Support NeoGAF

[kruis]

Sony lost $300-$540 on every PS3 sold

Sony loses cash on each PS3 sold

Sony will lose over $300 on each 20GB PS3 sold, "And a further US$ 240 on high-end 60GB unit," according to research.

www.theguardian.com

F**cking arrogant Sony! They could easily have lost $200 more on the PS3 instead of making us work two jobs to afford a PS3!!!

 

[Felessan]

PS3 was uneven beast, it's a case when you at pivotal junction and made some wrong guesses
Cell was very advanced and ahead of it's time. On other hand approach to GPU was archaic, still in line with PS2, that led to last minute decision to incorporate solution from Nvidia that was costly and not up-to-date
Blueray was a costly but right solution that helped Sony win second half of generation. Mandatory builtin HDD also helped.
When games reached 20+gb, like Uncharted, x360 with DVD and no harddrive was in peril as it either had to drop quality or convinience of single disc

 

[Topher]

Sony's Visual Arts Studio Suffers Layoffs

Many developers from two PlayStation support studios report that they've been impacted in a recent wave of "widespread" layoffs.

gamerant.com

8% of their workforce in the last 12 months.

February and March 2024 is a more than a year ago. Not "in the last 12 months". But yeah, if this shit that happened after raking in record profits then same shit applies that I said about Microsoft. For your info, this was not the first time I've complained about layoffs and rising prices in the midst of lofty profits. And if Sony announces another round of layoffs after these latest results, I'll ping you as I rage on them as well.

 

[jm89]

Sony lost $300-$540 on every PS3 sold

Sony loses cash on each PS3 sold

Sony will lose over $300 on each 20GB PS3 sold, "And a further US$ 240 on high-end 60GB unit," according to research.

www.theguardian.com

Insane numbers to lose.

Legit thought they were done for.

 

[RoboFu]

With their worst games ever as well. That's not really a good thing.

 

[QLQ]

Who's saying that's the be-all metric?

I wouldn't consider them franchises (yet).

why, because they're a single game? there are several single games on your list...and Knack has 2

 

[__SteakDeck__]

With their worst games ever as well. That's not really a good thing.

3rd party has always carried PS. It's never been their 1st party. Unlike Nintendo. PS's 1st party is their icing on their cake.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Sony lost $300-$540 on every PS3 sold

Sony loses cash on each PS3 sold

Sony will lose over $300 on each 20GB PS3 sold, "And a further US$ 240 on high-end 60GB unit," according to research.

www.theguardian.com

This was such a dark time for them. I will never understand how anyone approved something like this.

4 USB ports for no reason, all those card ports, CELL processor , the PS2 emotion engine, a blu-ray driver, HDD in every unit (60GB was something great for that time), etc...what were they thinking.

 

[QLQ]

With their worst games ever as well. That's not really a good thing.

High rated, award winning and best-selling games are the worst? I'll take it.

 

[__SteakDeck__]

Charge more and offer less. Release less games. Profit.

On the backs of third parties and their 30% cut. This is the way.

They're not releasing less games on purpose. It's just that their games are taking longer to make.

 

[Topher]

This was such a dark time for them. I will never understand how anyone approved something like this.

4 USB ports for no reason, all those card ports, CELL processor , the PS2 emotion engine, a blu-ray driver, HDD in every unit (60GB was something great for that time), etc...what were they thinking.

Hell, remember the "target render" of the thing Sony showed off? It was even worse. 6 USB, two hdmi, three ethernet ports. Someone spiked the water supply with crazy juice at Sony HQ in the 2000s, I'm convinced.

 

[Felessan]

And if Sony announces another round of layoffs after these latest results, I'll ping you as rage on them as well.

Never understand why people so insistent on keeping deadweight in companies.

It's better when company is lean and agile than when it's bloated with lazy, blue-haired, boss favorites etc. It's not just money, bloated companies harder to manage and they loose a lot of maneuverability providing worse products, longer TTM etc. 343 as a famous example of this.

Every good company trim fat from time to time, and it's good for everyone - company, market, consumers, even for people losing jobs. Because if you are losing job in positive restructuring it means you are not in the right place, you are the weakest link in the team (or your team is the weakest) and you have no future anyway (it's not always fair, but often is). And it's better to understand it earlier and do some changes than later as being deadweight with no career or professional future will weight on you over time.

I once outgrew my position, got bored and lost interest in being a team player for that particular team - as a result I quickly was "encouraged" to leave even though I was a valuable asset. And it was good for everyone - team got new motivated member and I got new interesting job.

 

[TheMule1983]

Most profitable year the year Xbox started putting it games on PlayStation? Thanks Xbox for saving Sony.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Hell, remember the "target render" of the thing Sony showed off? It was even worse. 6 USB, two hdmi, three ethernet ports. Someone spiked the water supply with crazy juice at Sony HQ in the 2000s, I'm convinced.

That's not fan mad? Why even think about including 3 ethernet ports? lmao

 

[Mattyp]

February and March 2024 is a more than a year ago. Not "in the last 12 months". But yeah, if this shit that happened after raking in record profits then same shit applies that I said about Microsoft. For your info, this was not the first time I've complained about layoffs and rising prices in the midst of lofty profits. And if Sony announces another round of layoffs after these latest results, I'll ping you as I rage on them as well.

Two months ago they were laying off staff from their Visual Studios that was the main point of the article, we know why that is something easily replaced with AI sadly is the case regardless of what they say we will see more in the next 12 months from both companies.

PlayStation Hit With More Layoffs Following Recent Game Cancellations

Sony's PlayStation Visual Arts team faces fresh cuts as the company continues reorganizing

kotaku.com

 

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

I want Taul Passi's opinion on this news.

 

[Unknown?]

from a gamer perspective anyway. Financially for Sony.....not so much

Eh, that wasn't the general sentiment back then. PS3 was looked at as PS5 is right now.

 

[Topher]

Two months ago they were laying off staff from their Visual Studios that was the main point of the article, we know why that is something easily replaced with AI sadly is the case regardless of what they say we will see more in the next 12 months from both companies.

PlayStation Hit With More Layoffs Following Recent Game Cancellations

Sony's PlayStation Visual Arts team faces fresh cuts as the company continues reorganizing

kotaku.com

That could very well be the same situation as the Microsoft cuts back in January that were performance related. If so, then I don't have a problem with it in either case. It's specifically the across the board cuts when the company is making massive amounts of money that sucks.

Eh, that wasn't the general sentiment back then. PS3 was looked at as PS5 is right now.

I'm referencing my own personal view, not general sentiment. The negative sentiment at the time as also due to how PS3 performed against 360 in sales. I'm looking at it from a game perspective.

 

[MikeM]

Never understand why people so insistent on keeping deadweight in companies.

It's better when company is lean and agile than when it's bloated with lazy, blue-haired, boss favorites etc. It's not just money, bloated companies harder to manage and they loose a lot of maneuverability providing worse products, longer TTM etc. 343 as a famous example of this.

Every good company trim fat from time to time, and it's good for everyone - company, market, consumers, even for people losing jobs. Because if you are losing job in positive restructuring it means you are not in the right place, you are the weakest link in the team (or your team is the weakest) and you have no future anyway (it's not always fair, but often is). And it's better to understand it earlier and do some changes than later as being deadweight with no career or professional future will weight on you over time.

I once outgrew my position, got bored and lost interest in being a team player for that particular team - as a result I quickly was "encouraged" to leave even though I was a valuable asset. And it was good for everyone - team got new motivated member and I got new interesting job.

Bold to assume the lazy are blue- haired. Every company I have worked for the lazy people looked like everyone else.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Worst PlayStation gets best results... the world isn't fair.

But at least the best (PS2) was not the worst in results.

 

[Topher]

Never understand why people so insistent on keeping deadweight in companies.

I don't buy this notion that these companies are only cutting "deadweight". If a worker is considered "deadweight" then the can be fired at any time. They don't have to wait for mass layoffs. The entire point is cutting costs and improving margins for stockholders.

 

[Unknown?]

I'm referencing my own personal view, not general sentiment. The negative sentiment at the time as also due to how PS3 performed against 360 in sales. I'm looking at it from a game perspective.

That's fine, I'm just saying the games released weren't looked at fondly. Uncharted was called, "Dude Raider" as a put down and even after its sequel people didn't care much for PS3's offerings. It wasn't until 2013 where sentiment turned around but that was also due to 360 shitting the bed with Kinect.

It wasn't until the gen was over that people looked at PS3 objectively and I am betting it will be the same in 2027/8 with PS5.

 

[Sooner]

Who's saying that's the be-all metric?

You

 

[Topher]

That's fine, I'm just saying the games released weren't looked at fondly. Uncharted was called, "Dude Raider" as a put down and even after its sequel people didn't care much for PS3's offerings. It wasn't until 2013 where sentiment turned around but that was also due to 360 shitting the bed with Kinect.

It wasn't until the gen was over that people looked at PS3 objectively and I am betting it will be the same in 2027/8 with PS5.

Eh....my recollection of sentiment towards PS3 isn't the same as yours. In fact, for most the first party was what shined the most considering third party games were so much worse than their 360 counterparts. But could be just be different crowds for each of us, I guess.

As far as PS5 is concerned, as I said in another post, I think a lot of folks are making the assumption that saying PS5 is the "worst" PS console means it is automatically a bad console. Not the case. PS5 is a great console. At this point, it just has not measured up to its predecessors, in my opinion. To your point, the gen ain't over and that opinion very well may change once it is all said and done.

 

[Unknown?]

Eh....my recollection of sentiment towards PS3 isn't the same as yours. In fact, for most the first party was what shined the most considering third party games were so much worse than their 360 counterparts. But could be just be different crowds for each of us, I guess.

I always liked their 1st party output, even Heavenly Sword and early stuff but it was always seen as, "not good enough to buy a PS3."

 

[Topher]

I always liked their 1st party output, even Heavenly Sword and early stuff but it was always seen as, "not good enough to buy a PS3."

Think that was the early take on the console which was extremely expensive. It changed a bit once the Slim was released and the price was cut. That is when PS3 rebounded in sales and eventually caught up to 360 in worldwide numbers.

 

[Felessan]

Bold to assume the lazy are blue- haired. Every company I have worked for the lazy people looked like everyone else.

Sorry if it looks misleading but it's actually OR and not AND. It's 3 types that have no incentive to work, either by internal state or because they are hired not based on merit but because other non-performance based reasons.

I don't buy this notion that these companies are only cutting "deadweight". If a worker is considered "deadweight" then the can be fired at any time. They don't have to wait for mass layoffs. The entire point is cutting costs and improving margins for stockholders.

It'll require a complex answer.

First - typical managers don't like to cut jobs as amount of reporting people define power of manager, and if you bloated it's easier to keep useless people than to cut them. This pose a problem because this lead to a situation when most team are bloated and that's bad. To solve this and not disturb balance of power all teams should be cut at once. It's also make it easier for teams as it seems fair and equal and no one point fingers to underperformers.
Of course some teams are more lean and some more fat so higher management can shift quota from least performing to most performing, but it's done behind the scene to not disturb general perception that everyone hit evenly. And I have yet to see top performing teams to be significantly affected by cut, even due full scale restructure when 50+% of workforce are laid off, there are usually schemes and private agreements that "those guys are untouchable".

Second - yes, you are right, companies do it to increase profits, as a good companies should do, commercial companies are for-profit organizations.
Usual healthy business cycle consists of two phases - growth when company actively hires, actively trying to get market share, invest into new opportunities etc. It doesn't really care about efficiency at this point and internal structure and business processes become weak (especially in new/growth areas), profit margin plummets. The more growth is, the more burden weak structure, processes and internal inefficiency becomes, limiting further growth. And as growth slowdown, shareholders ask company to fix it, because it neither grow nor bringing money. And companies go to second stage of optimization, they cut expansion plans and start working on internal structure, making it more robust, optimizing business processes, eliminating inefficiencies etc. It's when people are cut and it's improve profits considerably. And after company optimized itself to be able bear greater weight, it start expanding again.
And big companies can have different parts in different stages as they are many business bundled together.

 

[Topher]

Sorry if it looks misleading but it's actually OR and not AND. It's 3 types that have no incentive to work, either by internal state or because they are hired not based on merit but because other non-performance based reasons.


It'll require a complex answer.

First - typical managers don't like to cut jobs as amount of reporting people define power of manager, and if you bloated it's easier to keep useless people than to cut them. This pose a problem because this lead to a situation when most team are bloated and that's bad. To solve this and not disturb balance of power all teams should be cut at once. It's also make it easier for teams as it seems fair and equal and no one point fingers to underperformers.
Of course some teams are more lean and some more fat so higher management can shift quota from least performing to most performing, but it's done behind the scene to not disturb general perception that everyone hit evenly. And I have yet to see top performing teams to be significantly affected by cut, even due full scale restructure when 50+% of workforce are laid off, there are usually schemes and private agreements that "those guys are untouchable".

Second - yes, you are right, companies do it to increase profits, as a good companies should do, commercial companies are for-profit organizations.
Usual healthy business cycle consists of two phases - growth when company actively hires, actively trying to get market share, invest into new opportunities etc. It doesn't really care about efficiency at this point and internal structure and business processes become weak (especially in new/growth areas), profit margin plummets. The more growth is, the more burden weak structure, processes and internal inefficiency becomes, limiting further growth. And as growth slowdown, shareholders ask company to fix it, because it neither grow nor bringing money. And companies go to second stage of optimization, they cut expansion plans and start working on internal structure, making it more robust, optimizing business processes, eliminating inefficiencies etc. It's when people are cut and it's improve profits considerably. And after company optimized itself to be able bear greater weight, it start expanding again.
And big companies can have different parts in different stages as they are many business bundled together.

That's all fine, but not really going to sway my opinion here. MS had a performance based layoff in January. I have no problem with that. If a division or section of a company isn't achieving whatever goal that was established in creating that group then yeah, it is time to rethink that and let some people go if need be. Layoffs across the entire company to boost margins on already massive profits simply for the sake of more profits is just shitty. I've worked for companies like that and their culture is just shit. I'm not going to change that view just because the company makes a video game I like.

 

[Felessan]

Layoffs across the entire company to boost margins on already massive profits simply for the sake of more profits is just shitty.

When CFO takes over your division it means that things are really not good.
Yes, Playstation has massive profits but it's only because revenue is enormous. Just recently PS earned just 5 cents on dollar, means that they have very little room for maneuver if something bad happens. Their profits will disappear in a flash, because big base means big swings.

Look at Nintendo - they made some decisions and a result lost half of their revenue and so profits. They hope it's temporal swing and Switch2 will return market share. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Nintendo has a healthy margin, so it would be relatively easy for them to give up some of it to retain revenue (they just opt not to do it). For Sony in the same situation it would be much harder to pass without revenue loss or direct loss as their room of giving up margin is much lower.

 

[Topher]

When CFO takes over your division it means that things are really not good.
Yes, Playstation has massive profits but it's only because revenue is enormous. Just recently PS earned just 5 cents on dollar, means that they have very little room for maneuver if something bad happens. Their profits will disappear in a flash, because big base means big swings.

Look at Nintendo - they made some decisions and a result lost half of their revenue and so profits. They hope it's temporal swing and Switch2 will return market share. Maybe yes, maybe no.
Nintendo has a healthy margin, so it would be relatively easy for them to give up some of it to retain revenue (they just opt not to do it). For Sony in the same situation it would be much harder to pass without revenue loss or direct loss as their room of giving up margin is much lower.

Yes, reactionary hiring/firing is a big part of the problem that I'm talking about.

 

[nial]

You

No, I'm not. Maybe you could try reading better.

 

[nial]

why, because they're a single game? there are several single games on your list

Which ones?

...and Knack has 2

These were my metrics:

new IPs that went on to release sequels (or remakes) on future platforms

 

[Sooner]

No, I'm not. Maybe you could try reading better.

Which ones?

These were my metrics: new IPs that went on to release sequels (or remakes) on future platforms

Ok, then.

 

[Hector Hall]

Most profitable in yens.

In dollars it's the third one, after 2020 and 2018.

 

[Hector Hall]

The fiscal year of Concord and they broke profit records.

Even in the quarter of release of Concord they had very good profits.

Even if it was 400M as some told, there should be like 7-8 Concords each year to put Sony on red numbers.

 

[nial]

Ok, then.

Yes, not a metric to define which generation was better, but go on.

 

[yurinka]

Even in the quarter of release of Concord they had very good profits.

Even if it was 400M as some told, there should be like 7-8 Concords each year to put Sony on red numbers.

It didn't cost 400M, that's impossibly unrealistic. Looking at its game credits, development time and marketing campaign pretty likely did cost somewhere between 150M and 200M.

But yes, as an example with Helldivers 2's profits alone they'd be able to fund these 7-8 Concords.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Phil and the Green Army

 

[Clear]

The numbers being talked about for Concord never made any sense to me. The team wasn't huge, they weren't owned by Sony that long, and I doubt they'd have needed to pour huge sums into out-sourcing.

Which means that for it to be that huge money it would have had to have been paid for IP rights etc. Deals that no doubt have lots of "get out" clauses, which I've thought for awhile may actually have been the real reason why Sony killed it so fast...

 

[Mattyp]

Phil and the Green Army

Just extremely impressive when you consider install numbers of all 3…Nintendo need a better way to extract money from buyers.

 

[Hector Hall]

Just extremely impressive when you consider install numbers of all 3…Nintendo need a better way to extract money from buyers.

It has, Switch 2 is all about that.

 

[mckmas8808]

This was such a dark time for them. I will never understand how anyone approved something like this.

4 USB ports for no reason, all those card ports, CELL processor , the PS2 emotion engine, a blu-ray driver, HDD in every unit (60GB was something great for that time), etc...what were they thinking.

Because the The God Kutargi demanded it. And who would tell Ken no? He's the Father of Playstation!

 

[mckmas8808]

It didn't cost 400M, that's impossibly unrealistic. Looking at its game credits, development time and marketing campaign pretty likely did cost somewhere between 150M and 200M.

But yes, as an example with Helldivers 2's profits alone they'd be able to fund these 7-8 Concords.

But HD2 only made around $500 Million in revenue so far, I believe.

 

[yurinka]

But HD2 only made around $500 Million in revenue so far, I believe.

Source? You say $500M, I can say $500 Trillion.

 

[Skifi28]

Source? You say $500M, I can say $500 Trillion.