mansoor1980
Gold Member
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CNBC — Can The Sony PlayStation Remain The Top-Selling Gaming Console?
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
Crayon
Member
They beat sega and Nintendo at this specific route... Like a path towards a straightforward successor to the snes, md, and pce. Sega made a lot of smaller, acute mistakes. Nintendo made the one enormous mistake of going with cartridge. Meanwhile sony knocked it out of the park with a spiritual genesis/md successor.
After the massacre that ensued, sega tried to replicate the genesis blitzkrieg with Dreamcast. They never had that sonic the hedgehog moment, tho. After that ps1 era, it's obvious why early adopters would be dreaming of ps2 and ignoring the Dreamcast after a string of failures.
Because they we enjoying the peak of the ps1's excellence... That sure helped waiting out the Dreamcast. You could buy 5 ps1 games for the cost of a dc and 1 game.load yp. Ff9, tony hawk 2, gt2, alpha 3, Tekken 3, r-type delta, FIFA, Madden, persona 2, Spyro, ctr, nuclear strike, re3... Like wtf.
This will be a point of contention till the end of time, but I will always maintain that the ps1 killed Dreamcast, not the ps2.
The subjection of Xbox afterwards is like the new testament of console wars. Much longer running than the sega-sony-nin triangle. That was a hot burning bloodbath in comparison. A candle burning at both ends. That the war against Xbox was so much harder and longer should not be taken for granted.
Microsoft very specifically wanted to flip over PlayStation and gut them. A weird rogue group in Ms convinced the brass that they could go in there, push sony out of the way, and take their spot. They should be the PS2. They deserve it.
And luckily, that was ultimately the fall of xbox. It was a vapid mission statement. The first gen of Xbox was more like an N64 successor, if you ask me. It was supposed to go in and take PlayStation's place, but the library ended up being its whole own thing. Kinda great, actually.
After that, they sort of got better at fitting into that PlayStation slot. They had the idea for the Xbox live having a subscription fee. For a long time I thought that was horrible, but it might not be that bad for console ecosystems in the end. Otherwise, the sony-centric mission statement conflicted with the wii's success at some point. The diverted from the plan to be PlayStation , and wanted to be Wii for a minute there. That lead to their biometric rape camera, and the Xbox One.
The Phil Spencer was the anvil that broke the camel's back. He still believed in the jihad in a world where this business had become a real big kid's job.
Nintendo had some stumbles but has differentiated themselves and thrived. Xbox could have done that. Instead the chose to heavily overlap with PlayStation. And later steam, forming a new triangle. Nintendo ....
... Actually I'm going to peace. I could rant about this period forever. There's no shortage of people "of a certain age" here that will carry on about ps1-2 gen till they need a nap so im gonna fuck off.
After the massacre that ensued, sega tried to replicate the genesis blitzkrieg with Dreamcast. They never had that sonic the hedgehog moment, tho. After that ps1 era, it's obvious why early adopters would be dreaming of ps2 and ignoring the Dreamcast after a string of failures.
Because they we enjoying the peak of the ps1's excellence... That sure helped waiting out the Dreamcast. You could buy 5 ps1 games for the cost of a dc and 1 game.load yp. Ff9, tony hawk 2, gt2, alpha 3, Tekken 3, r-type delta, FIFA, Madden, persona 2, Spyro, ctr, nuclear strike, re3... Like wtf.
This will be a point of contention till the end of time, but I will always maintain that the ps1 killed Dreamcast, not the ps2.
The subjection of Xbox afterwards is like the new testament of console wars. Much longer running than the sega-sony-nin triangle. That was a hot burning bloodbath in comparison. A candle burning at both ends. That the war against Xbox was so much harder and longer should not be taken for granted.
Microsoft very specifically wanted to flip over PlayStation and gut them. A weird rogue group in Ms convinced the brass that they could go in there, push sony out of the way, and take their spot. They should be the PS2. They deserve it.
And luckily, that was ultimately the fall of xbox. It was a vapid mission statement. The first gen of Xbox was more like an N64 successor, if you ask me. It was supposed to go in and take PlayStation's place, but the library ended up being its whole own thing. Kinda great, actually.
After that, they sort of got better at fitting into that PlayStation slot. They had the idea for the Xbox live having a subscription fee. For a long time I thought that was horrible, but it might not be that bad for console ecosystems in the end. Otherwise, the sony-centric mission statement conflicted with the wii's success at some point. The diverted from the plan to be PlayStation , and wanted to be Wii for a minute there. That lead to their biometric rape camera, and the Xbox One.
The Phil Spencer was the anvil that broke the camel's back. He still believed in the jihad in a world where this business had become a real big kid's job.
Nintendo had some stumbles but has differentiated themselves and thrived. Xbox could have done that. Instead the chose to heavily overlap with PlayStation. And later steam, forming a new triangle. Nintendo ....
... Actually I'm going to peace. I could rant about this period forever. There's no shortage of people "of a certain age" here that will carry on about ps1-2 gen till they need a nap so im gonna fuck off.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
there is the huge aspect of brand identity
Nintendo= babies/family games
PS= single players games
Xbox= multiplayer games
over the years, that what made Xbox special became the norm and single players games became even more special.
Xbox has essentially lost its identity, and even worse, it has failed to remain relevant in its own expertise
Mibu no ookami
Member
I think a lot of people make the mistake of believing that everyone buys consoles right at launch.
I didn't get an NES (my first gaming console) until like 1990. I didn't get an SNES until like 1993 and I played that until 1997 when I got a PlayStation 1.
I got into PC gaming in early 1997, probably because I was so behind on console gaming because I didn't have a PlayStation or N64, but I did have a PC.
I remember really liking games like Seven Kingdoms 1&2, Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Indiana Jones and His Desktop Adventures, Star Wars Yoda Stories, Dark Force 2 Jedi Knight, Star wars Pod racer, Unreal and Unreal Tournament. I was pretty much into PC gaming until maybe 2000. 2002 was pretty much when I gave up on PC gaming.
I remember being so angry that raven software started making the jedi knight games. Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy were so bad. Though if I'm being fair, mysteries of the sith was bad too. I hated the generic use of idtech in the games.
But back to my point, there was a huge gap for me when it came to console games and PC gaming. I actually missed a ton of late stage PS1 games because I was at a time more interested in what was happening on PC.
From like 99-20, I was definitely heavier into PC gaming than I was console, but it was Onimusha, FFX, and Metal Gear Solid 2 that firmly brought me back to console gaming. It was becoming more and more expensive to keep upgrading my PC and the quality of gaming on PC is so dependent on the quality of your rig.
PC had an advantage for a lot of reasons at the time but once the transition happened to PS2, it was no contest.
tkscz
Member
Deputy Moonman
Member
It's another xbox is defeated post... MS has had a lot of success in the game industry. It's a weird idea to me that because the playstation has had more success than xbox that MS would just stop their own "lesser" success. It's not a win-lose competition where MS just throws in the towel. Oh woe is me. I guess I'll stop making a profit off the xbox brand. Too many sony diehards see things inonly black and white. MS doesn't have to compete against Sony nor Nintendo. They only have to keep the xbox brand relevant. I see people use Sega as an example all the time, but Sega as an example to argue the demise of xbox is apples to oranges. Sega was only ever a gaming company and had nothing else to stand on during down periods. MS will keep the xbox brand going indefinitely to a net positive, because there is mindshare and general relevancy in having/maintaining the xbox brand.
ShadyAcshuns
Member
"babies and families"
thismeinteil
Member
Well, they won their first couple of gens against them, so yeah. Also, they drove Nintendo from the traditional home console market, because Nintendo realized they couldn't compete head-on against Sony.
Ever since the GameCube, Nintendo has replied on some HW gimmick that changes traditional gameplay to get their consoles into homes. And after the Wii U, they basically abandoned the home console market altogether and focused on handhelds.
Musashipan
Member
Nintendo is the King.
Oof85
Member
Or to put it succinctly, both decided to do what works best for their bottomline.
Like, the only way you can think Sony defeated Nintendo is if you only consider stationary consoles as the "real" market, and everything else is just gaming with an asterisk....which would make such a person a moron.
These companies aren't here to have more consoles sold notches than the other.
It's to consistently profit and reposition themselves for future profits.
With that as the guiding light, there's only one real champion in the arena, and he's rocking denim overalls.
Not laying off workforce. Not complaining about unsustainable margins.
Anything else is bias driven prattle.
Last edited:
IAmRei
Member
and ps vita say hiSony always wins baby
Last edited:
Crayon
Member
It's another xbox is defeated post... MS has had a lot of success in the game industry. It's a weird idea to me that because the playstation has had more success than xbox that MS would just stop their own "lesser" success. It's not a win-lose competition where MS just throws in the towel. Oh woe is me. I guess I'll stop making a profit off the xbox brand. Too many sony diehards see things inonly black and white. MS doesn't have to compete against Sony nor Nintendo. They only have to keep the xbox brand relevant. I see people use Sega as an example all the time, but Sega as an example to argue the demise of xbox is apples to oranges. Sega was only ever a gaming company and had nothing else to stand on during down periods. MS will keep the xbox brand going indefinitely to a net positive, because there is mindshare and general relevancy in having/maintaining the xbox brand.
I'm not sure I even said that. The publishing of games on ps is a change in the state of the game, though. I see it as a capitulation, but not the death of the brand. They will have hardware, but things will be different.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Adults buy the devices for children and some for themselves.
Whose Nintendo's core audience again?
As example
COD and GTA are bought by Adults but mainly played children.
The largest games are mainly played by children. Children aren't buying these devices/games.
Randall365
Member
If Sony ‘beat’ Nintendo it was only on the basis that they hoovered up games that show cased next gen early on - Tomb Raider, Formula One, Resident Evil, Actua Soccer which made it a huge leap over 16 bit.
They continued that into the next gen with GTA 3 etc
If Nintendo could get their hardware right, with multi plats, and their first party, they always could have and potentially will dominate Sony.
They continued that into the next gen with GTA 3 etc
If Nintendo could get their hardware right, with multi plats, and their first party, they always could have and potentially will dominate Sony.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Like stated already if Nintendo would make a comparable spec and online features wise console id rather have it than a PlayStation.
ShadowkillXNA
Member
Their own coffin, yes.
One self-own after another for the xbox division.
ShadowkillXNA
Member
The ps3 launched a year later, had a processor that 10 people on the planet knew how to program, the initial development kits documentation was entirely in japanese, ps3 was $100 - $200 more expensive than the 360 depending on sku's, and multiplatform games usually looked and ran worse on the ps3.
And it still passed the 360 in sales by the end of the generation.
The Playstation brand is ridiculously strong.
ShadowkillXNA
Member
Edmund
Member
Man children as well. I have friends who own 6-7 switches for god knows what reason. And they own every single coloured Joycon.
ShadowkillXNA
Member
How did they win that gen when they were outsold by both the ps3 and wii?
Kokoloko85
Member
Man this is gonna bring out the haters for sure
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Kokoloko85
Member
I think they mean Nintendo isnt competing trying to make current gen consoles anymore.
Wii, Wii U, Switch arent competing with PS3/X360, PS4/X1, PS5/XSx etc
Just jumped out the competing lane since gamecube when it comes to home consoles
ShadyAcshuns
Member
Thread just exposes the silly fanatics among us.
JordiENP
Member
salt how? the numbers speak for themselves and Nintendo won this generation by default.... all of sudden the media is right because cnbc makes a bs video? I would trust kotaku more than cnbc when it comes to gaming.This post brought to you by:
FinalBossWithTheMostPower
Member
Sony's worst enemy is itself.
Come now, how many in house studios has Nintendo shuttered?
How many layoffs?
Nintendo doesn't have competition, it's all profit over there.
And with a 3 trilly market cap, MS can make Xboxes until gaming stops being a thing.
Come now, how many in house studios has Nintendo shuttered?
How many layoffs?
Nintendo doesn't have competition, it's all profit over there.
And with a 3 trilly market cap, MS can make Xboxes until gaming stops being a thing.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Kataploom
Gold Member
Kokoloko85
Member
That would include me lol (PS and Nintendo)
At least I admit my preference. There are people who claim to be neutral but have obvious hate for another console, its pretty funny to see.
ZehDon
Gold Member
Nintendo shifted course after the Gamecube. That was the last time Sony beat Nintendo because it was the last time Nintendo attempted to compete. Wii, 3DS, Wii U, Switch; Nintendo effectively broke away into their market. They're simply untouchable.
Sony, of course, deserves its place: it stepped into the home console space and proceeded to wreck everyone's shit with top tier hardware and games. They took Nintendo off the throne on their first try, kicked Sega's teeth in like they owed them money, and apart from Xbox 360, haven't ever really been challenged.
Microsoft came in hungry but they're just their own worst enemy. The OG Xbox was solid, and they nearly got there with the Xbox 360. But, the mask slipped with the Xbone and it basically killed them. They've simply never recovered. The XSX looked liked it was a proper course correction, but their house just wasn't in order. So, they started buying other people's houses. I have no idea what their ambitions are these days.
Sony, of course, deserves its place: it stepped into the home console space and proceeded to wreck everyone's shit with top tier hardware and games. They took Nintendo off the throne on their first try, kicked Sega's teeth in like they owed them money, and apart from Xbox 360, haven't ever really been challenged.
Microsoft came in hungry but they're just their own worst enemy. The OG Xbox was solid, and they nearly got there with the Xbox 360. But, the mask slipped with the Xbone and it basically killed them. They've simply never recovered. The XSX looked liked it was a proper course correction, but their house just wasn't in order. So, they started buying other people's houses. I have no idea what their ambitions are these days.
Kokoloko85
Member
Nintendo without Handhelds has failed to sell more than 65million consoles apart from the Wii ( Which was launched at £180)
Playstation has only failed to sell less than 100million units once with the PS3. Infact only one of there devices has failed to sell less than 80million (PSVITA)
Theres no question who rules the home console market. Nintendo rely on handhelds and stopped directly competing since Gamecube.
Now things could change if Nintendo make the Switch 2 specs competitive and this gen there profits are over the roof. I think games like Mario Kart, Pokemon and now Animal Crossing have saved Nintendo for life. Will there costs go up next gen or are they gonna carry on making Wii U level games
cartman414
Member
Another video with Nintendo/Sony CD-ROM deal fell apart so Sony went at it alone without the deets, lol.
I'd contend that Nintendo went cheap with the Wii because HD was still niche and complicated.
WiiU was a generational jump that was a generation late.
I'd contend that Nintendo went cheap with the Wii because HD was still niche and complicated.
WiiU was a generational jump that was a generation late.
Deerock71
Member
Both of those are Sony's wet dream, but Nintendo withstood Sony's best, and is about to beat them with the Switch.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Gold Member
Nintendo make a lot more profit today with Switch than they ever did with SNES & Gameboy. Wii & DS might be another matter but that combination was also a one-off; the perfect devices in-between powerful HD consoles, a straggling PC gaming market and before mobile gaming really took off in popularity.
Wii & DS were double lightning in a bottle and Nintendo just happened to be the company to make it happen at the time. Perfect market conditions like that won't ever happen again, so calling the Switch anything close to a disappointment just because it might not catch Wii & DS revenue/profit/install base numbers is a bit absurd. It's like calling the PS5 a failure because it likely won't get near PS2's 155 million install base.
Doesn't matter. This doesn't look like sales numbers of a company that has been defeated.
IR Information : Sales Data - Dedicated Video Game Sales Units
www.nintendo.co.jp
It's not even just about the hardware; revenue doesn't mean much without profits and Nintendo's profit margins stomp over SIE's and Xbox's, I'd say combined. Particularly as of the past few years.
Having higher revenue does net some benefits I'm sure, but having high net profits ultimately affords security in an industry with sometimes-rapid and major changes coming from several directions at once.
If Valve decided to make a console, they could definitely challenge PlayStation and find way more success than Microsoft has. There are many reasons why they probably would not bother with a home console, but they have the cache and install base with Steam to do something like it, or a pseudo-console type of idea. However, Valve don't have the capital to mass-produce at the volumes Sony does, nor do they have the advertising expertise or distribution pipeline at a global level. Those are things which would hold them back heavily.
Outside of that it's your usual top picks like Apple or Tencent, etc. but they have one or more weaknesses that'd be very detrimental to them vs. Sony (though by virtue of not having a 20+ year brand with a negative image to it from many gamers like Microsoft does with Xbox, Apple or Tencent are actually better off vs. Microsoft for that reason alone).
The important thing is, these companies don't have to become direct competitors i.e have their own home console, in order to actually be competitors to PlayStation. It's very much becoming a "war" of platforms; there is too much crossover with say consoles & PC to act like consoles are only in competition with each other and PC is some far-off area posing no competitive threat. It does; it's also just that PC is less a direct competitor than a home console would be. But arguably, an indirect competitor can actually be more of a threat than a direct competitor, depending on some factors.
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Gold Member
Dirk Benedict
Gold Member
Nintendo levitates while they fuck. They never do shit the 'normal' way.
ShadyAcshuns
Member
While I am a fan of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, I can't stand PC gaming. I guess we all have to have something to dislike.
Mibu no ookami
Member
The PSP sold 80 million units. I think if Sony is able to put out a competitive handheld unit that plays PS4 and PS5 games rather than needing its own unique library of games, that it will sell extremely well.
Sony's biggest disadvantage on Vita was its game library and now that handhelds are allowed to be larger, that also gives Sony a huge advantage.
Sony doesn't need to outsell Nintendo when it comes to handhelds, they simply need to eat up market share.
Meanwhile, if Nintendo pivoted and put out a high end console, they'd need to change their strategy to make games that supported that high end console.
Mibu no ookami
Member
I just don't agree with this analysis.
Valve, who has worst first party offerings than Microsoft would somehow have more success, despite not being able to subsidize hardware prices as much?
Just because they have people on Steam doesn't mean these people are going to buy their hardware to play in a specific console form factor.
There is really no way to make a console like PC at scale with the same specs and price as a console.
I think people ignore the barriers of entry in the console market a bit too much. Microsoft failed despite their efforts for 20+ years. Sega failed despite being beloved by fans and having some great software. Apple and Tencent would find it difficult to enter the market too and it's a terrible time to enter the console market when the console market is going to shrink in the next 15 years.
Gaming is going to move to streaming by the end of 2040.
{insert code here}
Member
I don't think think they beat Nintendo 
. Nintendo hasn't axed any games nor have they laid off any of their employees while seemingly every other game conpany out there has had significant layoffs. Switch was a massive success on the same level as the PS4.
Microsoft is done but i think that has more to do with their own incompetence. They had a good strategy with the 360 and had they just stuck to it Sony would be the ones leaving the industry and MS would've had the whole console market to themselves.
. Nintendo hasn't axed any games nor have they laid off any of their employees while seemingly every other game conpany out there has had significant layoffs. Switch was a massive success on the same level as the PS4. Microsoft is done but i think that has more to do with their own incompetence. They had a good strategy with the 360 and had they just stuck to it Sony would be the ones leaving the industry and MS would've had the whole console market to themselves.
As Much as we all love Nintendo, the Wii-U disaster wasn't that long ago. The way they transitioned from Wii is not that long ago. Even Nintendo is taking their time moving off Switch. Hopefully they nail it, but there is just as much chance they mess it up. Nintendo never does the expected or takes the obvious course. I am sure they are fighting interally to add gimmicks and not stay boring with an updated Switch release. Nintendo can be it's own worse enemy.
Sony has historically taken advantage of other companies mistakes and twisted the dagger. When an opportunity opens, they pounce. N64 cartridges . Xbox One, Game sharing, Dvd, you name it. They play it safe generally.
Sony has historically taken advantage of other companies mistakes and twisted the dagger. When an opportunity opens, they pounce. N64 cartridges . Xbox One, Game sharing, Dvd, you name it. They play it safe generally.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Gold Member
mansoor1980
Gold Member
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Gold Member
JackMcGunns
Member
Similar threads
- Poll