Sony – Following Nintendo's Lead Since 1994

It's not quite an industry secret, but it also isn't exactly widely known either. Back in the early '90s we were almost presented with a console that would have changed the landscape of gaming as we know it: the SNES-CD. It could have dominated the gaming industry for years and crafted a fruitful relationship between Sony and Nintendo that for all we know could still be ongoing. However, it was not meant to be…

[iGAM3R-VIII]

The partnership that Sony and Nintendo have are amazing. Sony did in a sense follow Nintendo which helped Sony grow and become what and where it is now like what Nintendo were back in the day. But the thing is that Sony went above and beyond Nintendo and showed them how to realy do it and the thing is, they did something Nintendo couldn't do.

"It’s pretty obvious that the SNES controller was the basis for the PlayStation’s." I do not really agree with this because there is quite a big difference between the two. The same with the PSP and other devices.

Nevertheless, Sony did kind of follow Nintendo but I would say they didn't really follow it in the way this article made it.

[Yodagamer]

The original ps1 controller was basicly the snes with extra shoulder buttons and a grip. It makes sense as the ps1 was essentially a beefed up snes attachments. It even felt like the proper successor to the snes to me. It had all that awesome variety that the snes had, which is why i loved it. @jimbobwahey, you are aware i'm speaking of the original Ps1 controller the one WITHOUT analog sticks. Why am i getting disagrees, would someone like to explain? it's common knowledge that the work from the snes cd went on to become the playstation 1.

[jimbobwahey]

Sony set the industry standard when they introduced dual analog sticks as a method for traversing 3D worlds back with the original dualshock.

All we see Nintendo do these days is play catch up to Sony and Microsoft, and they do such a sloppy job of it that nobody is buying their latest console.

[SilentNegotiator]

"you are aware i'm speaking of the original Ps1 controller the one WITHOUT analog sticks"

And? He brought up the industry standard that Sony, the supposed follower, created, that Nintendo used in their next system (Gamecube) and came back to AGAIN with their latest console.

[Yodagamer]

So basicly he brought up something that had nothing to do with my comment. I'm not disagree with him, but i simply wasn't talking about the dualshock. Btw it was introduced on the dual analog controller :P

[SilentNegotiator]

I'm aware that it didn't launch along side the Ps1. It simply doesn't matter.

You claimed that the Ps1 controller was "essentially a beefed up snes" controller. He mentioned that Sony created a controller that set the standard for 3D-designed games that has lasted over a decade...it was also a Ps1 controller, regardless of when it launched.

[Yodagamer]

And yet this conversation was about the original controller so yea it does matter because the comment was about the original plain controller, not the dual shock.

[darthv72]

had the analog stick with the N64. sega released their 3d pad and sony came up with the dual analog which later became known as the dual shock 1. They were all roughly around the same time as each other

that isnt to say we would never eventually have gotten the twin stick configuration we know today. plus it really shouldnt matter who did it first. what matters is that we got it and from then on it became a standard.

regardless of the layout, the xbox got a variant of it. The PC's had them as well. The only real black sheep was the dreamcast because it only had the 1 analog stick. But that was more of an evolution to the saturn 3d pad anyway.

We can all thank atari (I would imagine) for starting us off with a stick and button combination that lead to the eventual release of more button controllers.

In my controller collection, i have (at least) 1 of every controller known to the console market. Some were comfortable and others not so much. Since it is the controller that is the main part of how we enjoy a platform, some would say it is THE most important part of the platform.

If you arent comfortable using the controller then you arent going to be comfortable playing the games for the platform. No matter how graphically impressive they may be.

As to the "original" ps1 controller, yeah it matters as it too was part of that evolutionary change in controls back in the day. Its comparison to the SNES controller is very common because the button layout was so similar. But they added the contours to the controller to make it nice to hold and added 2 extra shoulder buttons.

Many may not even have gotten a PS1 with the original controller anyway. I dont know the percentage but there was a point to where the dual shock became the pack in and from then on every system sold came with one. No-one ever looked back at the regular controller again. sort of how Sega swapped out the genesis 3 button later on with the 6 button controller.

[MikeMyers]

PS Vita/PlayStation 4 Interconnectivity

Sorry but Sony was marketing that before the Wii U even came out. They are just perfecting it with the PS4.

Of course companies will copy, improve and innovate on past products. Some are obvious in the article while others are simply the evolution everyone expected.

[Nate-Dog]

@MikeMyers: Nintendo had been marketing the interactivity between the controller and TV / console quite a while before Sony decided to go down that route with the PS3 and PSVita. Just because the WiiU wasn't released when Sony advertised it doesn't mean anything. If Sony marketed the colour changing light on the back of the controller but Nintendo made a new controller in the next 2 months with that added feature does that mean Nintendo did it first?

[SilentNegotiator]

@Yoda

There's no reason that the conversation couldn't expand other than you wanting to avoid very much related topics from weakening your argument.
Sony changed gaming interfaces with the Ps1.

@Darth

No one is saying that Ps1 "invented analog". Dual sticks wouldn't have "just" happened if someone hadn't brought the walk/camera method of dual sticks to gaming.

[pepsilover_2007]

With that logic Silent, you could very well be changing the subject, because while they are related it was about the original controller, just to avoid the original argument. He never disagreed with you, so that claim is unwarranted.

[SilentNegotiator]

It isn't "changing the subject" to not ignore the later half of Ps1's history in a conversation about PS1 controllers just because Yoda has decided that the internet cannot expand the discussion, even in immediately relevant topics (a controller on the exact same console of discussion and leading the industry).

[KwietStorm_BLM]

A beefed up SNES attachment?? The first PlayStation was in another universe from anything prior, especially cartridge based. I know all about the failed partnership, and I'm more than thankful that it didn't work out, but the system stands on its on as a while lot more than a beefed up attachment.

[darthv72]

"Dual sticks wouldn't have "just" happened if someone hadn't brought the walk/camera method of dual sticks to gaming." Sure they would. Companies had been toying with the use of analog controls long before the "walk/camera" use. Even colecovision used an analog stick. Difference between then and now is refinement. PC's used analog controls primarily for flight control games and the console market was going after that same precision which digital controls just couldnt do. It was a natural progression of control input.

in any case....Over the years there have been only 4 instances where the pack-in controller was eventually replaced for something better.

1) The genesis had the 3 button replaced with a 6 button.

2) PS1 original was replaced with the dual shock

3) xbox original (duke) was replaced with a smaller "S" type (more of a physical change than functional change)

4) PS3 sixaxis was replaced by the dual shock 3.

Every other console ever released had started and finished their run with the same controller. Now there were other controllers released for those systems but they never changed out the initial controller for a different one.

Okay, technically the NES top loader did get the dog bone shaped one but that really doesnt count because that was a total redesign of the system itself.

[shoddy]

They also follow bluray and online 3d movie

[SilentNegotiator]

@Darth

That's absurd. The change to dual sticks (and the function of the movement/camera method of control that came with it) is absolutely nothing like some additional buttons that do nothing to change function (other than there being more buttons to press) or a slight change in controller shape. MAYBE the six-axis if it had actually been used past 2007...that is a change in control FUNCTION, as was controlling characters with one stick and the camera with the other. THAT was revolutionary to game design and THAT was what Sony brought us during the 5th generation that changed how we played 3D games forever.

[nunley33]

I love sony and they've been the real innovators this generation but they have copied ninty numerous times. Does anyone remember the rumble pack? And now sony puts a speaker on it's PS4 controller, where did they get that idea from? I'm not knocking sony too much for these, i'm glad they diid it and we're all better off for it. Ninty did invent analg controll but the dual shock was a natural evolution of it and MS copied the design and put their own spin on it. Every good idea one company creates, the others will put out their own version of it.

[BOLO]

jimbob...MOAR ANALOGS = Innovative? Puuuleease.

[gamefiles]

lol sony riding nintendos wanker all these years.
how pathetic that sny copied wiiU with the game-pad feature. fuken shame

[dedicatedtogamers]

Sony paved their own way.

Nintendo sold 62 million NESs. The next gen, they sold 50 million SNESs.

The next gen, the PS1 comes out and Sony sells over 100 million systems while the N64 sells 33 million.

Yeah, sure looks like Sony was just "following" Nintendo by surpassing all of their console sales by an easy 40+ million...

[MasterCornholio]

And the PS2 sold over 155 million units while Nintendos gamecube only sold 20 million.

Now that was just embarrassing.

However Nintendo did a much better job with the Wii in comparison to Sony with the PS3. With the Wii selling 99 million and the PS3 selling 77 million.

[TongkatAli]

I love me some facts in the evening.

[Mr_Writer85]

Really? Much better?

99 - 70 = 22

100 - 33 = 67

155 - 21 = 134

So the Wii has so far sold 22millon more then PS3 no were near what the previous Sony consoles out sold Nintendo, and the only reason that the gap is even that big is because the Xbox 360 took a large bite out of Sony's market share.

I doubt the gap will ever close, but expect that 22million to be less in 3 years time when the PS3 is no longer supported (they are still only into their 7th year of its 10 year span, and Sony have a rep of supporting their old consoles).

The Wii won this gen, but not as big a margin as when previous gens.

[Tzuno]

You know that old movies with kung fu when the master train their apprentice and in the end the apprentice beat the master? Well Sony-nintendo is like that now. :) hachyyyyaaaa!!! Still i love the Snes Nr 1 console in my heart.

[GamersRulz]

"Sony was blind-sided by Nintendo’s move. Not only did they renege on their collaborative deal, they then partnered with Sony’s biggest competitor. Ken Kutaragi would not be deterred, however. He presented an idea to his superiors at Sony with the logic of “if you can’t join them – beat them.” A few years later the real deal came to fruition, the Sony PlayStation was born."

Nintendo regrets this move to this day. Lol

[Oner]

I'm sure everyone would agree they do.

But imagine if they didn't do, what they did? Who knows what kinds of games we would be playing (or not, by the same token)! Their "bad" choice helped push the modern gaming culture and arena to what it is today...and I for one and happy for their "mistake".

I mean think about it ~ if Nintendo had no real rivals back then would we be playing titles like Uncharted, Halo, Gran Turismo, CoD, Heavy Rain etc. etc. etc. today? Or would they have been just more primitive in technology thus shaping a different style/type of gaming/programming and so on?

[JamieL]

@ SilentNegotiator
Geez man, admit you were wrong and move on. He was talking about the "ORIGINAL" ps1 controller, and that’s it. Nothing else, even when you butted in with your "counter argument" he acknowledged you point was right, but that wasn't what he was talking about. You're just one of those people that can't be wrong. Well this time you were "DEAD WRONG", admit it and move on. Fighting so hard to make sure you "win" the argument regardless of the fact your wrong says a lot about you, and makes you look real bad.

All those post and “Oh, no I'm not wrong, everyone else is” is all I heard.

[BullyMangler]

you : Sony went above and beyond Nintendo and showed them how to realy do it and the thing is, they did something Nintendo couldn't do.

me: but nintendo STILL WINS (:

[DarkHeroZX]

"But Nintendo still wins"

says no one anywhere.

[BullyMangler]

DarkHeroinXP

let me know when you find Doctor Emmet Brown?

okay? ha!

[whateva]

More like they showed Nintendo how to do it right.

[Zodiac]

Sony has actually sold about 400 million consoles, but Nntendo has sold over 650 million, so they are indeed following, not leading.

The one who sells most is leading, and the one who sells less is following.

[whateva]

I said Consoles not Consoles & handhelds, Sony is in the lead when it come to Home Console sells

[skipper]

Nintendo and Sony are my choices for games. I think this time around Microsoft has their work cut out for them. It is all about the games for me. I don't have time in my life for 3 consoles and PC. So for me It will once again be Nintendo and Sony. After my second Ring Of Death in one year I sold my Xbox games and picked up PS3 (I already had Wii). That is how it will remain for me...UNLESS Microsoft blows my mind somehow.
Sony and Nintendo copy/learn from each other and that is not such a bad thing.

[Neonridr]

I had a Wii and 360 last generation. This time around I think I am going Wii U / PS4. That way I get my 1st party Nintendo titles, but then I don't miss out on the great Sony exclusives. The only IP that Microsoft has that I am interested in the least is the Alan Wake Series (Love those games). Other than that, Gears of War and Halo are completely stale, and I can get multiplats on the PS4 this time around.

[Neonridr]

It's crazy to think of what this world would be like had the SNES CD actually happened... Makes your head spin to think of where we would be now in the video game industry..

[KwietStorm_BLM]

Can't even imagine it. A large number of games wouldn't even exist, and Microsoft, if they still had stepped in, would basically be in control of the market, outside of the regular Nintendo audience. Although it's a possibility that Sega would still be around too.

[rainslacker]

MS was venturing into the console market before they released the Xbox. They were partnered with Sega, and helped fashion the Dreamcast to be what it was. The DC even ran Windows CE as it's operating system. It's hard to say where MS would have ended up had Sega not had to pull out of the console market.

I often look back on those days...as I was around back then and got old enough to really understand this stuff...and think to myself what if. When I think like that I always come away happy with the way things turned out, because even though this gen has been overly frustrating as a gamer, the games for the past 3 generations have been really amazing compared to gens prior to them.

[NastyLeftHook0]

LOL ITS APRIL FOLLS PEOPLE

[Neonridr]

That doesn't change the fact that this article is true. Sony was originally contracted to make the SNES CD addon, but the deal fell through...

[NastyLeftHook0]

i never said it wasn't. XD

[Silly gameAr]

So that's why after Nintendo, I gravitated toward Playstation. It all makes sense now :/.

Seriously though, I've gamed on almost every console released, but I consider Sony and Nintendo to be my go tos, and most respected brands when it comes to gaming. So, thanks Nintendo.

Now, about Microsoft, Sega and that console and controller design...

[NYC_Gamer]

I'm happy the deal failed/ made Sony wanna jump into the console market

[PeaSFor]

competition is always good

[rainslacker]

Interestingly, Sony wasn't really on board with getting into the console market after the Nintendo deal fell through. Kutaragi was not successful in selling it to the board members at Sony, partially because of the humiliation that they felt over Nintendo's actions. Sony also had relations with Phillips that they didn't want to jeopardize(namely in the development of DVD).

Kutaragi ended up having to shift his focus to Sony Music, which was a completely independent part of Sony at the time. This led to the formation of SCE, and the rest is as we know it today.

Nowadays, SCE is one of Sony's saving graces. I guess hindsight is 20/20 though.

[OmniSlashPT]

Since Sony has jumped on board Nintendo has always been 2nd place, even with the Wii (which apart from the casual, eyetoy clone based gimmicks, its nowhere near the quality of the ps3 or the 360).

Nintendo has survived this past 15 years solely with the handheld market and their 25 year old franchises that everyone loves.

Nintendo is trapped in the past, its a shame though.

[salva21]

Ok, so, the N64 and the GameCube are stronger than their competition (except Xbox) but sold less, so they're worse than Ps1 and 2.
But now, Wii sold more than Ps3, but Ps3 is stronger, so Ps3 is better??????
Sony always has to win, right?

[JamieL]

Yep, come on now man, this is N4G, don't act surprised.

[Prophet-Gamer]

In the long run I'm pretty certain the PS3 will sell more than the Wii lifetime. Even the 360 will probably reach 100 million (depending on how MS supports it).

[SIANSLOW]

Nintendo has survived because their software is the best in the business by a long way, people actually buy Nintendo exclusives, Sony and Microsoft fanboys bang on about the quality of their exclusives but they rarely sell over 5 million copies even triple A titles like tomb raider (which is a great game) aren't profitable which really begs the question, if your all such serious gamers, why don't you buy any games?

[KwietStorm_BLM]

Why don't they buy any games? lol.. There are a multitude of games available at any given time. Not every game is going to sell 10 million units. A "great" game is 100% subjective. Whether a game is profitable or not, however, comes down to inarguable numbers. Look at a game from Nintendo. Now look at the games that generally are not on Nintendo consoles. You tell me which budget has more to make up for in sales.

[smashcrashbash]

What BS are you going on about? Nintendo has a list of exclusives that didn't sell well on their consoles,didn't sell above 5 million units and were left out in the cold by the gamers.The only reason that people think the things you do is like most fanboys they only hide behind the games that do well and pretend the bombs and failures don't exist to make their console of choice look bad. You hide behind the well doing games skirts and reject any mention of the games that failed in score or sales

[SIANSLOW]

Yeah Nintendo also has a list that says the 15 top selling games of all time are Nintendo published exclusives, compare the sales of 2 games in direct competition such as Mario kart and lbp karting and it's laughable, maybe there is a list of games that didn't sell well but there can't be too many games that didn't score well

[JeepGamer]

Nintendo and Sega both were basically jerks back in the day. Believe me, companies that had worked with Nintendo closely were not surprised when Nintendo ran behind Sony's back like that.

Nintendo being Nintendo was the best thing that ever happened to the gaming industry. As the game developers put it 'Sony was first company we wanted to work with...' Rather than put stupid restrictions on them, Sony said 'do what you want'

[rainslacker]

Actually Sega got a lot of development support because they allowed developers more freedom on their consoles. Developers back then really didn't like working with Nintendo, but they had little choice since it was so dominate. EA especially heavily supported Sega, often marginalizing the NES releases to be the bare minimum to ensure sales.

Sega ran into a problem though when they started releasing so many add-ons and quick console releases that developers were becoming increasingly frustrated with them because they couldn't keep up, and by the time their games were ready Sega had moved on. It's why Sony got a lot of support, because they were very open in developer relations, and had a unified system that was easy to work with.

[tweet75]

ironically sony and nintendo may team up in a big way in 2014 if the wii u doesnt take off this year

[supremacy]

But Sony didn't follow Nintendo into the biz, they simply found themselves forced to because of a deal gone wrong.

Had they planned to follow them initially, they would have gone through with PlayStation whether or not Nintendo agreed to work with them. Meaning Sony themselves would have been the ones to bail out on the deal and ran with their idea without a hesitations notice, as oppose to what actually happened. This alone (to me) renders the article irrelevant as everything else you can say is standard as far as competition and market growth is concerned. Like No one ever asks themselves why did the Gamecube controllers alike the xbox ones shared the same 2 analog stick configuration that originated on PlayStation?
But why even ask ourselves this question when we can all agreed it doesn't really matter anyhow, a standard is a standard;regardless of who established it first. But like this article suggests companies follow each other around, instead of looking at it like as companies b,c and d are all interested in this market.

with that said the designs all share common things, but lets not forget why they do instead of saying they did it because they wanted to follow Nintendo.

Everything PlayStation was design to be was already set in motion pending an approval on some deal. So naturally why throw away the money already spent on something which in its own right could stand out and become its own entity?

Why not try and put it out there? And that's what basically happened. You can make the case that yes, PlayStation is here because of Nintendo, but don't say they are here because they followed them.

You can say Nintendo followed atari, and microsoft followed Sony and Sega Nintendo because these were the cases. Panasonic i am sure followed all those guys, but failed to succeed where Sony and MS have.

[PirateThom]

Actually, the board at Sony were ready to drop the entire project.

It was only because of Ken Kutaragi feeling slighted by Nintendo that Sony even released the thing and the entire mission statement for the thing was, basically, crush Nintendo.

Although, as an aside, and a fun fact, the SNES audio chip was developed by Sony, think how many amazing, memorable songs the SNES had and compare the quality to the Mega Drive. Sony and Nintendo working together could have been golden.... all because Nintendo wouldn't give Sony the rights to make games based on Nintendo IPs.... even though they then let Phillips.

[Deku-Johnny]

It makes you wonder what the industry would be like if Sony hadn't tried to con Nintendo.

[madjedi]

You mean if the gaming industry was stuck with a dictator that screwed developers over royally for it's own benefit, rather than work with them like sony and ms have done for everyones benefit.

Consoles would have been even more behind than pcs till likely ms had stepped in.

If sony hadn't taken nintendos crown and ran with it, we would be stuck with stubborn to change, typically repeat the same ips each gen nintendo. Sony advanced gaming nintendo in charge would have held it back.

Thank god sony was there to actually push gaming forward, not just rest on it's laurels. Jrpgs would have suffered horribly.

That takes some serious delusion to think the scenario you proposed would be a good thing.

Were you even gaming at the time, damn talk about a nightmare scenario for developers and gamers.

[Deku-Johnny]

Did you read what I put? I never said whether I thought it was good or not. All I said is that it makes you wonder. Maybe it would be like you said or maybe it wouldn't, maybe with Sony and Nintendo working together they'd push the industry forward more than either of them have alone. We'll never know but there's no reason to rant at me like I was hating on either of the companies.

[Jek_Porkins]

I think it's pretty clear that Sony looks up to Nintendo and pays a lot of homage to Nintendo as well. Just look at the dust fragments in Super Mario Brother's, you'll see the Sony logo, the triangle, square, Zero ect... That is where Sony got that idea from.

Also, in Japan Smash Bro's is called something like Nintendo All-Stars Battle or something similar, and that is pretty close to what Sony ended up calling their brawler. I don't think of it as a bad thing, just one company showing respect to the other.

[NateCole]

WTF?. Sony wanted console gaming to be a serious business like their walkman and TV business then i.e. also for adults and not just for kids. A legitimate entertainment business.

Sony also understood the importance of giving dev's more power and freedom unlike Nintendo that were real jerks to dev's as they were control freaks.

Sony wanted to exceed Nintendo which they did. Not follow them.

In a space of one console gen Sony pushed the gaming market way beyond anyone could have imagined and trumping king nintendo in the process.

[LOL_WUT]

I miss the OLD Nintendo. ;)

[MultiConsoleGamer]

Superior companies innovate. Inferior companies immitate.

Of course Nintendo stole a lot of ideas from Atari. But it's sony's timing that always makes their me-too products look so dubious, and kinda sleazy.

[Hicken]

Cool story, bro.

[telekineticmantis]

so can Sony.

[madjedi]

What do you mean if, like the powerglove by mattel.

[profgerbik]

Lol everyone takes notes from each other at least a good business will but Sony is not following anyones lead. Especially not even in 1994.

They tried to make the first disc drive for Nintendo but then decided to make the PS1 instead, I don't know how they were following Nintendo when they were actually going to advance their N64 by adding the disc drive peripheral which was then later made by Nintendo and it sucked. It failed miserably while the PS1 was booming.

Thank heavens Sony chose to not make the peripheral, they wouldn't be who they are today if they did.

They weren't following, especially not when Nintendo even needed them to make a better cd peripheral. The N64DD attachment was a complete failure and sadly I think even if Sony had made it for the N64 it still would have failed. Was probably easier for them to build their own system around it, instead of a cd peripheral around a system that never had one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

Now does everyone take notes from each other? Of course any business will, if they are a good one. If you aren't paying attention to what your competitors are doing and aren't trying to offer a better experience or product, you are running your business wrong.

SNES-CD would dominate, yes because the N64's, 64DD did just that.... Even more amusing seeing most the submissions made by this person are mainly Nintendo related.

[Evil_Ryu]

its funny how before they followed nintendo now they are following Microsoft with xbox live, kinect , online store, achievements and much more. I wish sony would stop following and become a leader again like they were in early 2000's.