Quantcast
Sony CEO Kenichiro Yoshida calls console gaming niche

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony CEO Kenichiro Yoshida calls console gaming niche

What you think of Yoshida calling console gaming niche?

Surprised 16 39.02%
 
not surprised 12 29.27%
 
neutral 13 31.71%
 
Total:41
pokoko said:
Dulfite said:

You could say that about everything almost. There are billions of people that don't watch soccer, football, baseball, basketball. There are billions that aren't *insert specific religion*. Are these all niches?

What would be the context of making that comparison?

Here, we are looking at the CEO of a large corporation talking to investors.  The context would be other business markets and opportunities which investors would be considering.  I already pointed out that the smartphones market dwarfs the gaming console market, as an example.  He's saying that the physical gaming console market is always going to be relatively small and thus have a limited scope in terms of potential customers.  

Let's say Sony has a home console with an installed base of 80 million after good sales over a number of years.  On the other hand, smartphone adoption is projected to top 5 billion relatively soon.  Which market has the most potential? What if we include other smart devices capable of streaming?

If the Playstation brand is doing this well in a relatively tiny market, what if the possible scope increases exponentially?  It's an argument intended to entice people to invest money.  It's no big deal and there is no reason for anyone to be offended for the sake of console gaming or to argue over the word "niche."

For the record, I'm not offended nor am I arguing, just stating my thoughts on the matter. I'm not attempting to persuade anyone, just wanted to share my two cents. The ceiling is obviously much higher on phone games because of what you said. Those games are far less intensive and expensive to make and can produce a tremendous amount of profit (flappy bird, Candy Crush, and Pokemon Go come to mind). That being said, I'd imagine the vast majority of phone games are underwhelming in sales and have little momentum in building a consistent microtransaction support base. While consoles sell less than phones, I feel like personally it is easier for those companies to walk away with high software sales and profits than most cell phone games, but I could be wrong.



Around the Network
Dulfite said:
pokoko said:

What would be the context of making that comparison?

Here, we are looking at the CEO of a large corporation talking to investors.  The context would be other business markets and opportunities which investors would be considering.  I already pointed out that the smartphones market dwarfs the gaming console market, as an example.  He's saying that the physical gaming console market is always going to be relatively small and thus have a limited scope in terms of potential customers.  

Let's say Sony has a home console with an installed base of 80 million after good sales over a number of years.  On the other hand, smartphone adoption is projected to top 5 billion relatively soon.  Which market has the most potential? What if we include other smart devices capable of streaming?

If the Playstation brand is doing this well in a relatively tiny market, what if the possible scope increases exponentially?  It's an argument intended to entice people to invest money.  It's no big deal and there is no reason for anyone to be offended for the sake of console gaming or to argue over the word "niche."

For the record, I'm not offended nor am I arguing, just stating my thoughts on the matter. I'm not attempting to persuade anyone, just wanted to share my two cents. The ceiling is obviously much higher on phone games because of what you said. Those games are far less intensive and expensive to make and can produce a tremendous amount of profit (flappy bird, Candy Crush, and Pokemon Go come to mind). That being said, I'd imagine the vast majority of phone games are underwhelming in sales and have little momentum in building a consistent microtransaction support base. While consoles sell less than phones, I feel like personally it is easier for those companies to walk away with high software sales and profits than most cell phone games, but I could be wrong.

What we're really talking about here is the service or platform itself, not the games in specific.  Playstation on billions of devices instead of a few tens of millions.    

In essence, he's a salesman trying to sell the potential of an investment opportunity.  Of course, it's not nearly that simple, but he's not really going to say that when he's trying to win financial support.  He's going to highlight the possible merits of success.

The last sentence of my previous post was just a general statement, not directed at anyone in particular.  



Wyrdness said:
mjk45 said:

We can only go on what numbers we have before us both historically and now , yes there are variables but they work both ways, that's why we hear of player numbers mentioned that exceed the ratio of 1 person per console and because we can only estimate, so rather than pulling numbers out of the ether,the prudent course is to look at the numbers of each gen being sold, and the hardware/software revenue they've generated to give us context, and doing  that tells us that gaming is now bigger than movies and music combined and consoles are 25% of that business, so even allowing  for people using the wrong definition it doesn't look that niche.

Numbers by themselves can mean anything but when the factors are taken into account that's when the context of the numbers begins to show the picture because really and truly if the number of platforms moved was the actual amount the industry would generate far more money than it does now. You mention music and movies but don't factor that gaming has DLC models, GAAS, microtransactions, pre-order models etc... this is what I mean by factors behind the numbers the are also factors that when people say films and music they mean mainly western films and music where most of the tracking is done they don't really factor in regions like Africa for example where Nigeria's film industry (Nollywood) generates more profit than the US (Hollywood) despite the latter being the largest in the industry even Bollywood in Asia (India) sells more than the US but that's not really tracked and the are a number of other large countries in the region that generate comparable money.

Gaming as a whole is niche that's just how it is the industry just happens to punch above its weight but it's still niche.

The reason these particular comparisons have been made is because they all represent mainstream western entertainment, sure the revenue models differ but it at the end of the day it all comes under entertainment spending, btw I looked up your Nigerian movie industry claims and found it's revenue is around 800m  and Forbes admitted it's headline was wrong and the Nigerian profit is based on per capita, anyway our discourse has made us forget that he didn't compare console gaming to anything other than gaming as a whole, also I presume you and I are in agreement that the deal has merit , so that only leaves us to debate the use of the word niche and I stand by the standard dictionary definition, that niche besides being a recess is a specialised segment of the mainstream, so unless something unusual happens. I shall take my leave knowing that minds, mine included are rarely changed from their starting positions no matter the merit of the dialogue.

Last edited by mjk45 - on 24 May 2019

mjk45 said:

He wasn't comparing it to the world's population, it was just a poor attempt to show that the deal had wider implications than just the gaming division .

These companies want to hit the hundreds of millions if so billions of subscribers and customers. You wont achieve that status with just making plastic boxes. The audience is a lot bigger and limiting yourself to 100m customers isn't the way to get there. So this statement makes a lot of sense to me.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 25 May 2019

People arguing on over semantics Haha

Last edited by Otter - on 25 May 2019

Around the Network
Azzanation said:
mjk45 said:

He wasn't comparing it to the world's population, it was just a poor attempt to show that the deal had wider implications than just the gaming division .

These companies want to hit the hundreds of millions if so billions of subscribers and customers. You wont achieve that status with just making plastic boxes. The audience is a lot bigger and limiting yourself to 100m customers isn't the way to get there. So this statement makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't think anyone is arguing about these companies direction and the deal and how it makes sense for Sony since it isn't limited to just gaming, it impacts their sensor and other entertainment divisions and then there's the world of AI and Sony's hardware coupled with Ms's software means they will be competitive in a world that is increasingly reliant on AI. but instead of talking this up he went negative when there was no need, all he had to say is it has consequences for more than just gaming and this is us making sure when the time comes we are well placed. having said all that we need to just look at what he said without adding any of our own  comparisons and see if it stacks up his statement was compared to gaming in general console gaming is niche now if you look up the word niche it is defined as a specialised segment of a mainstream industry so the definition doesn't fit console gaming also Rol mentioned that it accounts for 25% of total gaming so looking at it from those points it seems like all of us me include  have been wasting our time adding layers that were never there and talking semantics about nothing but a poorly worded part of a statement.