By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Should the PSP be viewed as a succes or a failure?

davygee said:
Biggerboat said:
davygee said:
jstam said:
you really think that the psp is going to get a HUGE sales boost? i honestly doubt it will even make a dint on the charts, maybe an extra 50k for a couple of weeks but thats about it

 


I don't think the new look PSP will give the sales a huge boost, but the games coming out in the 3rd and 4th quarters as well as games over the start of next year WILL give the sales a boost. Games like Chains of Olympus and FFVII: Crisis Core will undoubtably give the PSP a hardware boost although not to a ridiculous level.

The PSP has seen a continual hardware boost of around 13% each week since the pricedrops in both the EU and NA. I reckon Sony WILL reduce the price of the original PSP once the new model is released on 1st September WW by maybe 20% or so and this will increase sales again.

All in all, I reckon the PSP will have more sales this year than they did last year. The PSP is selling 500-600k units every 4 weeks so I reckon it will sell another 4-6m until the end of the year.


But will these extra PSPs sold help struggling software sales in any meaningfull way? Seriously if you were a developer what would convince you to make a game for the platform?


What should convince you is looking at sales of Monster Hunter Portable 2.  In Japan alone, they have sold near 1.3m units.  Good games generally sell well...maybe not amazingly because of the piracy issue, but generally, the games sell enough to make back their money.


But for every Monster Hunter 2 I can throw you multiple games on other platforms that have significantly outperformed it. GoW, Wii Sports, one of a bout a million DS games most of which I'd guess would have cost less to develop than MH2, I think you get my point.

It's not impossible to make a profit developing for PSP but it's far more unlikely than almost any other current platform. Again if I'm a developer why should I choose PSP?



Hus said:

Grow up and stop trolling.

Around the Network
Biggerboat said:
Roondar said:
your mother said:
davygee said:
your mother said:
 

But isn't that what the PS3 encountered? A price reduction while the console is being manufactured at a loss seven months into its lifespan?

 


Again, there is no proven fact that Sony are making a loss per sold PS3. All reports are pointing towards a profit with the reduction of Blu-Ray production costs and lack of EE etc.

OK, it would make sense that Sony has managed to trim manufacturing costs by now for the PS3, but a whopping 50%?

When it first launched, it was selling for something like 240$ under cost. That would be quite a feat.


Correction: when it was launched, independent analysists guessed it to be selling for about $200-$240 under cost. We don't have figures from Sony confirming (or denying) that amount so I'd not be so quick to assume that number is fully accurate.

Besides, on the PSP. I recall reading in the Sony annual report (or the press release thereof, I forgot) that the PSP business was (together with the PS2 business) offsetting the PS3 loss. That would suggest the PSP business as a whole is profitable to me. Especially so because Sony specifically singled out the PSP when noting this.


I don't know why Sony would single out the PSP as the PS2 will continue to be significantly more profitable than it for the forseeable future. The problem with Sony is you can't trust a thing that it says.


If you think Sony would lie on it's annual earning report and resulting pressreleases then you'd better call the DoJ because thats a criminal offence.

As too the software sales,  the news from Sony at E3 was that PSP software sales increased by 35% compared to 2006. Still not great, but it does show that they are selling more games per system. After all, they didn't sell 35% extra PSP's in the same period ;) 



z64dan said:
RolStoppable said:
your mother said:
z64dan said:
 

...22 million people decided to buy a PSP instead of a DS and an extra game.

Not necessarily. A percentage of those 22 million could have purchased both portables.

 


Or wouldn't have considered to purchase a DS at all.


Well. I think you can pretty much add all of the PSP sales into a "Money Spent on Gaming" category. Since money is finite, Nintendo did not get THAT money, definitely. They would have had a much higher chance of getting any of that money, if people weren't already buying a PSP.


OK, I gotta disagree here.  "Money spent on gaming" is *really* a subset of "money spent on luxuries," and within that subset, the amount allotted is fluid.  The decision could just as easily be "are we going to buy our kid a TV for his room or a PSP" as it is "are we going to buy our kid a DS or a PSP."  People don't have "video game" budgets (aside from people like us who post on VG forums :-p).  Sometimes the existence of a new product justifies expansion of "money spent on video games" within the larger "money spent on luxuries," and that person will just not go to Blockbuster as often for the next few months.  But Nintendo didn't lose any money, because the money would have gone to Blockbuster instead of Sony, not to Nintendo.

Granted, this isn't universal, and there  *are* instances where  +1 for Sony means -1 for Nintendo, but the statement "Since money is finite, Nintendo did not get THAT money, definitely" is false.




As for PSP's success or failure...  both of those words need to be retired from video games.  Video game failures include: Virtual Boy, Sega Saturn, Sega Dreamcast.  Video game successes include: NES, Game Boy, PS1.  As of today, almost everything else can be considered "in between."  Even N64, which lost Nintendo their market dominance and almost all of their 3rd-party relations, had higher software attach rates and higher profit margins than the PS1.  And on the flip side, even the PS2 was really just an extension of the PS1, and not really a success in and of itself.

What did the PSP do?  The PSP sold 20 million units  over the course of about 30 months.  The PSP established a new brand.  The PSP sells software (I don't know how much, but I assume attach rates above 3 units of software per PSP).  Does perform better than every other console in any one category?  No.  Does it perform any worse than every other console in any one category?  Maybe UMD movies, but I don't think that was ever really a *main* selling point.  If we were to draw out a bell curve, I'd put PSP about half a standard deviation above the mean, right around GC and Xbox, all circumstances considered.  More success than failure, but not a success by any stretch of the imagination.



ckmlb said:
your mother said:
 

By the same token, all you can really say is that there are lots of games. Not great, not terrible, just games.

Granted, there are some games I passed on the PC that I might pick up for the PSP: Pirates and Worms. Never played Lumines (heard it's great) and Crush sounds different in a good way.


If you go simply by what looks 'good' without actually checkin games out then every system just has a bunch of games. I don't understand why so many people complain about too many sequel games yet totally ignore games they don't know because they aren't the sequels of games they like...


It's not that the PSP doesn't have a decent software library it's the fact that said library isn't selling that's important in this overall argument. Look at the DC for proof that good reviews don't mean squat if the games don't sell.



Hus said:

Grow up and stop trolling.

ckmlb said:
your mother said:
 

By the same token, all you can really say is that there are lots of games. Not great, not terrible, just games.

Granted, there are some games I passed on the PC that I might pick up for the PSP: Pirates and Worms. Never played Lumines (heard it's great) and Crush sounds different in a good way.


If you go simply by what looks 'good' without actually checkin games out then every system just has a bunch of games. I don't understand why so many people complain about too many sequel games yet totally ignore games they don't know because they aren't the sequels of games they like...


I'm just going on the following:

rockstarjerry981 thinks there is one games that is good or at least interests him

you said there are lots of great games as a fact

both comments are opinion, nothing more, so your comments and opinions is just as valid as his and if your comment is fact, his comment may very well be factual in his eyes as well.



Around the Network
Roondar said:
Biggerboat said:
Roondar said:
your mother said:
davygee said:
your mother said:
 

But isn't that what the PS3 encountered? A price reduction while the console is being manufactured at a loss seven months into its lifespan?

 


Again, there is no proven fact that Sony are making a loss per sold PS3. All reports are pointing towards a profit with the reduction of Blu-Ray production costs and lack of EE etc.

OK, it would make sense that Sony has managed to trim manufacturing costs by now for the PS3, but a whopping 50%?

When it first launched, it was selling for something like 240$ under cost. That would be quite a feat.


Correction: when it was launched, independent analysists guessed it to be selling for about $200-$240 under cost. We don't have figures from Sony confirming (or denying) that amount so I'd not be so quick to assume that number is fully accurate.

Besides, on the PSP. I recall reading in the Sony annual report (or the press release thereof, I forgot) that the PSP business was (together with the PS2 business) offsetting the PS3 loss. That would suggest the PSP business as a whole is profitable to me. Especially so because Sony specifically singled out the PSP when noting this.


I don't know why Sony would single out the PSP as the PS2 will continue to be significantly more profitable than it for the forseeable future. The problem with Sony is you can't trust a thing that it says.


If you think Sony would lie on it's annual earning report and resulting pressreleases then you'd better call the DoJ because thats a criminal offence.

As too the software sales,  the news from Sony at E3 was that PSP software sales increased by 35% compared to 2006. Still not great, but it does show that they are selling more games per system. After all, they didn't sell 35% extra PSP's in the same period ;) 

Maybe not lie, but they know how to apply an almost unparallelled amount of spin. I'll concede then that PSP probably made a profit that year but there is still no evidence(in this thread) that over it's entire life to date that it has made Sony even 1 cent profit. 35% increase of horrible sales is still nothing to convince me the PSP is turning into a viable LEGAL game system.

 



Hus said:

Grow up and stop trolling.

fishamaphone said:
z64dan said:
RolStoppable said:
your mother said:
z64dan said:
 

...22 million people decided to buy a PSP instead of a DS and an extra game.

Not necessarily. A percentage of those 22 million could have purchased both portables.

 


Or wouldn't have considered to purchase a DS at all.


Well. I think you can pretty much add all of the PSP sales into a "Money Spent on Gaming" category. Since money is finite, Nintendo did not get THAT money, definitely. They would have had a much higher chance of getting any of that money, if people weren't already buying a PSP.


What did the PSP do?  The PSP sold 20 million units  over the course of about 30 months.  The PSP established a new brand.  The PSP sells software (I don't know how much, but I assume attach rates above 3 units of software per PSP).  Does perform better than every other console in any one category?  No.   Maybe UMD movies, but I don't think tDoes it perform any worse than every other console in any one category? hat was ever really a *main* selling point.  If we were to draw out a bell curve, I'd put PSP about half a standard deviation above the mean, right around GC and Xbox, all circumstances considered.  More success than failure, but not a success by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not so sure it established a new brand as PS was obviously well known. If it did then so did GBA, GBPocket, SNES, 360 etc. I'm not so sure about the 3 units per PSP, taking just million+sellers we have an attach rate of about 0.75 meaning the sub-million sellers have a lot of ground to make up to get to an attach rate of even 2 never mind 3. Following on from this fact I'd hazard an outside bet that the system has a worse attach rate than nearly any game system in history, though I'm aware I could be wrong.

 



Hus said:

Grow up and stop trolling.

Biggerboat said:
Roondar said:
Biggerboat said:
Roondar said:
your mother said:
davygee said:
your mother said:
 

But isn't that what the PS3 encountered? A price reduction while the console is being manufactured at a loss seven months into its lifespan?

 


Again, there is no proven fact that Sony are making a loss per sold PS3. All reports are pointing towards a profit with the reduction of Blu-Ray production costs and lack of EE etc.

OK, it would make sense that Sony has managed to trim manufacturing costs by now for the PS3, but a whopping 50%?

When it first launched, it was selling for something like 240$ under cost. That would be quite a feat.


Correction: when it was launched, independent analysists guessed it to be selling for about $200-$240 under cost. We don't have figures from Sony confirming (or denying) that amount so I'd not be so quick to assume that number is fully accurate.

Besides, on the PSP. I recall reading in the Sony annual report (or the press release thereof, I forgot) that the PSP business was (together with the PS2 business) offsetting the PS3 loss. That would suggest the PSP business as a whole is profitable to me. Especially so because Sony specifically singled out the PSP when noting this.


I don't know why Sony would single out the PSP as the PS2 will continue to be significantly more profitable than it for the forseeable future. The problem with Sony is you can't trust a thing that it says.


If you think Sony would lie on it's annual earning report and resulting pressreleases then you'd better call the DoJ because thats a criminal offence.

As too the software sales, the news from Sony at E3 was that PSP software sales increased by 35% compared to 2006. Still not great, but it does show that they are selling more games per system. After all, they didn't sell 35% extra PSP's in the same period ;)

Maybe not lie, but they know how to apply an almost unparallelled amount of spin. I'll concede then that PSP probably made a profit that year but there is still no evidence(in this thread) that over it's entire life to date that it has made Sony even 1 cent profit. 35% increase of horrible sales is still nothing to convince me the PSP is turning into a viable LEGAL game system.

 


 I'll concede that on the condition you conceed you have no proof the other way round either.



Roondar said:
Biggerboat said:
Roondar said:
Biggerboat said:
Roondar said:
your mother said:
davygee said:
your mother said:
 

But isn't that what the PS3 encountered? A price reduction while the console is being manufactured at a loss seven months into its lifespan?

 


Again, there is no proven fact that Sony are making a loss per sold PS3. All reports are pointing towards a profit with the reduction of Blu-Ray production costs and lack of EE etc.

OK, it would make sense that Sony has managed to trim manufacturing costs by now for the PS3, but a whopping 50%?

When it first launched, it was selling for something like 240$ under cost. That would be quite a feat.


Correction: when it was launched, independent analysists guessed it to be selling for about $200-$240 under cost. We don't have figures from Sony confirming (or denying) that amount so I'd not be so quick to assume that number is fully accurate.

Besides, on the PSP. I recall reading in the Sony annual report (or the press release thereof, I forgot) that the PSP business was (together with the PS2 business) offsetting the PS3 loss. That would suggest the PSP business as a whole is profitable to me. Especially so because Sony specifically singled out the PSP when noting this.


I don't know why Sony would single out the PSP as the PS2 will continue to be significantly more profitable than it for the forseeable future. The problem with Sony is you can't trust a thing that it says.


If you think Sony would lie on it's annual earning report and resulting pressreleases then you'd better call the DoJ because thats a criminal offence.

As too the software sales, the news from Sony at E3 was that PSP software sales increased by 35% compared to 2006. Still not great, but it does show that they are selling more games per system. After all, they didn't sell 35% extra PSP's in the same period ;)

Maybe not lie, but they know how to apply an almost unparallelled amount of spin. I'll concede then that PSP probably made a profit that year but there is still no evidence(in this thread) that over it's entire life to date that it has made Sony even 1 cent profit. 35% increase of horrible sales is still nothing to convince me the PSP is turning into a viable LEGAL game system.

 


 I'll concede that on the condition you conceed you have no proof the other way round either.

Deal, though I think it's safe to say that even if PSP has been profitable overall the actual amount won't be anything to write home about.

 

 



Hus said:

Grow up and stop trolling.

Biggerboat said:
fishamaphone said:


What did the PSP do? The PSP sold 20 million units over the course of about 30 months. The PSP established a new brand. The PSP sells software (I don't know how much, but I assume attach rates above 3 units of software per PSP). Does perform better than every other console in any one category? Does it perform any worse than every other console in any one category? No. Maybe UMD movies, but I don't think that was ever really a *main* selling point. If we were to draw out a bell curve, I'd put PSP about half a standard deviation above the mean, right around GC and Xbox, all circumstances considered. More success than failure, but not a success by any stretch of the imagination.

I'm not so sure it established a new brand as PS was obviously well known. If it did then so did GBA, GBPocket, SNES, 360 etc. I'm not so sure about the 3 units per PSP, taking just million+sellers we have an attach rate of about 0.75 meaning the sub-million sellers have a lot of ground to make up to get to an attach rate of even 2 never mind 3. Following on from this fact I'd hazard an outside bet that the system has a worse attach rate than nearly any game system in history, though I'm aware I could be wrong.

 


 Every GB was an extension of the GB brand, and to an extent, so was the DS.  Nintendo was known for handhelds.  Sony was not.  The PSP established a handheld brand, just like the iPod established a MP3 player brand.  It wasn't an extension of the iMac, even though they shared the same "i" name.  A brand is more than a name.  Or is Packard Bell part of the Hewlett-Packard brand?

As for attach rates, check the 360 which suposedly has attach rates in excess of 6, but counting million sellers only gets you about 2.5.  There are a lot of PSP games out there, and I'd assume a lot of them hover around the 900K mark.  I don't have accurate info on this, and like I said, it's an assumption, but it's a fair assumption.