Support NeoGAF

[Daneel Elijah]

They did things Nintendo and SEGA could not afford to do, there is a difference here. The marketing budget was unprecedented. AND they had a good product. But history has shown several examples of bad products finding success and good products not finding success. Because success comes from several factors.

I am been following your discussion with thicc_girls_are_teh_best and looked on Google if Sony really was outspending Sega and Nintendo so much. It seems that they did not spend that much more than Sega in 1999:

THE CUTTING EDGE / PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY : Game Makers Unleash Sales Firepower : Advertising & Marketing: Sega, Sony and Nintendo will spend a combined $400 million to compete this fall.

The big three video game makers are spending an amount about equal to Grenada's gross domestic product in their battle for supremacy over the fickle $6.3-billion video game business.

www.latimes.com

Hope that it help the discussion going in a positive direction.

 

[cireza]

You're downplaying the fact Sony were just very smart and creative with how they used their money to market PS1

After saying like 10 times that their strategy was extremely well made etc... (do I need to quote every single of my posts saying this ?) you manage to still try to make me say something I never said.

you're seemingly implying

Again. Maybe try to stop at what is actually written and stop guessing things ?

You're laying the blame on Sony for shortcomings of Sega & Nintendo that era

I am absolutely not. By the way, I don't think I said even once in this topic that it was a bad thing that Sony encountered success. Again, the word "blame" has been in response to my posts because you (and others) have a lot of imagination, but I was actually stating simple facts to begin with.

And if you have a poor marketing campaign for that novel regardless of how much money you put behind it, then no one will read it, either.

Of course. That's why you should give all chances to have great marketing and communication, which obviously comes at a cost.

Overall, it is okay to disagree on things. But I'd appreciate it if people would stop interpreting posts and imagining things, because this is ridiculous and dishonest.

1999

Thanks for contributing with the article. This wasn't console launch year for Sony, it was for SEGA, and Sony still managed to invest more. The discussion is more about 1995, but I don't think we can easily find numbers that old.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

Thanks for contributing with the article. This wasn't console launch year for Sony, it was for SEGA, and Sony still managed to invest more. The discussion is more about 1995, but I don't think we can easily find numbers that old.

You're welcome. Sony and Nintendo invested more than Sega that year in the article. I admit that Sony may have vastly spent more in 1995, but it was more of a choice for Sega to not do that much. They were
better financially in 1995 than 1999 so they proably could have spend close or as much than Sony.
i found that article for Sega in 1995 :

Press release: 1995-05-11: Sega Saturn gets astronomical send off with landmark marketing campaign - Sega Retro

segaretro.org

50 millions dollars. And Sega was a "nearly $4-billion company" at the time. To compare, the marketing budget for Super Mario Bros. 3 was $25 million in 1988. One game . Still looking for Sony numbers.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

 

[cireza]

They were
better financially in 1995 than 1999

This is definitely true. They were probably caught by surprise in the end, which further demonstrates how well everything was handled by Sony. SEGA were used to having a marketing budget and I suppose they did not think they had to make an extraordinary increase compared to what was used in the past years.