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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Its time to admit it. PS3 will NEVER overtake 360.

Kynes on 07 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Acevil said:
Kynes said:

It seems that this link is always relevant:

 

http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19625436&postcount=90


I love how nintendo always has to offset sony's loses in total.  At least in 10Q1 and Q2.

don't forget that SONY's PS division profited alot of other SONY divisions which didn't happen in Ninty's case


Show us one quarter report where blu ray royalties, blu ray sales or tv sales offset the losses provided by the networking division. I'm not asking for a full year, only one quarter. If you don't provide a link, shut up.



Around the Network
Reach on 07 July 2010

i dont care if it overtakes or not... i just want good games like Reach , Fable 3 , Forza 4 , Gears 3 or Kingdoms. Killzone 3 or UnCharted 3.



Jo21 on 07 July 2010
Kynes said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Acevil said:
Kynes said:

It seems that this link is always relevant:

 

http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19625436&postcount=90


I love how nintendo always has to offset sony's loses in total.  At least in 10Q1 and Q2.

don't forget that SONY's PS division profited alot of other SONY divisions which didn't happen in Ninty's case


Show us one quarter report where blu ray royalties, blu ray sales or tv sales offset the losses provided by the networking division. I'm not asking for a full year, only one quarter. If you don't provide a link, shut up.


actually everyone til late 2008 where sony reported their first Lost in 14 years,   due economy crisis, american bails out, and stronger YEN.



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 July 2010
mundus6 said:

Lol at the people that don't think Halo Reach will move consoles... Even MW2 moved consoles and thats for PS3 and PC as well.


it will move consoles but barely not like HALO3 did or first time this generation franchise



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 July 2010
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
huaxiong90 said:
jarrod said:
iWarMachine said:

damn...this is the most derailed thread ever! and LOL at the guy saying that exclusives doesn't matter... dude, the exclusive games are what makes you choose between consoles...yeah, sure you can play bayonetta in the 360 instead of god of war 3...but in the ps3, i can play both, and with the 360 i can't.

Well, in that case you'll also be playing a gimped Bayo. :/

Not all multiplatform releases are created equal, literally, and this is something that at least historically has tended to favor 360.  Of course there are also cases where the PS3 rev comes out ahead (Burnout Paradise, FFXIII) but those tend to be exceptions for the most part. 

Does a few minor graphical differences really matter? lol.

People say RDR on PS3 is gimped. When I played both versions, the ONLY differences I noticed are a loss of shadows in the intro scene for the PS3 version, and more foliage in the Xbox 360 version. But at the end of the day, both versions are flawed.

Bayo PS3 is more than just graphical differences, it's actually performance based (the engine chugs) and it impacts gameplay.  Sometimes the differences are small, or purely visual, but that's not the case for Bayonetta.

talking about BAYONETTA,you should also take into advice that the devs didn't do a good job porting so don't blame PS3

Well, the developers of Bayonetta didn't port the game at all.  Sega handled it, Platinum only worked on the 360 version.

whover did it,they did a bad job like most others,why blame PS3 for it?

I'm not blaming PS3 for it, and I'm bit unsure where you've gotten the idea that I have?  I'm just commenting on the state of the actual libraries of both, not getting into any reasons behind that.

yout comment above saying BAYONETTA faults were much more on PS3,it sounded like you were blaming.

anyways i apologize if i misunderstood you



Around the Network
Kynes on 07 July 2010
Jo21 said:
Kynes said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Acevil said:
Kynes said:

It seems that this link is always relevant:

 

http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19625436&postcount=90


I love how nintendo always has to offset sony's loses in total.  At least in 10Q1 and Q2.

don't forget that SONY's PS division profited alot of other SONY divisions which didn't happen in Ninty's case


Show us one quarter report where blu ray royalties, blu ray sales or tv sales offset the losses provided by the networking division. I'm not asking for a full year, only one quarter. If you don't provide a link, shut up.


actually everyone til late 2008 where sony reported their first Lost in 14 years,   due economy crisis, american bails out, and stronger YEN.


No, Jo21. I'm not asking Sony as a whole conglomerate. I'm asking blu ray sales, royalties and TV sales. That is where the loss of PS3 could be compensated with indirect reneuve. Sony music doesn't benefit indirectly of the number of PS3 sold.



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 July 2010
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Mr Puggsly said:

5) I wonder how much they'll make off Bluray royalties. Was it worth making the PS3 a disaster?

do you even have any idea what you can make from a formaty royalties.the losses made by the PS3 will be easily wiped out

Were the standard DVD royalties that worthless?

they weren't worthless but they were dying and slowly decreasing in amount to as DVD forum cuts the royalty fees to continue demand

and if they didn't go with BLU-RAY then HD-DVD would have won and they  would have got nothing.

but now they are getting both DVD and BLU-RAY royalties

5) Seems like a lot of people get royalties from Bluray. Lets all hope their share is enough to cover the PS3.

"Easily wiped out" is something I've never seen supported by hard numbers, anywhere.  Sony's take on Blu-Ray royalties is said to be under 30%,

i would like your numbers when you are questioning others.

tell me why would a comapny spend billions for others profits

and even less than rival electronics maker Panasonic (who also supplies Nintendo's optical formats btw).

no it doesn't make less than Panasonic

 Sony & Phillips basically had to bring so many companies on board to ensure the format's victory

they brought them to take sides adn give their own suggestions and contribute not give them the royalites.

that ways DVD has so many members on-borad but only 9 get paid royalties

(including rival content firms like Disney and initial HD-DVD backer Warner),

Warner didn't have much choice.they were one of the last HD-DVD supported and they already knew that it was going down.even if they had supported it further it would have gone down

that they've locked themselves out of the lucrative sort of royalties they started the platform for... the way things went, they might as well have gone with DVD Forum submission.

yeah right

 Sony's still getting a bigger take than they did from DVD (they barely got anything there, Toshiba's standards really took most)

do you even know what SONY and TOSHIBA were making from DVD,you are just aking everything out of your ass

there were 2 groups for DVD royalties of total 9 companies

Toshiba,Matsushita Electric,JVC,Mitsubishi Electric,Hitachi,Time Warner were in the 6C group

Sony,Philips,Pioneer were in the 3C group

but far, far less than they got off CD-ROM (whose patents, and thus royalties, expired in 2001), and worse they had to basically sacrifice their most valuable product line (PlayStation) in a needless format war of their own making.

no they didn't do it for needless war,you will see next gen

Also, the BR Group has been steeply dropping license fees to help further drive adoption,

every format gtoup does that and that brings more sales which will actually compensate for the smaller royalties perunit but more on overall sales

they've been precipitously dropping fees (far faster than DVD did),

blu-ray has also been adopted way faster than the DVD.DVD only got its major boost in 2000s not in 1996 but blu-ray got it from start

meaning even less return from Sony's perspective.

more sales bring more royalties on overall basis,i don't know how is that lees returns

 At best I think Blu-Ray can be seen as a pyrrhic victory for PS3's failure, most analysts agree the format won't be as lucrative as DVD, CD or VHS,

analysts talk bullshit most of the time.we have seen them fail most of the time.

its funny how you try to prove your point by saying analysts say this,they say that................lol

digital content delivery is on the verge of taking over for film

taking over?.....................lmao

its far away from taking over

and emerging as a force for games,

we will see when that happens

again its far away from taking over

and I'd say it's very arguable if Sony in the long view has actually gained more from Blu-Ray's victory than they have lost from the downfall of and damage to the PlayStation brand...

we can only find that out next gen with PS4 and blu-ray's cheaper years

Well some sources on most of the figures and claims I made earlier...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9874317-7.html

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005106_9074_tc024.htm

http://www.myce.com/news/Blu-ray-prices-to-fall-as-patent-holders-simplify-licensing-15591/?utm_source=cdfreaks&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_newsletter_activestories_week

you have showed me those before and i say it again,there was nothing concreter than just analyste who have failed time and time again making own estimates

...now how about citing some actual sources of your own?  Specifically anything that would at all indicate Sony recouping the $4.7B-plus moneysink that was PS3 off BD royalties?

how would there be any sources indicating SONY recouping $4.5 Billon loss as sources like that will ony exist when SONY does recover it.and its $4.5biilion max not $7billion if you into account the PS2,PSP and other products sovering loss.

and you really think a format wouldn't recoup that much

they format win always brings royalties and those toyalties are big time so they will easily recoup it.

Also, your take on Warner's change seems pretty grossly off point.  Warner's defection was precisely what killed HD-DVD, which is why the BDA offered to use their codecs and throw so much in terms of royalties their way so late in the game.  It was basically a moneyhat to end the format war.

again if warner was the last to leave and HD-DVD was almost fully dead.WAarner satying with HD-DVD would stop it from going down so why would SONY pay them a big packet of royalties for nothing

yes Codec uages and other contributions are allowed but that is more of having discounts on their own movies and being member of the BD-forum but everyone doesn't get royalties


jarrod on 07 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Mr Puggsly said:

5) I wonder how much they'll make off Bluray royalties. Was it worth making the PS3 a disaster?

do you even have any idea what you can make from a formaty royalties.the losses made by the PS3 will be easily wiped out

Were the standard DVD royalties that worthless?

they weren't worthless but they were dying and slowly decreasing in amount to as DVD forum cuts the royalty fees to continue demand

and if they didn't go with BLU-RAY then HD-DVD would have won and they  would have got nothing.

but now they are getting both DVD and BLU-RAY royalties

5) Seems like a lot of people get royalties from Bluray. Lets all hope their share is enough to cover the PS3.

"Easily wiped out" is something I've never seen supported by hard numbers, anywhere.  Sony's take on Blu-Ray royalties is said to be under 30%,

i would like your numbers when you are questioning others.

tell me why would a comapny spend billions for others profits

and even less than rival electronics maker Panasonic (who also supplies Nintendo's optical formats btw).

no it doesn't make less than Panasonic

 Sony & Phillips basically had to bring so many companies on board to ensure the format's victory

they brought them to take sides adn give their own suggestions and contribute not give them the royalites.

that ways DVD has so many members on-borad but only 9 get paid royalties

(including rival content firms like Disney and initial HD-DVD backer Warner),

Warner didn't have much choice.they were one of the last HD-DVD supported and they already knew that it was going down.even if they had supported it further it would have gone down

that they've locked themselves out of the lucrative sort of royalties they started the platform for... the way things went, they might as well have gone with DVD Forum submission.

yeah right

 Sony's still getting a bigger take than they did from DVD (they barely got anything there, Toshiba's standards really took most)

do you even know what SONY and TOSHIBA were making from DVD,you are just aking everything out of your ass

there were 2 groups for DVD royalties of total 9 companies

Toshiba,Matsushita Electric,JVC,Mitsubishi Electric,Hitachi,Time Warner were in the 6C group

Sony,Philips,Pioneer were in the 3C group

but far, far less than they got off CD-ROM (whose patents, and thus royalties, expired in 2001), and worse they had to basically sacrifice their most valuable product line (PlayStation) in a needless format war of their own making.

no they didn't do it for needless war,you will see next gen

Also, the BR Group has been steeply dropping license fees to help further drive adoption,

every format gtoup does that and that brings more sales which will actually compensate for the smaller royalties perunit but more on overall sales

they've been precipitously dropping fees (far faster than DVD did),

blu-ray has also been adopted way faster than the DVD.DVD only got its major boost in 2000s not in 1996 but blu-ray got it from start

meaning even less return from Sony's perspective.

more sales bring more royalties on overall basis,i don't know how is that lees returns

 At best I think Blu-Ray can be seen as a pyrrhic victory for PS3's failure, most analysts agree the format won't be as lucrative as DVD, CD or VHS,

analysts talk bullshit most of the time.we have seen them fail most of the time.

its funny how you try to prove your point by saying analysts say this,they say that................lol

digital content delivery is on the verge of taking over for film

taking over?.....................lmao

its far away from taking over

and emerging as a force for games,

we will see when that happens

again its far away from taking over

and I'd say it's very arguable if Sony in the long view has actually gained more from Blu-Ray's victory than they have lost from the downfall of and damage to the PlayStation brand...

we can only find that out next gen with PS4 and blu-ray's cheaper years

Well some sources on most of the figures and claims I made earlier...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9874317-7.html

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005106_9074_tc024.htm

http://www.myce.com/news/Blu-ray-prices-to-fall-as-patent-holders-simplify-licensing-15591/?utm_source=cdfreaks&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_newsletter_activestories_week

you have showed me those before and i say it again,there was nothing concreter than just analyste who have failed time and time again making own estimates

...now how about citing some actual sources of your own?  Specifically anything that would at all indicate Sony recouping the $4.7B-plus moneysink that was PS3 off BD royalties?

how would there be any sources indicating SONY recouping $4.5 Billon loss as sources like that will ony exist when SONY does recover it.and its $4.5biilion max not $7billion if you into account the PS2,PSP and other products sovering loss.

and you really think a format wouldn't recoup that much

they format win always brings royalties and those toyalties are big time so they will easily recoup it.

Also, your take on Warner's change seems pretty grossly off point.  Warner's defection was precisely what killed HD-DVD, which is why the BDA offered to use their codecs and throw so much in terms of royalties their way so late in the game.  It was basically a moneyhat to end the format war.

again if warner was the last to leave and HD-DVD was almost fully dead.WAarner satying with HD-DVD would stop it from going down so why would SONY pay them a big packet of royalties for nothing

yes Codec uages and other contributions are allowed but that is more of having discounts on their own movies and being member of the DC-forum but everyone doesn't get royalties

So zero sources and 100% assumptions.  I should've expected as much.

Also, Warner wasn't the last to leave HD-DVD, Paramount was.  Warner's defection was what sunk the format though.



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 July 2010
Kynes said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Kynes said:

32nm where? TSMC ditched it, Globalfoundries ditched it.


you really don't follow gaming news

 

they ditched it when PS3's were on 65nm and they directly tried to go to 32nm and skip 45nm(currently in PS3)

but then it was taking too much time and SONY's wanted it early so they abandend it and went back and did 45nm

 

YOU SHOULD REALLY FIRST CHEAK WHAT YOU ARE COMMNETING AND THEN SPEAK

WTF are you talking about???


http://news.softpedia.com/news/Globalfoundries-32nm-Bulk-Process-Canceled-139063.shtml

http://www.cdrinfo.com/sections/news/Details.aspx?NewsId=26392

what does that have to do with CELL being 32nm


You deserve a Ban. You only spread fud, don't know a shit of what you say, and you are only saying your wishful thinking. Please, grow up, and before writing stupid things, learn to read, and to provide links.

you telling me to grow up when you want whiining about wanting links for everything and not following news

Do you really think any foundy thought of skipping 45nm? Provide a link! Provide a link where it says it's Sony who convinced them to return to 45nm. Provide a link where it says they will make 32nm bulk for Sony. Do you know anything you write about? GROW UP, and don't invent things.

http://www.qj.net/qjnet/gadgets/sony-drops-cell-project-to-focus-on-32nm-microchip-technology.html

above you can see that they went to focus stright on 32nm but in 2008 when SONY couln't reduce price,they went bacl to 45nm in PS3 SLIM.now tell me if they went to 32nm then why did tehy put 45nm in PS3 SLIM,cause it was casuing delay.if they hadn't canceld then we would haveseen 32nm,wouldn't we?

now please don't ask me to post any links as 2 yeats old stories don't easily come forward when searching and follow news

The sad thing is that probably you believe all the stupidities you write.

the sad thing is that you believe other believe in stupidities but you urslef do and not others


Solid_Snake4RD on 07 July 2010
Kynes said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Acevil said:
Kynes said:

It seems that this link is always relevant:

 

http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19625436&postcount=90


I love how nintendo always has to offset sony's loses in total.  At least in 10Q1 and Q2.

don't forget that SONY's PS division profited alot of other SONY divisions which didn't happen in Ninty's case


Show us one quarter report where blu ray royalties, blu ray sales or tv sales offset the losses provided by the networking division. I'm not asking for a full year, only one quarter. If you don't provide a link, shut up.


yes they haven't till now but they will when thr format matures and becomes cheap like DVD did in 2000 with PS2.