What is the main reason Sony has been successful the past 20 years?

They make great games, systems that have always been about gaming primarily and they always get the third party support on board.

It really boils down to having an excellent relationship with 3rd party developers, from violent games to kiddy games, the Playstation had more games of variety for everybody, compared to N64. The original Playstation simply lucked out during generation 5 for having a simple easy to develop for hardware. The CD was becoming a more a viable medium to program games for, especially FMV, leading to Movie Games. LOL

The whole Nintendo Playstation-Sony demanding royalties on Nintendo Playstation Software and Nintendo not Having it - also attributed to it. Arrogance on both sides, the way I see it.

The rest is history.

A combination of alot of the things you mentioned.

But one thing you left out is Sony cares about growing the culture and spirit of gaming.

Sony is a company in the gaming business who respects gaming and the gaming culture. Sony understands that gaming is not just a business, it's an form of art with a history which they try to respect and represent honorably.

Honestly speaking, Sega and Nintendo had/have the same understanding.

Sega just made some bad business moves with hardware releases but they should be in the gaming slot MS has pathetically tired to filled when they left, they don't understand gaming at all.

Other companies making mistakes have definitely played a big role in their success. They got their foot in the door due to Nintendo and Sega both making some big mistakes going into the 5th generation. If Nintendo had used CDs for the N64 and did not mistreat their 3rd parties and Sega did not make the Saturn a nightmare to develop for while also damaging their brand with so many add-on devices and their surprise launch of the Saturn before it was really ready to launch then I don't think that Sony would have been able to take over the market like they did. Then after Sony had their own fall from grace with the PS3, they were given a second chance to retake control of the market after both Microsoft and Nintendo made big mistakes going into the 8th generation with the Xbox One and Wii U.

They are also really great at marketing and building hype for their products. The PS2 did not become the highest selling console of all time because it was great hardware or had a lot of killer apps in the beginning. It's hardware was actually pretty crappy in many ways compared to other consoles in that generation and it did not have a great library of games in the beginning. Sony did such a great job building up the hype for it even though it's hardware wasn't as great as they were hyping it up to be and it's library of games in the beginning wasn't that great while the Dreamcast had an excellent library of games yet was largely ignored by consumers in favor of the PS2 due to Sega's past mistakes and the incredible hype train that Sony built up for the PS2.

The hype that they are great at building plus the mistakes of their competition leads to them getting a large user-base early-on which then leads to all of the 3rd party companies wanting to make games for their platform which then leads to them getting an even larger user-base since their console ends up having so many games from that 3rd party support.

They do the basic things like games right.

Simplicity, marketing and hate.

I strongly disagree with that. You are really drunk on that Sony Kool-Aid if you believe all that. Sony cares more about trying to turn games into wannabe movies than they do about respecting the culture and spirit of gaming.

And if Sony sees gaming as not just a business and cares so much about the history of gaming as you say then why don't they offer backwards compatibility? Why do they force gamers to rent these old games from their crappy, overpriced, streaming service instead? The answer is because it's a business move to make them more money because they do see gaming as primarily a business and they don't have as much respect for the culture and history of gaming as you are trying to make it sound like they do.

And you bash Microsoft, but between the two, I think that Microsoft has done more to both preserve and grow the culture of gaming than Sony has. Microsoft's excellent work with pushing online gaming forward has grown the culture of gaming by making it easier for gamers across the world to play together and have a quality gaming experience together at any time. And a more recent thing that they have done is created that great adaptive controller so that more people with disabilites can play and be a part of the gaming culture. And Microsoft has done a lot to preserve the past culture of gaming from the great work that they started with Xbox Live Arcade last generation which brought old classics back with modern enhancements to their current commitment to free backwards compatibility with all Xbox consoles going forward.

I do agree that Sony having been in the entertainment world is a factor. But they make a concerted effort to let creative teams be creative. Not everything turns into profit but it wins mindshare.

Nintendo has mindshare. Who doesn't know the names Mario, Zelda, Pokeyman at this point? They make games that focus on gameplay that is both accessible but a challenge to master. I have little desire to master them. I play Zelda and Metroid. Even Mario I was bored of after hours.

MSFT showed their virginity in ways. They had Halo then Gears and their racing game dumped on japans. But they wanted to sell that candy over and over as American companies have done for 150 years. It doesn't work. They have tried new things this gen, but they haven't had great funding this gen either, thank you Mr Myerson.

Sony can call on things that Ninty and MS cant, their entertainment background. Its up to the others to grow and learn.

Support, Diversity, God like first party...What else!!!

An expected reply from a delusional xbox fanboy....

There's a reason Xbox hasn't really been a great system since the OG xbox when SEGA was providing the system with 1st party like support of games.

MS never understood what being a console provider meant...and neither do their fanboys apparently.

Xbox fanboys always with the, "if you think Sony cares" argument.

Here's the thing, if Sony DIDN'T care...they'd be just like MS and we wouldn't be having this discussion because I would have found another hobby or have went full PC. Thank god Sony AND Nintendo still care.

MS (and their delusional fanboys) are the ONLY one's who don't understand. That's why games like Scalebound were cancelled and games like Sea of Thieves were pushed forward by MS.

It doesn't matter if you agree with me or not, the proof is in the pudding and gamers understand this fact.

@tgob89: So by arguing against the verbal BJ that you gave Sony and your Microsoft bash with examples of how I believe that, between the two of them, Microsoft has done more to both preserve and grow the culture of gaming than Sony, that makes me a Xbox fanboy? Okay.... I own all of the consoles including all 4 of Sony's consoles, and if I was a fanboy of any company, it still would not be Xbox since they are definitely not my favorite. My favorite is Nintendo by far and if we include Sega as well then I would rank them over both Microsoft and Sony too.

As for the rest of your post, you say that “Microsoft never understood what being a console provider meant” yet you provide no examples to support this. You also say that “if Sony DIDN'T care...they'd be just like MS” yet you provide no examples of how Sony cares. You say that “the proof is in the pudding” yet I have not seen you show proof of anything whereas I have provided examples to support my argument which you completely ignored because you knew that they were true and you couldn’t argue against it, so you ignore it and just continue to make empty statements about how Sony cares and sees gaming as more than just a business and they represent it honorably (lol, I can't believe you used that word) unlike Microsoft. All the while, not giving any substance to support such ridiculous statements other than saying that “gamers understand this fact”. I didn’t know that you had to drink the Sony Kool-Aid to be a gamer nowadays.

Doesn't matter how nasty and angry your replies are to me...

MS will still just treat you like an idiot only good for free reoccurring funds from pushing out cheap unfinished MP service based games and puts all the profit back into their pockets.

Yes, I'll sip on Sony's cool-aid of high quality dedication they require for their exclusive games library which is provided to give us fans a diverse library of experiences even when not financially secured.

As a belligerent Xbox fanatic playing white knight for a company who shows you they don't give a shit about you as a customer or the games they provide...you can't say the same!

It's clear my post touched a nerve with you, but if you're rebuttal was just to act like like a child screaming about BJ and cool-aid then it's clear MS is exactly the kind of company you deserve.

Good bye.

I've always liked Sony electronics, dating from their 80's Walkman, their Trinitron line of aperture-grille CRT monitors from the latter half of the 90's, their 8mm and MiniDV camcorders, Bravia TVs, and other electronics.

I have a long history of using Sony products. I guess it pays to be diverse.

Uh, this?

All of the above? When they came into the market, they had a format besides cartridge which got devs on board and why they left Nintendo behind. Plus it came in at a great price, it was easy to dev for, they established a great library fast. And they did it with such efficiency that it's been hard for them to lose ever since. The PS3 was an outlier and came out of taking the market for granted. But even that bounced back from impending disaster.

I hated Sony and blamed them for Killing Sega, my first and only true gaming fandom, and I had said I'd never touch a PlayStation system because of it.

I tried Xbox first because I believed them to be Sega's reincarnation with the backing of MS because of all the Sega supported titles early on in the systems life.

But once the Sega's support started to dry up it became clear that this was not the same company I had pledged loyalty to since I was a kid.

After I purchased Halo 2 I was told I had to pay ADDITIONAL money to get the "true" experience (because the campaign was genuinely crap) I felt insulted and disrespected. I still remember the drought OG xbox was going through before Halo 2 landed in 2004. I was so excited knowing how good Halo CE's campaign was, I truly felt the campaign for 2 was shorted to force people to pay for the online.

No gratitude for me choosing their console is what I felt, and I went and bought a PS2...

Lmao, here is a perfect example of someone who has their head firmly up a corporations' arse...

You obviously forget the disaster that was the PS3 launch.

It mostly boils down to DVD drives, Blu Ray drives, GTA, and Fifa. That's all the casuals care about, and the casuals drive Playstation sales.

Outside of the Gran Turismo games, Sony's first party titles aren't massive system sellers, and Sony's IPs aren't recognisable in general pop culture.

*Edit* Don't believe me? Try to find a PlayStation exclusive that has sold more than 10 million copies, besides the GT games.

Now look at the list of best selling Nintendo games, and keep scrolling down for a few minutes until you find games that only sold 10 million copies.

Combination of a few things.

1. Sega and Nintendo dropped the ball: Nintendo refused to support CDs, which ran away third party companies. Then Sega fucked up, but they had the marketing legacy of "Sega does what Nintendont!" Basically, Sega started the whole Nintendo being kiddy thing, and Sony just picked up where they left off. It wasn't really Sony beating them, more like Sega committing suicide and Nintendo pull an Xbox One, shooting themselves in the foot.

2. No competition for PS1: This set up the strong fanbase going into the PS2. Microsoft eventually entered for the PS2, which translated into the Xbox 360.

3. PS3 spending: They dropped the ball hard with the PS3. When they announced that $599 shit, the Internet had a field day with memes. You even had people advocating for a 'Wii60'. They realized that they dropped the ball and lowered prices while cooking up new exclusives.

4. Formulaic: At this point, they just have to follow the formula. Heavy third party support, reasonably priced powerful machine, and quality exclusives that appeal to their fanbase.

I knew some people that felt the same. Sony became the enemy once Dreamcast died and Playstation became an object of their hatred for no good reason. I had a DC too, but I accepted their failure and got a PS2, which I was going to anyway, Sega quitting just hastened my decision. I bought a PS2 and had pretty much gotten over it in a short amount of time.

You're right, Xbox wasn't a Dreamcast replacement. In fact, they pretty much did Sega in even more since all their IPs were dying on Xbox because no one really owned it. With most of the hardcore preferring stuff like Splinter Cell and Halo. MS talked Sega out of leaving the console business to develop on their platform and it was never the same after that.

Overall library of games. PS1 - PS4 all have amazing library of games.

They understand the market, change with the market, and are relatively quick to fix their mistakes.

The PS3's launch was abysmal, but within 3 years they had turned everything around.

They also realized that as PCs and non-traditional retail games rose in popularity, they would need to refocus on why people buy their consoles in the first place. Hence now they have a huge library of 1st party games worth playing.

They are just well run and it shows. Gaming is pretty much the only thing Sony as a company has been consistently getting right. That and Cameras.

Then how did PS1 sell over 100 million units without DVD/Blu-ray and a 3D GTA? You really think people were buying the PS1 like hotcakes because it could play CDs? Yeah, I don't think so.

Also, I hope you know a lot of those Nintendo games that sold over 10 million units were bundled with the console. Super Mario Bros, Super Mario World, Tetris, Wii Sports, etc...

Sony's 1st party don't sell as much as Nintendo's because Nintendo's are literally the only games on their systems. They have basically no 3rd party presence. Sony's initial successes with the PS1 were actually driven by 3rd parties. The CD drive gave them a huge advantage against the N64 in terms of game development as cartridges were hugely limited. Nintendo also really didn't play nice with 3rd parties and continues. Sony's 1st party was always there with games like Crash and Spyro, but in reality it was a mix of games that you could get on their platforms from a variety of developers that was the primary driver of sales with the PS1 and PS2.

Notice how once the 3rd parties were established a lot stronger on the Xbox 360 did Sony have some troubles? Sony then took to upping their 1st party lineup considerably during the PS3's era. They let a lot of their PS1 IPs die on the PS2 stupidly. 3rd party devs have been essential to Sony's success and Sony does a very good job of working with them and it pays off big time.

Nintendo has only been able to outsell Sony just once since Sony showed up in the market. Even with the Switch doing very well, the PS4 is outselling it.

Sony's IPs are far larger than you give them credit. They may not have gotten into general non-gaming culture like Mario did, but they are hugely popular and successful on their own and is a driving factor in the PS4's consistently great sales.

luck

Creative freedom.

I think those 2 words have been the keys to Sony's success.

It doesnt matter how many studios you have. If they are only allowed to crank out what you tell them or have limits on how far they can go or how LONG they can go..........you limit the kinds of games you can produce..........and to some extent the scores.

We all bash Sony for long dev times, weird "movie games" etc.

But what Sony does best is to allow developers to create the kinds of games they WANT to create, which means more passion and dedication of the team.

Sure, they close developers when they dont produce good games for while, but thats how it works. The best and most creative devs rise to the top.

This is something MS has learned only recently under Phil Spencer but it will take a while before we see the results.

Hopefully Sea of Thieves and State of Decay 2 were the last of titles from the old guard.

great marketing and great hardware plus always having killer apps

ps1- u have final fantasy, tekken, gran turismo, metal gear solid

ps2- gta, kingdom hearts etc.

ps3- uncharted

ps4- they have their first party built up from the time of ps3 and are getting the rewards

I'm not too hung up on platform loyalty. If one platform disappears, I just shrug and move to another one. My gaming landscape is littered with dead hardware and software companies (Tandy, Commodore, Microprose, 3DO, etc).

The main reason ? Microsoft,Sega and Nintendo screwed up big time over the past 20 years.(Even though microsoft began well with original xbox and xbox 360 they went downhill ever since kinect)

You seriously downplay many different factors for PS success and you focus too much on Nintendo-Sega-MS mistakes. Youre wrong big time in many occassions and i can explain why for each generation.

If you wanna debate over it tell me so, we gonna talk with facts and youll see its not from others mistakes SONY is in the position they are now. With facts only.

Speak for yourself as the bold more appropriately applies to yourself.

PS3's launch disaster?

But STILL ended up tied with 360 for total units after releasing a year after? Yes...a "disaster" matching MS's best selling system which you celebrate, Let's reflect on how stupid you sound.

PS3 was objectively a better value than 360 even the $600 version! PS3 had the most affordable blu-ray at the time when they were $1000 for stand alone units, FULL BC with the ENTIRE library of PS1 and PS2 games out the box and FREE online with dedicated servers!

360 had a cheap DVD player, required $50 sub of XBL for p2p online play & to watch Netflix and the highest fail rate in the history of video games, congratulations!

I don't know why moronic xbox goof balls think they can say "PS3" and think you've made a good argument about Sony doing bad...PS3 was a massive value that Sony took a huge hit on each unit sold.

When talking FACTS it's clear you're the only one with his head up his rear end. Try again!

PS3 tanked

Vita tanked

PSP tanked

Xperia play tanked

Nokia tanked

That other box they created tanked

There streaming service tanked

Dat massive success and well working tactic.

Now PS4 without any competition can't even move PS2 numbers around and that's with a market 4x bigger gaming market wise.

But

What is the main reason Sony has been successful the past 20 years?

Its nothing to do with how weak the other consoles were but how good Sony have been at giving the gamers what they want. I honestly thought the PS3 was going to die out because it started out so bad but Sony churned out those exclusives in droves and though im not a big fan of any of those games myself, the PS gamers were. Sony continue this with the PS4 and any console gamer of today wont go wrong getting a PS console.

MS ****-ups may have contributed to Sonys success this gen but Sony have solidified it with exclusive content and they would have done so with or without the failure of the Xbox One. Meanwhile MS seem to have given up on everyone that bought both the Xbox One and the newer Xbox One 2. Why would anyone support that?

Playstation sees support from all regions.

@tgob89: i guess investments.

Another factor that isn't really quantifiable, but kind of launched the brand into the forefront and gave them more clout with the masses -- coolness.

Most gamers don't remember or are too young, but prior to gaming becoming more mainstream, the Playstation brand was seen as "cool."

This was reflected in pop culture. You heard Playstation in rap songs and saw Playstation on TV shows and movies. As gaming became more mainstream, accepted, and normalized, a lot of people equated video games with the Playstation brand.

This started to change with the 360 and Wii, but Sony had the benefit of two dominant, consecutive generations to catapult them to the forefront at that moment.

@Gatygun said:

PS3 tanked

Vita tanked

PSP tanked

Xperia play tanked

Nokia tanked

That other box they created tanked

There streaming service tanked

Dat massive success and well working tactic.

Now PS4 without any competition can't even move PS2 numbers around and that's with a market 4x bigger gaming market wise.

But

What is the main reason Sony has been successful the past 20 years?

WTF is going on in your post?

@Gatygun: PS3 and PSP didn't tank.

Sony is music industry king.

You should check your facts.

@xantufrog: he might live in a parallel world where Sony is flopping, it sure is not our world.

LOL If PS3 flopped with 80+ Millions than WTF are Xbox in these 3 gen???

Pretty much because they have the first party games and like honestly playing my ps2 as a kid was definitely my favorite time gaming they had so many damn games I honestly didn’t even know about the Xbox until the ps3 and 360 were coming out, plus my parents bought me the ps2 because they wanted to watch movies on it.

it has been overshadowed by the Bone launch.

Brand loyalty. Quality and diversity of games have been dropping drastically after the PS2, but cows will hear nothing of it.

I've said before, Sony has been involved in entertainment before gaming. They seem to have a better grasp on what is entertaining to masses of consumers.

@Ant_17: That's debatable, and frankly, irrelevant.

So why did you bring it up?

True. That's central to their corporate DNA. Granted, many of their attempts to fail, but like most large corporations they are trying to reach as many consumers and be as broad as possible. They just happen to have hands in more pies (music, movies, TV, sports, gaming, hardware).

Sony have done a lot right and know how to keep the masses interested. Sega and ms shot themselves in the foot especially sega how they released the Saturn then Dreamcast in the that space of time would hurt any company.

I didn't say anything about the "Bone" launch... not sure what you're talking about.

The post I quoted earlier insinuated that Sony/PS is a perfect company that has never made mistakes & that gaming "is not just a business, it's an form of art with a history which they try to respect and represent honorably". And I highlighted that maybe he should remove his head from Sony's arse and remember the disastrous PS3 launch.

Then you, for some reason, said it was "overshadowed by the Bone launch", which has nothing to do with what he posted, or I posted. Hence why it's irrelevant to this conversation. Clear enough for you?