they gave us free online, they gave us cheap game rentals with PS+ and even (according to some) loads of fantastic exclusives. they even tried combining PS2 sales with PS3 and yet....
Wii U: 425K
PS3 unknown, but thought to be half of 360...
Results 1 to 25 of 130
how did Sony fail v 360 in the states?
How did MS fail to achieve what Sony did with their first console with two attempts? Also an interesting question.
12-07-2012 #3Soldier 95BGuest
Don't you think it adds up to marketing? I am not saying Sony didn't market, but Xbox is everywhere in the US. Literally every place you look, as far as ads go. Sporting event banners, olympics, tv, you name it. MS has a bottomless pit of money to promote it.
In my opinion, the poor marketing, strict and/or pricey business model, lack of exclusive first-person shooters and JRPGs as well as the PlayStation Network outage all contributed to Sony falling short of Nintendo and Microsoft.
I also believe Sony are arrogant. Honest observation. As much as I like the PlayStation brand, I could care less about it being a 'mature experience for mature gamers'. The notion that tablets and smartphones are hindering the Vita's success doesn't make much sense either. Why doesn't it affect the Nintendo 3DS?
I'm not saying Sony are doomed to repeat the same mistakes with the PS4 but they shouldn't continue to treat Microsoft like they're new to the industry. They broke a lot of ground with Xbox Live when it first came out. I would even go as far as to say that Halo will be as big as Mario and The Legend of Zelda in the near future.
Last edited by Metal King Slime; 12-07-2012 at 23:22.
I've said this before in another thread. The reason I believe Sony is falling short this gen of Consoles is because of Howard Stringer. But not only him, it's also because the PS3, while it does a lot of things "okay" it doesn't do them great. You can clearly tell that Sony wasn't looking at their competition which is why everything was patched into the PS3 late. Nothing is streamlined into the system and I believe the main reason of that is because they didn't think online would Boom like it did.
Look how late they were with HOME. you could tell they started making HOME once the Xbox360 released their specs and what the machine was capable of. Yet, HOME has $#@! performance because Sony wasn't planning on doing that or any other online things. nothing in the system is streamlined, it's all tacked on because they weren't prepaired. they even have lame $#@!in text chat like people would want to text while they were playing their games. lol
I believe the PS4 wont have nearly the stupid $#@! that the PS3 has. i also believe the PS4 will have everything in the system streamlined and polished. They also need to improve their market. they fund so much dumb $#@! and barely put in a penny for commercalizing said product on stations they need to commercialize on.
Last edited by Bigdoggy; 12-07-2012 at 22:22.PSN ID: Intense_Peanut
You guys make some good points, its probably a mix of them all. That and the fact it came out a year later doesn't help.
That being said, the PS3 does a lot of things better, I use it for all of my media streaming and dvd/blu ray watching. I only turn on my 360 to play games the PS3 does everything else. No idea why there is a lot of hate towards it in the US. Must be the constant advertising.
US loves its shooters and 360 had both Halo 4 and COD release on it this holiday while this year Sony had no compelling exclusives. An equally good question would be how did MS fail vs PS3 outside of the states?
media doesn't matter, that isn't the problem. the problems are....
-HOME being tacked on, slow performance wise.
-performance wise on everything game related to being in game while going into the main menu.
- basically every feature in the PS3 be it texting (obviously because they can't add crossgame chat) to multipurpose functioning was all tacked on, period. there is really no arguing this matter unless you feel like it. lol
Also, Sony doesn't advertise barely at all on any of the most common TV stations NBC, FOX, etc etc because for even 20 seconds of time it costs a bit over $80,000 to even $120,000. That price changes when the Super Bowl is going on, it runs anywhere from $500,000 up to $1.2 million dollars. TV wise, sony isn't helping their business, youtube doesn't count by the way. considering they've had 2 minute commercials on youtube about the playstation 3 but only for youtube. that right there is $#@! advertising at it's best.PSN ID: Intense_Peanut
Hmm. Yeah they really have fallen flat when it comes to advertising.
The only PS3 TV ad here I've seen lately was, strangely enough, for Skyldanders Giants. :/ Of all games. NO doubt its popular among the kids but they know by now, its general knowledge that those games are on every platform
Nah nah nana nah...My e-peen is bigger than yours! Really,who gives a $#@!? Sony and MS are neck and neck and a 200K sales doesn't really many much.
Exactly.Here's a question: How did MS fail to support its console with more games than Sony when it was in a financially superior position with hardware that was easier to code for? We could ask these questions all day or we could play games.
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Kansas City
- PSN ID
- Rep Power
As far as the "we could ask the questions..." comments.. well, it's a discussion board. Not a log on to forums, go play games, board. If that loose reference, playing games, is used, then there isn't a need for the forums at all. Doesn't have anything to do with the actual topic.
Last edited by mistercrow; 12-08-2012 at 01:07.
Where's a double standard? He said maybe Microsoft didn't want to spend tens of millions of dollars on games people might not buy, like Sony did. Lair is a good example. There's plenty of others. He didn't say that Microsoft didn't ever publish a game that didn't sell well. That argument wouldn't have any supporting idea because they aren't losing to Sony; which is what the topic is.
In terms of exclusives. Even if Sony brings out a game that has a fanbase of a couple hundred thousand or ends up not selling as much as they would like: so long as they make even a slight bit of money on it means it is a worthy investment due to continued diversity in their PS3 catalogue of games.
For example Jaffe said that Twisted Metal was profitable. So despite the game apparently not selling that well, it at least catered to those old school TM fans and possibly found new fans in there too.
It's as though if a game doesn't sell millions of copies it's a failure, which is not the case. I think they should be commended for green lighting risky projects, or games that will clearly not achieve huge amounts of revenue.
Sure there is some stupidity in amongst a lot of decisions they make, and their marketing could be a lot better as has already been mentioned. But game-wise the more the better. Sony already has their big selling games
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)