Support NeoGAF

[Chuck Norris]

Everything Sony does is affected by their culture. Everything any company does is affected by their culture.

no, internal factors are affected by company culture. External actors have nothing to do with it.

They released a high quality product into a market that is being consumed and made irrelevant by an entirely different market (phones and tablets). At best you could argue that they could have foreseen the market shrinking, but you can make the same argument against Nintendo. And like Nintendo, they were always going to make a successor to their highly successful portable. The only room handhelds have left is as a budget device. Like 3DS, any sales for Vita will only come after a price drop and probably only in Japan.

 

[Dire]

Perhaps the failure of the VITA has humbled them. I think that's what they need to be honest. They need to get back to being the underdog, and push gaming and not tech.

Completely agreed. Sony was a phenomenal company that was ultimately hurt most by their own success. One of the biggest examples I can think of here is Reeves publicly stating that the first 5million would buy a PS3, whatever it is, even if it didn't have games. That was just mind bogglingly foolish; I'm not referring to the veracity of his statement but that he would even be willing to publicly say such a thing. It shows that taking their success for granted had become policy, which is a sure fire way to end up failing.

But Sony has now paid the price for hubris several times over and I expect will be able to get back to the core of what gave them those successes in the first place. So while I have no specific insights into their current corporate culture, I simply must believe that Sony has learned from their mistakes and if they have then the answer to OP's question is a clear yes.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I can understand this perspective, but for example, EA just announced that Battlefield 3 has hit 17 million units, while the peak of Call of Duty was 25 million.

Back in the Bad Company 1 days, they maxed out at 2.5 million copies.

I don't think many people would consider this a failure.

If they can prop up something like Killzone or a new IP as a 7 million unit selling FPS, that would be less than Halo, but it would also put them in a good competitive position, and raises the potential of getting people who would buy an Xbox 720 to either also buy a PlayStation 4 or perhaps even buy a PlayStation 4 instead.

I feel this was even a fair share of the approach Microsoft took to trying to fight Sony when they first entered the market. Sony had Metal Gear so Microsoft brought Splinter Cell. Sony had Final Fantasy so Microsoft brought Elder Scrolls, Fable KotOR. Sony had Devil May Cry so Microsoft brought Ninja Gaiden. Sony had Gran Turismo so Microsoft brought Forza. They did also come in with a bit of their own direction with Halo, but that was in addition to trying to have "answers" to the games their competitor was pushing.

If we assume Sony has the best cinematic singleplayer games, that doesn't mean they shouldn't also try to compete heavily against their competitor's biggest advantage. They can certainly try to find a third unique angle as well, but not trying to address their competitor at all seems a bit unwise to me.

I see what you're saying and I agree.

For the record though, I will say that I don't believe Sony should abandon the single player experience. Just that hanging their fortunes on those titles alone is silly.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Did we really need them though

That is what I'm saying

If Resistance 1 sold Good, and 2 sold Meh, who goes, Yeah do 3, which sold worse than 2!

You role out KZ2 to success, but the KZ3 Beta turned off so many users, but words weren't heeded, lackluster sales again

Sooner or later there is writing on the wall, Sony is to stubborn too learn

Resistance maybe, but it always seemed like a last chance effort for the Sony-Insomniac relationship.

You expect them to cancel a game based in beta feedback? What are you even trying to say. Lol

You act like Nintendo and MS have never released an unsuccessful game

 

[Nirolak]

I see what you're saying and I agree.

For the record though, I will say that I don't believe Sony should abandon the single player experience. Just that hanging their fortunes on those titles alone is silly.

I totally agree with you there. They shouldn't dump their primary strength while searching for another, since usually that's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Globox_82]

What worries me most about the PS4 is the state of Sony first party games. Everyone always mentions it as a strength and they do have a bunch of franchises, but none of them are particularly good. Uncharted 3 was disappointing, God of War is milked to death and no longer exciting, GT5 has been significantly outdone by Forza and Criterion, resistance, infamous and killzone are alright but no one buys them. They release a ton of 7/10 or 8/10 level first party games with no franchise having an impact like Gears or Halo. I think the hardware will be fine but I have no confidence in Sony to release quality exclusives for it or to have a functional UI.

You sound like a troll, but you are junior so it makes sense. On one hand you mention sales to dismiss the game. When you can't do that you call games crap (u3, Gow "milking"). You can make exactly the same argument about MS IPs. GeOW does not sell more then Uncharted. First 3 Uncharted games sold 21 million if my memory is correct. On average 7 million per game. Ok let's say it sells between 6-7 million. Does Gears sell more then that? I doubt it. And even if it sells slightly more don't see how it makes it more relevant. Big GOW games (I, II, II) Sold on average 5 million. Impressive. Milking? Sure so is Halo franchise. Whato ther IPs MS has that sell better or huge? Forza vs GT? I doubt any Forza game is going to reach GT WW numbers in this century.
Fable? Please.
Now when it comes to taste I can respect your opinion that you don't like Sony IPs, but MS does NOT have the level of high quality exclusive that Sony has, and calibre of First party studios. They might need another gen to get close....considering that Sony does nothing in that same gen.

 

[Iacobellis]

Sony can overtake the competitors and become the champ again in video games. They need a fair launch price, decent lineup, stellar online services, appropriate launch date, and a key feature to sway customers. Nintendo is doing a tablet-like controller and Microsoft will most likely go the family friendly route with a mix of integration between other Windows devices.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Completely agreed. Sony was a phenomenal company that was ultimately hurt most by their own success. One of the biggest examples I can think of here is Reeves publicly stating that the first 5million would buy a PS3, whatever it is, even if it didn't have games. That was just mind bogglingly foolish; I'm not referring to the veracity of his statement but that he would even be willing to publicly say such a thing. It shows that taking their success for granted had become policy, which is a sure fire way to end up failing.

But Sony has now paid the price for hubris several times over and I expect will be able to get back to the core of what gave them those successes in the first place. So while I have no specific insights into their current corporate culture, I simply must believe that Sony has learned from their mistakes and if they have then the answer to OP's question is a clear yes.

Personally, I think a big part of where Sony let themselves go wrong in their arrogance was in not taking seriously "Playstation culture". This is a legacy they built themselves. They paid lip service to it several times, including in citing the Playstation brand represented a platform - only to then make decisions such as removing PS2 compatibility from the PS3, cost issues or not. They didn't have any idea what to do with stuff like Home, which could have been a major way to reinforce the sense that Playstation was an entire subculture unto itself.

And probably the biggest mistake there, is that they didn't insure early on that PS3 launched with what matters - the games. Iconic Playstation franchises like Gran Turismo where nowhere to be seen for years. While some great new IP did arise early on, chiefly Uncharted, all the content that fans expected to see on a sexy new PS console arrived with more of a whimper than a bang.

Funny enough, the LittleBigPlanet franchise strikes me as more the kind of "culture building" that Sony should have been focused on in a widespread sense from day one, and I do think they are kind of starting to grasp it all now, with hindsight.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

no, internal factors are affected by company culture. External actors have nothing to do with it.

They released a high quality product into a market that is being consumed and made irrelevant by an entirely different market (phones and tablets). At best you could argue that they could have foreseen the market shrinking, but you can make the same argument against Nintendo. And like Nintendo, they were always going to make a successor to their highly successful portable. The only room handhelds have left is as a budget device. Like 3DS, any sales for Vita will only come after a price drop and probably only in Japan.

company culture dictates what products are produced, what they look like and their function, and their market. How company operates internally influences their external output.

Sony's Vita is failing in a number of facets that Sony should have seen coming, yet they chose to release it as is anyway. That's a failing of their decision making, just as releasing a 600 dollar console with the belief that it would sell with no games was.

 

[Metallix87]

You act like Nintendo and MS have never released an unsuccessful game

The difference is that Nintendo and Microsoft wouldn't keep making more games in an unsuccessful franchise. They'd either focus on more successful franchises, or attempt new franchises in the hopes of doing better.

Killzone and Resistance are done. There's no reason for any more games in those two franchises, IMO. Sony should take what they've learned from those two franchises, and use that knowledge to create a new FPS IP with more longevity and with a lot more focus on maintaining a fanbase.

 

[H_Prestige]

Their primary strength was never software development in the first place. That's Nintendo's and MS' forte.

Sony's strength was getting a crap load of developers, big and small, to make games for their systems and not the competition. They got full of themselves with the ps3 and assumed they no longer had to work for the support. And so they lost it.

 

[Chuck Norris]

company culture dictates what products are produced, what they look like and their function, and their market. How company operates internally influences their external output.

Sony's Vita is failing in a number of facets that Sony should have seen coming, yet they chose to release it as is anyway. That's a failing of their decision making, just as releasing a 600 dollar console with the belief that it would sell with no games was.

And what facets were those?

The difference is that Nintendo and Microsoft wouldn't keep making more games in an unsuccessful franchise. They'd either focus on more successful franchises, or attempt new franchises in the hopes of doing better.

Killzone and Resistance are done. There's no reason for any more games in those two franchises, IMO. Sony should take what they've learned from those two franchises, and use that knowledge to create a new FPS IP with more longevity and with a lot more focus on maintaining a fanbase.

Resistance sold 4 million. It's dwindled down now and Somy have put the franchise to bed.
Killzone 2 was a commercial and critical success. Why wouldn't they make a sequel?

It's like shitting on MS for making Crackdown 2. Or for making a new Fable which doesn't have the selling power it used to.

And Nintendo fans sure love Nintendo for ignoring the smaller sellers like Fzero, Starfox, Mother etc. don't they?

 

[Misterinenja]

GeOW does not sell more then Uncharted. First 3 Uncharted games sold 21 million if my memory is correct. On average 7 million per game. Ok let's say it sells between 6-7 million. Does Gears sell more then that? I doubt it. And even if it sells slightly more don't see how it makes it more relevant. Big GOW games (I, II, II) Sold on average 5 million. Impressive. Milking?

I'm really interested in this. Are you sure you're not pulling those numbers out of your ass?

 

[Man God]

The worst thing Sony ever did in the FPS space was trying to back two of them as their Halo counterpart instead of focusing everything behind one.

 

[Ramblin]

I'm really interested in this. Are you sure you're not pulling those numbers out of your ass?

Well PS3 fans have to buy something other than HD remakes.

 

[Metallix87]

The worst thing Sony ever did in the FPS space was trying to back two of them as their Halo counterpart instead of focusing everything behind one.

Indeed. Instead of having a strong FPS franchise to compete with Halo, CoD, Battlefield, and MoH, they have two FPS franchises that have failed in the long run.

Abandon both IPs, and create a single new FPS IP to back moving forward.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Another Sony is doomed post? Seems like we get one of these every day, and yeah Sony as a whole is struggling, but their console business is actually very strong right now.

They're the best selling console world wide with the ps3 this year. They're growing their psn business and Playstation plus service. Financially their gaming division is doing well.

For the PS4 im really not worried. Kaz inherited a ps3 situation that was a disaster and made it respectable. He's now the CEO.

Citing the Vita isn't a good argument. Vita is one of Sony's best hardware designs that there's unfortunately not a market for. It's totally different from the console landscape, and if they design the PS4 with the same philosophies that went into the Vita, they will be just fine.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

And what facets were those?

Price
Library
function (3G? What the hell did Vita need 3G service for?)
Direction (The portable home console was a flop with the PSP yet they decided to revisit it?)

 

[Reiko]

You sound like a troll, but you are junior so it makes sense. On one hand you mention sales to dismiss the game. When you can't do that you call games crap (u3, Gow "milking"). You can make exactly the same argument about MS IPs. GeOW does not sell more then Uncharted. First 3 Uncharted games sold 21 million if my memory is correct. On average 7 million per game. Ok let's say it sells between 6-7 million. Does Gears sell more then that? I doubt it. And even if it sells slightly more don't see how it makes it more relevant. Big GOW games (I, II, II) Sold on average 5 million. Impressive. Milking? Sure so is Halo franchise. Whato ther IPs MS has that sell better or huge? Forza vs GT? I doubt any Forza game is going to reach GT WW numbers in this century.
Fable? Please.
Now when it comes to taste I can respect your opinion that you don't like Sony IPs, but MS does NOT have the level of high quality exclusive that Sony has, and calibre of First party studios. They might need another gen to get close....considering that Sony does nothing in that same gen.

I thought the Uncharted series topped out at 17 million?

 

[Misterinenja]

Well PS3 fans have to buy something other than HD remakes.

I know they sell well. I was just under the impression that Gears series was a sales juggernaut (or that's what the MS hype machine wants me to believe).

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

All I care about is their first party studios. 3rd party will get fixed next gen.

We know that most of their great first party studio like ND, SSM, GG, MM, SP now have two teams. They learned not to invest in B or C teams to make mediocre games. Instead investing in second team in their best studios, makes sense. Just look at The Last of Us

Just to correct you MM has one team. 15 people of that team are working on Tearaway. When did SP expand into 2 teams? GG has 2 teams after the merger. One of their teams is developing Killzone Mercenaries.

 

[Metallix87]

Citing the Vita isn't a good argument. Vita is one of Sony's best hardware designs that there's unfortunately not a market for. It's totally different from the console landscape, and if they design the PS4 with the same philosophies that went into the Vita, they will be just fine.

I disagree with this 100%. Vita was a failure because Sony refused to adapt to the market. They created an expensive piece of tech, made pricey memory cards mandatory, didn't put their big developers to work on content for the system, and lastly didn't create content geared towards the primary audience of the handheld gaming space.

Would a PS4 following this philosophy do better? Well, the content would likely sell better, but the fact is, if Sony didn't get their top developers to support the PS4, it would likely be a colossal failure, too.

Vita was a disaster, yes, but let's not pretend that it's simply because there was no market for the device. That may be a factor, yes, but there were other factors at play, some of which were more important.

 

[Globox_82]

I'm really interested in this. Are you sure you're not pulling those numbers out of your ass?

I mixed numbers and was a bit off, still these numbers are impressive. No one can deny that

The exact figure given by Sony was “over 17,320,000″ as of April 12, 2012
http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/24/uncharted-series-hits-17-million-sales-uc3-goty-edition-confirmed/

That’s 21.6 million God of War games sold worldwide
http://www.siliconera.com/2012/06/17/god-war-series-worldwide-sales-show-god-war-iii-at-the-top/

 

[Ramblin]

I know they sell well. I was just under the impression that Gears series was a sales juggernaut (or that's what the MS hype machine wants me to believe).

I'm only fucking around, they're both successful, only "gamers" care who has the high score.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Price
Library
function (3G? What the hell did Vita need 3G service for?)
Direction (The portable home console was a flop with the PSP yet they decided to revisit it?)

Launch lineup was strong, launched with an Uncharted game

Price was reasonable. Same price as PSP launched at. Fantastic for the hardware and made all the more reasonable by 3DS launching at the same price

PSP sold 71 million units, and had been dominating the Japanese markets for the past two or three years. How on Earth was PSP a flop? Please enlighten me

Frankly they hit all the right notes with Vita. But the market is changing and there is less room for this sort of dedicated gaming machine on the go

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

I disagree with this 100%. Vita was a failure because Sony refused to adapt to the market. They created an expensive piece of tech, made pricey memory cards mandatory, didn't put their big developers to work on content for the system, and lastly didn't create content geared towards the primary audience of the handheld gaming space.

Would a PS4 following this philosophy do better? Well, the content would likely sell better, but the fact is, if Sony didn't get their top developers to support the PS4, it would likely be a colossal failure, too.

Vita was a disaster, yes, but let's not pretend that it's simply because there was no market for the device. That may be a factor, yes, but there were other factors at play, some of which were more important.

Sony basically did everything right, design wise, for the Vita.

Is not an expensive piece of tech and the memory card situation is overblown. From a software perspective they have a ton of really good games out, the problem is that the market just doesn't care. They're content playing AAA on consoles and angry birds on mobile, there really isn't much of a market for the in between.

Sony couldn't have designed the system any differently that would have assured a different positive outcome.

 

[Globox_82]

Just to correct you MM has one team. 15 people of that team are working on Tearaway. When did SP expand into 2 teams? GG has 2 teams after the merger. One of their teams is developing Killzone Mercenaries.

Guerrilla Games, known for the Killzone series, has three new titles currently underway. Guerrilla’s Studio Art Director Jan-Bart van Beek informed GDC attendees of this news during an art process panel.

Two of the titles that are in production are Killzone-related. One is for the Playstation — however, it is unknown whether this is Killzone 4 or DLC for Killzone 3 — and the other is Killzone Vita (working title). The third game Guerilla Games is currently working on is a new unnanounced IP.

No information on the new IP was revealed, but it was stated that the idea came out of 32 ideas pitched by team members. These ideas ranged from a Ghost in the Shell game to a game revolving around a steampunk-style Sherlock Holmes where the detective fights popular monsters (ex: Frankenstein).

None of those ideas, as interesting as they may be, made the final cut. Whatever the team decided to do for their new IP, they’re obviously very excited about it. Now we just have to wait and see what they can do outside of Killzone.
http://www.justpushstart.com/2012/03/guerrilla-games-working-on-3-new-projects/

Happy?

When it comes to MM they are working on two games Tearaway and another new IP
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/20670...-ip-even-more-ambitious-than-littlebigplanet/
Developer had confirmed a second project was underway alongside Vita title Tearaway

Two teams, two games, same crap.

 

[Setsuna]

Why are people talking as if Sony is in worse shape than they actually are?

they speak of the ps3 as if its a failed console when its been outselling the 360 over these last years. not to mention trying to say that Sony cant have 2 video games of the same genre like come on

 

[Ramblin]

Sony basically did everything right, design wise, for the Vita.

Is not an expensive piece of tech and the memory card situation is overblown. From a software perspective they have a ton of really good games out, the problem is that the market just doesn't care. They're content playing AAA on consoles and angry birds on mobile, there really isn't much of a market for the in between.

Sony couldn't have designed the system any differently that would have assured a different positive outcome.

I think the biggest failure in the Vita's design is the lack of differentiation from the PSP for the casual game player.

 

[Metallix87]

Launch lineup was strong, launched with an Uncharted game

Price was reasonable. Same price as PSP launched at. Fantastic for the hardware and made all the more reasonable by 3DS launching at the same price

PSP sold 71 million units, and had been dominating the Japanese markets for the past two or three years. How on Earth was PSP a flop? Please enlighten me

Frankly they hit all the right notes with Vita. But the market is changing and there is less room for this sort of dedicated gaming machine on the go

1.) Said Uncharted game wasn't made by the main development studio behind the franchise, and consumers knew that. On top of this, there's a strong argument for Uncharted being a strong seller, but not a strong system seller

2.) Comparing to the PSP is foolish, since PSP launched in the height of the PS2's popularity. Back then, Playstaton was the biggest name in gaming. Today? Nintendo and Xbox are bigger names.

3.) PSP was a "flop" in that Sony did little to aid it's success. When sales started to decline, they more or less abandoned ship, and honestly they never had their best development studios working on content for the device. The system later became a success when Monster Hunter hit the scene and exploded in popularity. PSP's success was due to Capcom, not Sony.

4.) 3DS says there is a market for that type of device, but you need to provide content from your best developers that also aims to appeal to the core audience for handhelds. Sony shot themselves in the foot by aiming for PS3 owners primarily. It was a baffling move, when the audience best known to game on handhelds is little kids and young teens. The mandatory memory cards was even more baffling.

 

[ElFly]

I don't know if the Vita is an example of how things will go with the PS4.

Regardless of which CEO commissioned the Vita, clearly Sony just wants it to go away. No price drop, no first party games -Gran Turismo hasn't even been announced for it-, no ports of popular exclusive games -Tokyo Jungle barely has received a patch for remote play in japan only-.

Sony really did the Vita cause they felt obligated to create a successor to the PSP, not really trying to conquer any market with it. When people feel surprised that they couldn't money hat Monster Hunter for it, well, think of how much money Sony has really put into Vita development in the first place.

 

[Canis lupus]

Kaz Hirai runs that shit now, I believe he will turnaround the company's future. Its too early to judge him yet.

 

[Count Dookkake]

.

 

[H_Prestige]

I don't know if the Vita is an example of how things will go with the PS4.

Regardless of which CEO commissioned the Vita, clearly Sony just wants it to go away. No price drop, no first party games -Gran Turismo hasn't even been announced for it-, no ports of popular exclusive games -Tokyo Jungle barely has received a patch for remote play in japan only-.

Sony really did the Vita cause they felt obligated to create a successor to the PSP, not really trying to conquer any market with it. When people feel surprised that they couldn't money hat Monster Hunter for it, well, think of how much money Sony has really put into Vita development in the first place.

Why did they feel obligated? They didn't have to do it. The writing was on the wall.

 

[Metallix87]

Sony basically did everything right, design wise, for the Vita.

Is not an expensive piece of tech and the memory card situation is overblown. From a software perspective they have a ton of really good games out, the problem is that the market just doesn't care. They're content playing AAA on consoles and angry birds on mobile, there really isn't much of a market for the in between.

Sony couldn't have designed the system any differently that would have assured a different positive outcome.

The only flaw with the system's design, IMO, is that there's no onboard memory. There should've been at least a gig or two in the actual system to make memory cards optional.

As for the "really good games" argument, that's great, it really is, but you need more than that. You need system sellers, and you need content geared towards the primary consumer base. Sony fails in these two respects. The fact that a Gran Turismo for Vita hasn't even been announced yet is proof that Sony isn't taking this platform seriously. Their biggest franchise, the one that could possibly be defined as a system seller, and it's nowhere to be found on Vita.

The market would've been there for Vita had Sony made content geared towards the market that would be interested in handheld gaming. Simple as that.

 

[GraveRobberX]

Resistance maybe, but it always seemed like a last chance effort for the Sony-Insomniac relationship.

You expect them to cancel a game based in beta feedback? What are you even trying to say. Lol

You act like Nintendo and MS have never released an unsuccessful game

Not cancel but realize that if no one is going to buy it in the condition it is, should you at least try to fix or assess the situation

I'm not doom & glooming Sony, I'm just saying they never learn

If there are 400 FPS, why on earth would you to try to go "Hey!, over here, us too!, we're just like those titles", then when the market says nothnx, you go lets try again they didn't understand it last time

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Why are people talking as if Sony is in worse shape than they actually are?

they speak of the ps3 as if its a failed console when its been outselling the 360 over these last years. not to mention trying to say that Sony cant have 2 video games of the same genre like come on

Some members on this board only remember the doom and gloom of ps3s early days and don't recognize the dramatic shift that's occurred nice then.

They also hear the headlines that Sony is in bad shape and seem to think this also applies to their console business.

 

[Canis lupus]

PS4 will be a better investment than the PS3 was, thats for sure. We all know Sony will not repeat the PS3 launch problems. Rumours suggest they'll go with AMD components this time, that sounds like the Vita approach.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

1.) Said Uncharted game wasn't made by the main development studio behind the franchise, and consumers knew that. On top of this, there's a strong argument for Uncharted being a strong seller, but not a strong system seller

2.) Comparing to the PSP is foolish, since PSP launched in the height of the PS2's popularity. Back then, Playstaton was the biggest name in gaming. Today? Nintendo and Xbox are bigger names.

3.) PSP was a "flop" in that Sony did little to aid it's success. When sales started to decline, they more or less abandoned ship, and honestly they never had their best development studios working on content for the device. The system later became a success when Monster Hunter hit the scene and exploded in popularity. PSP's success was due to Capcom, not Sony.

4.) 3DS says there is a market for that type of device, but you need to provide content from your best developers that also aims to appeal to the core audience for handhelds. Sony shot themselves in the foot by aiming for PS3 owners primarily. It was a baffling move, when the audience best known to game on handhelds is little kids and young teens. The mandatory memory cards was even more baffling.

3DS really doesn't bolster your argument since its not doing very well outside of Japan.

The market has changed, and Sony/Nintendo needed to at least try to sustain their relative positions in the mobile space, but the transition has occurred and its not coming back for either Nintendo or Sony.

The only thing they can do is try and put their content on all mobile platforms, I think Sony will do this with their Gaikai acquisition.

 

[ElFly]

Why did they feel obligated? They didn't have to do it. The writing was on the wall.

It's hard to say without any insider source, but I am gonna say "cause they are dumb". Maybe the old CEO said to Kaz, hey Nintendo is making a new handheld, what do we have to counter that, and it all started from there.

I said that they felt obligated to it, cause they really have done the bare minimum for it.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Some members on this board only remember the doom and gloom of ps3s early days and don't recognize the dramatic shift that's occurred nice then.

They also hear the headlines that Sony is in bad shape and seem to think this also applies to their console business.

And other members seem to think that all that matters is selling hardware units. PS3 has been on the market for 6 whole years now and they still have yet to figure out how to make any kind of meaningful amount of profit despite selling a similar amount of hardware as their main competitor. And to top it off they've repeatedly forecast that this fiscal year their gaming profit will be slashed down from last years meager profit margin.

A console business that can't actually make any money on the units it sells isn't just in bad shape, it has no reason to exist.

 

[Metallix87]

3DS really doesn't bolster your argument since its not doing very well outside of Japan.

The market has changed, and Sony/Nintendo needed to at least try to sustain their relative positions in the mobile space, but the transition has occurred and its not coming back for either Nintendo or Sony.

The only thing they can do is try and put their content on all mobile platforms, I think Sony will do this with their Gaikai acquisition.

3DS is doing MUCH better in the West than the Vita, and it's main problem selling is still the fact that content isn't being released fast enough. Still, Nintendo has an ace up it's sleeve in the form of Pokemon Gen 6, and when that hits in either 2013 or 2014, sales will boom.

 

[Chuck Norris]

1.) Said Uncharted game wasn't made by the main development studio behind the franchise, and consumers knew that. On top of this, there's a strong argument for Uncharted being a strong seller, but not a strong system seller

2.) Comparing to the PSP is foolish, since PSP launched in the height of the PS2's popularity. Back then, Playstaton was the biggest name in gaming. Today? Nintendo and Xbox are bigger names.

3.) PSP was a "flop" in that Sony did little to aid it's success. When sales started to decline, they more or less abandoned ship, and honestly they never had their best development studios working on content for the device. The system later became a success when Monster Hunter hit the scene and exploded in popularity. PSP's success was due to Capcom, not Sony.

4.) 3DS says there is a market for that type of device, but you need to provide content from your best developers that also aims to appeal to the core audience for handhelds. Sony shot themselves in the foot by aiming for PS3 owners primarily. It was a baffling move, when the audience best known to game on handhelds is little kids and young teens. The mandatory memory cards was even more baffling.

1) Strong argument based on what?

2) Oh yeah comparing a system to its direct predecessor is foolish. The majority of PSPs sales came in the shadow of Nintendo DS, so I fail to see how your point has any relevance

3) Sony priced it competitively, secured exclusives like Final Fantasy and MGS games, released well timed hardware revisions. Frankly all this Vita is dead business just stinks of premature ejaculation, people were saying exactly the same of 3DS before its price drop. And the same of PSP before its price drop. And the same of DS before its price drop. Heck, I can't think of a single handheld that has had a completely smooth first year on the market

4) They aimed it at the same audience as PSP. That audience has shrunk immeasurably in the West. But I agree the low budget handheld is the only remaining segment of this market and it really does not seem big enough to share, which is the problem Sony faces.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Because Sony have strong 1st party studios I think the PS4 can launch with great software in its first year, also rumours with Sony going for skmething less confusing than the cell they will have 3rd parties onboard. So its a matter of Microsoft exclusives vs Sony exclusives, and lately Sony has been good with exclusives. We dont know what Sucker Punch, Guerilla Games team 2, Evolution, Polyphonic and Naughty Dogg Team 2 have been developing si ce their last game, I am sure they are developing aome vig PS4 exclusives.

Depends on what region you are talking about. Sony's first party is basically null in Japan.

 

[gaming_noob]

I would be more concerned about MS' revolving door culture over Sony's. MS seems to change direction every year.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

It's hard to say without any insider source, but I am gonna say "cause they are dumb". Maybe the old CEO said to Kaz, hey Nintendo is making a new handheld, what do we have to counter that, and it all started from there.

I said that they felt obligated to it, cause they really have done the bare minimum for it.

Sony's biggest failing with Vita has been Japan, and that's why they brought the Vita out to begin with. PSP was doing very well over there and they dropped the ball completely with Vita in that region. I suppose it can still be salvaged over there if they bring out the right content, but they didn't take the right steps software wise to ensure its success, Nintendo did whatever it took to get monster hunter platform exclusivity and its paying off for them.

 

[Dabanton]

I don't know if the Vita is an example of how things will go with the PS4.

Regardless of which CEO commissioned the Vita, clearly Sony just wants it to go away. No price drop, no first party games -Gran Turismo hasn't even been announced for it-, no ports of popular exclusive games -Tokyo Jungle barely has received a patch for remote play in japan only-.

Sony really did the Vita cause they felt obligated to create a successor to the PSP, not really trying to conquer any market with it. When people feel surprised that they couldn't money hat Monster Hunter for it, well, think of how much money Sony has really put into Vita development in the first place.

Nope the Vita was all about not letting Nintendo have the whole traditional handheld market to themselves but it's looking like that's what will happen anyway.

They been outmaneuvered quite easily by Nintendo in the most important handheld nation, Japan.

The western situation is a bit different that's more about them thinking that there is a huge base of people who want to play console games on a smaller screen. Look at the misfire of CoDeclassified which from the videos they've released so far completely misses the point of the main console game and why people play it.

The whole Vita strategy is just half assed all the way. If CoD and AC flop it's done completely in terms of big third party games being made exclusively for the system.

 

[Principate]

Sony basically did everything right, design wise, for the Vita.

Is not an expensive piece of tech and the memory card situation is overblown. From a software perspective they have a ton of really good games out, the problem is that the market just doesn't care. They're content playing AAA on consoles and angry birds on mobile, there really isn't much of a market for the in between.

Sony couldn't have designed the system any differently that would have assured a different positive outcome.

How just, how, it was bad idea from the start. In practically all facets it was a psp 2 and we know how what occured with the psp. The psp at least had the ps2 and brand popularity to push it intially, the vita had nothing. The only logical reason to make a psp 2 was to for the Japanese market, except they launched with no real backwards compatibilty, and an expensive price tag (system and required memory cards), essentially making a product that competed with the various advantages acquired over the years from it's previous product, at a higher price tag.

I actually surpised how Sony could handle the entire thing so badly. It was all so predictale how things would occur withe decisions they made.

 

[Currygan]

only if they can learn from Vita and Nintendo's relatively low pricing policy

in short, if they can act the polar opposite of what they're doing now

 

[Metallix87]

1) Strong argument based on what?

2) Oh yeah comparing a system to its direct predecessor is foolish. The majority of PSPs sales came in the shadow of Nintendo DS, so I fail to see how your point has any relevance

3) Sony priced it competitively, secured exclusives like Final Fantasy and MGS games, released well timed hardware revisions. Frankly all this Vita is dead business just stinks of premature ejaculation, people were saying exactly the same of 3DS before its price drop. And the same of PSP before its price drop. And the same of DS before its price drop. Heck, I can't think of a single handheld that has had a completely smooth first year on the market

4) They aimed it at the same audience as PSP. That audience has shrunk immeasurably in the West. But I agree the low budget handheld is the only remaining segment of this market and it really does not seem big enough to share, which is the problem Sony faces.

1.) Based on the fact that Uncharted couldn't really move PS3 systems or Vita systems. It's not a strong enough franchise to really move hardware in a meaningful way.

2.) Of course it's foolish, since Sony today and Sony in 2004 are two entirely different companies. Sony back then was still the king of gaming, and it's hard to dismiss that. That's why sales started out so strong for PSP, and why Sony was able to secure so many strong third party exclusives for the device.

3.) The difference is, PSP and 3DS each had lots of content announced as on the way, and in PSP's case, it's recovery ended up being a miracle brought on by an unlikely new franchise, Monster Hunter. Vita's future looks extremely bleak, with third parties avoiding it like the plague, and Sony refusing to put their top tier developers on the platform.

4.) Again, it has less to do with pricing, and more to do with the type of content handheld gamers want.