In the PS1 and PS2 era they were incredible in marketing.
It's sometimes disheartening to think you have to shove the games down the people's throats for them to take notice.. can't people research upcoming games themselves? I realize we're a bunch of lazy monkeys who are too lazy to do or find anything if it isn't presented to us on a silver platter with constant tv ads and billboards up in times square.. but come on.
Sony doesn't market things super heavy but I guess they should start considering the current lazy state of the culture.
For years Ive lived a double life
In the day, I do my job
I ride the bus, roll up my sleeves with the hoi polloi.
But at night, I live a life of exhilaration,
of missed heartbeats and adrenalin.
And, if the truth be known, a life of dubious virtue.
I won't deny it I've been engaged in violence, even indulged in it.
I've maimed and killed adversaries and not merely in self-defence.
I've exhibited disregard for life, limb and property,
and savoured every moment.
You may not think it, to look at me,
but I have commanded armies and conquered worlds.
And though in achieving these things I've set morality aside,
I have no regrets.
For though I've led a double life, at least I can say:
I've lived."
In the PS1 and PS2 era they were incredible in marketing.
Sony's biggest problem to me has always been it's marketing...I feel they rely to heavy on "word of mouth". I could be wrong tho
It's sometimes disheartening to think you have to shove the games down the people's throats for them to take notice.. can't people research upcoming games themselves? I realize we're a bunch of lazy monkeys who are too lazy to do or find anything if it isn't presented to us on a silver platter with constant tv ads and billboards up in times square.. but come on.
Sony doesn't market things super heavy but I guess they should start considering the current lazy state of the culture.
lulz... born in the late 90s?
is it just me, or are there constant death prophecies about every single one of the big 3.
nintendo should become a software developer, ms has nothing beside the most hated operating environment ever which completly fails in entering the mobile market and sony... well this thread.
they seem like zombies, running away from their obvious death.
is it just me, or are there constant death prophecies about every single one of the big 3.
nintendo should become a software developer, ms has nothing beside the most hated operating environment ever which completly fails in entering the mobile market and sony... well this thread.
they seem like zombies, running away from their obvious death.
Often it's unfair attribute a game or system's lack of success due to marketing. Basically it's a way to excuse a poorly positioned or niche product for lousy sales. Personally, I think many of Sony's gaming products are made with GAF in mind, not mainstream consumers. I think products like Vita are a good example of this. Most consumers simply do not like Vita and no amount of marketing can make people interested.
Look.Wow what a detailed in depth seemingly realistic view at Sony's situation. I agree it's pointless worrying about something you can't control so just enjoy the games ect, but some people are still indenial and think everything is gonna be rosey.
Definitely agree that the Vita is a "GAF product".
And for all the people on GAF and other gaming forums that bash MS for becoming more casual to cater their old 360 console to a new audience, the proof is in the sales. The Vita is doing very poorly.
You can't cater a system/console to just one audience for the system's whole life. It's not smart business wise (especially now).
I understand why people on gaming forums want a system that's 100% catered to them, but at the same time, I don't get why so many don't realize that for a company to continue on supporting that small audience, the company is going to have to make money in other (non-gaming and/or "casual") areas. Games are way more expensive in budget than they've ever been. A company can't just keep on releasing expensive games that cater to an audience that's a minority, especially if that minority audience wants to see more games being catered to them in the future.
Right now, having a system that caters to just a hardcore audience (without throwing some bones to other audiences in terms of games/features) is pretty much suicide. That's not to say that a system can't be focused on core gamers... if anything I'm expecting the new xbox to be catered to core gamers during its first 2-3 years. It's just that it's not smart at all to cater everything to that audience only.
Look.
Sony, just like Gob Bluth in the forthcoming megahit comedy smash humour series Arrested Development sequel, they made a huge mistake, and they are making serious moves towards regaining the player base. People like us, what like playing the good games.
This is a great article, very well-sourced and really highlights the problems there.
Yeah, some of us have been saying for years that Sony is teetering on failure and I remember that the common response was "business can recover, they're around for a long time, STFU".
But while perhaps early in declaring the inevitable, it's still the inevitable. Unless Sony scales itself SO far back that it's barely the same company anymore (yeah, like THAT is gonna happen), we're just watching a march to the grave. PSP, PS3 and Vita have sequentially proved that the gaming division can not save Sony from itself.
The only thing left to ask is "how long does Sony have left?"
The way they're losing money now, 4-5 years. Don't worry, its not a question wether how long Sony has left but wether Sony can become its old self again.
The way they're losing money now, 4-5 years. Don't worry, its not a question wether how long Sony has left but wether Sony can become its old self again.
No one is going to be the old Sony. No one will ever get that kind of third party support (exclusives) again.
Source is Sony and Microsoft. Those are official shipment figures.
![]()
This also includes a BR royal payout form a case they won so actual losses for Game would have been higher. The amount on the payout is something I was not able to find.
Even if the PS4 dominates the competition, we aren't likely looking at more than 33-40% of the market. In other words, consoles in general have declined in prominence, so even a completely dominant console won't produce the sort of monopoly that the PS2 did.
Remember also that there was no smartphone market back then, and PC gaming really was in steep decline. Now PC Gaming is flourishing like never before; browser games exist; Facebook and social gaming has risen; iPhone and Android are a whole new market.
There was a point when the PS2 legitimately represented ~65-70% of the entire gaming market by itself, with the other 30-40% being PC, Xbox, Gamecube, and Gameboy. That was basically it, the whole market.
Even if the PS4 dominates the competition, we aren't likely looking at more than 33-40% of the market. In other words, consoles in general have declined in prominence, so even a completely dominant console won't produce the sort of monopoly that the PS2 did. I think this is also a primary reason why third parties remained so steadfast with the PS3 even when its sales lagged significantly in its early years; most publishers love the idea of a one console future (no porting costs, no worry about fractured markets, etc) and Sony came very close to giving them just that in practical terms during the early 2000s.
On top of that even if they dominate Sony isn't very good at creating significant profits from success as the PS2 era taught us, Nintendo made more profit that gen (although they had a HH to be fair) but overall for a console selling 100m they made puny profits.
Do you have a source for this? I know Nintendo had a bigger profit from the PS1/N64 gen but I don't think the same was true last gen.
Was this the beginning of Playstation becoming just as overly bloated as the rest of the company? I just can't understand the PS2 era figures here :/
This is a very good post but all I could think of after reading it was thisDefinitely agree that the Vita is a "GAF product".
And for all the people on GAF and other gaming forums that bash MS for becoming more casual to cater their old 360 console to a new audience, the proof is in the sales. The Vita is doing very poorly.
You can't cater a system/console to just one audience for the system's whole life. It's not smart business wise (especially now).
I understand why people on gaming forums want a system that's 100% catered to them, but at the same time, I don't get why so many don't realize that for a company to continue on supporting that small audience, the company is going to have to make money in other (non-gaming and/or "casual") areas. Games are way more expensive in budget than they've ever been. A company can't just keep on releasing expensive games that cater to an audience that's a minority, especially if that minority audience wants to see more games being catered to them in the future.
Right now, having a system that caters to just a hardcore audience (without throwing some bones to other audiences in terms of games/features) is pretty much suicide. That's not to say that a system can't be focused on core gamers... if anything I'm expecting the new xbox to be catered to core gamers during its first 2-3 years. It's just that it's not smart at all to cater everything to that audience only.
Loss leader hardware is a bitch that way.Something I've always wondered when people post this:
How come Sony didn't see massive increases in profits during the glory years of the PS2?
Seriously, how?
Sure they probably had extra costs here and there to make it the success it was, but surely it should have been even greater that whats above?
Was this the beginning of Playstation becoming just as overly bloated as the rest of the company? I just can't understand the PS2 era figures here :/
When Howard Stringer was in office, all he did was blame earthquakes and the fall of the yen/dollar/euro, instead of admitting that Sony released products that werent major hits.
Something I've always wondered when people post this:
How come Sony didn't see massive increases in profits during the glory years of the PS2?
Seriously, how?
Sure they probably had extra costs here and there to make it the success it was, but surely it should have been even greater that whats above?
Was this the beginning of Playstation becoming just as overly bloated as the rest of the company? I just can't understand the PS2 era figures here :/
I remember PS2 getting a price cut (not sure which one) but it realllly wasn't needed, they were outselling the competition by a wide margin, it was very questionable tactics but fits in with how they seem to operate today being more concerned with marketshare over profit.
Xbox
UK price: £199
4.5m sold worldwide
GameCube
UK price: £129
4m sold worldwide
PlayStation 2
UK price: £199
28m sold worldwide
Loss leader hardware is a bitch that way.
' unless you mean being top dog with hit products that sold and made a profit. Needless to say that won't come easy.
I know someone working at Sony Australia... and yeah, things aren't looking so good. At the moment, it's a sinking ship.
"...or failed peripherals like PlayStation Move?"
Uhm, wouldn't really call 10+ millions sold controllers a failure. Don't think they lost money on that one...
Loss leader hardware is a bitch that way.
Surely they profited on the PS2 units? I mean Gamecube was slightly more powerful and that was dirt cheap...
As I say - there were surely costs in there to keep them as 'top dog' but once they were top (and boy was PS2 top!) you'd think they'd enjoy it a bit more :/
Yeah... shame that other industries haven't learned their lesson yet.People always quote the razor blade model of loss leading.
But the razor blade companies don't use loss leaders any more...
The idea that nintendo only makes consoles/handhelds and games is pretty misleading to me, they have investments as far afield as owning a baseball team
Oh man I should have just scrolled to the end, Emily Rogers article wasnt she supposed to never write again for making up bullshit
Well, I don't know too much. But they started working there 3 years ago and the company has lost almost 50% of profits and marketshare in that time. From $800M to around $400M in those 3 years alone and still declining rapidlyDetails? It'd be interesting to hear about things from an insider's perspective.
Every time they were close to a profit on hardware, the price was cut.
pretty much MS doesn't seem to even be looking at portable gaming options.
Sucks but one day im sure Sony will be gone. All we can do is cherish its last few years. (dead serious)