming ecosystem - they cover all genres as well as extra media capabilities to give their consoles a mass-market appeal.
I'm a huge Nintendo fan and always have been but Sony came out strong with the PS1 choosing the right media format as well as making the system easy to develop for. Compare that with the N64s cartridge format and Sega absolutely ruining any chances they had of making a dent in the market set them up for the win that Generation and they've been on top since.
Sony are smart with how they approach each gen. The PS2 absolutely steam-rolled the competition in the 6th gen because they made it backwards compatible and included a DVD drive in the system knowing that that would be the next big home entertainment format. People literally bought the console as it was the same price as DVD players (cheaper in some cases) but could play games as well making it a no brainer.
The only 1 time they got it wrong (with their home consoles) was with the PS3 which was seriously overpriced and hard to develop for. You could see their idea of including a Blu-ray player in it as that was the next step up from DVDs but unfortunately for them Blu-Ray never became as popular as DVDs (the jump from DVD to Blu-ray was nowhere near as big as the VHS to DVD jump so not everyone felt the extra cost was worth it).
There are other factors I could go on about such as the fact they tied down many developers and purchased studios over the years giving them great exclusives. This has kept them a step ahead of Microsoft as the Xbox competes with PS on a technical scale but not in its library. Obviously Nintendo do their own thing now and focus mostly on portability which is a market Sony and Microsoft aren't able to compete with them in.
| d21lewis said: -Johnny Turbo (TurboGrafx-16 mascot for a short while, worth a Google if you want a laugh) said that the Turbo CD was out two years before the Sega CD. -Neo Geo had memory cards before Sega -There were wireless controllers (that sucked) way before the Wavebird. I remember many for the NES. -Not sure about retro video game service but there were plenty of old games on the XBL service prior to the Virtual Console. I guess you could say Nintendo did it more thoroughly. -There's a lot of "unnofficial" attempts at online gaming. Some were just digital downloads. Some actually allowed head to head play like Xband and Sharkwire. According to a quick Google search, the Apple Pippin was the first out of the box with built in online. -Guru Larry (Larry Bundy Jr.) had a video that blew my mind about things I thought Nintendo did first, including the NES controller. (I keep having to flip back to the last page to see the post) |
We're talking about the executions that consoles used which are now the standard not what came first so outside of the TurboGrafx and NeoGeo example what's said is correct because the implementations used are the executions by the said companies for example online services today are all based on on Live's execution and platforms are online gaming capable out the box due to DC's execution which MS followed suit the Pippin I hear was a mini PC and not a online gaming console it was for browsing and development.
XBL didn't have retro games before VC as XBL store was only introduced in 2009 before that it was purely an online gaming platform, VC launched in 2006 with the Wii the were no retro games on Live at this point in fact Sony even had retro titles before Live from what I recall as they were quick to implement their own service.
Last edited by Wyrdness - on 09 June 2020
| DonFerrari said: It never get old "Nintendo invent and Sony rip-off". Then you show it was done 10 or more years before Nintendo and radio silence. |
Except nothing of the sort was even said this post proves you never even read the original post and blindly assumed.
| COKTOE said: Giving a company a more attractive business deal, with more opportunity for success, isn't "money-hatting". That same misconception could be errantly applied to all PS1 third party support, because PS1 introduced lower licensing fees across the board compared to Nintendo. Asking for less of a cut, does not, AT ALL, equate to "money-hatting". To say nothing for the inherent benefits of cost reduction the CD medium provided over carts. There were reasons why so many 3rd parties went to PS in that era, and most of them didn't involve direct payments from Sony. Also, you're saying "Sony gave Squaresoft a vastly reduced licensing fee" on FF VII. Vastly? The fee was already low. I'd appreciate a source on that to see how much it was reduced from the standard percentage. |
Problem is no other third party got the same same deal and at the time the wasn't a clear case of it having more opportunity it was a risk back then PS1 only became a lead platform in the late 90s FFVII released in 96 meaning when it was in development the platform was still in a rocky situation as at that point SEGA were still taking the fight to them and N64 was the hyped platform on the way. No one else was helped with their budget and SEGA already had lower fees than Nintendo nor did anyone else have their marketing paid for them, Square were comfortable asking Sony for money in later years leading to the 18% share purchase to save them something that happened with no other company. Companies don't just jump on new unproven platforms because they offer slightly better deals they need a huge incentive to do so especially when they could go with Sega instead.
RolStoppable said:
I was only using the word 'luck' because that's how DonFerrari always interprets it when someone points out that Sony had favorable circumstances (read: their competitors committing severe mistakes). The Genesis/Mega Drive and PSP proved to be competitors that didn't commit blunders and Nintendo beat them anyway. But these instances being so rare shows that it's the norm for generations to be decided early. Neither the PS1, PS2 or PS4 faced any strong competitor. The PSP, PS3 and PSV did and they all lost. The PS5 has to go up against Switch, so if Sony can win that sales race, it will be the first time that they beat strong competition. Another reason why I am not convinced that Sony is as good as people want to believe is that Sony has shown no signs of reacting well when the going gets tough. In the Japanese market Sony could always count on the support of their third party partners, but their hardware sales have dropped sharply; it's already a foregone conclusion that Switch is taking Japan's home market. In the USA Sony had dropped to a distant third place with the PS3, so they were far from being the standard for home consoles; the PS4 couldn't score a big win in the USA despite all its advantages over the Xbox One. So the premise of this thread that PS has been the standard for home consoles since 1994 is quite wrong in the two biggest video game markets; and what has been happening is that Sony's sales have shifted to territories where they benefit from the lesser presence of their competitors. During the PS2 era, Sony was thought to be unbeatable because they were 2 out of 2. After their exit from the handheld market, they are very much recognized as beatable except for one thing: They are still 3 out of 4 in the home console market, so that 1 loss is commonly assumed to be a one-off that won't repeat, ever. |
The PS1, PS2 and PS4 didn't face strong competitors? Who would be a stronger competitor in the console gaming field than Sega, Microsoft and Nintendo? Sony has beaten them in multiple generations no less, so I would not be so quick to dismiss their achievements, although it seems to be the go-to excuse for people who just don't want to recognize Sony for what they have done. By the way, USA is not the whole world and we are talking about worldwide recognition here, not just the US. The PS3, even with Sony's stupid decisions, eventually squeezed into second place worldwide. The Wii of course was the winner, which according to your logic was due to not having strong competition. Others might say that the heated battle between Sony and MS was competition enough for anyone.
As for Japan, it has become portable land. Microsoft has never had any real presence there and it hasn't really slowed them down, it is not a significant market when it comes to worldwide sales of *home* consoles any more. The Switch is a different beast altogether, which complicates comparisons. It dips into both home and portable markets and I daresay that if it wasn't portable, it would be far less successful.
DonFerrari said:
It never get old "Nintendo invent and Sony rip-off". Then you show it was done 10 or more years before Nintendo and radio silence. |
Yes. Everybody rips off everybody, it's just tech moving forward and the nature of business. A moot point.
RolStoppable said:
Indeed, those PS consoles didn't face strong competitors. And yes, the Wii did not face strong competition either, hence why neither it nor its competitors are mentioned in the snippet I left in the box above. |
That's way too simplistic and just false. Sure, sometimes the competition makes less than optimal decisions and that can give you some leeway, but breaking into the console market as a new player against long time giants like Nintendo and Sega and then staying in the game gen after gen is never easy. Just look at all the burned out husks of failed consoles and forgotten brands that litter the road of gaming. Sony went with a crazy idea after the failed deal with Nintendo and they manged to pull it off against all odds. Microsoft managed to do it with their deep pockets, eating up enormous losses at first because they wanted their piece of the pie in the long run.
But hey, you tell yourself that there is no competition if you like.
Calling Playstation the standard for console gaming is a bit exaggerated imo, but I can definitely see some of the reasons Why the brand has been successful:
- Reliable hardware;
- A wide variety of games, ranging from western fps to Jrpgs;
- Reasonable pricing (most of the time);
- Solid support from third party developers;
- Playstation may do better in Europe, but it's hard to say it is an european centric brand like Xbox is US centric;
- Investment in single player games;
- It's a gaming oriented brand;
- after 2011, Sony stablished a pro consumer policy which granted them a positive view and trust from an already loyal fanbase.
COKTOE said:
Well, the current climate is quite different. I'm not privy to current licensing fees, but I'd assume they're basically at parity. Most PS4 games that didn't make their way to the XBO likely didn't do so because they were A: Japanese games, and the XBO has little importance in Japan, and B: In conjunction with this, it has a significantly lower install base. And I guess also C: Even in the west, localized Japanese games will sell disproportionately better on PS4. |
Sure the current climate is different. But still it doesn't prevent fans from saying the reason MHW was exclusive to PS4/PC/X1 was Sony moneyhatting (no idea why they would pay to leave only one system out). There is like only a few games Sony moneyhatted this gen (SFV for console exclusiviness with Sony paying the whole development because Capcom confessed they didn't had the budget) and possibly Death Stranding (timed exclusiviness was requested or given?), perhaps FFVIIR and Shenmue III (and in this case they didn't even pay anything they just offered the marketing on doing the reveal).
Wyrdness said:
Except nothing of the sort was even said this post proves you never even read the original post and blindly assumed.
Problem is no other third party got the same same deal and at the time the wasn't a clear case of it having more opportunity it was a risk back then PS1 only became a lead platform in the late 90s FFVII released in 96 meaning when it was in development the platform was still in a rocky situation as at that point SEGA were still taking the fight to them and N64 was the hyped platform on the way. No one else was helped with their budget and SEGA already had lower fees than Nintendo nor did anyone else have their marketing paid for them, Square were comfortable asking Sony for money in later years leading to the 18% share purchase to save them something that happened with no other company. Companies don't just jump on new unproven platforms because they offer slightly better deals they need a huge incentive to do so especially when they could go with Sega instead. |
You are on this forum long enough and that was certainly the vibe of the post. Nintendo is the creator and Sony is the ripper. But when anyone point out that Nintendo was using someone else idea that is ignored.
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."
| DonFerrari said: You are on this forum long enough and that was certainly the vibe of the post. Nintendo is the creator and Sony is the ripper. But when anyone point out that Nintendo was using someone else idea that is ignored. |
Except if you read the actual post you'd see that was never said so this vibe that you're on about is more down to you as the fact that SEGA, MS and NEC were credited for things and the reply he even did itself moved things away from SEGA's side of things tells me this Nintendo vs Sony vibe was more in your own head and mind set to begin with than any post having any such vibe.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
