By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mummelmann on 28 April 2009
Edit Thread
Smashchu2 said:
Akvod said:

If every company gave up when one of their brands (especially a long established one) weren't doing as good as it used to, then why are have the Big 3 been in business for decades, why did MS stay with Xbox, etc? The strongest argument you have is that the recession may make the executives think for the short term. However for the long term, think of what pulling out now will do. They will lose a place in a industry that could make potentially make them a huge ammount of money in the future, which they did for 2 out of 3 generations. Getting back into the industry would force them to lose a huge ammount of money like MS did, and it will be strange to use the PS brand again. The PS isn't as strong as it used to be, but it's strength clearly still shows with it's sales despite it's huge price tag.

You say that the PS brand is on it's last legs, but it's only losing by 10 millionish to the 360, in comparison to how badly the PSy2 beat the Xbox brand. People still know abo ut the brand, and that's the most important thing, as you need their attention in order to convince them later (next gen). Sony is trying to make a profit, by not cutting the price of the PS3, but by bolstering it's software development, and I believe,while it won't give it as huge of a bump as a price cut would have done, the will still bump up some hardware along with making money back from the very same software they just sold to push the hardware.

Do I think that the PS3 will beat the 360 this gen? Not really, no. But do I think that the PS3 would be absolutely crushed and it's brand image tarnished? No. If anything, it got an image of being too expensive, elitist perhaps, but at the same time that it's a reliable piece of hardware with top of the notch graphics (if Sony continues to invest in it's 1st party as it is now).

If they cary that image over to the next gen, a strong lineup of games provided by it's 1'st party developers, a improved online infrastructure, a similar but improved version of the PS3 (cell), and a cheaper price, then they could give a good run for the other competition.

=======================

To sum up that wall of text:

There's a double standard going on. Microsoft lost money with the Xbox, and in the initial years of the 360, but hanged in there with hopes that their investment will let them penetrate a market, and make money later. (Side note: For those that argue that MS only want s to sabotage Sony. I'm sure even if that was the case, MS has realized that they can make money. Unless you don't believe MS is making some profit through the 360) Sony is losing money now. Why can't they hang on this generation, and go to the next generation with the hope to make money? The strongest argument against this is that the recession and theoverall state of the company will make them consider the option. However the industry has proven to Sony to be a huge source of profit in the past. Why will they lose their foothold in that industry, and throw away a brand that has been established for 3 generations, and clearly still has strength and recognition?

Sony can still make a new console, because they could still use their current technology, but only beef it up, just exactly like MS did with the 360.

Sony is clearly investing in the long term, as they are bolstering their first party line up, staying competitive, and adding new features to the online aspect. If Sony were to pull out of the industry, it would have to be very sudden and in the future, as they clearly don't look like giving up now.

Uggg, there were some pretty bad and flat out aweful assumptions here. Where is that other guy who had a good argument?

1)Microsoft is not in the business to make money. I repeat

Microsoft is not in it to make money

Go read this. It explains the entire strategy. It is doubtful they will stay in the market long after Sony's demise (the brand with either fail or become a niche. I'll explain this if someone asks me to).

2)Boxes do not mean anything. If I sold one unit and made 1million dollars in profit verses selling 1million units and making $1 dollar (total), where was the better investment?  By your logic, it would be the $1 becuase it's all about the number of boxes that are sold. Sony is down 10million units, but they have lost **** tons of money doing so, even eating their old system's profits.

3)The brand is not strong (and does not matter). Brand name doesn't go very far.Brands have died. New ones have been born, and then those die. A brand name does not mean long term profits. Look at the Wii. It does not have any Nintendo branding, but it still sold. The DS dropped the successful Gameboy brand and is beating it's records. On the other hand, Nintendo's brand began to faulter with the N64, and again with the Gamecube. The Playstation 3 is also losing despite the strong Sony brand. How can you justify them making multimillion dollar decisions when the brand name obviously does nohold.

4)I when people try to say "It's a long established brand." NO IT'S NOT. It's ~15 years old. That is not long. That is not as long as a lot of other products. This means nothing.

Here is the thing people do not understand. The investors are the ones making the decisions. The PS3 was planned for a 10 year plan, but it is not meeting that. Instead, it's losing money with no end in sight. It has been about 3 years and it is still not profitable. Nintendo, in it's low period, never lost a cent. In Sony's low point, they have lost a lot of money. Part of the reason the company is hurting is probably due to the massive turn around of the Playstation brand, a brand that was once profitable but is now hurting the company in both bad economic times and bad business times.

Also, Sony's heart and soul is not games. It's prodominatly music and movies and anything that relates to that. Look at the playstation line. It has pretty much been a mover of their other formats. The PS2 had a DVD player, and the PS3 basically pushed Blu-Ray. If their movie sector was hurting, they'd try to fix it. If their game sector as hurting, they will probably downsize it or kill it.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, we all know that MS don't like making money, this is why Bill Gates is listed as the most destitute man on the planet. Oh, wait... Of course they want to make money, they said themselves that they wanted to conquer the "living room entertainment arena" or some such way back when and they are in it to stay (thankfully).

Bolded; no, just no. When you've sold 300-350 million consoles worldwide you don't just "kill it". I find it ludicrous that many people in here are so rabid in claiming the power of industry woes over only one participant (Sony).

@Maskedpainter; yes, Sony products suck and this is why the Bravia line of TV's is hailed as the best in the world by experts.

And people say Sony fanboys are childish... this is the kind of thread that proves them wrong (when they claim that one side is "worse" than the other).