Sony's Original Target Was to Sell 3 Million PS1s in 3 Years in Europe - Sales
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 January 2025 / 4,477 Views
Sony originally set a target to sell three million units of the PlayStation in the first three years in Europe. However, in the end the console sold 10 million units during that timeframe.
This is according to Chris Deering, the former president of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe from 1995 to 2005, who spoke during EGX in London and reported by GamesIndustry.
"I had worked in the industry way before PlayStation at Atari in the mid-80s," said Deering. "Since that time, Nintendo and Sega were the dominant factions on console. I was happy to get involved with Sony's entry because I thought it would legitimatise console gaming in some countries where it was seen as very downmarket, or even criminal like the arcades down by the train station.
"I knew that the Sony name would legitimise the concept. But what excited me the most was the disc, which would allow us to get games that were selling fast into store a lot faster than eight weeks, which was the time it would take to order new discs from Japan.
"So I was optimistic, but not too optimistic to think it wasn't going to be a fight. What we set out to sell in the first three years of the European division was three million units and 14 million games. It ended up being ten million units and 40 million games.
"We were very conservative in setting the objectives, but we had the ability to scale up. Then we had a lot of fun with the marketing, and developers coming in with new games and super better looking versions of old games, and that all helped to make the phenomenon happen. And it's been here ever since."
The PS1 would go on to sell 102.49 million units worldwide.
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
such high expectations! this was an amazing console
I remember hanging out with some older guys at the time, guys who were like nineteen or twenty, and they were raving about this new thing called Playstation. I was like, what? It was odd, because up until then, video games were either for kids, or nerds, and these guys were neither. In fact, they were what you'd call "cool" guys... and college-aged to boot. So what Chris is saying was definitely true in my neck of the woods.
That Christmas, I got a Playstation lol.
Well, they certainly knocked it outta the park... lol
I probably played N64 more at the time... but now as an adult I still play so many PS1 games to this day and never touch N64 with the exception of Mario and Zelda.
A reasonable expectation given the state of the console market in the 8-bit & 16-bit eras. Between the four of them, the NES, SNES, Master System, and Mega Drive sold less than 30 million units combined, with the Mega Drive being the best-selling console at 8.32M. Compared to North America and Japan, those sales are anemic. It would have been a reasonable assumption that no home console would ever reach the 10M mark in Europe. But it appears that the collapse of the home computer market in the mid 90s provided an opening for consoles to finally hit the big time.
As in North America & Japan, the PS1 ended up becoming the most popular system of its generation in Europe. The PS1 ended up selling more units by itself in Europe than every other notable console that came before it combined, and by a very wide margin. Europe also proved to be the most PlayStation-friendly market. While the PS1 outsold the N64 by a 1.69-to-1 margin in the U.S. and a 3.5-to-1 margin in Japan, in Europe it was at least a 6-to-1 margin. In fact, Europe accounted for 39% of PS1 sales worldwide, with the system selling over 40M units there compared to only 30.2M in the U.S. and 18.85M in Japan.
" I was happy to get involved with Sony's entry because I thought it would legitimatise console gaming in some countries where it was seen as very downmarket, or even criminal like the arcades down by the train station."
Well, ha, that's funny...
...because in some countries in Europe, piracy in console market literally skyrocketed from 0 to 100 when Sony Playstation entered in the game. Just in those same years. And there is a TOTAL correlation about PS selling as hot bread (starting in late 1996-1997), and the huge piracy problem that affected the european market during all those years..
To be fair, before PS launch, piracy of COMPUTER games in Europe was a massive problem and a normal behaviour by the users, But it was EXTREMELY RARE in console games (Nintendo and Sega fought very hard against that problem, for obvious reasons: many of the games of its consoles were produced by themselves. That was not the Sony situation in that era... So piracy help them to sold lots of its new machine in Europe, and the real problem was for the third parties... which in turn, decided to support PS precisely cause the huge selling numbers Play was getting).
Anyways, yes, Sony sold a lot more in Europe than nobody expected in 1995. Even Sony itself. We already Knew.
Also, Nintendo launched N64 very very late in Europe, in March 1997, losing completely the important Christmas season of 1996. That alone also affected very much the European market during all that generation.
And with Ps2, after the official demise of Dreamcast in January 2001, it was even worse (and repeating the massive piracy problem again, only solved with PS3).
This is one of the fake narratives that people use to diminish PS console sales, just like the PS2 DVD situation.
If the PlayStation was so heavily pirated it would have effected software sales but its tie-ratio is higher than it’s contemporaries:
PlayStation - 9.39
Sega Saturn - 8.64
N64 - 6.83
SNES - 7.72
Sega Genesis - 5.16
NES - 8.08
Gameboy - 4.22
GBA - 4.63
The PSP which did have a significant piracy problem has a tie ratio of 4.01 for comparison
To be fair the PS2 DVD situation was real. It was a DVD player that was cheaper than standalone DVD players. Plenty of people got it to play DVDs. That, plus PS2's huge post-life sales from the PS3 being not very palatable to consumers for the first few years after launch so people just kept buying the PS2 instead, both helped massively in getting PS2 to its sales number.
“ It was a DVD player that was cheaper than standalone DVD players.”
That simply isn’t true, but is often repeated and treated like a fact.
It was more expensive than top end DVD players but by 2000 cheap DVD players were available at sub-$100 and by late 2001 there were budget DVD players as cheap as $50
"That simply isn’t true, but is often repeated and treated like a fact."
It's repeated, because IT IS TRUE.
How old are you?
"but by 2000 cheap DVD players were available at sub-$100 "
¿cheap DVD players? in 2000?
LOL
I'm going to link to images showing a sales catalogue from Sears in Late 2000. Note the price of the DVD players, which aren't exactly knockoffs, for as low as $199.99, which would have been $100 less than a PS2 at the time.
https://christmas.musetechnical.com/ShowCatalogPage/2000-Sears-Christmas-Book/0236
https://christmas.musetechnical.com/ShowCatalogPage/2000-Sears-Christmas-Book/0237
It was true in a lot of places. i literally remember it being one of the main talking points of the ps2 at the time. "why give 300+£ for a dvd player when you could get a ps2 that could also play games and keep the family entertained for less". and even when cheaper models of dvd players did start coming here to Ireland it was still a case of "why even get stand alone dvd player when you can get a ps2 for like 50-100£ more that can also play the latest games and keep the kids entertained". it literally was a selling point for many people, and to down play it is a bit silly imo..
totally right, yep. Even when the standalone DVD players were cheaper, in 2002 or even 2003, many people prefered to buy a PS2 because its game possibilites for a little extra money, so you get 2 in 1.
Something like this repeated with PS2 Slim model, years later, specially when it was very cheap, because it was a very dwarf console and also a DVD player for a ridiculous price. And DVD movies were still very very prominent and selling very well by then.
Plus... buying a PS2 in early 2000s saved space in your living-room (or even your own room) if you already planned to buy a new console. Why?
Because in the year 2000, any common house still had its VHS players yet (very very common. VHS could record wathever you wanted from the TV, and that was lost forever with the damn DVD players. "DVD recorders" existed, but were prohibitively expensive and for wathever reason NEVER got popular... even when VHS players started to fade out, in the middle-late 2000s).
So, getting a PS2 was also a save of space below those (already) huge tube TVs of early 2000s, especially if you wanted a console.
Sony hit the nail on the head with the DVD capabilities in the PS2, for sure.
(Exactly the opposite situation Sony created with the launch of PS3 with BluRay player, and its massive price, in 2006).
I remember clearly how many people critizised Nintendo for not making the Gamecube compatible with DVD movies, cause all those reasons. Nintendo always told they saved money not paying for the DVD license, Well... OK. but the results for them were catastrophic in the sells... cause, why to buy a Gamecube in 2001-2002, if you already had a DVD/PS2?
And why to buy a Gamecube instead of PS2... if you also wanted a DVD and PS2 had one?
Ending in the developers just exiting the Gamecube development, cause the poor sales of that excellent machine.
Perhaps in 2005 that would not have been important at all, but in 2001-2002? that was a huge deal. So... only the fans of Nintendo buyed a Gamecube.
And I'm not telling Gamecube commercial failure was ONLY because the NON-DVD player. But in 2002? that was a real handicap against PS2. Maybe because of that, even the original Xbox ended to sell more than the Gamecube. A disastrous situation for Nintendo when you remember the fact that, in the Japan market, the original Xbox sold NOTHING.
https://arstechnica.com/civis/threads/ps2-or-200-dvd-player-to-watch-dvds.897634/
Here’s an ArsTechnica forum post from 2001 where they are discussing DVD players and at the time standalone players by big brands(Sony,Toshiba, pioneer) are quoted as being $150(the PS2 was still $299).
So... you also lie?
From that december 2001 forum:
" I choose between a Panasonic rp-56 (I have read this is a good <$300 player) and a PS2, which one would be the better choice considering video quality, sound, compatability, and ease of use?"
" a good <$300 player" (and 300$ was cheap).
Not150$, in 2001, as you are saying.
So, in 2001... in DECEMBER (practically 2002), MAYBE, you could find a cheaper standalone DVD players than a PS2. MAYBE.
But I will tell you something: If you could find a 150$ DVD player in december 2001...
...man... that... had to be PURE CRAP. Truly. XD
So... yes? you... maybe?( MAYBE??) in december 2001? could buy a crap that will not read well a DVD in just 6 months (like many of the crappy DVD players of early 2000s). MAYBE. Don't know.
But people also could buy a PS2, made by Sony (Sony had a "quality name" by then, at least), paying a VERY GOOD PRICE, compared with a NORMAL DVD player.
So many people, buyed a PS2 as a DVD player.
Understand? That's the point,
Also, Playstation was launched in early 2000 in Japan, and october-november2000 in US and EU. ONE YEAR BEFORE. Don't even try to get a cheaper DVD player than PS2 by then.
You can buy a DVD player by a budget brand in 2000 for $100, that is a literal fact. The more expensive ones are top market products. By 2001 good quality ones from market leading brands were $150, those with image quality superior to the PS2 by a large margin.
“ So what was the going rate for a DVD player in 2000? You could snag one for under $100 from any discount retailer. But just a few years prior, early adopters were shelling out anywhere from $600 to $1000!”
Source: https://expertbeacon.com/how-much-was-a-dvd-player-in-2000/#google_vignette
I will tell you thousands of times: THAT IS NOT TRUE. At least in Europe. Sorry.
If you, in USA, are sure you had excellent DVD players in every corner, for less than 100 bucks, in 2000... well... GOOD FOR YOU.
But that was CLEARLY NOT THE CASE in Europe.
We can enter in a loop if you want.
I live in the UK and I was first year university student when the PS2 came out so I remember the situation here well. The UK was about 4-6 months behind the US so not a massive difference. The cheapest Dvd players were substantially cheaper than PS2s even on launch day. Good brand ones might be only a little less, but a few months later it's the exact same situation as America.
Either way the PS2 shipped a tiny proportion of its lifetime sales in the first year, and 90%+ of its lifetime there were budget $50/£50 dvd players readily available and PS2 was not even on par with low end dvd players for watching dvds.
So basically you are telling me, "the DVD factor" had no importance at all in PS2 sells along its life?
I TO-TA-LLY disagree, but OK.
No, it was an advantage, it was something very positive. It was a big bonus if you were interested in playing games primarily, but almost no one was buying it to primarily play DVDs with no interest in games.
"it was an advantage, it was something very positive. It was a big bonus if you were interested in playing games primarily,"
oooook...
"but almost no one was buying it to primarily play DVDs with no interest in games."
So... it helped to sell more PS2 in the end or not?
I literally never made any such claims, I originally posted that it was fake that the PS2 was cheaper than a Dvd player
So you accept PS2 sold better cause DVD player?
I imagine it sold better because of the inclusion of a DVD player, who knows by how much, a million units, 5 million units? The only point I ever contested is the fake narrative that the PS2 was cheaper than standalone DVD players and substantial numbers of people bought it to play only DVDs.
Ok. So you think DVD included in PS2 help PS2 to get between 1 or 5 million better sales along its life.
I suppose you just try to say: 2 o 3 units at max... naaahh... nobody really knew about DVD
LOL
more like 30 million, maybe.
I had been clear along all the topic:
DVD had a massive role in the introduction of the machine, Sony exploited it in EVERY situation they could, including in specialized magazines reports and interviews.
Some people will even research in a Sears catalogue from 24 years ago to basically show... i'm right: there where NOT "100 dollar DVD players" in 2000 as some say. Maybe a 250 or in the BEST cases 200. But they also will not research in the videogame magazines of that era, maybe because can find what i'm telling: Sony sold PS2 ALSO as a CHEAP (and supposedly good) DVD player. We need to do a research?
ALSO: DVD option was also highlighted by Sony in its first days, because PS2 had not A MUST HAVE GAME in its launch and the next months: No, Ridge Racer V or Tekken Tag Tournament weren't exactly what people expected from the new machine, Sorry. Neither was Fantavision. (LOL, Fantavision).
Maybe DoA 2 was interesting, but already present in DC.
In fact, Soul Calibur 1 for DC was better than DoA2, so... it does not count.
One of the first games showing some interesting things for PS2 was Dark Cloud, in Japan, in late 2000 (a game nobody remembers, from the guy who will create Layton series in the future) and was not that great. GT3 ( THE GAME that saved PS2 that year... was also very mystified by then in the magazines). Only in the end of 2001 or even 2002 in Europe, MGS2 and FFX appeared and started to sell the machine as a powerhouse for gaming. The first year of PS2 was very very veeeery weak. Remember? no?
So, using the priceless blank of about 1 year with NO competition at all that Sega gracefully give to Sony in january 2001, Sony could save PS2 sells exploiting the DVD movie compatibility EVERYWHERE they could. Yes, I know, "I'm inventing everything" of course. But no. That, HAPPENED. Sorry.
PLUS.
...when PS2 was a very mature machine (2007-2012), its slim version sold massive quantities, not only because the huge massive catalogue of games PS2 had, but because it was extremely cheap (especially in the end, its price was so low people buyed it like chocolate bars, to use it as a semi-portable DVD player everywhere (yeeees, the price of PS2 got sooo low, like 99, or something like that) it doesn't matter if a standalone DVD player costed 50$ or even less: Many young people just buyed a PS2 Slim as a DVD, cause they have DVD movies, and it also served as a console if they wanted to play. Oh, gods, no.
PS2 sold WAY more than your 5 million max for its DVD player, or at least THANKS to its DVD capabilities at that price. I don't know how many, but it would be not strange to me that at least (AT LEAST) 20 million PS2 were sold cause those DVD compatibilities during all it life-time. And probably more.
Sure, the first 2 or 3 years were NOT 20 million sells cause DVD, Was way way less..., but even a number so low as 200K would be a massively important helping hand in its starting times, to establish the machine as the Leviathan it ultimately was in that generation: Xbox was more expensive, Gamecube had not DVD capabilities, and BOTH arrived TOO late, ¡In 2002 in Europe!
Thanks to that, and thanks to Sega (when Sega decided to make that killer move with its DC) PS2 survived very well, with no important games at all, one complete year.
(And BTW, just when DC had already a fantastic catalogue of games PS2 only started to had... in mid 2002. A shame how new Sony fanboys will never know about games like Soul Calibur, Skies of Arcadia, Virtua Tennis, Phantasy Star Online (online gaming!), Quake III Arena (online gaming!), Jet Set Radio, Metropoli Street Racing, Shenmue, HeadHunter, Power Stone... even Sonic Adventure was fricking good by PS2 standards in 2001.
THAT was the real deal in 2000 in gaming world. Not that stupid RRV with that infamous and dumb external camera, or TTT being just a revamped version of Tekken 3, for PS2).
"the fake narrative that the PS2 was cheaper than standalone DVD players"
aha, of course. No.
Is NO FAKE narrative at all.
"and substantial numbers of people [don't] bought it to play only DVDs."
Some buyed it because it had DVD in the DVD era:
Was a great deal during 2000 and 2001.
And happened again, with MASSIVE numbers, in its late days, because SP2 Slim was cheap and easy to get by young people.
Sorry to jet your world with some little reality.
Ask people about that last thing, and search old magazines from 2000 and 2001 if you do not believe what I told you.
But of course, all that DVD topic is "fake narrative" and is treated (I DO NOT KNOW WHY) as a shame and ugly thing to hid, like if it was some kind of illegal piracy topic. Everything that happens and does not like "to some people", is fake narrative. And Putin propaganda. And satanic sectarist. And tabacco apologist. And Annunnaki conspiracionist. And bla bla bla. So vote negative to this message trying to erase the past, and protect the "God Sony", because Sony "is always ultra-perfect and immaculate, and just sells because its GAMES, GAAAMES". Of course.
...Uoops, VITA
.
You're veering into unhinged rambling, no one is going to read this stream of consciousness ranting for like 10 paragraphs
Oh... nice. You want another "unhinged rambling" about PS2?
"PS2 is SO POWERFUL, it could launch missiles".
(Yes, younger ones, that idiocy was told in America and Europe to impress dumb teenagers around year 2000. And yes, probably PS2 had the capacity to calculate missile trajectories...
...as the Game Boy CPU probably also could do. XD)
That article SHOWS NO PROVES OF PRICES in 2000 (only player sells), and is OBVIOUSLY not from the year 2000 (In fact, was probably wrote in this very same year 2024: "Last Update on May 13, 2024")
Prove it's not from 2000 and not even from that decade? Many, But I will use just one.
citing it:
"You can see the PlayStation 2 vastly outpaced its competitors, selling over 150 million units lifetime. The built-in DVD player was a major influence driving adoption."
150 million PS2? At least, (by Sony data itself) take Sony 10 years to get to that number.
But I have more:
That author is giving me the REASON in the importance of the DVD for the total sells of PS2.
citing it:
"Sony made a brilliant strategic move by including a DVD player in their PlayStation 2 console, which launched in 2000 for $299. Competitors like the Sega Dreamcast came equipped with plain old CD-ROM drives. And Nintendo? They completely eschewed DVD capabilities in their 2001 GameCube console."
"Given the rapidly growing DVD player adoption rates shown above, this decision gave PS2 an edge. Gamers could play next-gen titles AND watch their DVD movie collections on one convenient device.
You can see the PlayStation 2 vastly outpaced its competitors, selling over 150 million units lifetime. The built-in DVD player was a major influence driving adoption."
I repeat?:
"AND watch their DVD movie collections on one convenient device."
"The built-in DVD player was a major influence driving adoption"
You did not read the article at all before posting it, right? Right.
He PRECISELY is defending the famous "Fake narrative"... because that was NEVER FAKE AT ALL. Wow.
That article shows NO REAL info about "less than 100~for a DVD player in year 2000." Yes, the author says it, but with NO prove at all. He only shows supposed data from the players sold in 2000, NOT the prices.
He basically uses it, in a narrative way, to tells us about how the prices of DVD players fastly reduced its prices during that era.
Yes, we all know that: by 2005 DVD you could get an ultra cheap DVD for maybe even less than 50.
But not in 2000.
so...
Citing you:
"You can buy a DVD player by a budget brand in 2000 for $100, that is a literal fact."
NO, boy. That's a "LITERAL" LIE.
Your "facts" are fake, ugly manipulations, misinterpretations (in the best cases), and very posterior lies promoted by what it seems to be cases of fanboyism for one company. Sorry.
"This is one of the fake narratives that people use to diminish PS console sales"
What?
"just like the PS2 DVD situation."
PS2 sold a lot during the first 2-4 years cause it was the cheaper DVD player in the market, especially until 2002. Of course it sold also for its games, but DVD player had a HUGE appealing for many many of its buyers. Just like Sony planned (man, that was decided in 1998) and pretended (and good for Sony, of course).
What fake narrative are you talking about?
It worked flawlessly. That's bad?
Yes, Bluray and PS3 in 2006 was and horrendously idea, and probably crippled the PS3 numbers during many many months, and affected the total number of PS3 sold, because the very expensive price of the console cause the BR player.
But PS2? was an amazing idea. Ask ANY PS2 user who bought PS2 in 2000-2002.
"If the PlayStation was so heavily pirated it would have effected software sales but its tie-ratio is higher than it’s contemporaries:"
Man, Playstation was HEAVELY pirated in some places. In some european countries at least, was just INCREDIBLE to see.
I don't know about that ratio you show me, but what I can tell you is that: if you ask people who had Playstation in south Europe, in 1997-2000, many of them will tell you about how people had entire (ENTIRE) coils (packs), in plural, of pirated CDs with PS games. Was just amazing XDD
That also happened with PS2.
Ps3 ended that problem in a big big way.
Yea, we had 3 PS2s but only one of them was ever used to play games lol
idk... I think its more nuanced than that. I personally had more PS1 than N64 games... but I also got them for much much cheaper.
New PS1 games were $40-50
PS1 Greatest Hits were $20 and were ABUNDANT in stores
New N64 games were $50-60 and didn't have a "greatest hits" option and games like pkmn costing around $90 with the adapter
So for $100 you could either buy 1-2 N64 games or you could get 2-5 PS1 games...
With that being said I knew several people that had modded PS1s growing up and didn't buy any games... Just rented at blockbuster and copied them
A standard N64 Game Pack was more expensive than a CD, if you needed 32MB for your game It was was more expensive than a standard Game Pack. if you needed 64MB it was more expensive than a 32MB Game Pack. On PS you could go all the way to 650MB at the same price because CDs cost the same. That was the reason N64 games were more expensive.
n64 did have a greatest hits equivalent. I forget the term they used. "Player's Choice" or something. They were about 40 usd.
And yeah, the argument that guy is making about PSone not having a piracy problem because of the attach rate ignores the fact the attach rate might have been much higher if piracy weren't a big issue. Also he is using the global attachment rate while talking about Europe.
Player's Choice, that was, yes.
Ahh good call! Totally forgot Players Choice!
Still not as cheap as PS1 Greatest Hits but ignoring it would skew things for sure
Yes, PS offered a lot of "official" cheaper games.
CDs were a lot cheaper to create than carts and Sony exploited it very well with the "greatest hits/platinum" economical series.
As you say, even new PS games were practically always cheaper than N64 games. You could debate some certain cases of a new N64 game could be a good deal, because they could get free of charge internal batteries to save games, and didn't need a memory card (especially in the Nintendo/Rare games).
But more than 95% of cases, the new PS games were simply cheaper or a lot cheaper.
The greatest hits series could explain perfectly the ratios of games sold in PS, no doubt. Nintendo simply didn't wanted to sell carts too cheap, so games barely got any good discounts. And even then, when it happened (I remember to got Wave Race 64 for something around 30$), they were still more expensive than the majority of greatest hits for PS.
"The PSP which did have a significant piracy problem"
If you consider PSP had "a significant piracy problem",... and you still believe PS1 and PS2 did not,... boy, oh boy: Sorry, but you have been lied.
PSP was obvious, thanks to internet being already massive during its life.
But ALL Sony machines had huge (HUGE) piracy problems, at least "in some" markets, until PS3 appeared in 2006 And i mean HUGE, Selling millions and millions cause that.
No, i do not exaggerate.
And even with PS3... after the infamous supposed "tech usb emergence from nowhere", to put your PS3 in debug mode... I knew people who had PS3 pirated.... but they could not play online, or had to do many boring things to not get caught and getting its online capabilities "bricked". They even had to manually install new firmware to play new "offline" games.
I don't even recall well all that crap... I was just amazed the time they spent.
But clearly PS3 piracy was to burdensome and dangerous, for the majority of its users, so piracy in PS3 ended to be residual.
I really don't know about the PS4 and PS5 situation on this topic, cause I do not give an f anymore about those kind of things.
But when you compare 1st party software sales, the N64 had a massive advantage.
We cannot deny that having a console that can be chipped and play pirated games was an incredible selling point edge. It was a massive talking point over the N64 and its cartridge prices.
I don't know if it was a "massive advantatge". But N64 had its Nintendo and Rare 3D games, and they were truly amazing. Also some companies (like Acclaim and Konami) did an amazing job for N64.
Yep. PS1 was so easy to chip, even in some shops you "officially" could buy the PS... offered you to chip it, BRAND NEW, if you wanted and wait some minutes (with little extra cost).
I clearly remember people doing it. In fact, it was REALLY RARE to find a child or a teen with a NON-"chipped" Playstation in 1997-2001 in some european nations.
Many shops even sold pirated games for a little fraction of the "official version", cause many families in 1997-2000 did not have a PC with a CD burner (or even a PC).
That was the NORM in some european western countries (i'm not speaking about ex-soviet countries with crashed economies in the 90s. NO.).
I suppose in east asia and south america was also the same.
It was a huge joke, and some regional Sony subsidiaries, during many many many years, turned a blind eye to that situation. Even the magazines tried not to talk about that huge problem practically never, or in a "veiled manner", But you can find some things in that media era talking about that problem... from time to time. For Sony, was a great way to sell more machines, no doubt.
PS2 was also affected and had a similar situation, although installing the chip was a little more difficult operation. No serious problem in the end, cause you only had to do one time.
Finally, PS3 changed the situation for good. Also, Sony started to had a considerable number of studios and games produced by itself, so... piracy stopped to be a machine-seller, and started to be a problem for them, like always was for Nintendo and Sega.
Correlation may sometimes indicate a good chance of causation, but it does not necessarily imply it. That being said, the only way in which I can say Sony may have contributed to the explosion of piracy during the 90s was simply by making gaming far more mainstream (alongside the onset of the internet & PC, which made piracy far easier). Every industry saw a spike in piracy during this period: Not just a gaming exclusive trend.
I am open to hearing you out if you have any other evidence to support your claim?
I see you also mention Sony's use of discs instead of cartridges bearing a heavy amount of the responsibility for this trend emerging...but I feel like ppl were gonna pirate games regardless of whether Sony put them on discs or not. NES, SNES, N64, etc., have all been cracked at this point, and I do believe they would have been cracked regardless of whether they were able to crack PlayStation during the 90s. (Do you think ppl in the year of our Lord 2024 would still be pulling out their N64 to play Star Fox 64? Or do you think somebody would've eventually come up with a work-around so as to play the game with updated visuals (among other QoL features) on their PC?)
JohnVG, you better be careful with your use of the downvote button. I am a serial upvoter, who upvotes any and all comments (yes, including your own) that are in red. (And, as you can see by my bronze badge, my vote is more powerful than yours.)
What are you talking about?
brother, every single response to you was accompanied with a downvote. I know for a fact nobody is as interested to read every single reply and give a downvote unless they are the one actively engaging in the conversation. You can tell me if you believe this theory is wrong, and I’ll accept it. I trust you won’t lie. I just don’t like it when users abuse the downvote button is all…but again, if aint you, i’ll trust you, and you can disregard my prev msg.
So, you are some kind of nice bully accusing the people of what you probably do?
Stop downvoting my messages and forget me.
I'm not being "holier than thou" (i.e. "nice bully"), I'm protesting the worst of this site's (stupid) voting system. You aren't helping make this site any better of a place when you downvote others.
"Stop downvoting my messages" (did you mean to say "upvoting"?)
GET LOST.
JohnVG, I will not "GET LOST". Maybe if you asked for me to "GET OUTTA TOWN", I would do so. But get lost?? Respectfully, how does one "GET LOST" on VGChartz? The site is rather straight-forward to navigate.
CDs opened the flood gates to piracy. Just like floppy disks before. Anything can be cracked but you rarely see any NES or SNES cracked games or chipped consoles, it wasnt worth the time and investment. I literally knew no one with an unchipped PS1, I still have mine. I heard you could get any game for $1 to $5. That sold me and many others.
I don't believe Sony did this on purpose, they just didn't care when it was happening because their hardware was selling due to it.
yeah, I’m not denying that CDs made piracy significantly easier. What I’m saying is that piracy was going to grow rampant regardless of whether Sony ever introduced CDs into gaming. Hence, Sony didn’t really contribute very negatively to the industry wrt piracy other than allowing their own games to be more easily pirated.
I'm 100% sure Sony Japan (or SCEJ) did NOT do that on purpose.
Just exploited it, yes. And they got huge results, for sure
Especially when you compete against N64. A real fortress against piracy... unless you bought the Doctor V64, a massive an ultra expensive unofficial add-on. the price of what just defeated the purpose of the piracy: to be cheap. It is really an impressive machine by its own, aesthetically well designed, and extending the N64 possibilities at a point where Acclaim itself (and who knows, maybe others) used it actively for its developments, including Turok series. Not strange now is desired by collectors.
SEGA did a better protection with Saturn (albeit... always could be defeated with a disc-swap... but you know that was not a nice way to treat its CD reader). Saturn finally also got a chip, a more complex one, but functional. In any case, I never saw the huge piracy situation with Saturn (always knowing the size of its market) the PS got, not by far.
On the contrary. Saturn players always were much more "legal", maybe because they truly loved the Saturn.
Dreamcast, on the other hand, was soon piracy defeated and started to suffer a lot of piracy, just when piracy was already totally normalized by the public (99-2001). Maybe because of that Sega surrendered so soon (they needed to sold as games as they could to make Dreamcast profitable).
Essay Pro