Stop with the Wiki copypastas. I never said the MSX didn't sell or was a failure. You're contriving an argument that never existed just to have an excuse for yet another Wiki copypasta.
I simply shared factual data that show that your made up fantasies were wrong when you said stuff like "MSX computers were only popular in Japan and isolated parts of Asia. The
ENTIRE standard was designed with the Japanese market in mind. People in places like the US knew about MSX, but IBM PC-compatibles and Apple machines, even stuff like the Atari ST, obliterated MSX sales in America. In Europe, Atari, Amiga and other microcomputers decimated MSX offerings there."
If you can't accept reality isn't my issue.
Sounds like Asian markets such as Japan to me
Western and Asian companies came together because wanted to have a global standard, because the computer market was very fragamented between many brands and models incompatible with each other.
That included hardware manufacturers from all around the world also including areas that never had a lot of them like Europe, Latin America, the USSR or Middle East making versions for their markets.
Back then a few western manufacturers (mostly from USA) already had their own good business as Commodore, Atari, Apple or IBM so didn't join it, while most Japan and Korean companies supported it because until then their computer business wasn't huge.
Regarding software, Microsoft was in the early stages creating the standard, but later decided to move away and focus instead in another global focused standard more dominated by American companies: IBM PC.
MSX got many software developers from all the regions (I assume except Africa and mabe Oceania) supporting it in their regions with dedicaded games and apps, localizations of titles released elsewhere or ports of games or apps previously released in other platforms. As mentioned, in USA they already had some other manufactures being pretty successful, so the MSX was pretty minor compared to EU, Asia or Latin America and more relegated to professional use.
Hell, it's in the Wiki article where you conveniently skipped over all that just to copypasta things ignoring the obvious!
I skipped because it's obviously wrong, in addition to Microsoft there was many non-Asian manufacturers involved like Phillips, Olivetti, Talent, Gradiente, CCE, Electronika or Al Alamiah plus hundreds of software developers across all regions where it was sold making local MSX sfuff for them.
In USA they already had a few brands pretty much dominating their local computers market, and back then Japan even if it was the main electronics country with tons of popular brands, none of their computers were big sellers. That combined with the main promoter ASCII being from there, did help that Japan was the country with the largest amount of MSX manufacturers.
But again, there was a lot of non Japanese manufacturers and developers.
None of this needed to be stated. Again, you're spiraling into a history lesson no one in this very specific conversation asked for
Yes, it was needed to explain why your lies or guesses are wrong and how it was in reality.
This in no way proves the MSX was meant as a global standard to compete directly against Amiga, Amstrad, Commodore, or IBM PC-compatibles in global markets to usurp them.
It is a fact that it did compete globally in North America, Europe, Middle East, Latin America and Asia (not sure about Africa and Oceania) against the 8 bit computers they had there. And in games it was appreciated because they had the best versions of some games, like the Konami ones. But others did suck because were cheap Spectrum ports.
That sounds like an anecdotal experience, but also know those Spanish devs were not major software contributors to the MSX platform line in markets where MSX computers sold the most. Logically speaking, that just would not have made sense. Spanish software devs would not have had the cultural knowledge or experience to develop products which'd appeal to Japanese computer gamers or businesses at scale, in the 1980s or early 1990s.
Well, the second game console was Spanish (released early 1974 as I remember), devs started making local versions or hacked copies of foreign arcade games (one had the first "continue?") in the second half of the 70s and in 1980 they released the first full Spanish game for arcade, and in 1983 the first for computers (released for MSX and other platforms).
Even if they didn't make top global hits, there were many Spanish devs and games that were several exported to NA, other European countries or Japan in the 80s and 90s, including games released in MSX.
As an example, the European market leader in the arcades starting the mid 80s was an Spanish one, Tecfri (later Gaelco). Tech wise were a global powerhouse since their early days, and in the later days they were the only ones competing with 3D hardware -with better tech specs- against Sega or Namco in the days of Ridge Racer or Daytona USA (obviously were less successful than them).
Going back to MSX, there were also devs all around many European countries, in the USSR, some middle east country, South America, North America, several East Asian countries outside Japan, etc. I explained that case because it's the one I know the best, but I know the same happened in many other countries.
Reciting things that happened historically doesn't actually prove a point you were trying to make, unless you tie everything together convincingly. You aren't doing that here whatsoever.
Explaining the history of Sony publishing games in computers and non-PS consoles since forever (something can be verified with a quick Google search) proves Sony published games in computers and non-PS console since forever, yes.
Yes, because the computer, console and electronics market of the 1980s and 1990s is exactly the same as the computer, console & electronics market we now have in 2025.
I never said that.
I said Sony published games for computers and non-PS consoles since the 80s and didn't stop since then, which is true.
There are good and bad ways to do that; let's just say IMO, SIE have had a rather suboptimal approach that involves too many compromises which never had to be made.
Yes, there are good and bad ways. MS took one approach that involved to kill their own console.
SIE took another one that made their own console increase their results in all fronts to all time records and destroyed their direct competitor basically getting now a home console monopoly for the future, and will allow them to be able to continue making big AAA games in the future in a sustainable way.
Right, which is why instead of making region-specific and region-locked versions of their PC ports for those markets, they're making global PC ports for all markets including those where the console brand is established and thus said ports can help eat away at that market, such as Japan.
They are making global PC ports (with the exception of a few countries blocked by USA, others that censor some stuff, etc) because want to grow in the PC market all around the world, not only in China or Korea.
To sell in the whole world makes more money than to sell only in China and Korea.
You think their growth in PC in markets where they are established in console would negatively affect their console business, but what we're seeing instead is the opposite: PS has record active userbase and around a third of PS5 hardware sales coming from people new to PS.
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing here, added anything to what I assumed was your main point in responding. It's just another Wiki-style historical copypasta dump.
It's just another Wiki-style historical copypasta dump.
It's just listing some facts to explain why something it's true and your lies and guesses are wrong.
Money was a part of it but pre-existing contracts and needing their console gaming division to scale up in size large enough for full integration were also major contributors to that decision with Psygnosis.
Companies like Sony/Psygnosis didn't make contract with anyone to release PC games, they just sold them to retailers.
If Sony released games like Rollcage 2 on PC seven years after acquiring Psygnosis was just because Sony wanted to do so, not because any preexisting contract.
Regarding games for other consoles, pre-existing contracts could have been there for games they had under development during the acquisition and got released in 1993 or maybe 1994 specially in cases where Psygnosis was publishing externally developed games. But not beyond that, games didn't take 5-9 years to be made back then.
And during early PS1 gen, yes the chance the PS1 could've bombed did justify keeping Psygonsis multiplatform to some degree. As the PS1's success over SEGA & Nintendo solidified itself, that multiplatform support began to heavily scale back.
This theory makes sense.
A bullshit revisionists take, because SIE themselves stated the main purpose for acquiring Bungie was to bring onboard industry experience in designing successful GAAS titles. That can be interpreted as wanting multiplatform titles out of it, but that intent is not explicitly specified in those words.
It isn't a revisionist take, the announcement press release of the acquisition mentioned:
- "furthering SIE's vision to reach billions of players"
- "reach players wherever they choose to play"
- "This is an important step in our strategy to expand the reach of PlayStation to a much wider audience"
- "value our community and meet them wherever and however they choose to play"
In Bungie's blog they specificed that day that after the acquisition all their future DLCs and games will continue to be released in PC and Xbox.
Maybe you should do some real research for a change:
You're the one who mades up stuff and lies and rejects the properly researched stuff I posted.
if you bothered to read through the Wiki article on Psygnosis as just one example (or just Google some appropriate stuff), you'd know that Psygnosis wasn't fully absorbed into SCE until 2000. You'll also see that after 2000, their ports to PC abruptly stopped, and that coincided with the restructuring into Sony Liverpool.
Just go look it up. Look at the Wiki entry, and look for PC ports after 2000. You won't find any. Funny how that works.
No, Psygnosis wasn't fully absorbed into SCE until 2000, and right after that, the multiplat support ended. You should've done more research.
Lol, I'm the one who said Psygnosis did stop releasing stuff outside PS in 2000 when they got renamed to SCEE Liverpool, not you.
And no, SCE didn't absorb them in 2000. Since 1993 they were a fully acquired subsidiary of SCE (known as Sony Electronic Publishing until aprox. the release of the PS1).
In 2000 they did a studio rebranding after a big restructure they had the year before, that's all.
Psygonsis was basically analogous to an ABK of today for their time, by the sheer volume of games they developed and published as a 3P and then as a subsidiary under Sony until getting fully absorbed.
Lol, no.
ABK was the top grossing 3rd party publisher in the world when acquired for $70B.
Psygnosis was a small publisher and developer that barely had a couple offices that was acquired for under $30M.
That difference in valuation is because of something.
Yes, modern Sony would do those types of ports for those reasons, but that isn't exactly analogous to why they had Psygnosis release across multiple platforms back in the '90s. And even in terms of modern Sony, we're not talking about Aniplex or the other subsidiaries: we're talking about Sony Interactive Entertainment, SIE.
Despite being way less successful and more focused on externally developed games, Psygnosis perfectly is analogous to Bungie: they're both a publisher and developer with a single main development studio, fully acquired by SIE but left to continue publishing multiplatform after acquiring them.
Like them, Aniplex is also Sony multiplatform game publisher, but is under SMEJ instead of under SIE/SCE/SEP.
Consoles don't have to cease in order for a console to run into market problems due to questionable business decisions that negatively impact its value perception.
Maybe, but this is not the case of PlayStation.
They're now the market leader and after 30 years they're now defeating the last direct competitor standing in the home console market. Meaning going forward they'll have a 'monopoly' home consoles as Switch had the previous gen in portables, and on top of that they are growing in PC, off-gaming and in some rare cases in other consoles too.
Sony does so with most metrics at all time high records including record revenue and profit, and in a multi year growth pattern growing in all their main areas both traditional and new ones. And regarding their first party games they make like almost twice the money they did around half a decade ago and almost every year they are the company or platform with more GOTY awards or candidates.
These are the important things to analize their business decisions or for value perception, not getting butthurted because they ported a game.
Here we go, more cheerleading. Where are the charts?
They are facts that prove that your doomer childish nonsense fanfic is wrong.
Ah, the infamous PlayStation PC handheld has made its appearance yet again. That PlayStation handheld for next gen running Windows for some reason instead of SIE's own PlayStation OS, prioritizing a mythical storefront that'd lack almost all of the 3P software the console currently has access to.
What a great buy that'd be huh?
Their PlayStation OS is just a custom Unix/Linux variant, like Steam OS. If Sony wants, they can run Windows games there (or in the PS5) by using Proton in their own PlayStation OS in the same way SteamOS does it. To use Proton is free.
We saw job offers and a leaked Insomniac document talking about a PC PSN store. They're definetively working on it.
Regarding the portable, Nishino and Hermen made clear hints about it and there are credible supposed leaks about its prototype hardware.
You can keep hoping and praying for this, but it won't come to fruition the way you think it will.
Even if they get a PC PSN store up and running, without 3P software support comparable to Steam or even the console PSN, plus knowing they'll still bring their PC games to Steam anyway, that PC PSN store is as good as dead.
Sony has a long and very successful at partnering with 3rd parties to sell there.
Make sure they'll PC store will feature a great 3rd party support, but obviously won't have a catalog comparable to Steam day one. Pretty likely will take many years to have numbers comparable in PC to Steam.
The thing is that pretty likely they won't compare "PC PSN vs Steam", they'll compare instead PSN (including here console+portable+PC+in the future mobile) vs Steam.
I think if they want to expand their home console business to PC and portable, maybe the best for them (but something I think they may not do at least day one) would be to approach it as a single platform that allows you to play your games where you want, bringing seamlessly the PS experience to your laptop or handheld, with seamless crossbuy, crossplay, etc between every game included in all these PSN clients.