By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
happydolphin on 15 February 2012
Edit Thread
MARCUSDJACKSON said:

happydolphin said:

 1) loss leading, i.e. losing money for every platform sold. For playstation, it's playstation 3 and Vita sold at a loss for a prolongued period post launch. PS3? yes, Vita? not so much. the hardware it self? yes, but that should be made back by the memory cards, and because Vita games have such low dev. cost, whats left should help cover the cost of the Vita.

2) Yes they do have that AAA title you're looking for, it's called Uncharted, and The Last of Us, The Last Guardian, InFamous, LBP, GoW. Gran Turismo is already a mega franchise! In other words, save those 20Million per weak game, and invest in marketing and pushing those for which you can leverage each another good 3Mil!

no, i'm more so looking into the future v what we currently call established ip ei UC. some would argue InFamous(becuase it under 2m sold last i checked), The Last of us(because it is unproven and has yet to be released) and The last guardian are tripleA titles, but what i think is another story. 

i agree with the saving/marketing part, but i'm not so sure, spending extra on marketing would help Sony leading to the end of this gen., but marketing would have helped if they weren't playing catchup at the begining of this gen.

3) Indie dev? Are you kidding me? Fuck that. They need to strengthen ND, Media Molecule, Santa Monica and Insomniac, as well as Team Ico, and they need to push the big boys into massive success, via marketing and non-dilution of flagship software.

i was refuring to Epic, or Crytec, which i would assume you would call independant and not indie but in that assumtion my point is clear. yes Sony has a great source of first party studios, but many would argue what ever they make won't do what seems to be the current standard of games sales to our particular group here on vgc.

come on. you've been in the threads, you know what i'm talking about, and you just happen to be debating some of those same people that make and defend those comments/arguements (it seems) to the death, and that will be one thing that never changes about the gaming related conversations we have here on vgc or anywhere. we will continue to talk in circles for as long as the console wars rage on, and that's one reason i stopped with my original post on the front page, as it was reasonable so it didn't get quoted lol. 

i'm really here for the conversation and i'm bored.

4) Sorry if I tingle your fannybone. I called them junk because it doesn't appeal to me, and it sure as hell doesn't seem to appeal to the public either, if we go by sales. Listen, MS owns the nitty gritty genre, Sony can't compete there. It's like butting your head to make a massive selling football game when Madden has been king for years. Unless you can topple the mountain king, stop trying! They rather need to differentiate themselves more than try to fend MS on their winning turf. KZ, Socom and Resistance need to stop if Sony is to stay in the game imho.

fannybone! you know me better then that i hope? dosn't appeal to the public? you mean masses right? Sony can compete there, the problem is finding the right shooter(or whatever) that can penetrate the market to topple the king v just trying. yes, they've got UC, LBP, GT5, but what MS has is system sellers, and what Sony has doesn't truely equate to that. yes Sonys games move hardware, but they don't move systems. i hope you got what i did there.

i guess in the end it goes back to marketing.



Hey Marcus. I wanted to keep it short but out of friendship I'll give you your answers. Here I go:

1) Given that memory cards are mandatory (there is no argument here, it's a fact), yeah you're kind of right. But both you and I know the mass will go for the 4GB models. Here is the pricing scheme. (Wikipedia)

4GB card will retail for $19.99, 8GB for $29.99, 16GB for $59.99, and the 32GB for $99.99

Even being conservative, if going for the 8GB model, 30$ is far from covering the estimated losses for the Vita (which I would guess is anywhere from 50 to 100$ per unit, since it should take a full 3 years to recuperate).

Anyways, I was just trying to point out an example or two of loss-leading. The 3DS and 360 are/were other examples, and the cube was also briefly. At least you know what a loss-leader is now right?

2) I was just saying Sony does have AAAs, and if you're worried they won't be long-living, that's a matter of developer competence and marketing, and I have no doubt ND will be more than capable of sustaining the quality of games like UC and TLoU or whatever new IP they come up with.

3) What will they do with new smaller studios, but increase their management and marketing burden? The best they can do is hire these people to create Indie and casual games. Yeah, that is a good idea I agree. But such studios would be useless in the short-term for Sony's bigger guns. Sony needs to focus on a select few flagships and push them down our throats and ensure very high quality, while on the other hand offering casual and indie content to please the temporary gaming need.

4) public, masses, same diff. Sony should certainly not fight MS on its turf at the moment, they don't have the firepower. They need to focus fire and differentiate, offer value to their customers asap. Twisted Metal is a good thing right now, gamers are looking for exclusives. Once they gain forces again, then they should make a serious effort at meeting MS on its turf. Just not now.

Sony doesn't have sellers is not true. They have them, but they need massive sellers, reaching to the 8Mil, 10Mil numbers like they had last gen. It isn't happening because their efforts are diluted, especially marketing. I remember when Crash was everywhere, Playstation was a killer brand. Where is that? That's what I'm asking for. To move "systems", you need a community. To create community, you need support and marketing. It's fundamental.