Whether they caused the problem themselves is irrelevant.
Sony is obviously pretty dominant in the game console market all over the world, so the percentages mentioned don’t seem outlandish to me. Even if it was between 70 and 30%, not much would actually change.
It’s strange that Nintendo seems to be ignored and regulators seem to be able to segment within the console market (Nintendo) but they are hardly able to look outside the console market.
Competitors outside the console market (including Tencent and Nvidia) are primarily active in market segments where the pie has yet to be divided. MS also came to this conclusion, just like potential competitors (Google, Amazon, Tencent, Apple) and never brought its own game console to the market.
Sony is actually only active in the game console market (others are either extensions of this or relatively small in terms of turnover), which no one can ignore and money splashing on the bases because of this dominant position.
Sony is now also forced out of the gaming hardware market, which requires high and continuous investments and suddenly turns out to be a relatively small and weak player compared to potential competitors (Microsoft, Amazon, Tencent, Nvdia, FB, Google, etc.). The comparison with Nintendo’s scenario isn’t far-fetched.
To me the most surprising thing about the acquisition problems is that Sony always announced that it was all about first party AAA games and it turned out to be the main one few Third party games (FIFA, CoD, etc.; including microtransactions) account for the majority of the sales volume generated from this which Sony didn’t have to work hard for, partly due to their apparent dominant position in the market. Note: I’m not saying first-party games aren’t important, but it’s less important than previously thought).
Sony is also lucky that Microsoft has no knowledge of consumer marketing and Sony has the perfect handle.
“Professional web ninja. Certified gamer. Avid zombie geek. Hipster-friendly baconaholic.”