HollyGamer said:
potato_hamster said:
Yeah. For sure. That's why Sony sold so many Vitas. Because it had the Playstation brand. Because putting the Playstation Brand on devices that people don't want to buy is good for a brand's image. That's why Nintendo brings up the Virtual Boy so much when talking about their product history,
The PlayStation brand is wasted by not putting "Playstation" branding on things that no one would consider to be "Playstations". A "gaming phone" would just be a new verison of the Xperia Play, and obviously run android. I'm not sure people are willing to put upwards of $700-$1000 towards a "gaming phone" that offers marginally better performance than an iPhone or Galaxy, likely uses extremely similar architecture, plays 99% of the same games, and maybe has a few exclusives. Because realistically, that's the phone you're getting.
People can dream of Sony developing an X86-based phone that plays PS4 games all they like. That's very clearly and obviously not happening. The technology isn't there at the pricepoint that people might actually buy the thing. Have you guys stopped and asked yourself how many Razer Phones they've sold, or how many ROG Phones Asus will sell? Does anyone honstly expect either of those to sell over 500K units? FIrst reports have the Razer sales at 45K units its first two months with the expectations to sell 250-300K units its first year. Do those look like the kind of numbers that would pique Sony's interest? Google isn't pleased with the fact that the Pixel *only* sold 4 million units in 2017, and that phone has far more mass appeal than any Playstation phone would have. Why should Sony put the investment in when the ROI is so tiny?
|
You include vita in this comparison, you are wrong. Vita is like Wii U, it exist where smart phones are on the rise , it was exist as vague gadget not as handled nor as smart devices.
If SONY. want to sell a lot of phones they have to choose between making areal smart phones or a handled. The vita was an attempt to subdue smart phones market. So using Vita as an example is a mistake .
And also Razer and ROG are PC gaming brand and also considered new compared to SONY (while i believe Razer is old but compared to SONY it still new) . So comparing them also wrong.
|
Okay, trying to parse out this language so bear with me.
So Vita is an unfair comparison because smartphones are on the rise? How does that make sense when Nintendo sold 70 million 3DSs and is now pushing 20 million Switches in a little over a year? I don't get how you can claim the Vita wasn't a handheld. For many it was the best handheld ever made. It was a portable handheld gaming console by every definition, and very clearly played games first and foremost.
Sony decided to stop selling handhelds and they still haven't sold a lot of phones, so clearly the Vita wasn't hampering their smartphone sales.
And why is comparing gaming oriented phones catering to a gaming market which is arguably larger than console sales in many ways not a fair comparison? ASUS is a huge company. Their gaming brand is on pretty much every product they make. They sell tends of millions of ROG branded devices every single years. It's not exactly small potatoes.
