What has made the Play Station 1, 2 and 3 successful?

The other 2 systems are successful souly off what ps1 started. Back in 94/95 when the ps1 was released it had very little to compete with. The 16 bit generation was all but dead, and Saturn, segas competitor was vastly over priced, and looked inferior to the ps1 gameplay wise. All it's other competition such as the 3DO, Philips CDI, Atari Jaguar, Amiga cd 32 etc had already near enough failed. They were a lot more expensive, had barely any games worth mentioning and generally were total failures, which could be contributed to the fact most of the systems were just ahead of there time, and the world wasn't ready. The thing that made playstation different, is by the time it was released the CD platform had started to be more widely used, and game developers had gotten used to it. Another factor in Playstation breaking through to the mainstream like it did, is the fantastic support they had from developers such as psygnosis, Eidos/Core and all the others. Some of which, including psychosis have since become part of Sony..But this developer support more than anything is made it the console to own at the time. Its main competitor, Saturn while it had some great titles, it lacked in this area quite considerably, and even though was a much more powerful system on paper it was incredibly hard to develop games for. I also don't think it helped that a lot of sega customers felt a bit stung by the 32 X and Mega CD, which were expensive back then, and weren't supported very long by Sega.

I think another thing that made Playstation so popular is the way sony marketed it, and aimed it more at mature audiences, they recognised that gamers were getting older, and captialised on this, sure they had more childish games, and a lot of kids also owned them. But this was definitely more Nintendos territory.

Of course Nintendo came on the scene a few years later, with the fantastic Nintendo 64, but I think they were a little late to the party, and by this time Sony had a massive following, and huge library of games, mixed with a far more mature games, they just dominated that era.

They followed this same strategy with the PS2, in my opinion the ps2 is a very similar console, it's just improved in every single way. By the time 2000 came around hype about the ps2 was insane. Sega had a new console out a full year ahead, but a lot of people just didn't buy it and didn't care. I wouldn't say Dreamcast was worse than PS2, or even much less powerful. It had some great games, but ps2's hype killed dreamcast before ps2 was even released. For better or for worse they dominated the 5th and 6th generation eras.

By the time PS3 came around, Sony were now dealing with a company just as big, and as capable of crushing competition as them. They also made a few mistakes with PS3's launch, and let a few exclusive titles, such as assassins creed, and GTA 4 slip through there fingers. (yes assassins creed was originally a Playstation exclusive) While Microsofts Xbox was never a major threat to the PS2, they learned a lot from there successes and mistakes of the original Xbox, and even though the market these days is far bigger than it ever was in 95, microsoft have given sony a good run for there money, and are just as successful, as PS3. Which is a great thing because I think if sony still had the domination now, things wouldn't be good for gamers.

A lot of people (mainly nintendo fanboys) May accuse Sony of not being innovative with there systems, and perhaps lately, since gimmicks mean innovation, they really aren't But lets face it, there strategy made them incredibly successful in the gaming industry, and with the fact they were the first to make a success of a disc based system, and to be truely successful promoting games to adults, I would say the games industry wouldn't be quite the same now without the Playstation

The PSX was popular because it was the next generation in gaming. It was the step up from the SNES and Megadrive after failed attempts at using cds to put the games on by Nintendo and Sega.

The Dreamcast and N64 were rubbish so what other options were there?

The facelift PS1 came out in the same year as the PS2 for some strange reason.

The PS2 was released before the Xbox and Gamecube and as such had a jump on the market. Why buy an Xbox or Gamecube when the PS2 had already been out for a year and had a good selection of games to choose from already. Major game developers saw how popular the PS2 was and only released some of their titles on it.

I have heard people say that the PS2 never had a game that used its full potential.

The PS3 is so successful due to its power. Although slightly more expensive the the Xbox 360 it comes with a better spec as standard. I am lead to believe that you can buy add ons for the 360 to make it as good as the PS3, but by the time you have done that you would have ended up spending more then it would cost to buy a PS3.

The PS3 has a Bluray player and you don't have to pay to use your own internet connection. It is a must for anyone with more than 2 brain cells.

Each B96 and KISS-FM in Chicago have yet to play ALTNOY which makes me pissed. Both that or they've performed it at a time I used to be now not listening to the radio (tremendously doubt it via). All I hear from David on the radio is Crush that's it. There has bought to be a giant # of Arch Angels in the Chicago field and some of them have ought to requested it on one of the most two prime 40 stations.

the ps1 made ps successful. ps1 was the newest kind of technology in that time, the got the first one, so y not the second one. better longer games(with online) .the third one came out. the online took it to a whole new level.

simple

Sony did

they made Playstation better every time even the PSP became PSVita

so seriouslt the better the system the more success and happiness it brings

There fun and entertaining