It's one of the most popular questions PlayStation fans ask:

If Microsoft had never bothered with video game consoles, where would the PlayStation brand be today?

Perhaps the correct answer is, "ruling the world." The original PlayStation was a massive success and the N64 arguably marked the peak of Nintendo's power. After that, Nintendo began its decline and Sony started its rapid ascent; the result was the unheard-of dominance of the PS2 for many years. Sega's Dreamcast couldn't withstand Sony's assault, either, and that went the way of the dodo (all too quickly, some say). The point is, Nintendo and Sega had no shot of competing with Sony in the console realm during the PS2 days.

Was it due entirely to Sony's dominance, though, or did Microsoft had a hand in toppling the long-time Nintendo/Sega regime? Would Dreamcast have lasted longer if the Xbox hadn't shown up? Would the GameCube have fared better…or worse? Would the PS2 have owned the world to the point of a console monopoly? It's interesting to think where the PlayStation brand would be today had it ran virtually unopposed since the early days of the PS2. What say you?

Subscribe
Notify of
34 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DemonNeno
DemonNeno
6 years ago

I think there would still be a Playstation, but it would be an entirely different gaming landscape. The competition would be different; Nintendo and Sony would be setting their own pace, dishing out games to entirely different demographics.

Mobile devices would have undoubtedly influenced consoles way more than they currently have impacted the market. A Vita phone? Maybe.

I think my biggest question would be the style of gaming and the cost of online gaming. Competition brings the prices in check. Without the Xbox, I don't think we would've ever had a free PSN. PS+ wouldn't have happened.

It would be weird…

Harerazer
Harerazer
6 years ago

I disagree about PSN. I don't think Sony made/it free to combat the XBox, I think they simply didn't think to charge for it. Would the PS4 still have a paid PS+ standard? I think so but only thru natural evolution. What I will say is that I don't think the PSN would be as intricate (varied) as it is now without MS's competition. God knows Nintendo wouldn't have pushed the issue. Sega may have (remember, the DC had a built in modem so they clearly were conscious of online console gaming) but overall I don't think we'd be where we are today in terms of variety.
But I would have loved for Sega to stay in the console game. The Saturn library is still my favorite of all time. And the Game Gear may have been something today…ok, maybe not.

DemonNeno
DemonNeno
6 years ago

I can agree with that. The sole reason Sony remained so humble, to me, was that Microsoft had an advantage with servers. Sony wasn't as fortunate, therefore their competition set the pace. It's already evident that Sony geared up from the get go for the PS4. While the servers they're hoping to establish aren't all there yet, it's obvious that the services are more competent than before. Had Sony held the market without competition, I don't think they'd give anything away for free. They wouldn't have to and doing so would miss the opportunity to make money.

I'll say this much – the service would probably still be cheaper than xbox gold live (or whatever the cool kids call it meow).

surfer
surfer
6 years ago

No where near as good as Playstation is now….competition is best for consumers ūüôā

souljah92
souljah92
6 years ago

Losing to Nintendo.

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

Are they really beating them now? 3 of the last 4 Nintendo systems have been runaway successes and 2 of the last 4 Sony systems have been modest successes and 1 is a complete bust with little hope of revival

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
6 years ago

I'm talking consoles.

The PS2 outsold the Xbox and GameCube combined by several times over. PS2: About 160 million. GameCube: About 21 million.

The Wii was a fad that sold like mad for a few years; couldn't give it away after that. Total sales were around 100 million; PS3 came in at 82 million. But you could actually sell PS3s throughout its lifespan. You know, because it actually had software people wanted to buy after year three.

PS4 is already around 10 million and has been out less than 9 months; the Wii U has been out almost twice as long and has sold about 7 million. The freakin' VITA has outsold the Wii U.

Handhelds are owned by Nintendo and always have been. But the world of consoles is completely different.

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

Yeah no one wanted software after year three. It was terrible. By the way, didn't you buy one around year four after you got caught up in Galaxy 2 hype? Of course, you've been screaming to the heavens of your disappointment ever since….

PlayStation 2 definitely dominated. It had a ton of casuals behind it, while the GC was definitely for the hardcore gamer. PS4 definitely looks to pit Sony in the firm driver's seat as far as numbers go for consoles.

I don't see a huge distinction between console and handhelds besides that a few games are better on the go and , of course, not true blue "blockbusters" on handheld. But a great game is a great game. So while they are different, handhelds are just as important to this industry as consoles.


Last edited by n/a on 8/11/2014 9:09:26 AM

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

How do you not see a huge distinction between consoles and handhelds? They're completely different markets altogether. It's stupid to compare a PS3 to a DS.

Yes, they're both important, but exclusively unto their own markets. They should not be compared to one another directly. If you could, then you might as well say Vita is beating the XBOX1 and WiiU.

The facts are, Nintendo has owned the handheld market. Sony owned the console market 2/3 years and is currently owning at this point. But they should not be counted together for the sake of any sane argument.

On the handheld market, while Nintendo is the obvious winner, it's not like the PSP failed.


Last edited by Underdog15 on 8/11/2014 9:21:26 AM

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

I just saying that Nintendo isn't really "losing" or being beat by Sony, if you take into account every facet of the industry. For the purpose of consoles only, yes, Sony is the sales leader.

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

There have been some people that believe Nintendo should stick to just handhelds.

I don't agree, but the point is oft discussed nonetheless.

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

I'd say if Nintendo made a console that wasn't worth owning, they should hang it up, but they haven't and I doubt they ever will.

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

ben borrowed a wii from like his brother to play Mario Galaxy 2. He said it was really good but didn't personally love it.

I thought Galaxy 2 was really good but I feel it had some control and camera tics that kept rearing it's ugly head during the latter half of the game. Nothing game breaking by far but it could get pretty annoying and I think those issues went unrepresented by many critics.
Those levels that would rotate the X and Y planes could become very annoying. I experienced a good amount of cheap deaths from them. I could go about other things but it was still really great so I'll leave it alone.


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/11/2014 10:46:17 AM

Ben Dutka PSXE
Ben Dutka PSXE
6 years ago

Yeah, I don't need the condescending tone, especially when you're wrong.

As Temjin already pointed out, no, I never bought a Wii. Would you like to see Wii sales for the first three years as opposed to the last three? Do you have any idea how many it sold in year one as opposed to year five? I suppose you think such numbers don't matter but then again, you also think handhelds and consoles should be put in the same category in terms of demographics.

Anyway, I don't even get the point. I never said Sony was beating anyone in the article. I said the PS2 did, but that's because it DID. It's a hypothetical, or did you just not grasp that?


Last edited by Ben Dutka PSXE on 8/11/2014 11:02:09 AM

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

Oh, I thoght you did buy one. I apologize for that.

I was responding to souljah's comment. Just adding to what he was saying. Then you started listing systems and talking about no games and all this stuff. Never directly responded to your question because I personally have no thoughts one way or the other enough to entertain the hypothetical situation you posed. But I can say Sony domination or from any other company, for that matter) would be bad for gamers, especially taking into their actions after only being in the lead for 9 months. I mean, who charges full price for a beta?


Last edited by n/a on 8/11/2014 2:03:53 PM

reryan
reryan
6 years ago

Nintendo would have filled the void. The original wii would have been HD, and gamecube would have valued higher specs over the bargain price point.

Rachet_JC_FTW
Rachet_JC_FTW
6 years ago

well that is an interesting question and a good one and i think the ps3 still woul have had a rough start just cos it's the only console doesn't mean that ppl would have brought it at the upsurd price but i still would have dominated cos. the olnly other thing would be if sony had done the ps3 differently if they not had to worry M$ yeah there are alot of pssible senarios if M$ never came in.

happy gaming

Ather
Ather
6 years ago

I think it's funny how PS wouldn't even be without Nintendo. They owe their success to the Big N. Though still, would Microsoft had joined the battle against Nintendo & Sega? And would they still be where they are today?

And would Nintendo make the same choices if there was no XBOX? Are they assuming gamers would be divided between Sony/MS, and let them duke it out and sweep in for the gamers who were left sore and licking their wounds?

Beamboom
Beamboom
6 years ago

If Xbox had never existed, would Plus still be optional? Did Microsoft break grounds and establish an acceptance to pay for online access on the consoles?

That's what I am wondering about.

ulsterscot
ulsterscot
6 years ago

competition is good for gamers period. Without Microsoft pushing I doubt Sony would have reached the level of excellence that is the PS4.

bldudas1
bldudas1
6 years ago

If Microsoft never made the Xbox would there be DLC? Would shooters be as popular as they are now? Maybe, maybe not. I would actually like no DLC and not so many Call of Duties and its clones. Maybe there would be more innovation and better stories for today's games.

___________
___________
6 years ago

not where they are today thats for sure!
though its pretty obvious that ninty and sega would of done allot better if it was not for M$.
people crave a alternative and the industry craves competition.
people would of bought the alternative system no matter what it is, no matter what it offers, just because it was there.
those who think $ony would be ruling the console world if it was not for M$ need to pull their head out of their weed induced bubble!
there always has been and always will be competition, and thats what forces things to become better.
and thank god for that, if it was not wed still be stuck with our ps1s playing 2D confined restrictive experiences.
as much as i have fond memoreies for said games, id do ANYTHING for a 2D crash remake, but that said i wouldnt trade todays tech and experiences to go back to the ps1 days.
hell no!

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

A lot of you assume there wouldn't be another competitor. I think someone else would have stepped in to fill the void. There'd still be 3 competitors, because there's room for all 3.

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

Heck, who knows. Maybe without XBOX we would have gotten a better competitor and the industry would be leaps and bounds further ahead.

Anonymous
Anonymous
6 years ago

Kind of hard to imagine any company other than Microsoft that could have ripped the market from Sony's hands and leave legions of fans crying over exclusive after exclusive being lost. I mean, the excuses and rampant accusations of payoffs and companies selling out was pure comedy gold.

Underdog15
Underdog15
6 years ago

Oh yeah, it's definitely hard to imagine anything else going down. Way too many variables to say with any absolution how it might have been different. I'm not saying we would be better or not. There's absolutely no way of knowing if we'd be better off, worse off, or the same without XBOX.

I'm just offering a counter point to those that say beyond a doubt we'd be worse off.

WorldEndsWithMe
WorldEndsWithMe
6 years ago

Dreamcast 4 would be giving PS4 a run for its money.

Corvo
Corvo
6 years ago

What is this Dreamcast you speak of?

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

Shen…Shenmue……. Shenmue 4
*wipes tear from eye*

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

…… the FREE genre is all but lost without Shenmue.

FREE (Full Reactive Eyes Entertainment) could've been the future !!!

…try a game of Lucky Hit

Corvo
Corvo
6 years ago

Well Square Enix would still be making good games, and Sony would have chumped out and just sat on that big bed of money and gave everyone crap.

Passion can only be developed through hard times. The passion to survive type of thing. Sony had it tough for the first 3 years of the ps3, and they didn't give up. Its because of those 3 years Sony has become even more dedicated to the fans than ever before.

So we should thank MS for lying, cheating, and bribing their way into the top spot otherwise our playstation wouldn't be so much better than their xbox.

Temjin001
Temjin001
6 years ago

But what if Sony never existed?
Have we ever thought about that?
What if Nintendo didn't back out on Sony's CD Snes add-on (The Nintendo Playstation) that laid the groundwork for the Playstation X project?
Would MS ever have had a prayer if Nintendo and Sony were seen as one entity back then?
Golden-Eye could've been the impetus to the online multiplayer boom, console side, beating Halo to the punch.
And Sega probably wouldn't have so quickly abandoned things console-side if they weren't ready to rally to PS2's side with third party support.
Choices and changes


Last edited by Temjin001 on 8/11/2014 4:36:06 PM

trumpetmon65
trumpetmon65
6 years ago

I don't think Sony's online infrastructure would be half of what it is simply because Sony has been competing with Microsoft's xbox live. We've seen how Nintendo handled things. I think third party exclusives would still be a thing. The idea of mass market appeal may never have hit square, ubt I don't think videogames would be the big culture phenomenon that they are now simply because games like halo, gears of war and call of duty wouldn't have had the online multiplayer support they enjoyed so early in their franchises. I also suspect that Sony would still be investing money into technology that is both powerful and frustratingly difficult to develop for. That's about as deep as I'm going with this one.

PHOENIXZERO
PHOENIXZERO
6 years ago

If it wasn't for MS Sony's online would've been a lot worse and probably still an after thought like it has been with Nintendo, the PS3 would've been an even bigger nightmare to develop for with probably less RAM and maybe even no real GPU sticking with the second Cell option though Sony might've been forced to push out a new console a lot sooner due to how much worse the PS3 was originally going to be before they saw the XB360. On the other hand, the PS3 probably would've been a lot more successful without MS splitting the install base. Sony probably wouldn't have been humbled as much and the PS4 could be a further wreck.