The Age of PlayStation. Did it ever really end?

Started by Raven, Dec 11, 2015, 11:11 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Go Down Pages1

Raven

Dec 11, 2015, 11:11 PM
I was talking to a couple friends last night and one of them made the comment that, "we're looking at another possible era of PlayStation control in the console market." At first I didn't think anything of it but after awhile I pondered. So then I asked myself, "Did the 'Age of PlayStation' ever actually end or did people just prematurely accept that because of a few rough years at the beginning of the 7th generation?"

What do you guys think? Is it necessary for a brand to remain constantly in the lead or is it okay to fall behind sometimes as long as you stayed in the game and bounced back? Was 7th gen just a mark on its reign or do you think we should look at this as two separate eras of PlayStation market control?

Dr. Pezus

#1
Dec 11, 2015, 11:50 PM
well PS3 was the market leader for several years after Wii died but there were definitely a few years where it's hard to say that Playstation reigned

Raven

#2
Dec 12, 2015, 12:24 AM
Quote from: Dr. Pezus on Dec 11, 2015, 11:50 PMwell PS3 was the market leader for several years after Wii died but there were definitely a few years where it's hard to say that Playstation reigned
Right but my question is, does a few years off really matter in the grand scheme? I mean, if we get to 2020 and PlayStation is still the big market leader wouldn't it feel a little silly to say that the last 25 years weren't essentially dominated by PlayStation just because there was a 4-year span roughly in the middle where it wasn't leading? Also taking into consideration that PlayStation 2 was still selling well even a couple years into the 7th gen. It's also not like PlayStation was ever dominated for a gen. It never experienced a total dog kicking in the home console market like any of its competitors have. The PS3 still ended up being one of the most successful consoles.

BasilZero

#3
Dec 12, 2015, 01:42 AM
I would say the age didnt necessarily end.

We were still in it. Sure the PS3 had a few rough years in the beginning but when you think of the ending result - look at what the PS3 has become and what it has achieved - even if the Wii outsold it or the Xbox360 got control of a lot of IPs - the PS brand remained strong and didnt go the way of the Dreamcast or what the WiiU is going through.

As a result of the PS3's success - we see it in the PS4!

Legend

#4
Dec 12, 2015, 07:11 AM
Well words or just words, but sure it ended.

PS1 was domination, PS2 was domination, PS3 was tied for first, PS4 is domination.

PS3 is the odd ball out. During that time, XBOX replaced it in western markets.

Max King of the Wild

#5
Dec 12, 2015, 01:44 PM
You could certainly make a case for some countries

the-pi-guy

#6
Dec 12, 2015, 03:37 PM
I would argue that the "reign" never ended.  It was diminished over the period.

the-pi-guy

#7
Dec 12, 2015, 03:49 PM
The first king PhilipSon had dominated, with his armies.
It became a rule unlike any other, and one far more prosperous.  
The first King had passed the torch to the eldest PhilipSon the II.  King PhilipSon the II had greatly expanded the borders.  It was a size and a half greater than the previous greatest nation.  It would seem the unending dominance would remain.  
King PhilipSon the III, was much less successful.  Throughout the first many years, Philipson the II would retain dominance even over the new king.  Finally the III came into his own, and brought new successes to the land.  Much was lost, but the age of PhilipSon would remain.
Enter the new King, PhilipSon the IV.  In just a few years, he had expanded the lands to new lengths.  Even PhilipSon the II had failed to do what the IV managed to do.  Will the IV continue or will the IInd's legacy remain?  

BasilZero

#8
Dec 12, 2015, 04:19 PM
Quote from: the-Pi-guy on Dec 12, 2015, 03:49 PMThe first king PhilipSon had dominated, with his armies.
It became a rule unlike any other, and one far more prosperous.  
The first King had passed the torch to the eldest PhilipSon the II.  King PhilipSon the II had greatly expanded the borders.  It was a size and a half greater than the previous greatest nation.  It would seem the unending dominance would remain.  
King PhilipSon the III, was much less successful.  Throughout the first many years, Philipson the II would retain dominance even over the new king.  Finally the III came into his own, and brought new successes to the land.  Much was lost, but the age of PhilipSon would remain.
Enter the new King, PhilipSon the IV.  In just a few years, he had expanded the lands to new lengths.  Even PhilipSon the II had failed to do what the IV managed to do.  Will the IV continue or will the IInd's legacy remain?  


Go Up Pages1