Support NeoGAF

[Jhriad]

Bill of materials is just the cost of the parts. Doesn't include the manufacturing, labour, shipping, etc.

Pretty much said that in my post. Still seems like they should be close to breaking even/making a small profit on each unit.

 

[Ken Masters]

Yes, you do sell 37 million to Apple fans, and it's mainly due to Apple going to new markets. Android is gaining market share every day to stop Apple from getting anywhere.

If iPad 3 doesn't go crazy, sport dual analog set up or something radical, it's just another tablet. Android ICS will eat that up like nothing.

LOL, based on what? besides your fanboyism vein in full display

 

[Cheebo]

LOL, based on what? besides your fanboyism vein in full display

Come on don't you know that unless iPad 3 has dual analog sticks built in it will bomb?

 

[Kyoufu]

Why are shares up?

 

[KageMaru]

Hmm, some said BR was a dumb decision.. I tend to agree. Blu Ray did kind of kill Sony here. I believe it added some 200 bucks on top of the production of the Ps3. It really wasn't needed for gaming, and with the rise of digital distribution one might wonder if BR is worth it at all. DVD is STILL doing better at retail after all. Its pure speculation on my part, but a DVD Ps3 could've been released for 300-400 bucks and perhaps Sony would be in a much better position right now.

If the estimates are to be believed, it added $350 to the BOM, cutting that out for a DVD drive and could have matched the 360's price and still lose less money.

Of course the cheerleaders here will defend sony's decision to sacrifice the market and mindshare for blu-ray.

Edit: Though I would disagree with you on the whole innovation part. Hardware can be debated, but with software like LBP and their willingness to cooperate with developers have proven rather innovative IMO.

 

[sloppyjoe_gamer]

Hmm, some said BR was a dumb decision.. I tend to agree. Blu Ray did kind of kill Sony here. I believe it added some 200 bucks on top of the production of the Ps3. It really wasn't needed for gaming, and with the rise of digital distribution one might wonder if BR is worth it at all. DVD is STILL doing better at retail after all. Its pure speculation on my part, but a DVD Ps3 could've been released for 300-400 bucks and perhaps Sony would be in a much better position right now.

There is one keyword for Sony though; Innovation. They are severely lacking there.

They got away with offering the same thing at a time when a graphical upgrade was enough. The Ps1 was a gaming console like the other competitors for example, it offered what Sega and Nintendo did and it was succesful. The Ps2 was really same thing but with even better graphics. That worked out back then but now the success lies in bringing a new experience to the table rather than just the same thing with prettier graphics. Nintendo came up with the Wii and its motion controls, and won. Microsoft one-upped that with Kinect and is succesful as well. But all Sony did was offering a carbon copy of the Wii-mote and obviously lost. The same thing could be said for handhelds, the PSP is not that much more than a GBA with prettier visuals. The DS however was actually a new experience.

Also, Sony forgot to take online play seriously during the Ps2 era while it was obvious that it would become significant for the consoles. Sony is constantly playing catch up with PSN as well.

As a first day Playstation gamer I want Sony to be succesful again, but I'm not certain. They need to be a step ahead for once instead of following.

lolwut?? Do you not realize how you contradicted yourself? BR won the war with HDDVD, and no doubt brought many PS3 sales to people who wanted a bluray player along with a gaming system. BR was also invented by Sony.

I also don't buy this 'Catching up with PSN' business either. It's simply not true for everyone's tastes. PSN does everything i need it to for me to play games online, and it doesnt cost me anything.

 

[patsu]

What what in the butt? Is that (and the rest of the article) true?

Very interesting if so. But seeing as how BRDs are now officially the next generation of DVDs, isn't Sony now in the same problem that JVC, Panasonic etc. found themselves in?

The difference is: tight competition in the consumer market against Chinese DVD player makers, vs building a higher margin ecosystem for the professional markets. There are different markets for BR, DVD and VHS/Betamax.

The 4K push for example starts in the professional circle. Medical Imaging is another area. The higher margin comes from specialized hardware, software and content. Someone above pointed out that the corporate BR part is losing money, but the total revenue due to BR are not only counted as DADC income anyway. e.g. BR movie and players $$$ are lumped elsewhere.

The point is royalties is not the only BR income. It did help raise home movie sales and player sales, plus other HD devices like digital cameras. As Kaz mentioned, Sony may invest more $$$ developing and selling high end equipments and apps for select professional markets. They will naturally do more than BR archival systems. It's just one of the pieces in their ecosystem.

 

[patsu]

The point stands whether that's true or not though. If Vita did end up a huge flop, it at least won't have cost them a huge amount. They've been able to assemble a powerful machine without spilling huge amounts of red ink on R&D and (so far anyway), without massive per unit losses.

The assumption that Sony not being able to make a PS3-scale r&d investment == Sony not being able to make a powerful machine is flawed. They can design a powerful machine without the kinds of investments they made for PS3, just as MS and Nintendo already have done (or could do, as the case may be). You don't have to invent your own semiconductors to do that, as Sony was basically doing for PS3.

That said, if Sony wanted to go that route again, if they wanted to make it a priority, they probably would have the money to do it. But it would be extremely risky and is extremely unnecessary and they've been plainly clear that it's not going to happen. 'Not invented here' syndrome no longer exists at SCE as far as semiconductors go.

I wonder if Sony will make a Vita phone and sell in parallel with the dedicated handheld.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

I think this would help significantly. A unique, distinctive platform is an easier sell at break even value (or when sold at a profit).

The Vita has showed that Sony cares a lot about cost. They won´t sell the PS4 at a loss or at worst, they will take little loss on it. We can see their PS4 strategy from the Vita. The PS4 might be powerful, but it won´t put them in the red like the PS3.

 

[Kazerei]

I doubt it.

The original article

平井副社長はヴィータの本体販売で３年以内に利益を出すことを目指すと述べた。

This is all I know.

ヴィータ = Vita
機本体 = Console

Also before you can declare something profitable you have to recoup all the initial investments. Its crazy to think that the Vita will have accomplished that by now, even if it sold at a Wii's pace.

I don't think that's the perspective they're taking. Current operating costs and revenue are used to consider what's profitable, while initial investments are water under the bridge.

But really, is it that hard to believe the Vita is sold at a loss? Even the 3DS was sold at a loss, but Nintendo should be breaking even around now.

 

[Petrichor]

Why are shares up?

Investors evidently haven't watched Sony's E3 2006 press conference. Confidence in Hirai apparently.

 

[KageMaru]

But really, is it that hard to believe the Vita is sold at a loss? Even the 3DS was sold at a loss, but Nintendo should be breaking even around now.

I thought the 3DS was only selling at a loss after the price drop, no?

I also thought PSV was selling at a slight loss, or roughly breaking even after purchasing a memory card was considered.

 

[iamshadowlark]

The original article



This is all I know.

ヴィータ = Vita
機本体 = Console



I don't think that's the perspective they're taking. Current operating costs and revenue are used to consider what's profitable, while initial investments are water under the bridge.

But really, is it that hard to believe the Vita is sold at a loss? Even the 3DS was sold at a loss, but Nintendo should be breaking even around now.

Well thats your problem.

Heres SCEA's VP.

I think that we’re going to do very well with this, and this price point – it’s also not going to lose money for us on day one. We’re going to do well with this thing

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-lineup-interview/715473

Also, you seem to forget that Nintendo slashed the 3DS price which took them into the red per unit.

 

[Kusagari]

Yes, you do sell 37 million to Apple fans, and it's mainly due to Apple going to new markets. Android is gaining market share every day to stop Apple from getting anywhere.

If iPad 3 doesn't go crazy, sport dual analog set up or something radical, it's just another tablet. Android ICS will eat that up like nothing.

Your posts in this thread are among the dumbest I've ever read on this forum.

Continue living in dream world.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Heres SCEA's VP.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-lineup-interview/715473

Does that comment mean "We're not taking a loss per unit" or "We're confident that our loss per unit is under control enough that software sales will make it so we never effectively lose money on the Vita"?

 

[charlequin]

They are not theories if those BR investments, transactions and expenses are announced, happening for real, and recorded, as we speak. Theories are those what-ifs and maybes that people imagined if PS3 has no BR. Playstation business will have its own set of challenges and opportunities to address naturally. How much BR will take in is also an open issue.

Crediting the BluRay drive in the PlayStation 3 for "rejuvenating the movie industry" is totally wacko, sorry.

There's practically no way that is the case. Sony aren't dumb, they would have crunched the numbers - There's no way that Blu-Ray royalities made up for the money they lost on the PS3. It's a nice little money spinner, but nothing humongous. Sony thought they could have their cake and eat it too.

Right. That was the entire point: to do something like what PS2 did and put what was effectively a subsidized BluRay player in millions of homes. And I don't think it was a bad plan in theory: history shows that it definitely worked on the consumer end, in terms of creating a demand for BRDs that outstripped the competing format.

That's what makes all this retroactive spinning on it so ridiculous. There was never any idea whatsoever that this was a weighted tactical move to sacrifice one business to build another, and if anyone had brought up that idea in 2006, they would've been rightfully mocked: a well-run company does not torch a wildly profitable business to gain a speculative edge in another, smaller business.

So overall we're at $99.5 million to the end of 2010 for Sony in the US.

Those seem pretty on-point with past reported DVD royalties.

This of course all aside from the fact that they would likely be selling around the same amount even if they didn't help create the tech, as evidenced by aforementioned companies who are eating their lunch.

Right. I do agree with jvm that BluRay as a whole is a good business for Sony to be in, it was a good technological investment and a good product to own such a significant stake in the patent basket of -- but most of the ecosystem profits are format-neutral. Sony could be making money on duplication, on players, on TVs, etc. just as well with HD-DVD if they had no stake in BluRay.

What what in the butt? Is that (and the rest of the article) true?

It's true that Betamax was an outrageously profitable technology for Sony, it just has nothing to do with the BluRay situation. The profit from Betamax came from the fact that it was a superior video technology at a time when video was still an expensive, equipment-intensive product for business but nonetheless a necessary product in everything from Hollywood studios down to local news shows. Sony's technological advantage (and good product development) here allowed them to dominate a massive enterprise market with a wide range of high-end product needs and keep them locked in for ongoing purchases. BluRay doesn't have any comparable options because we're in a very different era in terms of technological commoditization.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Does that comment mean "We're not taking a loss per unit" or "We're confident that our loss per unit is under control enough that software sales will make it so we never effectively lose money on the Vita"?

It could mean either. My original point still stands though. Vita hardware could very well be profitable.

 

[spwolf]

If the estimates are to be believed, it added $350 to the BOM, cutting that out for a DVD drive and could have matched the 360's price and still lose less money.

Of course the cheerleaders here will defend sony's decision to sacrifice the market and mindshare for blu-ray.

Edit: Though I would disagree with you on the whole innovation part. Hardware can be debated, but with software like LBP and their willingness to cooperate with developers have proven rather innovative IMO.

as much as I know, it was $117 for BD drive back in 2006, according to isuppli report, which was $100 more than DVD.

BD definetly did not add $350 to the BOM, thats crazy.

 

[staticneuron]

There's practically no way that is the case. Sony aren't dumb, they would have crunched the numbers - There's no way that Blu-Ray royalities made up for the money they lost on the PS3. It's a nice little money spinner, but nothing humongous. Sony thought they could have their cake and eat it too.

Iirc it is more than just royalties. They produce a large amount of diodes, many people go to them for licensing and pressing, They get paid every time someone uses their proprietary compression algorithm and I think they have a hand in some of the security software. So in addition to simple royalties made from creation of the format, they should be bringing even more thanks to their software and services.

BR means much more to Sony than royalties. It's actually a good example of the "synergies" (ugh) they've been talking up. Sony makes movies to sell on BR, TV's to watch BR, BR players, PS3s, and computers. They also make the blank BR discs, and they duplicate the disks, and they make the disk duplication machines, and the OPUs inside in the readers/writers.

I don't know how exactly to calculate the financial importance of controlling the technology, but it's likely much more than a few hundred million in royalties.

And this.

 

[Clear]

Ok, remove that 50 million from 154 million and you get 104 million against competitor's 22 and 24 million. It changes percents but it doesn't change the point I was making at all.

It just shocks me that in a quest to appoint winners and losers 50m units of sold hardware can be summarily discarded, or even placed on the debit pile as you did.

And honestly dude, I'm not suggesting you used that number in anything other than good faith - I'm not claiming an agenda or anything dubious on your part. The point is that I'm not disputing the fact, just the common perception of it.

The continued success of the PS2 should not be counted as a negative against the PS3, when its clearly a major positive for Sony and Playstation as a global brand.

The PS3 hasn't performed as well as the PS2 did, but placing that fact in isolation is hardly the whole picture.

 

[Kazerei]

Well thats your problem.

Heres SCEA's VP.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-2011-lineup-interview/715473

I doubt SCEA's VP knows that much about the Vita business financially. Let's try SCE CEO* Andrew House here

Q: The PS Vita price was a nice surprise at E3. But at that price is the system going to be sold at a loss form day one?

Andrew House: I think as a business it will definitely be profitable from day one. In terms of hardware specifically, it's really not something we tend to comment on, but I would say it will be a significantly better situation than for example, the PlayStation 3. This is in a much, much healthier place from a profitability stand point.

So he kind of dodges it. The only way I can make sense of both Kaz Hirai's and Andrew House's statements are if:

- Vita hardware will be profitable within 3 years
- Vita business will be profitable from day 1 (and disregard initial investments)

Also, you seem to forget that Nintendo slashed the 3DS price which took them into the red per unit.

Err, of course I didn't forget ... I just said the same thing. And to KageMaru, yeah, the 3DS sold at a loss after the price cut.

EDIT: To be fair, Andrew House was President/CEO of SCEE at the time of the interview. He became President/CEO of SCE a bit later.

 

[KageMaru]

Crediting the BluRay drive in the PlayStation 3 for "rejuvenating the movie industry" is totally wacko, sorry.

lol awesome.

It could mean either. My original point still stands though. Vita hardware could very well be profitable.

If sales from software, or memory cards, are necessary to make up the difference, the hardware itself wouldn't really be pulling in the profits would it?

Or are you including the additional necessary purchases when mentioning the vita hardware?

FWIW I'm in the camp that thinks Sony is handling the cost of Vita very well, I was just trying to better understand what you were saying.

Edit:

as much as I know, it was $117 for BD drive back in 2006, according to isuppli report, which was $100 more than DVD.

BD definetly did not add $350 to the BOM, thats crazy.

Interesting, do you have a quote or link from the launch BOM? The only estimate break down I can find is $350 for the BD.

Edit: I tried looking again and iSupply's estimate for the launch BOM was $840, higher than Merrill Lynch's estimate of $800 per unit. However the link I'm able to access didn't have an actual breakdown and I couldn't access the source link (not sure if it's filters at work or if the link isn't valid anymore).

 

[StevieP]

Wow this thread must be like some sort of banning fly trap.

Hmm, some said BR was a dumb decision.. I tend to agree. Blu Ray did kind of kill Sony here. I believe it added some 200 bucks on top of the production of the Ps3. It really wasn't needed for gaming, and with the rise of digital distribution one might wonder if BR is worth it at all. DVD is STILL doing better at retail after all. Its pure speculation on my part, but a DVD Ps3 could've been released for 300-400 bucks and perhaps Sony would be in a much better position right now.

Some estimates place it in the $300 range.

There is one keyword for Sony though; Innovation. They are severely lacking there.

They got away with offering the same thing at a time when a graphical upgrade was enough. The Ps1 was a gaming console like the other competitors for example, it offered what Sega and Nintendo did and it was succesful. The Ps2 was really same thing but with even better graphics. That worked out back then but now the success lies in bringing a new experience to the table rather than just the same thing with prettier graphics. Nintendo came up with the Wii and its motion controls, and won. Microsoft one-upped that with Kinect and is succesful as well. But all Sony did was offering a carbon copy of the Wii-mote and obviously lost. The same thing could be said for handhelds, the PSP is not that much more than a GBA with prettier visuals. The DS however was actually a new experience.

While I agree that (Vita aside) Sony's been lacking in the hardware innovation aspect over the last little while... they have been great at putting out some great first party or published software over the past generation. Not all of it has been "innovative" (some of it is iterative, even) but you can't dismiss that they've tried a lot of funky stuff on the software side.

Pretty much said that in my post. Still seems like they should be close to breaking even/making a small profit on each unit.

Look at what's inside the Nintendo 3DS. Look at what's inside the Vita. Nintendo is losing per unit at $170. What makes you think Sony is making money per unit at $250? Guestimated BOM breakdowns are not always a good way to get an idea of cost per unit.

lolwut?? Do you not realize how you contradicted yourself? BR won the war with HDDVD, and no doubt brought many PS3 sales to people who wanted a bluray player along with a gaming system. BR was also invented by Sony.

Errr... I think you should look at PS3 sales in outside of the past year or two. It wasn't very good (I recall the "did it beat the GBA?" talk in NPD threads, for instance). That Sony has turned the ship and made it sell as respectably as it has later in the generation is fantastic on their part. But it was not selling much.

Iirc it is more than just royalties. They produce a large amount of diodes, many people go to them for licensing and pressing, They get paid every time someone uses their proprietary compression algorithm and I think they have a hand in some of the security software. So in addition to simple royalties made from creation of the format, they should be bringing even more thanks to their software and services.

Things like BR royalties/disc pressing/etc etc that have been discussed ad nauseum are not really worth discussing. It simply could and never will make up the losses on the Playstation business, either monetarily or mind-share wise.

 

[staticneuron]

Crediting the BluRay drive in the PlayStation 3 for "rejuvenating the movie industry" is totally wacko, sorry.

If it goes back to this...

The Blu-ray movie industry is still growing and panning out in HD, 3D, UltraViolet and 4K. It plays a key role in rejuvenating the movie industry.

Then he has a point.

In terms of "rejuvenating" he simply means that these companies and movie industry people keep on pushing new tech to sap even more money from consumers. I mean.... SW episode 1 in 3D?

Anywho... the issue between HD and BR was glaring. It was bandwidth. And if BR didn't win the fight, or as most people see it, using the PS3 as a trojan horse. There would be issues in presenting the new tech because of the maximum total bandwith of HD DVD .

Things like BR royalties/disc pressing/etc etc that have been discussed ad nauseum are not really worth discussing. It simply could and never will make up the losses on the Playstation business, either monetarily or mind-share wise.

Never said it would. I don't try to tie the performance of separate products to each other unless it makes some sort of logic. I am just saying that BR does make them a substantial amount in different areas and imo, was the better tech to succeed the format wars, looking at specs alone.

 

[CaptainABAB]

So he kind of dodges it. The only way I can make sense of both Kaz Hirai's and Andrew House's statements are if:

- Vita hardware will be profitable within 3 years
- Vita business will be profitable from day 1 (and disregard initial investments)

Agreed - the key is when they mention the "business" as a whole (hardware + software licenses + accessories) vs. the hardware alone.

 

[iceatcs]

Does that comment mean "We're not taking a loss per unit" or "We're confident that our loss per unit is under control enough that software sales will make it so we never effectively lose money on the Vita"?

Not sure but my opinion it mean it won't badly like PS3.
If there is under control enough from loyalty such as memory card profit, software, PSN either. Then it shouldn't take massive loss, something like no more than $50.

 

[charlequin]

If sales from software, or memory cards, are necessary to make up the difference, the hardware itself wouldn't really be pulling in the profits would it?

Yeah, I am confident that the Vita hardware (at least, the Wifi version) is selling at a per-unit loss currently, although that loss is probably small; out of the possible interpretations of the information available to me, the one that makes the most sense to me personally (and I could be wrong here, especially if there's other information available) is that the Vita hardware is sold at a pretty small per-unit loss, that the Vita "ecosystem" is cash-positive on day one (i.e. the average consumer buys enough software and accessories to make up the loss), and they expect the Vita business as a whole to have recouped all R&D and upfront costs and be generating pure profits going forward by its third year.

If that interpretation is correct I'd count that as a pretty significant triumph, BTW. A model like that gives Sony a ton of flexibility to move tactically into a market like gaming handhelds even if they can't actually make an offering that earns market-leader status. (In fact, this model is a lot like the one that let Nintendo profit off of even a market disaster like the Gamecube.)

 

[iamshadowlark]

I doubt SCEA's VP knows that much about the Vita business financially. Let's try SCE CEO Andrew House here

LOL what?

So he kind of dodges it. The only way I can make sense of both Kaz Hirai's and Andrew House's statements are if:

- Vita hardware will be profitable within 3 years
- Vita business will be profitable from day 1 (and disregard initial investments)

We can through in Yoshida too.

Yoshida: At the very start of this project a bunch of us core members went to Japan and spent a day discussing what it is that we wanted to achieve with the new PlayStation portable device. One of the goals was to hit the right price point, which was actually $250. So at the very beginning we agreed that we're going to hit $250. But during that time we were still recovering from the difficultly we had with the high cost of goods with PlayStation 3 where the company lost a lot of money. We asked consumers to spend a lot of money to purchase what, at that time, was bleeding-edge technology. That was great from a technical standpoint but the technology has to mature enough so that a reasonable price can be put on the performance.

For Vita, the price on performance was something we definitely wanted to hit, although we all agreed because we are PlayStation, people expect better graphics and prettier pictures, so we have all those things we wanted to achieve in terms of capabilities, but we capped our ambitions with a cost of goods target that we can profitably sell the hardware for $250.

To answer your question, we set out a goal: Yes, we're going to hit the $250 price, and no, we don't want to sell the hardware with a deficit. That's a goal we set out to do and I'm very happy we are achieving that.


IGN: So you're going to be profitable with each Vita sold?

Yoshida: We haven't completed the hardware development. It's like 98-percent done in terms of hardware, and on the system software side and network code, we have a few more months to work on that. We don't have the final-final answer to that question, but the way we are projecting it seems like we're going to do pretty well.

So yeah it could be profitable.

 

[patsu]

Crediting the BluRay drive in the PlayStation 3 for "rejuvenating the movie industry" is totally wacko, sorry.

lol awesome.

Then he has a point.

In terms of "rejuvenating" he simply means that these companies and movie industry people keep on pushing new tech to sap even more money from consumers. I mean.... SW episode 1 in 3D?

Anywho... the issue between HD and BR was glaring. It was bandwidth. And if BR didn't win the fight, or as most people see it, using the PS3 as a trojan horse. There would be issues in presenting the new tech because of the maximum total bandwith of HD DVD .

Yes, BR help fill in DVD's decline. Google for the press releases and statements by various movie industry folks regarding DVD decline and Blu-ray. They will keep stacking features (e.g., 3D) on top to prevent commoditization of the format. One of the mistakes the DVD Consortium made was they issued player licenses to everyone and anyone, the cheap Chinese player makers came in and killed the margin instantly ($20 DVD player at retail). In BR, they are more selective. They issued the licenses to a handful of trusted/savvy Chinese makers.

BR also fended off MS's iHD effort, making HD movie playback a PS3 differentiator.

 

[patsu]

Andrew House mentioned that Vita's loss and profit will depend on the strength of Yen, so we can use that as a guide for "margin of loss".

 

[Celine]

Why are shares up?

If I may guess Hirai replacing Stringer as the head of the company gave confidence to investors.

 

[patsu]

If I may guess Hirai replacing Stringer as the head of the company gave confidence to investors.

Kaz reflected Sony's major problems succinctly. Something Sony has refused or failed to recognize for all too many years.

Speculators probably felt that it can't get any worse (Buahaha !). But seriously, Sony has been plagued by Tsunami, Thai flood, UK fire in 2011. Someone in Sony must have offended mother nature.

 

[Marco1]

Surely the loss on each vita sold is taken up by the memory cards sold?

 

[the thoroughbred]

But is this loss not for Sony as a whole, not solely the Playstation brand?

 

[AranhaHunter]

Yeah, I am confident that the Vita hardware (at least, the Wifi version) is selling at a per-unit loss currently, although that loss is probably small; out of the possible interpretations of the information available to me, the one that makes the most sense to me personally (and I could be wrong here, especially if there's other information available) is that the Vita hardware is sold at a pretty small per-unit loss, that the Vita "ecosystem" is cash-positive on day one (i.e. the average consumer buys enough software and accessories to make up the loss), and they expect the Vita business as a whole to have recouped all R&D and upfront costs and be generating pure profits going forward by its third year.

If that interpretation is correct I'd count that as a pretty significant triumph, BTW. A model like that gives Sony a ton of flexibility to move tactically into a market like gaming handhelds even if they can't actually make an offering that earns market-leader status. (In fact, this model is a lot like the one that let Nintendo profit off of even a market disaster like the Gamecube.)

I think you're right on the money here. I believe the 3G SKU will make money on HW from day 1 and the Wi fi lose a small amount or break even. The Vita HW as a whole might be profitable depending on the split between 3G and wi fi only.

 

[Kazerei]

LOL what?

Well there's a difference between SCE and SCEA...

We can through in Yoshida too.


So yeah it could be profitable.

He kind of dodged the question when IGN asked straight up "so you're going to be profitable with each Vita sold?" But one thing's for sure, they aren't making the same mistake as with the PS3.

Anyways, this discussion isn't that important as long as Sony is making money on Vita business, and on PlayStation business as a whole. Sony is going through tough times, but us gamers should have nothing to worry about

 

[zomgbbqftw]

But seriously, Sony has been plagued by Tsunami, Thai flood, UK fire in 2011. Someone in Sony must have offended mother nature.

 

[Infinite Justice]

Kaz reflected Sony's major problems succinctly. Something Sony has refused or failed to recognize for all too many years.

Speculators probably felt that it can't get any worse (Buahaha !). But seriously, Sony has been plagued by Tsunami, Thai flood, UK fire in 2011. Someone in Sony must have offended mother nature.

I guess Mother Nature hated what Sony did to the PS3 also. lol

 

[Biff]

If I may guess Hirai replacing Stringer as the head of the company gave confidence to investors.

That and word just got out that Panasonic is set to post a record US$10B loss.

The market is based just as much on the competition as it is your own company's performance.

 

[Spiegel]

I'm not saying that the Vita hardware is profitable (personally I don't think it is) but I find normal that they are dodging the question and not confirming if that really is the case.

More people would be asking for a price drop if Sony confirmed they were making money with the hardware.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

That and word just got out that Panasonic is set to post a record US$10B loss.

The market is based just as much on the competition as it is your own company's performance.

$10bn!?!

We have them down at a $4.6bn loss. D:

 

[iamshadowlark]

Well there's a difference between SCE and SCEA...

Im almost 100% positive that he gets briefed on any and every direction the company is taking. Along with financial information. How the hell could he do his job if he doesn't?

He kind of dodged the question when IGN asked straight up "so you're going to be profitable with each Vita sold?" But one thing's for sure, they aren't making the same mistake as with the PS3.

Anyways, this discussion isn't that important as long as Sony is making money on Vita business, and on PlayStation business as a whole. Sony is going through tough times, but us gamers should have nothing to worry about

He didn't dodge it as much as he said he doesn't know. But yeah its probably close enough to not matter and if im not mistaken SCE was doing good this FW any way.

 

[AranhaHunter]

It always amazes me how Samsung profits ~$4billion every quarter and Sony will be lucky to hit their $2.6 profit next FY.

 

[H_Prestige]

If the estimates are to be believed, it added $350 to the BOM, cutting that out for a DVD drive and could have matched the 360's price and still lose less money.

Of course the cheerleaders here will defend sony's decision to sacrifice the market and mindshare for blu-ray.

Edit: Though I would disagree with you on the whole innovation part. Hardware can be debated, but with software like LBP and their willingness to cooperate with developers have proven rather innovative IMO.

Again, this is a false connection you're making. BD lost Sony money, it did not lose them the market or mindshare. Unless they came out with a $250 machine, they were going to lose the market.

 

[StevieP]

Again, this is a false connection you're making. BD lost Sony money, it did not lose them the market or mindshare. Unless they came out with a $250 machine, they were going to lose the market.

Revisionism. Recall back to 2005. I shouldn't need to bring out any analyst comments or GAF threads as an example here.

 

[Kazerei]

Im almost 100% positive that he gets briefed on any and every direction the company is taking. Along with financial information. How the hell could he do his job if he doesn't?




He didn't dodge it as much as he said he doesn't know. But yeah its probably close enough to not matter and if im not mistaken SCE was doing good this FW any way.

He's the head of software product development though. So I don't think he needs to know that much about the company's finances, but he probably has access to that information.

Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[H_Prestige]

Revisionism. Recall back to 2005. I shouldn't need to bring out any analyst comments or GAF threads as an example here.

Read analyst or fanboy GAF comments from 2005? Are you serious?

You have a DVD ps3 costing about $400 or more, with a lot fewer games than the 360, horrible online, and nothing at all to counteract public interest in the new Wii. And somehow you think this product takes the market by storm and becomes the new ps2? You'd get the same reaction, "it's too expensive and has no games!".

 

[Krilekk]

If I may guess Hirai replacing Stringer as the head of the company gave confidence to investors.

Nope. It's really just basic trading: Sell on good news, buy on bad news.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

Read analyst or fanboy GAF comments from 2005? Are you serious?

You have a DVD ps3 costing about $400 or more, with a lot fewer games than the 360, horrible online, and nothing at all to counteract public interest in the new Wii. And somehow you think this product takes the market by storm and becomes the new ps2?

I don't think anybody saying it was going to become the new PS2.
Still if Sony came out near MS with console around the same price i think most people expect they would have sold more.
Sony numbers are nothing compare to last gen but they still have sold near MS numbers with near double the price and year and half later in some markets .

 

[StevieP]

Read analyst or fanboy GAF comments from 2005? Are you serious?

You have a DVD ps3 costing about $400 or more, with a lot fewer games than the 360, horrible online, and nothing at all to counteract public interest in the new Wii. And somehow you think this product takes the market by storm and becomes the new ps2? You'd get the same reaction, "it's too expensive and has no games!".

Common sense dictates you being right.
But nobody was going on common sense.

Every single market analyst and forums all over the world predicted this gen to play out this way:

1) Sony (by a landslide)
2) Microsoft
3) Nintendo (dead last by a large margin)

OK so there may be a bit of exaggeration there. But even as recently as 2008 (right in the middle of the Wii explosion) you had massive firms posting shit like this:

So yes, what you said is revisionism.