Quantcast
Sony Strategy Thread: Third Party Sony (PS NOW)

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony Strategy Thread: Third Party Sony (PS NOW)

When I said "these billions" I meant all of the money they've lost so far. Geez do I need to spell out everything? Isn't it obvious from several of my posts that I meant all of the losses so far?

I'm pretty sure that, as of the slim, they are now overall profitable (SWprofits-HWcost)


Let's wait and see... if I remember correctly, SCE's only planning to start making consistent profits in the next fiscal year (and that, btw, is also what they said last year).

Look, all I'm saying is those price cuts and their effect were way too radical to be planned. The best example is that Sony cut the EU price by 33% (200 €) before the PS3 even had its first holiday here. Surely you can't tell me with a straight face that that was all according to plan too.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network
NJ5 said:
When I said "these billions" I meant all of the money they've lost so far. Geez do I need to spell out everything? Isn't it obvious from several of my posts that I meant all of the losses so far?

I'm pretty sure that, as of the slim, they are now overall profitable (SWprofits-HWcost)


Let's wait and see... if I remember correctly, SCE's only planning to start making consistent profits in the next fiscal year (and that, btw, is also what they said last year).

Look, all I'm saying is those price cuts and their effect were way too radical to be planned. The best example is that Sony cut the EU price by 33% (200 €) before the PS3 even had its first holiday here. Surely you can't tell me with a straight face that that was all according to plan too.

there is no doubt that there has been some problem's along the way. and there's alway's going to be some problem's no matter what, but to expect Sony to not see how High cost component's will not hinder their bottom line is pretty far fetched. that's why they have a :

 

business plan!

Sony keep's saying the Playstation system cycle is 10 year's.

do you not think that maybe, just maybe that is part of their business plan for each and every playstation system?

yes business plan's can change, but when the playstation 3 is not even in it's 4th year, and in some cases 1st year it's kind of far fetched to call it a failure.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

joeorc when you go from around 70% market share to around 20% market share that's a failure... you don't even need to look at the financial side to realize that.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:
joeorc when you go from around 70% market share to around 20% market share that's a failure... you don't even need to look at the financial side to realize that.

ahh, just taking the single system per system market share are we!

look:

and what market share are we talking about?

just the ps3's

or how about when talking about the entire product line of each company?

it can be made to look grim no matter what company you are talking about when you only take into account one of their product's

let's see:

add up the sale's of each product line of each company's hardware to store's

and guess what the lowest hardware wise is MICROSOFT

why because Microsoft only has One hardware system on the Market the xbox360 yes there is more than one type of xbox360 system

but as its only one .

While Both Sony and Nintendo have more than one system

by that standard would you call the xbox360 a failure?

I sure would not. 



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

NJ5 said:
When I said "these billions" I meant all of the money they've lost so far. Geez do I need to spell out everything? Isn't it obvious from several of my posts that I meant all of the losses so far?

I'm pretty sure that, as of the slim, they are now overall profitable (SWprofits-HWcost)


Let's wait and see... if I remember correctly, SCE's only planning to start making consistent profits in the next fiscal year (and that, btw, is also what they said last year).

Look, all I'm saying is those price cuts and their effect were way too radical to be planned. The best example is that Sony cut the EU price by 33% (200 €) before the PS3 even had its first holiday here. Surely you can't tell me with a straight face that that was all according to plan too.

But that's the problem, "these billions" is not a fixed number at all and is not very viable to the debate. Using that phrase can mean any number of things, 1 billion, 3 billion, every billion, etc.

Who's to say how much they expected?

A) I think there was a misunderstanding because my intial understanding was that Sony knew it was going to lose something. It didn't know exactly how much at first and so just had a tentative number, and then as time went by and economy bottomed out, that number changed.

B) My understanding of what you meant when you wrote "these billions" was that they did not expect to lose any billions. So, that was a misunderstanding.

C) What you are saying I guess, is that they didn't expect to lose as much as they actually did. But I would still disagree. Like I wrote above, they had an idea, and events in the economy changed that number to a different one.

Now, back to the subject we were talking about; sacrifice.

In A) sacrifice fits because they knew they were going to lose something

In B) sacrifice does not fit, because of factors like higher profit, (not dropping the price as quickly), etc etc

In C) sacrifice fits because although they did plan to lose an arm, you are saying they didn't also expect to lose a leg. But they did plan for the arm.

So, even though B is the interpretation I chose to understand, it is also the only one capable of representing your greater argument of the situation not being a sacrifice right?

I'm just confused at why there was such a misunderstanding here. I only understood in such a way that would be accurately representative of your statement. I didn't mean it to "spin" your words and set up a straw man argument. So let's try to be civil from here on out.

 

About them dropping the Euro prices so quickly, the 40GB also dropped price to 400$ in the US. The two consoles are the same, both are the 40-GB model with no BC. The sale both came at around the same time, and were hailed as excellent decisions. Additionally the exchange rate with Europe actually makes Japan more money than the sale in the US did. These cuts were necessary as the company was seeing a huge amount of pressure from both devs and customers. Again, it goes back to whether or not you think they knew it was a sacrifice. If they don't sell consoles, they don't make money, and obviously, nobody is going to continuously buy a 600$ console no matter how good the games were.

It's been shown that the number of games that are sold are generally over the course of ownership. That means you need to get install base as high as possible immediately, because over time it makes more money. It's like getting the extra skill points per in fallout. Getting it later does not give you retroactive points.

BR was an important success.

And whether they originally expected to lose 3B or 6B doesn't make a difference, because BR is worth many more billions.



Around the Network

The topic of this thread is fundamentally flawed. Sony has not disrupted the PC market, they're disrupting the cable companies. Microsoft too. If you look at it from a media point of view you would see that gaming, though included in both respective platforms is not the primary focus of the parent company, especially in Sony's case. The PS3 is a testing ground for Sony's music & film divisions that just happens to play games occasionally. The early SKU's did have minor PC features but those were scrapped due to lack of consumer interest and high production costs. Sony taking a loss on HW for marketshare and hoping to recoup that on SW may have worked in the past but they have less to work with this time around and 3x as much competition. SW won't even help them break even this gen. They have some of the worst selling 1st party titles of this or any generation. I don't believe the Playstation brand can survive another gen with losses like they had this gen. Disruption may have been something Sony could do well in the past but the PS3 has spread what little resources they had very thin. Teh doomed?



Things that need to die in 2016: Defeatist attitudes of Nintendo fans

well just because the disruption strategy isn't as successful doesn't mean it's not still a disruption strategy.
Disruption basically stems from inventing a product that takes the place of another product without competing with it as a similar product. In the same way that Nintendo is disrupting the video game market, to another extent it's disrupting the home exercise and board game market.

This disruption is taking the PC capabilities and ripping them in half. Whereas before, PCs were designed to run programs, an unchallenged field. Only PCs could run programs. When home gaming came about, there's this distinct change in that idea. However, PCs were still head and shoulders above what the home consoles were capable of. Nowadays, these consoles are very much able to hold their own.
To illustrate, before, someone bought a 1000$ computer to do everything. Now, there is the option of buying a 500$ computer and a 300$ console, with a similar total capability, but just in different components.

Notice that for the most part, the PC market is made up of internet/word processor models with very little emphasis on video processing.



Adobo said:
regardless of how sony makes their new console, I will still get it. Just like the rest.

This, unless its another $600 beast, then I'll wait till its $299.



i agree 100 percent with you, if you put your head down and think, what you are saying is 1000% true



Disruptive is not the word I'll use. It sounds like they're messing with the market rather than shoving technology that could potentially improve the industry they're in.

If the products they've introduced did not improve upon previous products but rather tried to mess with their existing competitors, then that's what I would call disruptive. They're an engineering company after all, they're supposed to introduce new hardware every now and then. What's the point of all that RnD if they'll just keep releasing the same old stuff?