Sony believed that they had so much market share that they could make a console that was leaps and bounds more complicated to code for, which would lock devs in and prevent them from going elsewhere, and they’d just have to suck it up because of said market share. Sony was wrong, and they lost out big time that generation (although they did manage to win the Blu-ray vs hd-dvd format wars).

Microsoft seems to believe they have so much market share that they can force people to upgrade to a privacy invading, ai infested piece of crap, and that everyone needs to suck it up because market share.

I’ve already started hearing wind that people, in statistically significant numbers, are finding alternatives… so is this the same situation as the ps3?

Just a passing musing without much to back up the gut feelings.

  • KiwiTB@lemmy.world
    255·
    19 hours ago
    1. Sony won that generation.
    2. The games are still being made for Windows. The time it takes to lose that whole platform would allow them plenty of time to correct their path.
    3. Microsoft are crooked AF… They’ve been keeping their monopoly status for over 30 years. They won’t let that change.
    • Iunnrais@lemmy.worldOP
      311·
      17 hours ago

      Sony objectively did not win that generation. The Nintendo wii did— some gamers don’t want to include the Wii in the running at all, but it was there and it won approximately 101 million to maybe 88 million.

      Now, the ps3 made a remarkable comeback and eventually caught back up with the Xbox 360, tying or slightly exceeding it in sales in the very end, but that’s not winning. That’s especially not winning compared to the PS2 generation, where there was absolutely no contest that it won— there wasn’t even a serious rival to the ps2 at the time. It dominated. The ps3 barely squeaking out a second place trophy against a CLOSE third place, when it trailed far behind at first, is not winning the generation. It’s just not.

      Sony lost the absolute monolithic dominance they had in the ps2 era. That’s the situation I’m comparing now. Maybe this windows 11 situation won’t echo the past, but it’s a question I’m musing on in the shower.

      • TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works
        4·
        6 hours ago

        The Wii sold the most consoles but the 360 had the most engagement. Wii consoles sat in closets or became Wii Sports machines, 3rd parties gave up releasing titles on it due to miserable sales and the only games that sold were Nintendo games. Saying it “won the generation” because it sold the most consoles isn’t really telling the whole truth.

      • KiwiTB@lemmy.world
        414·
        17 hours ago

        Sony wasn’t competing with Nintendo, they were competing with Microsoft.

          • KiwiTB@lemmy.world
            21·
            4 hours ago

            Well unless Sony was aiming for mums and dad’s who had never played games before yeah no… They were not competing.

            • MotoAsh@piefed.socialEnglish
              11·
              4 hours ago

              The Wii wasn’t Nintendo’s first console. The fuck do you think Nintendo is?

              • KiwiTB@lemmy.world
                21·
                3 hours ago

                No shit… But the Wii was aimed at a different audience. They used to make playing cards but the PS3 wasn’t competing against that either. It’s about what market they are targeting. Lamborghini makes super cars acts competes with Ferrari, but they also make tractors and that’s not up against the latest Ferrari HyperCar.

                • MotoAsh@piefed.socialEnglish
                  11·
                  3 hours ago

                  lol playing cards… Just admit you have no fucking clue about Nintendo. This obstinant shit is just pathetic.

                  (yes, Nintendo did make playing cards, but pretending the NES, SNES, N64, GameBoy, and all related consoles and handhelds didn’t exist before is just pathetic of you. Seriously, get a clue. Nintendo have been competitors in consoles and handhelds longer than Sony)