OldJadedGamer
Banned
I don't think publishers will ever allow a first party to have that much contol over them again. Last gen publishers had to kiss Sony's ass, this gen Sony is kissing theirs.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony FY2011: $5.5B Loss; PS3 is #1 despite Thai Flood
- Thread starter Parmenides
- Start date
I don't think publishers will ever allow a first party to have that much contol over them again. Last gen publishers had to kiss Sony's ass, this gen Sony is kissing theirs.
H_Prestige
Banned
It's been exactly at $200. For the tard model only (4GB is recent introduction). PS3 only just got to $250 recently, which is what the Wii launched at to put things in perspective. When 360 4GB hits $150 and ps3 hits $200, then I think both are in mass market range.
dacuk
Member
So Vita's situation will improve in 2020?
Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
Sony is basically late 80s/early 90s IBM right now. A bloated, increasingly irrelevant company with staggering losses. They desperately need a CEO who knows what they're doing and I don't believe for a second that will be Kaz. As for the Vita, it needs a $50 price drop ($199.99 would be the sweet spot) with a strong marketing campaign and games the general market wants to play. In other words, not Gravity Rush or some other game that only a niche audience would care about. Sony also needs to drop the TV division and use the money they will have saved to salvage the Vita. Videogames are actually something Sony does reasonably well.
Admiral Bone to Pick
Banned
I think the market just generally doesn't want to buy a Wii that much. At the same time, the WiiU will be launching later this year with backwards compatibility.
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
Never say never my friend, things can turn around pretty quickly, i thought the 3DS taught us that already.
3DS resurgence didn't exactly come out of nowhere...
GTP_Daverytimes
Member
And you expect the Vita resurgence to come out of nowhere? how many game-shows do we have ahead of us, surely Sony will not make such lofty claims if they did not have a plan, especially not with how the Vita is currently doing.
I am in the market for another 4 or so Terabytes, and I am STILL waiting this out. Christ man HD prices still havent normalized.
I dunno, Nintendo had some pretty stupid forecasts for the 3DS all around. Even their revision was clearly out of reach. It was pretty ridiculous.
bigtroyjon
Member
The 3DS missed it's target badly, terrible example.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Vita price drop and new games from Sony's top AAA devs coming confirmed?
D.Lo
Member
So much wishful thinking here. Sony's in a really bad spot and it seems they don't even have the cash to capitalise on released console opportunities (PS3 and Vita price drops plus money hats) let alone smash out a killer PS4 with momentum out of the gate.
How the hell do they get started with a PS4 in the next year when the PS3 is only now at the price it should have launched at?
Sure, anything can happen, Nintendo turned around 3rd place with easily the best tech per doller (GCN) to first place with the worst tech per doller (Wii) because they had an idea that caught on, at the right price, and backed it up with yet more software that caught on. I still can't believe Mario Kart Wii has sold over 30 million, insane. But is Kaz Iwata?
To make money with a console you have to start well and keep up momentum, Nintendo knew this with the 3DS and did what ammounted to a dramatic 're-launch' to re-start the momentum after a big stall, and all their teams dumped the Wii for 3DS (and assumedly WiiU) development to this purpose. With barely any help at all from 3rd parties Nintendo do it all themselves, they are the company that knows how to go it alone at this point and make the hard scheduling decisions this requires.
Do Sony have a cheap to produce idea that will catch the public's attention (like Wii Sports, Monster Hunter, Brain Training) and make PS4 take off?
I don't think they've shown they have in the past. Sony had some very, very beneficial situations with the PS1 and PS2. Sega released a disaster and Nintendo went with cartridges, all Sony did was released a decent console at the right time at the right price and 3rd parties jumped right on because the environment was good. Even then it took about 3 years to really take off. Sony handled the console extremely well, and eventually came up with actual system-sellers themselves like GT, but they were maintenence skills, they didn't do anythnig particularly special except learned/capitalised from/on competitor's failings and successes at the time (like the 3DO's price, Nintendo's poor 3rd party relations, Sega's marketing).
The PS2 had three massive advantages - momentum and BC from the highest selling console of all time in all territories, DVD playback at exactly the right time in history, and clearly top of the line hardware for at a great price ($300). Lightning in a bottle, and it powers on until this day because of it. Sony made all the right moves to keep momentum up throughout the generation, but the explosive start created what looks like a never to be reapeated environment.
How the hell do they get started with a PS4 in the next year when the PS3 is only now at the price it should have launched at?
Sure, anything can happen, Nintendo turned around 3rd place with easily the best tech per doller (GCN) to first place with the worst tech per doller (Wii) because they had an idea that caught on, at the right price, and backed it up with yet more software that caught on. I still can't believe Mario Kart Wii has sold over 30 million, insane. But is Kaz Iwata?
To make money with a console you have to start well and keep up momentum, Nintendo knew this with the 3DS and did what ammounted to a dramatic 're-launch' to re-start the momentum after a big stall, and all their teams dumped the Wii for 3DS (and assumedly WiiU) development to this purpose. With barely any help at all from 3rd parties Nintendo do it all themselves, they are the company that knows how to go it alone at this point and make the hard scheduling decisions this requires.
Do Sony have a cheap to produce idea that will catch the public's attention (like Wii Sports, Monster Hunter, Brain Training) and make PS4 take off?
I don't think they've shown they have in the past. Sony had some very, very beneficial situations with the PS1 and PS2. Sega released a disaster and Nintendo went with cartridges, all Sony did was released a decent console at the right time at the right price and 3rd parties jumped right on because the environment was good. Even then it took about 3 years to really take off. Sony handled the console extremely well, and eventually came up with actual system-sellers themselves like GT, but they were maintenence skills, they didn't do anythnig particularly special except learned/capitalised from/on competitor's failings and successes at the time (like the 3DO's price, Nintendo's poor 3rd party relations, Sega's marketing).
The PS2 had three massive advantages - momentum and BC from the highest selling console of all time in all territories, DVD playback at exactly the right time in history, and clearly top of the line hardware for at a great price ($300). Lightning in a bottle, and it powers on until this day because of it. Sony made all the right moves to keep momentum up throughout the generation, but the explosive start created what looks like a never to be reapeated environment.
PS3 should have launched at $250? Same price as Wii? Are you braindead?
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
PS3 was the console we needed, but not the one we deserved
They got to the price it should have launched at in 2009. But there is a lingering effect of always getting to price points years later than they should have since the initial MSRP was so insnaely high.
I expect PS4 is sold $299 to $399 at the start, and doesn't lose a significant amount per unit. I wonder what happens if they take the Nintendo approach of keeping the development footprint around what can be done now. Would Nextbox alone get third parties to jump into better game engines? The userbase wouldn't be there for years, and they wouldn't be able to count on having multiple systems to defray the costs.
D.Lo
Member
Ugh. No, given the context I clearly mean the PS3 should have been a box at a power level that could launch at ~$300. No Blu-ray, no ludicrous experimental 7 core processors etc.
iamshadowlark
Banned
That rant by D.Lo is comedy gold. Qiuck post another one.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
you so crazy. that would be something that would bite them in the ass today.
wasnt the non-gimp 360 at 400 bucks? what makes ps3 so special it needed to be 100 bucks cheaper?
also, the reason why it was so expensive was because they put a whole PS2 in there. you didn't seem to say that they needed to get rid of that when THAT was the main ancillary cost! not the blu-ray drive!
$400 is a fine price. I paid $400 for the 360 and my first PS3. $300 would be crazy considering the last gen tech Wii launched at $250
and yea, Bluray is awesome so I'm glad they put it in.
At the time, they felt like they absolutely had to include blu-ray to win the war. In the end, it was Warner Bros becoming blu-ray exclusive (adding to the already exclusive Disney and Fox), and not the poor selling (at the time) PS3 that killed Toshiba's HD-DVD.
So in hind sight, they didn't "need" to include blu-ray in their PS3.
gundamkyoukai
Member
What are you talking about it was only because of PS3 sales that help them catch up to HD DVD players that WB sided with them.
So without PS3 WB would have gone to HD DVD since it had a head start and Toshiba was selling the players at a loss .
iamshadowlark
Banned
PS3 certainly helped. WB or Universal for that matter probably wouldn't have converted so fast if the BDA wasn't able to boast about player sales, which were inflated by PS3s. PS3 wasn't selling amazingly as a console but as a hd-movie player it was damn good. Also the cheapest one available for a while.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Blu-ray needed the PS3 but the PS3 didn't need Blu-ray.
gundamkyoukai
Member
Yep without PS3 Blu ray was dead .
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Sony as a corporation is in a bad spot.
Sony's Playstation Division isn't.
I don't see why they can't drop the price of either the Vita/PS3 later in the year. They already tested the market a bit with a $50 price drop this past month for the PS3.
PS4 will likely release at a launch price of $399. This is the new normal. You can't keep expecting $299 price tags. That was what the PS1 launched at back in 1994/1995. Inflation has taken its toll.
There's nothing wrong with that either, by the time a $399 PS4 releases, PS3 will be $199.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
The PS2 was $299 and became the best selling home system of all time at that price.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
InsaneZero
Member
The real problem with blu-ray is that despite winning the physical media war, it also came during a time where streaming media was taking over as the preferred media format of choice. In retrospect, the inclusion of the blu-ray player hindered the PS3 adoption rates, with very little to show for it as people were turning away from physical media.
Which is funny since $299 in wages in 2001 does not equal $399 in wages in 2012. $1500 for a fairly decent laptop in 2001 still equals $1500 for a fairly decent laptop in 2012. Why have game consoles not followed that?
iamshadowlark
Banned
Its been what 6 years, and streaming media still isn't the preferred choice.
You can get a fairly decent laptop under 1K.
D.Lo
Member
I'm not prescribing personal judgements on these things, I'm talking business. I actually got a PS3 myself early on specifically for the Blu Ray, but the fact is it hurt the PS3. But even a $400 Blu-ray-less slightly scaled down PS3 would have done a lot better in my opinion.
It isn't about the quality/desirability of the product, it's about value: the quality/desirability of the product per dollar.
Whatever actually hapenned, their startegy was to leverage the assumed guaranteed success of the PS3 on name alone to help win a format war. Arguable whether it worked, it certainly seems backroom deals with studios had more effect, but it imo irrefutably hurt the PS3 (combined with overly ambitous tech) by keeping it out of 'easy pick-up' price range for 6 years.
It isn't about the quality/desirability of the product, it's about value: the quality/desirability of the product per dollar.
Whatever actually hapenned, their startegy was to leverage the assumed guaranteed success of the PS3 on name alone to help win a format war. Arguable whether it worked, it certainly seems backroom deals with studios had more effect, but it imo irrefutably hurt the PS3 (combined with overly ambitous tech) by keeping it out of 'easy pick-up' price range for 6 years.
Pretty much. Even winning there's no DVD-style windfall.
CadetMahoney
Member
lol
Some ppl are doubtful Sony can risk releasing a monster machine for the PS4. Given their financial troubles this is a very real situation for them. They're not riding the tailcoats of the PS2 anymore and have lost an immense amount of maketshare this gen. Can they afford another PS3-level losses given a repeat situation is a bigger possibility this time.
MS knows this and can flank them with their bigger marketshare and afford to lose alot on a monster machine so ppl can't nuthug a "better graphics" angle like they did for the PS3. Not that it really helped them financially. The last thing ppl want is the same shit on both consoles with neither providing anything really different, devs making everything on parity.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Blockbuster would tend to disagree you.
Kiosks are doing quite well though that's probably due to obscene streaming prices for new releases...
iamshadowlark
Banned
Blockbuster is only one piece of the pie.
bigtroyjon
Member
Streaming media is by far the preferred choice. It doesn't bring in as much revenue as physical yet but more time is spent watching streaming compared to discs.
iamshadowlark
Banned
You got proof? Bloomberg estimates that by the end of this year streaming will finally take the lead but as of the end of 2011, not yet. Certainly not "by far". Numbers please...
Rubbish imo. Once again do not equate US assumptions to the rest of the world. There are so many places that haven't even heard of netflix, hulu et al.
inpHilltr8r
Member
RedBox & NetFlix discs by mail >>>> Streaming
bigtroyjon
Member
Link to tv usage, includes % time watching DVD/VCR
It's broken down by demo but I'll just use the demo with the highest DVD/VCR time.
Average TV time a week is 32.86 hours. 5% of that time is spent on DVD/VCR which equals 1.64 hours a week or 6.57 hours a month.
Link to internet video stats
180 million Americans are watching 21.8 hours of internet video a month.
Link to Netflix stats
20 million customers watching 33 hours of content a month.
As I said, the time spent watching streaming or internet video is by far more than time spent watching physical media.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
First, you´re the guy who can´t distinguish between pr and financial forecast.
Second, it´s really stupid to assume that MS is willing to lose money just because they have it. Most companies sell or close their unprofitable division. MS is no exception. Just because other MS branches are profitable does not mean in any that MS is willing to lose money on the Nextbox.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Streaming is huge in the US. I think anyone that questions streamings impact doesn't live in that region because Netflix has small support in other areas right now.
James Sawyer Ford
Gold Member
Microsoft and Sony are not going to release systems that generate huge losses anymore. Microsoft theoretically could take a massive loss on hardware, but let's examine a few things, shall we?
1) Nintendo generated the most sales this gen with a console that was priced reasonably and had the lowest hardware power. They were profitable from day 1.
2) Microsoft priced the Kinect @ $129. When this was revealed, people went nuts at how crazy they were to price it this high.
3) Microsoft has admitted that the gaming division is now going to sink or swim on its own. No more corporate subsidized losses for this division.
Microsoft has always been fairly slow at lowering the price of 360 hardware over the years.
Does anyone honestly think that they are going to somehow manufacture a beastly, powerful system, and in order to compete with Sony on price, take hundreds of dollars of losses per console sold?
No, absolutely not.
1) Nintendo generated the most sales this gen with a console that was priced reasonably and had the lowest hardware power. They were profitable from day 1.
2) Microsoft priced the Kinect @ $129. When this was revealed, people went nuts at how crazy they were to price it this high.
3) Microsoft has admitted that the gaming division is now going to sink or swim on its own. No more corporate subsidized losses for this division.
Microsoft has always been fairly slow at lowering the price of 360 hardware over the years.
Does anyone honestly think that they are going to somehow manufacture a beastly, powerful system, and in order to compete with Sony on price, take hundreds of dollars of losses per console sold?
No, absolutely not.
I don't know. I could see Microsoft gaining that much power. In a scenario where the PS4 bombs, and 3rd parties can't/won't sell on the WiiU, Microsoft would be fairly strong.
Yeah I guess I'm talking like really f-ing decent. You can get the top mobile video card on the market (7970), an ivy bridge processor, 8GB RAM, etc for about $1600.
LOL that's a monster gaming laptop, which didn't even exist in 2001
D.Lo
Member
They have never made actual money. Even with these slim to okay quarterly/yearly profits, their initial investment on the 360 is no-where near paid back, though we can't say exactly how much due to them deliberately muddying the waters/hiding losses by rolling divisions together, still billions? Add to that the other 4 billion on the original XB, and where are they now?
How can a company be sure it can compete profitably on its own merits in this space when it never has before? Espescially in a space they still consider strategic.
Sony has at least had two, likely three overall profitable videogame devices. Microsoft has had ZERO.
Nintendo has had nine