By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - The difference between Sony and MS / Why is Sony limiting themselves?

Rainbird on 12 March 2010
BW_JP said:
Twistedpixel said:
BW_JP said:
Twistedpixel said:
Its because Sony are a software company and Microsoft are a hardware company. You wouldn't expect Sony to be familiar with hardware logistics or anything like that.

Actually the likely cause is a screw up on Sony's end. They probably ordered the 45nm RSX and they short shipped the 65nm version, possibly due to some delay they had in the fab for getting volume of the 45nm up and running. They took a risk, hoping to lose less money by making fewer of the more expensive 65nm versions but they lost out.

This is the single most retarded post I've ever seen in my entire life on these forums.

Microsoft are a software company. Sony are a hardware company.

Infact, i'd be willing to bet sony is the largest hardware manufacturer in the world. 

The 360 was and still is a technical disaster in terms of production. 

It's also one of microsofts only successful hardware ventures, they are a software giant.  

How you could possibly mistake that is hilarious.

They certainly did not order the wrong version of the RSX.

I think the stupidity in your post speaks for itself.

well, I did quote you, so you are correct. 

You didn't pick up on the irony in his original post >_>



Around the Network
Twistedpixel on 12 March 2010
ithis said:
Twistedpixel said:

How is it harder to make slims than say phats? If anything their jobs gotten easier, not harder.

Killzone 2 didn't hit the mark with a wider audience. They screwed the pooch there, and likely its due to the fact that Guerilla Games aren't as talented as Epic, Valve, Bungie, Infinity Ward etc in that respect and since Killzone 2 was their first big title it shouldn't really surprise anyone that they don't have the same level of experience.

 

I said it's harder to make than Wiis. And this was not the peak year for Wii, so Nintendo knows how many to make.

 

Killzone 2 was not advertised as it should have been. When the quality is there (and it's there), the taste can be formed (so a new "mark to hit" can be created if necessary) given good enough advertising. 

Killzone 2 was too dark, the gameplay was nowhere near as well honed as a game like Gears of War and it lacked local coop. Its sales were limited to a more hardcore set of people who could look past the shortcomings that the more everyday gamers would fall flat over. It was advertised fine, really.



Do you know what its like to live on the far side of Uranus?

Ping_ii on 12 March 2010
Rainbird said:
BW_JP said:
Twistedpixel said:
BW_JP said:
Twistedpixel said:
Its because Sony are a software company and Microsoft are a hardware company. You wouldn't expect Sony to be familiar with hardware logistics or anything like that.

Actually the likely cause is a screw up on Sony's end. They probably ordered the 45nm RSX and they short shipped the 65nm version, possibly due to some delay they had in the fab for getting volume of the 45nm up and running. They took a risk, hoping to lose less money by making fewer of the more expensive 65nm versions but they lost out.

This is the single most retarded post I've ever seen in my entire life on these forums.

Microsoft are a software company. Sony are a hardware company.

Infact, i'd be willing to bet sony is the largest hardware manufacturer in the world. 

The 360 was and still is a technical disaster in terms of production. 

It's also one of microsofts only successful hardware ventures, they are a software giant.  

How you could possibly mistake that is hilarious.

They certainly did not order the wrong version of the RSX.

I think the stupidity in your post speaks for itself.

well, I did quote you, so you are correct. 

You didn't pick up on the irony in his original post >_>

HAHAHAHA!! omg.



ithis on 12 March 2010
Twistedpixel said:

Killzone 2 was too dark, the gameplay was nowhere near as well honed as a game like Gears of War and it lacked local coop. Its sales were limited to a more hardcore set of people who could look past the shortcomings that the more everyday gamers would fall flat over. It was advertised fine, really.

Killzone 2 sold almost nothing in it's first holiday season, all this while the PS3 was experiencing a rebirth. I know there was MW2 but still. BIG FAIL as far as I'm concerned. I hope they fired somebody.



libellule on 12 March 2010
Twistedpixel said:
libellule said:
you are making a minor point ... like if it was a BIG point
we like to check hardware sales/week but at the end, they are irrelevant
what matters is the long term, the whole library etc ...

BTW, becuase they are not focusing on FFXIII, they can focus on GoW3 ALL their marketing ressource and being independant of a third party publisher (while MS is spending money on FFXIII for a "lost" cause). I Even believe that FFXIII would have satyed exclusive it would have even more bashed by the media/fanboys ...

Also, about the "low stock in US", at BEST, it is only 100k/month that they do not sell ... nothing amazing particularly if they still lose money on hardware.
Also, what is "rare" become "precious" ...

So what do you say about Sony spending money on lost causes like Madden? Because you know, Sony never does anything like what Microsoft did with FFXIII, ever.

I never said that this way : MS bad vs Sony good.

It is a question of momentum : for example, with GoW3, they dont need FFXIII because they have their game so it is better to keep money (bundle+ads) on GoW3 and to not waste money for FFXIII (bundle+ads) ... that is my point.

if GoW3 was not released at the same time than FFXIII, thing would be different...



Time to Work !

Around the Network
BW_JP on 12 March 2010

It's honestly hard to say with this guy.



BWilly85 on 12 March 2010

I wonder if Sony's marketing is any better in Japan.. I know that doesn't effect their supply shortage but i mean in reference to Final Fantasy, Killzone and all the other games mentioned. Microsoft does a good job of advertising in NA, but probably not so much in Japan. Maybe its vice versa for Sony. If not... one has to wonder why.



V-r0cK on 12 March 2010

Well the shortages I see are the 120gb PS3, I still see a number of the 250gb PS3.

Maybe its Sony's plan to push the buyers to buy the 250gb model so Sony will make a profit in the process? They figured with the massive games coming out plenty of PS3 will be bought and each one Sony will take a loss that'll tally up huge by the end of March.

Possibly its also the best way to get rid of the current PS3 to bring in the lighter models?

Just my guess. But if there's also a 250gb PS3 shortage then yes Sony is hurting themselves.



scat398 on 12 March 2010

We were actually discussing this briefly in the NPD thread so I'm glad Dirty made a new thread for it.

I still can't figure it out, but I guess if Sony is pushing about 1million consoles a month give or take 100,000, maybe that is all they can produce right now. And if they switched over to the slim model and depleted that inventory to quickly the could be riding rail thin from the manufacturer to stores.

Whatever it ends up being I don't think it's a good thing for Sony to be short on supply during what may be the most important year for sony in the console market.



Hyruken on 12 March 2010

What i have noticed with these shortages is that the 120gb seems to be the one sold out in places but the 250gb is ok.

I looked at game and saw the 120gb is £249
http://www.game.co.uk/Consoles/PlayStation-3/Sony-PlayStation-3-120GB-Slim-Console/~r343273/

And the 250gb is £269
http://www.game.co.uk/Consoles/PlayStation-3/Sony-PlayStation-3-250GB-Slim-Console-/~r343677/

Basically a difference of just £20. That is nothing. If people really wanted the console as much as this site tries to make out then would people really wait for the 120gb to come in or pay £20 and get double the GB and take it home with them?
If i really wanted something i would do that. I bought my PS3 at a lot higher price then that as im sure most of you did too.

Which makes me think maybe Sony don't want to make 120gbs anymore, maybe they run at a higher loss on those then they do by making the 250gbs? That would explain it more in my opinion.