Why Sony Won't Lose The Next-Gen War

GamesDaily has up an opinion piece, talking about why author James Brightman sees Sony walking away with the next-gen crown, again. From the article: "Sony is well aware of the power of its brand and it will do everything it can to leverage the PlayStation name. Providing backwards compatibility with both the PS1 and PS2, as well as offering full PS1 titles for download through the PS3, can only help to reinforce that brand and remind gamers of the PlayStation games they hold so dear. Selling over 100 million units, twice, has its advantages. In fact, there are a number of people who have probably owned nothing but PlayStation consoles, and those consumers are likely to stick with a brand they know and trust. Before they've even learned anything about Sony's new console, many consumers have already made up their minds that they want the next PlayStation no matter what. A strong brand should not be underestimated." Relatedly, the company released a few more details on its online plan via its Japanese office. That article touches on AV chat, a puzzle games service, and downloadable games.

Comments

Leaning on the name?

[hal2814]

Leaning on the Playstation name? That'll be fine... at first. Even the almost unplayayble Atari 5200 did well off its name for a while. After that, it had to survive on its own merits and did poorly. I don't think the name alone will make the PS3 a success.

Re:Leaning on the name?

[HappySqurriel]

I have had conversations from people who were more casual gamers who complained that Sony is producing a controller that has non-chargeable/non-replaceable batteries, that the controller has lost rumble, and that to take advantage of the features in the PS3 they'd need to spend thousands of dollars on a TV. Mind you, these people were aware of the price and (as I've said before) people usually decide what they want and then justify the purchase; they may have decided they couldn't afford a PS3 and then looked into why they didn't like it.

Re:Leaning on the name?

[cowscows]

Nintendo had plenty of brand recognition back in the day, and that didn't stop them from getting their asses handed to them by the playstation.

A brand can help, but in the end, it all comes down to the games. It's really that simple. The PS3 is going to need some really high-end exclusive games to match its high-end price tag, but if they can build up a solid library, they'll do fine. I don't think they'll dominate as forcefully as they did with the PS2, but they'll end up making some money, and life will go on.

Re:Leaning on the name?

[AKAImBatman]

Atari 5200 did well off its name for a while. After that, it had to survive on its own merits and did poorly.

The 5200 never really did all that well. Mostly because Atari wouldn't support it.

My thoughts?

1995
Sega: "The Sega Saturn is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time! At only $399, it will be a value. On top of that, we're releasing it six months early!"
Sony: "$299"

(The Sega empire fell.)

2006
Sony: "The PS3 is going to be the most advanced gaming machine of our time! At only $599, it will be a value. On top of that, we're releasing it ahead of Nintendo's offerings!"
Nintendo: "$249"

(Will Sony's empire fall? Tune in to the next exciting episode of Slashdot for the thrilling conclusion!)

A strong brand.

[Lemental]

Like Ford? Or an IBM Branded PC?

Re:A strong brand.

[bherman]

No, no, no. Those companies you point out are not a fair comparisons for Sony's business practices.

Lets go with Enron and MCI