Support NeoGAF

[charlequin]

the bluray was a strategic decision that they will benefit from in the long term not just a few years and i doubt that they took it without financial feasability studies like some people thinks.

This is a common (and wrong) argument people use to defend and excuse any form of bad corporate governance.

Yes, I'm sure that Sony did in fact do some "studies," but that's irrelevant. Big conglomerates do "studies" all the time, for basically every major decision they make, and yet they still have bomb products, audience mismatches, and all manner of other stupendous failures all the time -- because there's nothing perfect about doing "studies" and if market research isn't done correctly it'll often just confirm the marketers' biases rather than provide useful information.

In the specific case of the BluRay drive, Sony's intent was to take an extra marginal loss on each unit of the PS3 they made but otherwise maintain their domination in the console arena, and in exchange to guarantee domination of the upcoming movie format. Instead, what happened is that they turned a business that previously made a $4b profit over a generation into one that generated a $6b loss -- so a delta between their two choices of somewhere between $6b and $10b of lost cash and opportunity. The BluRay royalties that Sony actually sees are going to add up to maybe a tenth of that all told; Sony's only seeing maybe 1/3 of the total consortium royalties and BluRay's a smaller business than DVD was.

In other words, sacrificing the gaming market to ensure BluRay's dominance was a huge, unambiguous mistake on Sony's part. Now, if they'd worked it out in a way that they could actually use the PS3 as a Trojan horse without hurting the console brand? Would've been a great choice. But as it worked out, this was an immense strategic blunder.

You can argue, as H_Prestige did, that the BluRay drive is salvaged because PS3 was such an all-around disaster that removing BRD wouldn't have fixed it and therefore they wound up better with a console division in ruins but a successful disc format than they would've been with a console division in ruins and a loss to HD-DVD. Hell, that might even be right -- I'd have to do more research to have an informed opinion on it. But the idea that it was a conscious tradeoff that paid off is completely wrong.

 

[Biff]

The BluRay royalties that Sony actually sees are going to add up to maybe a tenth of that all told; Sony's only seeing maybe 1/3 of the total consortium royalties and BluRay's a smaller business than DVD was.

Hm. This is an interesting point I have yet to hear.

Not that I don't believe you, but could you provide any data or financial statements to prove the above?

 

[AdventureRacing]

someone give this man a prize. At last someone gets it. It was never the 600 dollars that blew away sony.

This is such bullshit and revisionist history. Don't you remember the reaction to the price reveal of the PS3? Anyone who thinks that the 600 dollar price tag didn't sink the PS3 is living in fantasy land.

It was the wii and the loss of third party exclusives from last gen that defined playstation. If nintendo released another gamecube and
if those morons phil harrison and jack tretton payed rockstar, capcom for exclusives instead of shoveling money into lair,heavenly sword and countless other money pits, sony could have released at 800 dollars and people would have bought the console.

Come on really? You actually believe this? Most people already laughed at the price of the PS3. If it had released at 800 dollars it wouldn't have mattered what games were on it or what the competitors were doing it would have cratered.

Also i disagree that the wii is what stopped sony from repeating the PS2's success. The big problems for sony were giving the 360 a year headstart and the rediculous price. If sony had released a 300-400 dollar console alongside the 360 i have no doubt that it would have crushed the 360 and probably went on to sell massive numbers.

Hell even now after all the massive hits the brand has taken it is still selling very well when it actually reached a more reasonable price.

 

[Kapsama]

This is such bullshit and revisionist history. Don't you remember the reaction to the price reveal of the PS3? Anyone who thinks that the 600 dollar price tag didn't sink the PS3 is living in fantasy land.



Come on really? You actually believe this? Most people already laughed at the price of the PS3. If it had released at 800 dollars it wouldn't have mattered what games were on it or what the competitors were doing it would have cratered.

Also i disagree that the wii is what stopped sony from repeating the PS2's success. The big problems for sony were giving the 360 a year headstart and the rediculous price. If sony had released a 300-400 dollar console alongside the 360 i have no doubt that it would have crushed the 360 and probably went on to sell massive numbers.

Hell even now after all the massive hits the brand has taken it is still selling very well when it actually reached a more reasonable price.

Seriously, I'm wonderering whether or not I've stumbled into the twilight zone. The 360 was a joke when it was revealed and it was a joke when it launched in 2005. Until e3 2006 when PS3 games were revealed to look terrible at $599, no one took it seriously. It was the Dreamcast's 2.0 for all intents and purposes. Furthermore the PS3 started losing its exclusives AFTER the $599 debacle and the slow launch. And actually Phil Harrison was right when he predicted that GTA wouldn't be as prominent this gen. Neither was Final Fantasy.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that a $299/$399 PS3 would have smashed the 360.

Though the Wii would still be #1 because it didn't just steal the PS2's customer base, it created new markets all by itself.

 

[AdventureRacing]

Seriously, I'm wonderering whether or not I've stumbled into the twilight zone. The 360 was a joke when it was revealed and it was a joke when it launched in 2005. Until e3 2006 when PS3 games were revealed to look terrible at $599, no one took it seriously. It was the Dreamcast's 2.0 for all intents and purposes. Furthermore the PS3 started losing its exclusives AFTER the $599 debacle and the slow launch. And actually Phil Harrison was right when he predicted that GTA wouldn't be as prominent this gen. Neither was Final Fantasy.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that a $299/$399 PS3 would have smashed the 360.

Though the Wii would still be #1 because it didn't just steal the PS2's customer base, it created new markets all by itself.

I disagree with that last bit. Even with the whole $599 debacle and subsequently losing so many games to the 360 the PS3 will still end up doing relatively well compared to the wii. That's also assuming that the wii would have done as well if sony had actually priced the PS3 accordingly.

I think a lot of people will disagree with that and they may be right but that's just how i feel. The playstation brand was just incredible leading up to the release of the PS3.

 

[charlequin]

Not that I don't believe you, but could you provide any data or financial statements to prove the above?

Which part? The 1/3 figure is a very off-the-cuff estimate based on the fact that Sony isn't the largest patent-holder on BluRay (IIRC, Panasonic is) and there are 13+ companies involved in total in the licensing arrangement; Sony's take on the total royalties could be less but there isn't really room for it to be more.

In terms of BluRay being a smaller business, sales of BRDs have been growing but not enough to offset DVD's decline, and it seems very unlikely at this point that BRD sales will cap out at as high a figure as DVDs did. Now that DVD is finally falling off, the trends seem to point towards its market getting split up somewhat between BRD, digital, and streaming rather than transitioning seamlessly to BRD.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

This is a common (and wrong) argument people use to defend and excuse any form of bad corporate governance.

Yes, I'm sure that Sony did in fact do some "studies," but that's irrelevant. Big conglomerates do "studies" all the time, for basically every major decision they make, and yet they still have bomb products, audience mismatches, and all manner of other stupendous failures all the time -- because there's nothing perfect about doing "studies" and if market research isn't done correctly it'll often just confirm the marketers' biases rather than provide useful information.

In the specific case of the BluRay drive, Sony's intent was to take an extra marginal loss on each unit of the PS3 they made but otherwise maintain their domination in the console arena, and in exchange to guarantee domination of the upcoming movie format. Instead, what happened is that they turned a business that previously made a $4b profit over a generation into one that generated a $6b loss -- so a delta between their two choices of somewhere between $6b and $10b of lost cash and opportunity. The BluRay royalties that Sony actually sees are going to add up to maybe a tenth of that all told; Sony's only seeing maybe 1/3 of the total consortium royalties and BluRay's a smaller business than DVD was.

In other words, sacrificing the gaming market to ensure BluRay's dominance was a huge, unambiguous mistake on Sony's part. Now, if they'd worked it out in a way that they could actually use the PS3 as a Trojan horse without hurting the console brand? Would've been a great choice. But as it worked out, this was an immense strategic blunder.

You can argue, as H_Prestige did, that the BluRay drive is salvaged because PS3 was such an all-around disaster that removing BRD wouldn't have fixed it and therefore they wound up better with a console division in ruins but a successful disc format than they would've been with a console division in ruins and a loss to HD-DVD. Hell, that might even be right -- I'd have to do more research to have an informed opinion on it. But the idea that it was a conscious tradeoff that paid off is completely wrong.

charlequin you always seem to forget a crucial part of BR business. It´s not only royalties that Sony make money from BR. It´s also about orders from film companies, and tv companies. They give Sony money so Sony can make BR films, tv series, documentaries, etc .... They order Sony to manufacture BR, and thus Sony makes money from that.

I am not saying that BR orders from movie/tv companies are going to produce 5 billion, by tomorrow, but that adds up with royalties and Sony will have return on their investment.

Here´s a BR weekly chart

Weekly Domestic Blu-ray Sales Chart for Week Ending January 15, 2012

Rank Prev. Rank Title Units this Week % Change Total units Sales this Week Total Sales Weeks in Release
1 (-) Moneyball 466,979 466,979 $9,736,512 $9,736,512 1
2 (-) Killer Elite 242,455 242,455 $4,846,685 $4,846,685 1
3 (-) Boardwalk Empire: The Complete First Season 140,654 140,654 $4,921,486 $4,921,486 1
4 6 Rise of the Planet of the Apes 123,983 +55.80% 1,789,978 $2,549,089 $38,296,420 5
5 2 The Hangover Part II 111,281 -29.39% 1,871,773 $1,573,515 $30,968,778 6
6 1 Contagion 108,386 -60.46% 382,505 $2,166,633 $7,098,033 2
7 5 Cowboys and Aliens 99,934 +21.20% 1,239,088 $1,883,747 $27,001,407 6
8 12 Kung Fu Panda 2 69,953 +49.50% 994,170 $1,761,428 $23,125,153 5
9 (-) The Scorpion King 3: Battle for Redemption 61,034 61,034 $1,293,924 $1,293,924 1
10 3 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2 57,719 -36.58% 4,863,400 $922,920 $101,706,361 10

http://www.the-numbers.com/weekly-bluray-sales-chart

Who do you think manufacture these BR? Don´t you think BR orders + royalties will make Sony recoup their investment in the near future, especially with big buster movies that are coming out this year?

 

[bigtroyjon]

Which will come first, the PS4 or blu ray having a higher market share than dvd?

 

[AdventureRacing]

It's not just a question of whether the Bblu ray royalties will recoup the 6-10 billion they lost on the PS3. The impact of the PS3 will be felt after this gen as well. Sony gave up a position of dominance that they may never get back.

So personally i think it's a little disingenious when people talk about blu ray royalties over the next 10 years or whatever and ignore the continued impact of the devaluing of the playstation brand.

 

[FLEABttn]

Who do you think manufacture these BR? Don´t you think BR orders + royalties will make Sony recoup their investment in the near future, especially with big buster movies that are coming out this year?

Phillips, Ritek, Pacificdisc, Pannasonic, etc. So, no, Sony isn't poised to recoup their losses anytime soon.

You're mistaken if you think that Sony has made every single Blu-ray disc that exists in the entire world.

 

[Auto_aim1]

Which will come first, the PS4 or blu ray having a higher market share than dvd?

It's unlikely that Blu-Ray will have more marketshare than DVD by, say, 2014. The growth can be accelerated though, once it becomes really affordable. Outside the core market, the penetration is really low. But it depends. It was 19% last year.

The impact of the PS3 will be felt after this gen as well. Sony gave up a position of dominance that they may never get back.

We can't really say whether they would have dominated with a reasonably priced console. Sure, it may have outsold the 360 easily and made money, but the competition is intense this time around compared to the PS2 days. Microsoft is a powerful competitor, and Nintendo is unpredictable, so you really cannot say the PS3 would have dominated if it was priced reasonably. But Sony is also a company with different agendas. Their 3D push in 2010 and the ability of the PS3 to output 3D, was most probably decided when designing the console half-a-decade ago.

 

[Vic]

It's not just a question of whether the Bblu ray royalties will recoup the 6-10 billion they lost on the PS3. The impact of the PS3 will be felt after this gen as well. Sony gave up a position of dominance that they may never get back.

So personally i think it's a little disingenious when people talk about blu ray royalties over the next 10 years or whatever and ignore the continued impact of the devaluing of the playstation brand.

Indeed. The Blu-Ray format doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the future of the Playstation platform.

 

[patsu]

This is a common (and wrong) argument people use to defend and excuse any form of bad corporate governance.

Yes, I'm sure that Sony did in fact do some "studies," but that's irrelevant. Big conglomerates do "studies" all the time, for basically every major decision they make, and yet they still have bomb products, audience mismatches, and all manner of other stupendous failures all the time -- because there's nothing perfect about doing "studies" and if market research isn't done correctly it'll often just confirm the marketers' biases rather than provide useful information.

In the specific case of the BluRay drive, Sony's intent was to take an extra marginal loss on each unit of the PS3 they made but otherwise maintain their domination in the console arena, and in exchange to guarantee domination of the upcoming movie format. Instead, what happened is that they turned a business that previously made a $4b profit over a generation into one that generated a $6b loss -- so a delta between their two choices of somewhere between $6b and $10b of lost cash and opportunity. The BluRay royalties that Sony actually sees are going to add up to maybe a tenth of that all told; Sony's only seeing maybe 1/3 of the total consortium royalties and BluRay's a smaller business than DVD was.

...

6b loss includes Cell and other investments. It is a standing figure but BR will keep adding revenue, and open up new opportunities.

BR royalties is only a part of Sony's BR revenue, which includes disc pressing, consulting, authoring software, professional equipments, increased movie sales (to plug DVD's decline), blue diode manufacturing, etc. They also further invest in 3D and 4K since BR is the only physical format that could take it. The future will continue to evolve.

Indeed. The Blu-Ray format doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the future of the Playstation platform.

It is important to Sony movie folks. The volume in BR has also driven down blue laser diode assembly cost. Blue diode is also important to PS3 and WiiU.

Phillips, Ritek, Pacificdisc, Pannasonic, etc. So, no, Sony isn't poised to recoup their losses anytime soon.

You're mistaken if you think that Sony has made every single Blu-ray disc that exists in the entire world.

No, but DADC has the largest market share. In the early days as much as 90+%. Now it's around 75%:
http://biosciences.sonydadc.com/fileadmin/online/media_coverage/Nikkei_25-07-2011_ENG.pdf

Sony also does not need to pay DVD Consortium when it makes BR games.

 

[FLEABttn]

No, but DADC has the largest market share. In the early days as much as 90+%. Now it's around 75%:
http://biosciences.sonydadc.com/fileadmin/online/media_coverage/Nikkei_25-07-2011_ENG.pdf

At the quantities manufactured, we're talking sub $2 per unit in price. Profit per unit is probably in the mid single digits to mid teens, percentage wise. Which is great and all as a revenue stream, but you're still not breaking even on the gamble yet.

 

[patsu]

At the quantities manufactured, we're talking sub $2 per unit in price. Profit per unit is probably in the mid single digits to mid teens, percentage wise. Which is great and all as a revenue stream, but you're still not breaking even on the gamble yet.

It will just keep adding up as BR coverage expands, together with royalties, HDTV upsell, and other revenue streams, while that $6B is a static number (includes Cell expenses). When BR was introduced, HD was still in its infancy. BR is one of the key driving forces that accelerates HD adoption. Sony sells all sorts of HD equipments (from media to cameras to TV to players to pro equipments).

 

[goldenpp72]

someone give this man a prize. At last someone gets it. It was never the 600 dollars that blew away sony.

It was the wii and the loss of third party exclusives from last gen that defined playstation. If nintendo released another gamecube and
if those morons phil harrison and jack tretton payed rockstar, capcom for exclusives instead of shoveling money into lair,heavenly sword and countless other money pits, sony could have released at 800 dollars and people would have bought the console.


As it was sony had no answer to the wii and their ace in the hole last gen was taken away by quick MS agressiveness.

Bullshit, the price was everything that went wrong with the Ps3, as someone who paid very close attention to this stuff back in the day it's still clear as day as to what was happening. 360 launched, had hardware failures, lack of appealing games, bad hardware stock, expensive retard sku and even more expensive hdd model. The system did very, very average, Sony was doing their wait until Ps3 game and I think it was working, just like Dreamcast to Ps2 to a lesser extent. The Ps3 released at a high price, had nothing worth playing compared to the 360, and the 360 had lined up many third party exclusives as well as compelling titles of their own to make the ps3 look shameful. At that time, many games were exclusive to the Ps3, Dmc4, VF5, FF13, games that were Ps2 staples and never went to another console, slowly began to drift over to 360 in equal or even superior form, and this happened as you saw Ps3 flop more and more, going as low as selling under 100k in a month despite being relatively new and well supplied.

It wasn't until the ps3 reached price parity to the 360 that it began to sell decent in the US and well around the world, but it will never catch up to the 360 worldwide at this rate, going from being the system that outsold all your competition combined by like 3x, to the last place entry by a large amount, is definitely largely the fault of a horrific initial price point, combined with the Wii being so unique and popular and the 360 chipping away at the core gamers, it's all a factor, but the Ps3 would probably have outsold the 360 by a wide amount had it launched at 400 (but this would probably have hurt Sony severely). Needless to say if I were Microsoft at the time of that price announcement, I would have been having the best day ever then.

 

[bigtroyjon]

It's unlikely that Blu-Ray will have more marketshare than DVD by, say, 2014. The growth can be accelerated though, once it becomes really affordable. Outside the core market, the penetration is really low. But it depends. It was 19% last year.

That is a single week from last May so I dug a little further and what I found isn't real pretty for Blu Ray. Digital sales are higher than Blu ray sales and are growing at a much faster rate. By the end of the decade blu ray is going to be a niche product mainly used by videophiles while the rest of us stream our content.

2011 market report.

a 20% jump in Blu-ray spending and a 51% jump in digital spending

Annual spending on Blu-ray software hit $2 billion for the first time

Overall spending on digital delivery rose 51% to nearly $3.42 billion, up from $2.26 billion in 2010.

Total consumer spending on packaged media, Blu-ray and DVD, slipped slightly more than 13% to $8.95 billion from $10.52 billion in 2010

The one bright spot for physical media is Redbox but rental sales are still declining while streaming rental is rising.

Rental spending (packaged media only) was down 3% to $7.54 billion from $7.6 billion the previous year, with a 28.8% drop in brick-and-mortar rental activity offset by a 31% uptick in the kiosk rental business, mostly Redbox vending machines.

Sony made a huge misstep betting huge on blu ray being the future and some of you would do good to realize that it's not a personal insult to you as a Sony fan when we say that.

 

[FLEABttn]

It will just keep adding up, together with royalties, HDTV upsell, and other revenue streams, while that $6B is a static number (includes Cell expenses). When BR was introduced, HD was still in its infancy. BR is one of the key driving force that accelerates HD adoption. Sony sells all sorts of HD equipments (from media to cameras to TV to players to pro equipments).

Actually I think what was driving HDTV adoption was higher returns on more expensive television sets and the phaseout of SDTV's, which I don't think I've even seen in a retail setting since 2008. I don't think I've seen a 32+ inch TV that wasn't HD in a year or two before that.

Maybe it all will add up in the coming years, but if it takes them a decade plus to merely break even because they sunk one of their most profitable divisions in a gamble to springboard other divisions, that's not a business success.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Bullshit, the price was everything that went wrong with the Ps3, as someone who paid very close attention to this stuff back in the day it's still clear as day as to what was happening. 360 launched, had hardware failures, lack of appealing games, bad hardware stock, expensive retard sku and even more expensive hdd model. The system did very, very average, Sony was doing their wait until Ps3 game and I think it was working, just like Dreamcast to Ps2 to a lesser extent. The Ps3 released at a high price, had nothing worth playing compared to the 360, and the 360 had lined up many third party exclusives as well as compelling titles of their own to make the ps3 look shameful. At that time, many games were exclusive to the Ps3, Dmc4, VF5, FF13, games that were Ps2 staples and never went to another console, slowly began to drift over to 360 in equal or even superior form, and this happened as you saw Ps3 flop more and more, going as low as selling under 100k in a month despite being relatively new and well supplied.

It wasn't until the ps3 reached price parity to the 360 that it began to sell decent in the US and well around the world, but it will never catch up to the 360 worldwide at this rate, going from being the system that outsold all your competition combined by like 3x, to the last place entry by a large amount, is definitely largely the fault of a horrific initial price point, combined with the Wii being so unique and popular and the 360 chipping away at the core gamers, it's all a factor, but the Ps3 would probably have outsold the 360 by a wide amount had it launched at 400 (but this would probably have hurt Sony severely). Needless to say if I were Microsoft at the time of that price announcement, I would have been having the best day ever then.

All of that is true but i don't think the PS3 is behind 360 WW by large amount .
I know MS sold great last 2 months in NA but it can't be more than 3-4 million which really not that large.

 

[patsu]

Actually I think what was driving HDTV adoption was higher returns on more expensive television sets and the phaseout of SDTV's, which I don't think I've even seen in a retail setting since 2008. I don't think I've seen a 32+ inch TV that wasn't HD in a year or two before that.

Maybe it all will add up in the coming years, but if it takes them a decade plus to merely break even because they sunk one of their most profitable divisions in a gamble to springboard other divisions, that's not a business success.

The early HDTVs need HD content to show. ^_^
Otherwise, why would people pay premium for these expensive gadgets at that time ?

Once the momentum reached critical mass, HD will take (or rather has taken) a life of its own.

EDIT:
You'll still find traces of BR in HD equipments today. e.g., HD digital cameras (especially professional ones) derived their file format -- AVCHD -- from Blu-ray. It is developed jointly by Panasonic and Sony.

There are about 40 million Blu-ray players in US alone. And it's still increasing.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

That is a single week from last May so I dug a little further and what I found isn't real pretty for Blu Ray. Digital sales are higher than Blu ray sales and are growing at a much faster rate. By the end of the decade blu ray is going to be a niche product mainly used by videophiles while the rest of us stream our content.

2011 market report.





The one bright spot for physical media is Redbox but rental sales are still declining while streaming rental is rising.


Sony made a huge misstep betting huge on blu ray being the future and some of you would do good to realize that it's not a personal insult to you as a Sony fan when we say that.

What you say is true, but most of Europe and the world don´t have Netflix or other DD companies, so people would buy physical media, until there are adequate DD distributors.

 

[patsu]

That is a single week from last May so I dug a little further and what I found isn't real pretty for Blu Ray. Digital sales are higher than Blu ray sales and are growing at a much faster rate. By the end of the decade blu ray is going to be a niche product mainly used by videophiles while the rest of us stream our content.

Digital spending includes cable, Direct TV, Dish Network, and Internet streaming. Existing cable and satellite streaming services already have huge install base before BR started from zero. The new Internet subscription model is still small ($993.6 millions) but growing fast.

BR and DVD sales slipped because DVD slips more steeply while BR gains 20% (reaching $2 billion consumer title sales in 2011 alone).

Also digital delivery is not sales centric. They are mostly rental. The so called EST (in the report) are real digital movie sales and it's $553.7 million given the huge base. BR is the only media the studios look towards for encouraging movie sales.

I don't know if it's good move or not, but the studios and CE folks continue to build on top of Blu-ray for 3D, UltraViolet and 4K needs.

 

[AZ2002]

It's not just a question of whether the Bblu ray royalties will recoup the 6-10 billion they lost on the PS3. The impact of the PS3 will be felt after this gen as well. Sony gave up a position of dominance that they may never get back.

So personally i think it's a little disingenious when people talk about blu ray royalties over the next 10 years or whatever and ignore the continued impact of the devaluing of the playstation brand.

i think that the PS3 situation has made Sony stronger they increased their 1st party profolio and now have 14 studios with talented developers which are one of the best in the business like Naughty Dog,santa monic and others. and that will be a main factor in regaining the marketshare that they lost and decrease their independence on 3rd party developers that screwed them when they jumped from the PS2 to PS3.they now have fantastic online structure that is free and one of the best in the market (Vita).they change their philosophy to make games development easy for 3rd party developers thanx to Kaz Hirai.they own the Cell and can use it for PS4 without additional costs and focus on getting a great GPU.

Remember the PS3 launch days with average games like lair,heavnely sword,resistance and $599 price tag. now imagine the PS4 launch with $400 due to low costs,great OS and free PSN with games like uncharted,god of war,killzone,LBP,demon souls or new IP like last of us,the new action RPG from GG or santa monica can you see the difference.i say they are the best equipped between the big three to dominate the market next time.i dont think it will be like the PS2 days maybe but who knows

 

[AdventureRacing]

We can't really say whether they would have dominated with a reasonably priced console. Sure, it may have outsold the 360 easily and made money, but the competition is intense this time around compared to the PS2 days. Microsoft is a powerful competitor, and Nintendo is unpredictable, so you really cannot say the PS3 would have dominated if it was priced reasonably.

I can and will say that sony would have dominated with a properly priced console. MS isn't a powerful competitor at all, the only reason they have got to the position they're in now is because of sonys mistakes. MS was gifted a year headstart and a massive advantage in terms of price.

If sony had released a moderately priced PS3 they would have blown away the competition, there is no doubt in my mind.

But Sony is also a company with different agendas. Their 3D push in 2010 and the ability of the PS3 to output 3D, was most probably decided when designing the console half-a-decade ago.

So now we're back to the old 'but blu ray will recoup the losses'. Even if what you say is true and sone just intended to use the PS3 as a trojan horse for 3D and blu ray. I still consider this a very dumb decision. The playstation business was hugely profitable (to the tune of 4 billion dollars). This gen it has lost like 5-6 billion dollars.

Why make a potentially 10 billion dollar gamble just in the hope that you might make your money back, all the while damaging potentially your most important brand? It's nonsencial.

There is no doubt in my mind that sony thought they could still be market leader even making the decisions they did. They had no intentions of sacrificing the playstation brandname for these other devices.

i think that the PS3 situation has made Sony stronger they increased their 1st party profolio and now have 14 studios with talented developers which are one of the best in the business like Naughty Dog,santa monic and others. and that will be a main factor in regaining the marketshare that they lost and decrease their independence on 3rd party developers that screwed them when they jumped from the PS2 to PS3.they now have fantastic online structure that is free and one of the best in the market (Vita).they change their philosophy to make games development easy for 3rd party developers thanx to Kaz Hirai.they own the Cell and can use it for PS4 without additional costs and focus on getting a great GPU.

You're making some massive assumptions that cell will be in the PS4 and that it will actually reduce production costs on the PS4. There is also the fact that they could have created those studios without throwing away billions of dollars.

So even if all of what you're saying is correct it's still pointless as they could have done all those things anyway.

That plus if they hadn't destroyed the playstation brand in the first place they would still be on top anyway.

Remember the PS3 launch days with average games like lair,heavnely sword,resistance and $599 price tag. now imagine the PS4 launch with $400 due to low costs,great OS and free PSN with games like uncharted,god of war,killzone,LBP,demon souls or new IP like last of us,the new action RPG from GG or santa monica can you see the difference.i say they are the best equipped between the big three to dominate the market next time.i dont think it will be like the PS2 days maybe but who knows

All the games you listed are current gen games and the PS3 costs $299 now. So how will the situation you describe cause the PS4 to sky rocket in sales compared to the PS3?

I don't think they are in the best position for next gen at all. The gap between their 1st party and nintendos is bigger than ever (nintendos 1st party has gained in popularity by an enormous amount this gen). That plus nintendo will get a big head start.

Personally i have no idea what will happen next gen but i don't think sony is in the best position (they could still end up dominating anyway, i just wouldn't tip it).

 

[left_senseless]

I find it hilarious that all of these amateur internet market specialists keep claiming a 4-6 billion dollar loss for the playstation division disregarding the amount of ps3's sold, software sold, royalties from bluray, subscription services, and other playstation business related paraphernalia. you don't think, for a second that Sony hasn't turned a coin or two on this project? come on, quit being ridiculous. they start new projects playstation related all the time. shows, new peripherals, new development studios and talent, and I'm sure vita won't be the last piece of kit from the manufacturer. oh, but I forgot, it is all doom and gloom for the japanese giant.

the success of the division is merely a shadow of it's former glory, but Nintendo has been down and out too. this is the gaming business where things change drastically each generation. anyone who has watched this market over the years knows how many times the baton has been passed around. to claim such a failure when MS is only slightly ahead in sales is ludicrous.

is it possible to get back to speculating about the hardware? I know it can be fun to practice your amateur analyst hobbies, but this thread was intended to speak about the future of the consoles. not about the ps3. we all already know where that went.

 

[tzare]

it's not a personal insult to you as a Sony fan when we say that.

Maybe i do not understand it, but why having your opposite position in the discussion makes someone be a sony fan. Are you or any that argues 'against' BRD benefits and such sony haters then?

 

[AZ2002]

I can and will say that sony would have dominated with a properly priced console. MS isn't a powerful competitor at all, the only reason they have got to the position they're in now is because of sonys mistakes. MS was gifted a year headstart and a massive advantage in terms of price.

i am not sure even if Sony didnt use the bluray that they will keep the marketshare they had with the PS2.MS were smart and ready with their Live service that dominated the gaming scene in the last few years Sony couldnt compete with the them as the PS3 wasnt designed with that thought in mind when Ken Kutaragi thought about it.the result of that is the retirment of Ken and now Kaz Hirai who turned around the PS3 with yoshida and others are now the new Sony president.

All the games you listed are current gen games and the PS3 costs $299 now. So how will the situation you describe cause the PS4 to sky rocket in sales compared to the PS3?

I don't think they are in the best position for next gen at all. The gap between their 1st party and nintendos is bigger than ever (nintendos 1st party has gained in popularity by an enormous amount this gen). That plus nintendo will get a big head start.

the games i listed were PS3 launch or near it titles you can see the difference in quality right now between them and the present 1st party titles.by the end of this year or the next year the PS3 will be second place behind the Wii.the PS3 is still more expensive than the XBOX360 which means more profit on each console sold but the console profit margin is not the main contributer for the profit in the gaming industry it is the software sales that matters and thats why nintendo is struggling and want to target the hardcore market with the wii u as they know that the wii fad will not be repeated as the casuals will move on and with MS fighting for that market segment with Kinect 2.0 their chances of repeating that are near zero percent,whether they succeeded or not in their effort is another matter.

the people who bought the wii dont buy many software they only buy few Ninty 1st party,dancing games or games for the family.they dont buy as many games as the harcore gamer do and thats why 3rd party will not bother with releasing software on nintendo platform (Check Ninty latest software sales numbers).also its late in the current gaming products lifcycle the market has reached its near limit (~210 million user) there isnt enough people to buy your gaming system.a guy who owns an xbox360 and decided that next gen he will buy a PS4 next time if its priced reasonably will not buy a PS3 even if he wants it because he thinks that its best for him to wait and get a PS4 next gen and play the PS3 games if he want through buying them physicsally or digitally.thats why the sales will not increase and we saw a sharp declin (wii) or a small rise (PS360).

i think in the end every company need that kind of shake up every few years its the cycle of life in my opinion as people run out of ideas,become arrogant and so on.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Maybe i do not understand it, but why having your opposite position in the discussion makes someone be a sony fan. Are you or any that argues 'against' BRD benefits and such sony haters then?

I'm just talking about the people who somehow are trying to convince the rest of us that the billions of dollars that Sony is in the hole on the PS4 is all part of some master plan and wasn't the result of a massive misstep by the company that thought they were pushing the next dvd.

Has nothing to do with the benefits of Blu Ray or the quality of their products, only the terrible financial situation that Sony is currently in.

 

[Unhandled Exception]

Fuck this. PCG: "PC hardware still better than next gen consoles."

 

[tzare]

I'm just talking about the people who somehow are trying to convince the rest of us that the billions of dollars that Sony is in the hole on the PS4 is all part of some master plan and wasn't the result of a massive misstep by the company that thought they were pushing the next dvd.

Has nothing to do with the benefits of Blu Ray or the quality of their products, only the terrible financial situation that Sony is currently in.

they do not try to convince, they expose their point of view,just like you. And you may disagree, of course, but that does not mean someone is a sony fan. I see it more as a way to downplay other's opinion by saying he is a fanboy.

 

[AZ2002]

I'm just talking about the people who somehow are trying to convince the rest of us that the billions of dollars that Sony is in the hole on the PS4 is all part of some master plan and wasn't the result of a massive misstep by the company that thought they were pushing the next dvd.

Has nothing to do with the benefits of Blu Ray or the quality of their products, only the terrible financial situation that Sony is currently in.

In business there is always a strategic and current or short term plans to any decision that has been or will be taken by any company whether one out weight the other is another matter.Sony decision was that bluray and Cell are future investment that will help them in the long term with differents segment within the company.regardind Cell i think they use it in cameras,TVs and other products now (maybe someone can confirm i think i read it in one of jeff-rigby posts) and if they use it for the PS4 i guess their decision was right in the long term view of things.

 

[phosphor112]

This thread has derailed.

QFT.

Seriously, take the "would have failed no matter what" shit elsewhere.

I don't like having to sift through diarrhea.

 

[Phonomezer]

This thread is diabolical.

Also, don't Microsoft receive royalties from Blu rays as well?

 

[AZ2002]

on the subject of Cell can someone with programming background tell us what was the problem that made the Cell difficult to use in the first place was it the lack of libraries,weak SDK.

 

[badcrumble]

on the subject of Cell can someone with programming background tell us what was the problem that made the Cell difficult to use in the first place was it the lack of libraries,weak SDK.

multicore programming is haaaaaard *cries like a little baby girl*

 

[phosphor112]

multicore programming is haaaaaard *cries like a little baby girl*

Pretty much. Even the Saboteur devs made great use of the cell for the MLAA they implemented. They are a small dev team too. If any dev took a decent amount of time working with the console they can get some amazing tech in their games.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

This thread is diabolical.

Pretty much, but the last couple of pages are loaded with junior ridiculousness so at least it's entertaining.

EDIT: I spoke too early, it's obviously not just the juniors.

 

[patsu]

This thread is diabolical.

Also, don't Microsoft receive royalties from Blu rays as well?

Yes, very little because of VC-1. They submitted VC-1 to be standardized but MPEGLA kinda robbed Microsoft because VC-1 infringed on existing patents in their patent pool:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/24/ms_codec_patents/

I don't think people use VC-1 as much these days. H.264 is the dominating codec. People are looking at H.265 next.

 

[M.Bluth]

Oh god! I was enjoying reading this thread until it became a series of assumptions on how the current gen would've turned out if this or that..

It doesn't matter, nothing is changing now!
I'd prefer to see a return of a decent discussion about realistic potential hardware, implementations of some technologies and whatnot rather than a continuation of this hopeless argument about fucking royalties >.>

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

multicore programming is haaaaaard *cries like a little baby girl*

Every modern CPU is multicore.

 

[patsu]

on the subject of Cell can someone with programming background tell us what was the problem that made the Cell difficult to use in the first place was it the lack of libraries,weak SDK.

Developers complain about PS3 programming, not necessarily Cell programming (although it does have its own challenges).

* Limited and split memory pool is one of the most common complains. The PS3 OS also takes up bigger footprint than 360. So the developers have to juggle their resources around and squeeze them into the main memory.

* Need to use Cell to overcome RSX bottlenecks, in particular the vertex setup limit.

* Limited LocalStore space. You need to fit your data and code into 256K. You also need to manage your data access manually since there is no cache. Was told the LocalStore is too small to fit any debugging tool. So programmers need to use primitive debugging methods (e.g., printf).

* In-order. You need to make sure your program doesn't spend time waiting for data to arrive.

* Heavily threaded. If you want to fully utilize Cell, you need to spread the work to 8 cores (7 SPUs and 1 PPU), plus the RSX, which increases the complexity of the code significantly.


Sony's early SDK and tools may indeed be buggy. ^_^

 

[Brad Grenz]

Every modern CPU is multicore.

Ironic, huh? The techniques programmers were being asked to employ to make good use of the Cell processor are exactly the same techniques they'll have to use if they want to get good performance out of any many core/many threaded CPU.

 

[herod]

Ironic, huh? The techniques programmers were being asked to employ to make good use of the Cell processor are exactly the same techniques they'll have to use if they want to get good performance out of any many core/many threaded CPU.

Nope, SPEs are hardly equivalent of proper cores.

 

[patsu]

Nope, SPEs are hardly equivalent of proper cores.

They are functional cores. They just don't have direct access to the main memory (Have to use the DMA unit). As a result, they need the PPU to set up the memory layout first. But the SPUs can fetch their own instructions, operate on data in the main memory and video memory, perform I/O, and exchange data with PPU and other SPUs. The programmer has to manage the LocalStore manually though.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Nope, SPEs are hardly equivalent of proper cores.

And yet, that doesn't matter given the right programming paradigm, the one everyone will be using in the next generation.

 

[jeff_rigby]

In business there is always a strategic and current or short term plans to any decision that has been or will be taken by any company whether one out weight the other is another matter.Sony decision was that bluray and Cell are future investment that will help them in the long term with differents segment within the company.regardind Cell i think they use it in cameras,TVs and other products now (maybe someone can confirm i think i read it in one of jeff-rigby posts) and if they use it for the PS4 i guess their decision was right in the long term view of things.

It's used in the PS3, Sony 4K TV and upscaling blu-ray player (unconfirmed) not in other Sony equipment at this time. A SPU can be thought of as the smallest CPU building block and could be used in everything Sony. I think the long term plan is as follows:

1) Sony is waiting for a min of two die size reductions before they retool their Nagasaki plant to a smaller more efficient die size like 25nm. They are currently at 45nm and make the Slim Cell and RSX. It's hugely expensive to retool so it makes sense to wait till equipment matches your long range roadmap. This was in a thread on both BY3D and NeoGAF; "Sony skipping 32nm, there won't be a slimmer PS3 slim (anytime soon)".

Background information: The PS3 Slim Cell and RSX were taped by IBM and produced by Sony in the Nagaskai plant @ 45nm. >> They will do the same with the PS3 and PS4 CPU and possibly GPU at a smaller die size. The PS3 will then sell for sub $200 and an affordable PS4 can be made (no issues with the blu-ray drive or Cell CPU).

2) At 25nm or less, a Cell becomes more efficient and with a DSP building block or two could be used in 4K cameras, TVs, just about everything instead of dedicated hardware like in Intel hardware with a dedicated hardware video codec.

Sony has mentioned going more with programmable DSPs and this fits with the above. Taping is already nearly at cut and paste building block type levels. With a predictable simple design like the "cell" and programmable DSP building blocks, more complicated multi-cell organisms can be built. Again, the name gives us a subtle clue to Sony plans!

3) The above explains the Sony effort made to optimize the eLinux kernel to use Cell processors; SPURS and MARS. That didn't make sense to me last year and I assumed the effort was to support the PS3 Cell which would indicate the PS3 was using a Linux kernel. Now we know the PS3 is FreeBSD Unix so the effort to improve eLinux-Cell must be part of a Sony future effort and most cameras...CE equipment use eLinux as an operating system.

Could a PS4 use only cell processors for the GPU like was planned for the PS3 and why didn't Sony use the cell for GPU in the PS3?? Too expensive and hot for 1st generation cell? I think the PS4 generation will still use standard GPU designs for ease of use and developer comfort but the PS5 will use vector graphics/raytracing with hundreds of cell processors rather than a GPU. We might see Sony providing software tools to do ray tracing using SPUs in the PS4 for lighting.

They (SPUs) are can be functional cores. (In the Cell BE) They just don't have direct access to the main memory (Have to use the DMA unit). As a result, they need the PPU to set up the memory layout first. But the SPUs can fetch their own instructions, operate on data in the main memory and video memory, perform I/O, and exchange data with PPU and other SPUs. The programmer has to manage the LocalStore manually though.

With the proper-needed SPU initialization code, SPUs do not need a PPU, this was the thrust of the Toshiba Cell SPURS initiative. patsu is correct!

I think many in this thread are not thinking in long range corporate multi-generation CE industry terms. In that light, Blu-ray, 3-D, and 4K media were part of the PS3 roadmap with OLED and Cell SPU part of the long range hardware support for CE 4K and UHD video. The PS3 loss was probably considered growing pains for future Sony use of the cell and the announced reason for Linux on the PS3 (to get a generation of programmers up to speed with a Cell processor) thought necessary by Sony.

Thinking that Toshiba, Sony and IBM invested in Cell technology for only a game console when Toshiba doesn't make a penny from Games is really really stupid. The reason for Toshiba participation then supports Sony's use of the SPU for media where it's been shown to be more than 20 times more efficient than AMD and Intel CPUs !!!!

Only when you step back and question Sony policies (they appear stupid in the short term) with the view that they aren't that stupid do the little pieces of the puzzle fit together.

Sony is waiting for a smaller die size before using SPUs in all their equpment. They are waiting for Webkit2 before providing a new webkit browser for their CE equipment (includes PS3). Last year they went with an Opera browser on their networked CE equipment while Samsung went with a QTwebkit. Opera was faster and more secure than QTwebkit1 but this year they will probably go with Netfront NX webkit2 as they did with the Vita. Webkit2 is faster and more secure than webkit1 with the SECURITY absolutely necessary for WebGL.

"Lots of surprises this year" (Sony employee quote) <grin>.

 

[F#A#Oo]

I personally feel like Sony has lost touch with gaming...they're no longer innovating in the gaming space...they are happy with being a "me too" company.

PSP
Go
Vita

I expect the PS4 to be mispriced and lacking in approach just like the above hardware. Hell if it wasn't for blu-ray I would not even own a PS3. Actually that's a lie I buy all the consoles eventually...

I dont care how powerful the PS4 is...it matters little in the grand scheme of things...

 

[seventynine]

I personally feel like Sony has lost touch with gaming...they're no longer innovating in the gaming space...they are happy with being a "me too" company.

(...)

Hell if it wasn't for blu-ray I would not even own a PS3. Actually that's a lie I buy all the consoles eventually...

What do mean by "innovating", expand on what you want them to do?

(...)

So do you want a games console or a media box that plays games?

 

[Log4Girlz]

I personally feel like Sony has lost touch with gaming...they're no longer innovating in the gaming space...they are happy with being a "me too" company.

PSP
Go
Vita

I expect the PS4 to be mispriced and lacking in approach just like the above hardware. Hell if it wasn't for blu-ray I would not even own a PS3. Actually that's a lie I buy all the consoles eventually...

I dont care how powerful the PS4 is...it matters little in the grand scheme of things...

I feel that they lost touch with every single consumer product they make. There are no major sexy must-have devices in their line up. It used to the be the walk-man, then the Playstation brand, even TV's have lost their allure. They are a company of thousands of ultra-talented engineers with goddamn jokers running the show. They need someone who has both business acumen and some goddamn taste.

Sony has some of the best engineers in the business, someone with some wantons needs to insure that they create the following:

Top class Tablet
Cheap E-Reader/Tablet ala Kindle
A challenger to the Iphone. And if anyone can fucking do it, its Sony's engineers.

Then they have the PS4 and Vita to worry about of course.

These products need a "walled garden" to ensure the consumer's interest. Considering their hollywood clout (their library is huge!), their Playstation brand and network wtf are they waiting for?

They need to raise the perceived value and uniqueness of their products.

 

[Kapsama]

Oh god! I was enjoying reading this thread until it became a series of assumptions on how the current gen would've turned out if this or that..

It doesn't matter, nothing is changing now!
>.>

What a silly thing to say. The discussion is about why the PS3 failed. Whether you can change the past is irrelevant to the study oh history.