Quantcast
Would Sony be a better company being just 3rd party? (gaming wise)

Forums - Sony Discussion - Would Sony be a better company being just 3rd party? (gaming wise)

I doubt it, they make money from every game made on their system and even the blu-rays that get played on them. I think overall having hardware is the better choice for them.



Around the Network
Bamboleo said:
PSwii60 said:
Bamboleo said:
PSwii60 said:

honestly, if anything nintendo would be the better third party..
i was actually hoping after GC they'd become one;
imagine zelda on the PS3 today and Metroid on Xbox360

'nuff said

Nintendo doesn't sell their hardware for a loss, being a very profitable company, while others are quite the opposite.

Dropping on profitable hardware sales to focus just on software? I don't think that would generate more money than their current strategy,

if i were a stockholder, of course i'd prefer to see the company gain instead of huge losses but i really doubt sony would ever let it happen

i'm just saying...
while nintendo, even during GC period they'd even seen so many gains and has never seen a loss even for a year, i still see nintendo as a better third party than sony..
nintendo has a lot of ip's and their games can appeal to either HD consoles not to mention a lot of fans

Agree. But that would make Nintendo a less profitable company, skipping hardware income, and therefore a worse company by this thread logic!

It would make them less profitable, but it would make the other consoles much better than Nintendo's last couple efforts because the system in question would have great 3rd and 1st parties, as opposed to Nintendo's consoles, which only have one.



@ hollywood85,I agree with you.@Bamboleo,Sony maybe selling at a loss but for your benefit.You would like them to only make software because they're selling a quality product.If it's anyone that should be sticking to software it should be Microsoft,with that fiasco they did with the xbox crappy hardware just to be out first.Those are the ones who should abandon hardware,they don't care about the consumer,they care about profits,so you decide.



NYANKS said:
Bamboleo said:
PSwii60 said:
Bamboleo said:
PSwii60 said:

honestly, if anything nintendo would be the better third party..
i was actually hoping after GC they'd become one;
imagine zelda on the PS3 today and Metroid on Xbox360

'nuff said

Nintendo doesn't sell their hardware for a loss, being a very profitable company, while others are quite the opposite.

Dropping on profitable hardware sales to focus just on software? I don't think that would generate more money than their current strategy,

if i were a stockholder, of course i'd prefer to see the company gain instead of huge losses but i really doubt sony would ever let it happen

i'm just saying...
while nintendo, even during GC period they'd even seen so many gains and has never seen a loss even for a year, i still see nintendo as a better third party than sony..
nintendo has a lot of ip's and their games can appeal to either HD consoles not to mention a lot of fans

Agree. But that would make Nintendo a less profitable company, skipping hardware income, and therefore a worse company by this thread logic!

It would make them less profitable, but it would make the other consoles much better than Nintendo's last couple efforts because the system in question would have great 3rd and 1st parties, as opposed to Nintendo's consoles, which only have one.

"Better" doesn't mean more profitable. Also, few, doesn't mean zero. Wii as great 1st party and third party support. But in fewer quantities than the HD consoles.



REDZONE said:
@ hollywood85,I agree with you.@Bamboleo,Sony maybe selling at a loss but for your benefit.You would like them to only make software because they're selling a quality product.If it's anyone that should be sticking to software it should be Microsoft,with that fiasco they did with the xbox crappy hardware just to be out first.Those are the ones who should abandon hardware,they don't care about the consumer,they care about profits,so you decide.

Yes, but if someday I turn to be a stock holder, sure I'll look away from Sony. If I was just asking frm a gamer prespective I wouldn't create this thread.

But even from gamer's vision (and gamer here means everyone, not just only Sony fanboys) Sony as a 3rd party would be insane.

It's a win - win of both sides. Company and gamers. The games still exist, only on other platforms, and also if you're a stock holder, you're doing very good.

 



Around the Network
Bamboleo said:

Think about that. I don't know about PSone, but with early PS2 years and with PS3 Sony had losses. Huge ones according to some. Current situation of the PS3 might be better with the slim model, but before that Sony was in the black. Pitch dark black.

Would Sony be a better, more competent and profitable company if it's gaming division was focused only on game development for thirds?

I cannot see a Sony IP failing if properly implemented honestly. Games like Gran Turismo, Uncharted and Killzone would sell amazingly well on a console as the 360, while Ape Escape and Jak and Daxter would be the best games on a console like the Wii.

Sure they would also sell on their own hardware (and sells)... but the losses on hardware minimize such profit.

 

Sony as a company, stock holders, both Nintendo and Microsoft, gamers... Wouldn't it be better to everyone?

How has going third-party benefitted Sega?  They aren't relevant in the videogame business.  Rather than being a focus of the industry, they have fallen below the level of Capcom and Konami, if not at their level AT BEST.  



Bamboleo said:
REDZONE said:
@ hollywood85,I agree with you.@Bamboleo,Sony maybe selling at a loss but for your benefit.You would like them to only make software because they're selling a quality product.If it's anyone that should be sticking to software it should be Microsoft,with that fiasco they did with the xbox crappy hardware just to be out first.Those are the ones who should abandon hardware,they don't care about the consumer,they care about profits,so you decide.

Yes, but if someday I turn to be a stock holder, sure I'll look away from Sony. If I was just asking frm a gamer prespective I wouldn't create this thread.

But even from gamer's vision (and gamer here means everyone, not just only Sony fanboys) Sony as a 3rd party would be insane.

It's a win - win of both sides. Company and gamers. The games still exist, only on other platforms, and also if you're a stock holder, you're doing very good.

 

no way dude, without playstation, gaming is so dead for me, screw nintendo,  I'm not spending my money on rehashes of old shit, and will not be compliant on old outdated tech, with no intrest in making actual games (screw you wii sports, and fit, and anything else wii can kiss my ass), more SMG (an actual new great innovative mario title), metroid, and Zelda that's what I want, and M$................................ if I have to play one fucking dime next gen for online gameplay someone is going to get punched in the face. I don't know who....but somebody, nickle and dime for every single little thing, to me without sony or playstation, console gaming becomes one giant rip off, now while that perfectly fine for you, to me it's bullshit, so my opinion on the matter is that you kindly stfu, go buy a ps3 and buy the games, so Sony can be the money maker you want them to be, that's the real win win.

it's called support people, anybody willing to give up 75%market share, invest all of the billions made into new risky, and awesome ideas......all for the good of the customers!!! is a company you need to support. it's so stuipd the logic, of turning your back on the people out for you! and willing to sacrifice themselves big time to do so, when it's your support that's helps them, and keeps them going (DUH!!!). gaming would suck ass if sony was a only a third party developer.

 

my 2 cents.

btw I would say the same shit if M$ or nintendo was in sony's position.



Bamboleo said:
REDZONE said:
@ hollywood85,I agree with you.@Bamboleo,Sony maybe selling at a loss but for your benefit.You would like them to only make software because they're selling a quality product.If it's anyone that should be sticking to software it should be Microsoft,with that fiasco they did with the xbox crappy hardware just to be out first.Those are the ones who should abandon hardware,they don't care about the consumer,they care about profits,so you decide.

Yes, but if someday I turn to be a stock holder, sure I'll look away from Sony. If I was just asking frm a gamer prespective I wouldn't create this thread.

But even from gamer's vision (and gamer here means everyone, not just only Sony fanboys) Sony as a 3rd party would be insane.

It's a win - win of both sides. Company and gamers. The games still exist, only on other platforms, and also if you're a stock holder, you're doing very good.

 

Well if you someday turn out to be a stock holder,and turn away from Sony because they've seen losses for four years,after cutting their losses with each year in one department mind you,the same department that was making a profit for years then i don't think you would be a very good stock holder.

But since your looking at from a gamers vision (and gamer here means everyone, not just MicroSoft fan boys) Sony as a 3rd party would be insane but,it would leave us with the risk of having faulty hard by MS again and the casual hardware if Nintendo decided to go that route again.

So it's not a win-win for both sides.



Hmm....it'd be cool to see a type of 3rd party publisher like Sony considering all the dev. studios they'd have under them. Certainly would be good speculation but then that would leave 360 without a direct competitor so I personally wouldn't like the idea.



ssj12 said:
ocnkng said:
Bamboleo said:

Think about that. I don't know about PSone, but with early PS2 years and with PS3 Sony had losses. Huge ones according to some. Current situation of the PS3 might be better with the slim model, but before that Sony was in the black. Pitch dark black.

Sony as a company, stock holders, both Nintendo and Microsoft, gamers... Wouldn't it be better to everyone?

Uhh black means recording a profit. Maybe you meant some other color?

i thought black was breaking even, starting to pull profit. I though Blue or green was profitable while of course red means in the hole. so sad i've taken over 30 college hours of business classes and not once were any of these colors ever mentioned.

financial reports would be done in black ink... now since owners are interested in where they are losing money, losses would be written in red to stand out, hence where "in the red" came from. and then profits are referred to as "in the black" as bad as in the black may sound lol. as for breaking even, when you're investing millions of dollars, and then you've got millions in revenue, i don't think a company will ever break even. if that happened I think the universe would come into balance..and then implode