Truer words were never spoken.  I never understood why Sony who had never made a 'powerful' console before would suddenly feel like they had to come out with the MOST powerful system.  Answer: Microsoft fed them a lie, and they bought it. Hook, line and sinking fast.

Nintendo on the other hand saw the lie for what it was and called it, catching Microsoft in a bluff.

As for a PS4.  I think it may still happen.  Depends on how bad the loses are for the PS3. But I think going forward Sony will try to emulate their own successful strategies with PS1 & 2, without playing the competitors game, and probably follow Nintendo's business model (IE: Sell consoles at a profit).  

I predict this will be the last generation where 'power' is used as a selling feature. 

I think most of doom and gloom for Sony is overblown. I look at the playstation brand and see it has had two successes and one neutral and the PS3. The PSP has moved a lot of consoles even if it is getting hammered by the DS.

I appreciate the John Lucas opinion but I don't see how one bad generation will take them out of the game.

Yes it has been a big failure so far and they may only move 30 million consoles. But they knew that going in. It is silly to assume that they didn't think they would sell fewer consoles when they offered them at $600. They sacrificed their lead for Blu-Ray in homes all over the world.

I agree with John that anyone who looked at the set-up for this generation new what would happen. But I would say even Sony did and it is a little naive to not see what Sony was/is doing. Yes Blu-Ray/Cell expense went way up. Yes they lost a lot of exclusives. Yes sales are coming in lower than expectations. But no Sony is not finished. Personally I buy 4 times as many movies as I do games, and I am a big time gamer. There is nothing more casual in the entertainment sector than watching movies.

Sony was arrogant and underestimated their competition. They thought they could have their cake and eat it too. But they will still have one victory this generation: Blu-Ray.

I say it all the time, but it bears repeating. Sony and Microsoft are after that spot under your TV in the living room. They want to sell you games, movies, dvr, iptv, media streaming, online community, and everything else. They are massive companies with a lot more at stake than just games. Hence massive consoles, with massive functions, and a massive price. Nintendo is just games, content to sell you only that, sneak their little white console in with all you other stuff, and make a profit all the way.

 Power will always be used as a selling feature when a console maker has no other cards to play and newly minted marketing execs fail to look at history. 

There will be a PS4. But if they keeping losing cash (I'm not sure if how much they're currently losing) they will be like Sega and run out of cash to keep moving ahead.

 Hmmm.... You may have a point there.  But I don't think entire generations in future will define themselves with power, at least not as far as sheer graphics power and computations.  Now if they can do halographic images or such...    Yes graphics will continue to improve, but at this point it adds less and less and they will seek other ways to set themselves over the competition.

Playstation 4? No.

Depends on how big the albatross gets, if they lose too much I can see the shareholders pushing them to change course

You all forgot something!

Sony is still selling the PS2 as their strongest console and they will as long there is a wii! Sony is only promoting the PS2 and they aired ONLY ONE TV spot on the new slim PSP. There is absolutely no promotion towards the PS3 at least not in Germany / Europe.

They shut off the PS2 backward capability, because Sony does not want people having a heavy subsidised PS3 console and going to buy / play the cheaper PS2 games.


Sony has three strong gaming products on the world market (PSP, PS2 and PS3).

The PS3 will take off, when it has the same price as the X360 has.

There will be a PS4 but not in within the next 7 years, but definitely in the next 10 years.


I’m not claiming here that neglecting the backwards capability is the right step. It will not help to increase the sales to the level Sony hopes for, but keep in mind that Sony still has and will have the PS2 (Playstation two

Sorry for the delay in reply. This one was gonna take heavy thought and I had to be at my best before replying.

This is what I see as the difference. What TRULY is the Sony identity? What is the one thing that defines Sony gaming? What is the gaming heritage of Sony?

Nintendo has an marked identity. An identity so marked that it sometimes works against them. Nintendo games have a unique flavor, a unique charm. You look at one of their games and automatically you say "That's Nintendo". It's like Walt Disney. It's that magic. Nintendo's mascots aren't just "IPs" Intellectual Properties— these characters are like Big Bird and Mickey Mouse and Kermit the Frog. You and your kids grew up with them and went to bed with them as plush dolls hugged up against their pillows. They watched the cartoons and ate the cereal. They wore the droz! Hahahahaha.

I mean look at Newgrounds and other fan videos. Mario and other Nintendo characters are the most used subjects in those fanmade clips. Rise of the Mushroom Kingdom and that other one that used SMB sprites in a dramatic emotional way that I can't remember the name of right now. Look at that clip Old School Revolution and see how people interpret these classic characters. Robot Chicken putting the Mario Bros. in a GTA world. Porn Star Ron Jeremy putting red shirts and overalls due to his resemblance. The music, the art, the many interpretations from X-rated to G-rated.

Nintendo's characters aren't just IPs they're part of the culture. Those characters are built with the same passion as old cartoon characters were done in the earlier 20th Century. And they've had the same effect. Animation industry and game industry have many parallels.

When Nintendo went into console marketshare decline in 1996 they were kept alive mostly because of 1st party. Those Nintendo icons kept the system afloat and kept the company in business. NO ONE else would have been able to create a mascot fighter like Super Smash Bros. other than Nintendo. NO ONE. The reason Zelda came to the forefront and the Mario Sports series was bulked up is because Nintendo had to draw from their well of history, heritage to keep games on the shelves in that 3rd party drought. This is why the Mario Party series started as well. Zelda:OoT was seen as the Citizen Kane of videogames and no one else but Nintendo could have created that touch, that magic. They fleshed out the Mario world with those Mario Tennis and Mario Golf games bringing back Birdo and Daisy and introducing Waluigi the long overdue counterpart for Luigi. From there kids made up their own interpretations of the Mario Bros. and the Wario Bros. in their imaginative drawings and writings. It's a whole universe to immerse in much like Star Wars is.

There's a site somewhere with a lady dressed up like Princess Peach and made a whole community out of it for Nintendo fans. She was inspired enough by the character to act it out and include some of the character's traits into her own personality. It resonated with her. I forgot the exact name but it's somewhere. The persistent fanfics with Samus and Masterchief who was obviously inspired by Samus' design. SSBMelee dug deeper into Nintendo's vaults of history making that game extra special as almost a museum of Nintendo gaming. Brawl goes even further by using the industry at large as a historical reference. These things are not possible from the other companies. Nintendo got into the biz when graphics were simple and pixeled. The others got into the biz once realism was practically achieved. This is why nostalgia is not quite the same with those systems as it is with old systems like Nintendo's.

Sony doesn't have this advantage. Sony is at heart a general electronics designer. They make a standard system to play specific works. Later on they evolved and branched their business to produce the works (movies, music, TV) to put on the players but the former is still the company's heart. They made a transistor radio but people made that radio come alive with the unique programs they have on it. They made a Walkman cassette player but people played their specific muscial works and resonated with them instead of the player. The player was the tool to get to the music that struck their hearts.

The PlayStations follow this same pattern. It's just a game depot, a station of transit with all kinds of unique passengers passing through. There's not so much "Sony Gaming" as much as Sony hosting the games. No unifying "Sony gaming philosophy" but more Sony being a broad marketplace for a host of varied philosophies. When Nintendo games start you're used to hearing that ka-klinnng sound of a coin as you see the logo. We see that familiar Seal of Quality and that attention to detail in presentation and control precision. There's a soul there that makes Nintendo not just a player but a creator, a Gepetto making their own Pinocchios. A personal touch and a sense of consistency and familiarity. It's like a warm house that you can always come back to when it gets cold outside in the harsh harsh world. Like cheesecake and ice cream you soothe yourself with when you're feeling down. I just downloaded the newest Wii updates and the download screen has SMB Mario running and catching coins as it downloads. He jumps and hits the bricks at every 25% interval. I mean this is classic Nintendo style. A distinct unified vision and philosophy.

Sony is not like this. Their focus has always been on the tech. This is the company philosophy. Always focused on the host player with everything else made to feed into those aims. They got into the music/music publishing business to sell more record players/cassette players/CD players. By extension more records, cassettes, & CDs to sell to move along more players not to mention the batteries to power them all. They got into the TV/Movie business to sell more TVs/VCRs/DVRs. They always have wanted to control content to lock all focus into getting more of their tech, their players out there. American Idol is set up by Sony to invigorate their music business which root goal is to move more players. There's nothing wrong with this but it shows that content always runs 2nd behind tech in how they go about things. Blu-Ray in PS3 is no different and neither was DVD in the PS2.

I'll use Sony/ATV co-owner Michael Jackson as an example. His former company Motown had a unique creator's vision and a distinct style and sound. "This was Motown." The assembly line rhythms of Detroit, Michigan. You could recognize the company by its works. The Motown Sound. That trademark drum rumble that you hear in Four Tops songs and Temptations songs. The feel of the music from all those varied many artists. There was soul and then there was Motown. Michael in Jackson 5 was part of the last days of that unified vision before the 70s splintered the musical direction of that company. [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELd9r7wJw3M ]

But another company in the 70's rivaled Motown making another creator's vision, Philadelphia International from Pennsylvania. They had TSOP, The Sound of Philadelphia. Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes/Teddy Pendergrass, The O'Jays, Lou Rawls, MFSB who did the 1974 theme to Soul Train [YouTube content Nazis, best clip I could find http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElJC5sF0jnM ]. When Michael and his brothers (save for Jermaine) left Motown in 1976 for Philadelphia International under Epic/CBS Records you could hear them match that trademark style of TSOP, Philadelphia Soul [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K20CBYljknk ].

Michael not long later transitioned from Philly Int'l to Epic and much later by the late 80's Sony bought out Epic/CBS where Michael had resided as an artist for over a decade. But was there a "Sound of Sony"? Was there a unified style from this record maker? No, by this period it was "the Michael Jackson sound". The artist had his own style self-contained and the label he recorded for just hosted his ability to channel his visions. The label wasn't as important as the artist and in reality was quite negligible. Nobody cared nearly as much for the brand Michael sung under as they did for Michael himself. This wasn't so in the Motown and Philly days. The Jacksons were the attraction but there was a certain respect and recognizance of the label's identity. The difference between mere host and envisioned creator.

In videogames Sony hosts the visions of Square-Enix, Capcom, Konami, Rockstar, Namco, etc. Each of these companies' names carry weight because of their unique creative company style. You see Chrono Trigger and know that it's Square. You see Dragon Quest and you know that it's Enix. You see Street Fighter and you know that it's Capcom. You see Castlevania and you know it's Konami. You see Grand Theft Auto and you know it's Rockstar. You see Pac-Man and you know it's Namco. "The Square-Enix Sound" "The Rockstar Sound" "The Capcom Sound" "The Konami Sound" "The Namco Sound". But no "Sony Sound". Sony is said to have the largest 1st party development studios but do these studios influence the world of gaming like Nintendo's has and still does? Does God of War FEEL Sonian? Does Wii Sports FEEL Nintendian? Sonic feels Segian. Chocobos feel Squarian. Solid Snake feels Konamian.

Sony didn't make it to the top by their own games. They made it to the top by the 3rd party. By hosting the varied marketplace of "Sounds" and "Visions" from various gamemakers. Gran Turismo is a Sony staple no doubt and has sold countless copies but it has no chance of keeping Sony afloat if they're forced to go it alone without the 3rds behind them. Nintendo was able to because of who they are and represent. While we have fervent Sony supporters on this site, if those 3rd party games left for the other systems in all honesty most would follow whereever those games went. The protest is more about keeping the games out of certain companies' hands rather than regard for the Sony art of gaming.

Even Microsoft has some semblance of an identity in videogames even if its 'computer world come to console' and FPS marines. It's Western and "All-American". They knew to take Bungie's Halo Masterchief and make it the mascot of Microsoft's gaming line. Making Icons. What represents who I am and what I stand for. Sega did this in making themselves the Warner Bros. to Nintendo's Disney. SNK did this with their NeoGeo collective. But Sony never did. No unifying symbol of who they are. And because of that the nostalgic factor is lessened because of this impersonality.

THIS is why I say that if 3rd party leaves them high and dry combined with their money losses in funding these projects, Sony may be forced to leave the videogame business. They don't have that 1st party impact to stand on like Nintendo and their business models are not set up properly to survive a drought. You can look at lossleading as The Clear and other performance-enhancing drugs. The industry has been "performance-enhanced" for the past 12 years. Green 'roids (money) fueling the industry pushing competitors to new levels. Money dumping and heavy expenditure to overcome gaming's great oak tree. This is what giant corps Sony and Microsoft do and in my estimation this is how they gain victories. But when the 'roids wear off they'll be a mere mortal in this industry and have to survive under the basic way of doing things. Because of their roidal dependence they are unable to cope and end up unable to compete.

If 3rd party exoduses from Sony (which I don't see as an 'if'), Sony will be forced out of the industry. That's the way I see it.

John Lucas