Quantcast
What is Sony's biggest Mistake?

Forums - Sony Discussion - What is Sony's biggest Mistake?

pokoko said:
twintail said:

And?

You said they didn't develop IPs for the PSP, when they clearly did (on top of using some of their existing IP). 

Being overly popular or not doesn't change that. 

Just because you cut off the rest of my post doesn't mean it goes away.

Did you not read the "they should have invested in existing multimedia IP or developed their own using their assets in film and anime production" part?  Did you not read the part where I said they had nothing to appeal to kids?

How many of those games you listed had popular installments on the Vita, which was the very point of my post?

Well actually it does, thats why I cut it off. 

The rest of your post is pretty much held together by your erroneous comment that they didn't develop IP for the PSP. Once you cut that from your original comment, the rest of what you wrote falls away too.

Now, if everything you wrote hinged on the idea that Sony developed new IP, with existing IP, for the PSP, and to an extent the Vita, but then failed to capitalise on said IPs by not structuring a larger brand identity behind them, then yeah I would agree with you.

But you said they didnt develop new IP for the PSP, and everything else you wrote is in an effort to backup that claim.

And thats incorrect.



Around the Network
twintail said:
pokoko said:

Just because you cut off the rest of my post doesn't mean it goes away.

Did you not read the "they should have invested in existing multimedia IP or developed their own using their assets in film and anime production" part?  Did you not read the part where I said they had nothing to appeal to kids?

How many of those games you listed had popular installments on the Vita, which was the very point of my post?

Well actually it does, thats why I cut it off. 

The rest of your post is pretty much held together by your erroneous comment that they didn't develop IP for the PSP. Once you cut that from your original comment, the rest of what you wrote falls away too.

Now, if everything you wrote hinged on the idea that Sony developed new IP, with existing IP, for the PSP, and to an extent the Vita, but then failed to capitalise on said IPs by not structuring a larger brand identity behind them, then yeah I would agree with you.

But you said they didnt develop new IP for the PSP, and everything else you wrote is in an effort to backup that claim.

And thats incorrect.

You cut it off so you could create a strawman.  Either that, or your reading comprehension sucks and you simply didn't understand the contextual modification.  A child could understand my point after reading the entire post.  That you claim to understand yet just want to argue over the first sentence as though the rest of the post does not exist is just silly.  



pokoko said:
Not developing new IP for the portable market during the PSP era.

This is really what killed the Vita. It relied on 3rd party support, just like the PSP, but that was not enough in a shrinking market. Especially with adults switching to smartphones, Sony had nothing to appeal to kids.

LocoRoco and Patapon were developed on the PSP. Also LittleBigPlanet was ported to PSP and probably a good match. Sony could've pushed these IPs furthermore on the Vita.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

jlauro said:
I would go with BMG Rootkit scandal.

Oh yeah, that was a big fuckup.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

pokoko said:
twintail said:

Well actually it does, thats why I cut it off. 

The rest of your post is pretty much held together by your erroneous comment that they didn't develop IP for the PSP. Once you cut that from your original comment, the rest of what you wrote falls away too.

Now, if everything you wrote hinged on the idea that Sony developed new IP, with existing IP, for the PSP, and to an extent the Vita, but then failed to capitalise on said IPs by not structuring a larger brand identity behind them, then yeah I would agree with you.

But you said they didnt develop new IP for the PSP, and everything else you wrote is in an effort to backup that claim.

And thats incorrect.

You cut it off so you could create a strawman.  Either that, or your reading comprehension sucks and you simply didn't understand the contextual modification.  A child could understand my point after reading the entire post.  That you claim to understand yet just want to argue over the first sentence as though the rest of the post does not exist is just silly.  

oh ok?

pokoko said:

Not developing new IP for the portable market during the PSP era.

This is really what killed the Vita. It relied on 3rd party support, just like the PSP, but that was not enough in a shrinking market. Especially with adults switching to smartphones, Sony had nothing to appeal to kids.

While the PSP was still a strong brand, they should have invested in existing multimedia IP or developed their own using their assets in film and anime production. That is, if they were serious about the portable market.

Edit:  Jesus Christ.  I'm talking about LARGE, MEANINGFUL MULTIMEDIA IP that can move a system, not obscure niche releases.  IP that would prove they were serious about the market.

So their biggest mistake is not developing new IP.

Then 'this is what killed the Vita' - direct correlation to your original statement of not developing new IP.

Then they should have invested in extensive IP... this comment doesn't exist within a vacuum. If your premise is that they didn't develop new IP then this point of yours exists as an extension of that.

Its that obvious. I see you now recently edited your comment, and that is fine. What what you originally said and what your edit says are not the same thing.

 

But alright, they didn't invest in large IP. Debatable, but a fair perspective to have.



Around the Network
Qwark said:
Azuren said:

It has an absolutely abysmal launch. That said, it did eventually best 360 in hardware sales despite:

 

1. Having a garbage launch.

2. Coming out a year later.

3. Not having as much software sold.

4. 360 having many multiple-unit buyers in its userbase due to RRoD.

 

The main factors that returned a bit of edge to PS3 was the inclusion of a Blu-ray Driver and free online. When compared to Vita, the PS3 was a shining success.

If you are willing to forget that the PS3 nearly bankrupted the Playstation brand then sure it did fantastic. The PS3 litteraly burned all the profits made by the PS1 and PS2. Sure Vita didn't sell much, but it didn't cost Sony much either.

PS3 got a successor (and sold well), PSVita didn't... let that sink in.

KLAMarine said:
Qwark said:

If you are willing to forget that the PS3 nearly bankrupted the Playstation brand then sure it did fantastic. The PS3 litteraly burned all the profits made by the PS1 and PS2. Sure Vita didn't sell much, but it didn't cost Sony much either.

Can I get a source for this? I understand the PS3 was troubled at the start but that sounds insane.

Well there was a post with the numbers even in this thread some posts before your question, but I saw the poster also send to you =p

Nymeria said:
DonFerrari said:

Cell was a lot stronger than PPC on X360, problem was the weaker graphic card...

And PS+ even if you put as controversial, when it was just games gifted on subscription had only about 2M subs, now that it's necessary for MP have it around 30-35M... and at least it only blocked MP gaming instead of all internet usage as done in X360.

Imagine it's price if it had a comparable graphics card.  $800 at launch? 

My point was it didn't give Sony an advantage in the market putting so much into the Cell. They realized this and went more standard components for PS4 which is raking in money.

Yes, I agree, and that's my point. If they made online play part of PS+ back then would have had billions more in revenue to offset losses.

Well Sony was losing 200 per console sold (so it costed 800USD on release for the 60GB, and 700 for the 20GB), but I don't think the different GPU would add more than 50 extra to the cost.

Well we don't know what would have happened with Sony if the plan to have Cell in all electronics and using the power on the network on your house to enhance one another would do... but sure, on a hindsight and looking a PS4 the Cell was a tremendous fuck up, still the major cost was the BD drive, which looking at streaming services was another bad bet.

Teeqoz said:
DonFerrari said:

There is also substantial evidence that X360 and X1 are overtracked, so?

You certainly didn't make any clear point that you weren't referencing to total sales when you said your text, seems like you are tacking back.

So let we say it again, when Sony made all the mistakes and Xbox had mostly done right, PS edged a small margin victory, when Xbox made mistakes (and corrected the 2 main ones a lot faster than sony, being high price and always online) and Sony did things right they are getting 2:1 to 3:1 victory which isn't bigger because of English speaking territories, Live and FPS.

Man, you can interpret it as you want to, but "and in a quite a few regards, the 360 also beat the PS3" does in no way, shape or form mean that it has to be about sales.

But maybe you missed the rest of my post, because that wasn't really particularly important - the Wii won the 7th gen, despite the PS2 dominating the 6th. And the Wii U completely bombed despite being the follow up to the hugely succesful Wii. Thus showing that consoles buyers are rather prone to switching platforms.

I really don't get what you are on about. I'd think you've seen me enough around the forums to know that I'm mainly a PS guy. I'm not trying to downplay Sony's achievements, but let's be realistic. The PS3 was a colossal financial failure. The only reason Sony edged out the 360 was because they ate massive losses for several years.

I see no regards in which X360 really won and you also still didn't point any besides saying "quite few regards" and leaving it up in the air.

The point you don't know is that Wii wining have nothing to do with console buyers being prone to switch platforms ( although sure, looking at all generations in USA show that USA customers aren't brand loyal) still in Europe PS always won, and in Japan an American console never thrived.

Most of Wii userbase didn't buy a console before or after Wii, which is show on N64->GC->Wii->WiiU sales which after seeing a major peak got back to the same standard, while PS2+X -> PS3+X360 -> PS4+X1 is more or less compatible which shows that the market was more or less consistent across gens and that Wii customers that put it as the leader wasn't regular console customers.

NoCtiS_NoX said:
DonFerrari said:

And people are disagreeing with MS looking to release X2 in 2019Q1 because that would make no sense, since it wouldn't have much more power than X1X, wouldn't be cheap and would be to close to X1X launch... they would just burn themselves without any good reason... even more after they said they are aiming to a no-gen future.

hmmm. okay.  I don't know if you are ignoring it on purpose but there are people here saying 2020 is a good launch for the PS because PS4 is still selling well. Ignoring that MS can launch a new box in 2019. I am not arguing about the release date. I am arguing that MS can release it on 2019 and I showed some evidence that 3rd party devs are visiting MS and this late in this gen. It's very likely Capcom and Sega are visting not because of Xbone but rather the next box.  So one last time. It's not the release date is what I am arguing but the reason.

So again if MS decided to release the new box next year Sony will follow suit and it doesn't matter if PS4 is still selling well  or it doesn't matter if it's this year or the next or 2020 (which a lot of people here s hoping for) because IMO Sony will not allow MS to have a 1 year head start again.

MS could release a console tomorrow if we are only talking about "everything is possible", PS5 and Switch2 could also be released tomorrow. Most people think 2020 or 2021 as the plan for PS5 because that is what would be reasonable, 2019Q1 isn't. Because even if Xbox launch a console in 2019 sony making PS5 release on Q1 would be a very rush release and totally unecessary. They didn't let Xbox release schedule on X360 or X1 or X1X change their own release schedule, so why would they let X2 do it?

Shadow1980 said:

I don't think having a head start really matters that much.

The Genesis had a head start over the SNES. It sold terribly in the 1989-1990 period, not really starting to take off until 1991, and even then the SNES still won. Not really Sega's fault, but still.

The PS1 had a head start over the N64, but sold terribly until FFVII was released, then it started selling extremely well. In fact, in the U.S., the N64 sold almost as much in the 14 weeks it was available in 1996 as the PS1 did that whole year, and by June 1997 had narrowed the LTD sales gap to less than 300k units lifetime. If the N64 had been CD-based and had gotten Final Fantasy, it would have handily defeated the PS1.

The PS2 had a head start over the GameCube and Xbox, but it won not because of its head start but because it was following the PS1's massive success, plus it had a far larger games library and a competitive price. Even if the GC & Xbox released at the same time as the PS2, they still would have been destroyed.

The 360 had a head start, but I doubt it helped much because it didn't start off too well. Rather it won in the U.S. because the PS3 was so expensive at launch, with the 360 having a price advantage until Aug. 2009. And even with the head start it was selling dreadfully in Europe its first couple of years and could never catch up with the PS3, and Japan still largely rejected it.

Pricing, games, and marketing mean a lot more than release timing does. In fact, release timing probably doesn't really matter much at all, given the data available.

We are on a different market now. Time has changed. Xbox is a strong brand now. PS strongest competitor. 
We have the COD games now, Assassin's creed and Battlefield. Imagined the next box releasing with those 3. 
And your last bit imagined the new Xbox releasing with all those things you mentioned and with a headstart. Do you think MS will not be aggressive knowing that they don't have any competition? Maybe you are underestimating the marketing power of MS and do you think MS didn't learn it's lesson from Xbone? If Sony gave them that advantage then they are just giving the MS a free ride for the whole year with no competition and building it's fanbase. 

and Do you think the COD fanbase will switch to PS5 if it is release a year after? You are underestimating the effect of that game and the peer pressure from that fanbase. 
Do you think if PS5 launch MS will not use the Price drop strategy for it's xbox to steal thunder for PS5? 
IMO Sony will not give any sort of advantage to MS. They learn their lesson with the PS3 and to some extend PS4. 

Xbox may be strong IN USA and UK... Sony would lose Europe, Japan and RoW only if they fuck up, nothing to do with USA and UK... so even if MS gain both next gen, they will still be 2:1.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

DonFerrari said:
Qwark said:

If you are willing to forget that the PS3 nearly bankrupted the Playstation brand then sure it did fantastic. The PS3 litteraly burned all the profits made by the PS1 and PS2. Sure Vita didn't sell much, but it didn't cost Sony much either.

PS3 got a successor (and sold well), PSVita didn't... let that sink in.

The PS4 would have sold great even if the PS3 had normal hardware. Chances are a PS3 for $500 with normal hardware would also have sold great without massive losses. The PSVITA could still get a Switch like successor. Besides Sony choose VR over a new handheld.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Qwark said:
DonFerrari said:

PS3 got a successor (and sold well), PSVita didn't... let that sink in.

The PS4 would have sold great even if the PS3 had normal hardware. Chances are a PS3 for $500 with normal hardware would also have sold great without massive losses. The PSVITA could still get a Switch like successor. Besides Sony choose VR over a new handheld.

I know that, but the question is PS3 didn't kill itself on the market, PSVita did... so as far as mistakes go, killing a product line is bigger than making 0 profit during the lifetime of a gen of a product.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Launching GTS. I haven't played anything else in a long time, and thus not bought any new games except the inpatient which I haven't tried yet,.



It's easily the PS3 launch. It's really not even debatable.