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

Forums - Sony - Does Sony Care More About Their Gamer's Then Microsoft and Nintendo...

 

Does Sony Care More About Their Gamer's Then Microsoft and Nintendo...

Yes 283 46.85%
 
No 321 53.15%
 
Total:604
theprof00 on 11 January 2012
kowenicki said:
theprof00 said:
kowenicki said:

No it didnt. 2002, 2003, 2006 were reasonbale years, 2004 and 2005 pretty good years.

 

I dont need to define minor outside influences.  By definition a very small profit margin (<2%) is vulnerable. 


Show me this chart. Because I live here, and economy has been bad for a long long time.

And what's this <2% from?

Is that really their profit margin on tvs? JFC.

2004 2005 were failed stimulus plans. They boosted buying but not in any meaningful way, and created more problems in the long run.


<2% is what Sony Corp has as a profit margin across its whole business... or rather it did.  Now of course that figure is negative.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=SNE

That page will inform you better.... people on here throw around all kinds of misinformation.  I prefer facts and this page summarises financials very well.

I thought I had editted my post with this, but here you go:

As a note: LG's operating profit margin for TVs Q2 was 1.7 and Q3 1.9 and samsung TVs are at 1.2 for Q3, Q4 numbers aren't out yet.



Around the Network
d21lewis on 11 January 2012

Sony is the parent that gives the kid whatever they ask for--even if they can't afford it. It results in a bunch of spoiled ass kids that don't appreciate anything. They see another parent do something and they think, "Oh. Their kid got that so my kids deserve it too!" It's neighbor, Microsoft's kid got a new car. Sony goes into debt buying a similar car. The kid is thankful.

Microsoft is the parent that has a good job and gets their kid fancy things--but the kid has to have a job and some responsibilities. "You want a new car? I'll pay for half.", Microsoft says. That's fair. The kid has a nice fancy car. It's much flashier than what that Nintendo has. Microsoft has money in the bank. Could they have offred a free car? Sure. But why should they?

Nintendo is the creative, artsy, fun loving and sometimes high off their ass parent. "Microsoft bought their kid a car!" You tell Nintendo. "Here's a pogo stick." Nintendo replies. Sony bought their kid a car, too! And some sort of pogo stick that looks like a dildo." ,You tell Nintendo. "Here's a bicycle." Nintendo replies. Nintendo doesn't care what anybody else is doing. They just give you what they think you deserve because they feel they know best.

So who loves who more? The answer: Late at night, they all meet up and have swinger parties at Sega's house.



brendude13 on 11 January 2012
slowmo said:
brendude13 said:

I know some people would like to say they don't, for obvious reasons, but I honestly think they do. It seems people are misreading the question as "Are SONY angels that care more about customer satisfation than profit."

Taking a ridiculous loss on the PS3 hardware, offering PSN for free, free games after the PSN outage, putting huge funding into their 1st party devs. While some of it may be down to stupid mistakes and trying to cling onto customers, Microsoft or Nintendo would have definitely not gone to those lengths for their consumers.

Does SONY care more about their customers than their profit margins? No. Do they care about their customers more than Nintendo and Microsoft? Yes.

Is this the evil Microsoft who extended the 360 warranty globally at a cost of one billion dollars to aid their customers while Sony have had systemic issues with the PS1,2 and 3 and never extended the warranty for these faults. 

They offer PSN for free because it's inferior to Live, pure and simple.

Microsoft have gone to greater lengths for their customer contrary to your belief they've done nothing.  Everything from the added television services and extra console features while Sony have spent the last 18 months stripping features from their console. 

Lose the rose tinted spetacles and realise they care nothing about you, it's a strategy to get your money off you, pure and simple.

I believe they did that to avoid the hundreds of law suits they had dropped on them, they were in big trouble back then, I can't find any articles on it but for the first year I believe Microsoft blamed the RROD on the consumers. The fact that they released such a faulty system in the first place knowing that they were like that is what makes them look bad. Every system is prone to issues, PS1, PS2 and PS3 failure rates are a fraction of what the 360's were, keeping the 1 year manufacturers warranty was completely justified.

Bullshit, exclude party chat and faster downloads at peak times and they are practically the same.

When did I ever say Microsoft haven't done anything? Stop putting words in my mouth. A few television services doesn't mean anything, especially when you need to pay £40 a year to access them. The PS3 has many of the TV and film services that I have seen on the Xbox 360, I don't really care for them, but I have still noticed players for all 5 of the main British TV channels as well as Netflix and Lovefilm. What features have SONY stripped from their console exactly? Other OS? How tragic.

I'm not wearing "rose tinted" spectacles, my first post was completely balanced and rational, if anything I was DOWNPLAYING my opinion, I think Microsoft are a bunch of dickholes and treat their consumers like shit, especially when it comes to Windows. I believe I even called SONY stupid and clingy, what more could you ask for? There was no need to reply so argumentatively or put words in my mouth, you made my comment out to be something it wasn't, as if it was some kind of hate speech against Microsoft. Is there really any need for you to  try and trigger and argument with me because I think one company cares SLIGHTLY more about their consumers than your preferred company? Pathetic.



brendude13 on 11 January 2012
d21lewis said:
Sony is the parent that gives the kid whatever they ask for--even if they can't afford it. It results in a bunch of spoiled ass kids that don't appreciate anything. They see another parent do something and they think, "Oh. Their kid got that so my kids deserve it too!" It's neighbor, Microsoft's kid got a new car. Sony goes into debt buying a similar car. The kid is thankful.

Microsoft is the parent that has a good job and gets their kid fancy things--but the kid has to have a job and some responsibilities. "You want a new car? I'll pay for half.", Microsoft says. That's fair. The kid has a nice fancy car. It's much flashier than what that Nintendo has. Microsoft has money in the bank. Could they have offred a free car? Sure. But why should they?

Nintendo is the creative, artsy, fun loving and sometimes high off their ass parent. "Microsoft bought their kid a car!" You tell Nintendo. "Here's a pogo stick." Nintendo replies. Sony bought their kid a car, too! And some sort of pogo stick that looks like a dildo." ,You tell Nintendo. "Here's a bicycle." Nintendo replies. Nintendo doesn't care what anybody else is doing. They just give you what they think you deserve because they feel they know best.

So who loves who more? The answer: Late at night, they all meet up and have swinger parties at Sega's house.

Oh wow, how do you come up with this stuff, I wish I could be as light hearted about all this stuff as you.

Not only are all your analogies very funny, but they're surprisingly accurate too.



osamanobama on 11 January 2012
slowmo said:
brendude13 said:

I know some people would like to say they don't, for obvious reasons, but I honestly think they do. It seems people are misreading the question as "Are SONY angels that care more about customer satisfation than profit."

Taking a ridiculous loss on the PS3 hardware, offering PSN for free, free games after the PSN outage, putting huge funding into their 1st party devs. While some of it may be down to stupid mistakes and trying to cling onto customers, Microsoft or Nintendo would have definitely not gone to those lengths for their consumers.

Does SONY care more about their customers than their profit margins? No. Do they care about their customers more than Nintendo and Microsoft? Yes.

Is this the evil Microsoft who extended the 360 warranty globally at a cost of one billion dollars to aid their customers while Sony have had systemic issues with the PS1,2 and 3 and never extended the warranty for these faults. 

They offer PSN for free because it's inferior to Live, pure and simple.

Microsoft have gone to greater lengths for their customer contrary to your belief they've done nothing.  Everything from the added television services and extra console features while Sony have spent the last 18 months stripping features from their console. 

Lose the rose tinted spetacles and realise they care nothing about you, it's a strategy to get your money off you, pure and simple.


NO

pure and simple



Around the Network
Red4ADevil on 11 January 2012

Yes compared to MS, but not as much as how Nintendo cares for their customers.



S.T.A.G.E. on 11 January 2012
Play4Fun said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Seece said:
No, that's just the route they have to take now.

Exactly like with the whole 'Oh we want Move to appeal to REAL gamers' blah blah blah. Because they had no other choice. Their whole strategy makes them appear to like gamers, but all the big 3 are the same, if Sony could have swapped with Nintendo at the height of the Wii they would have in a heartbeat.


LOL There is zero proof of this. Of course every business wants profit so they will do what it takes to get it, but obviously Sony showed the least heart in marketing to casuals and the most heart when proving themselves as the true gaming system. Who had the marketing commercial paying homage to gamers? Sony. Who has the least casual friendly peripherals? Sony. Who has the most first and second party games? Sony. Thats just how it goes. Microsoft only attributes itself to casuals and online and Nintendo attributes itself to casuals and nostalgia titles this gen. Its most hardcore titles are all third party, but I love myself some Zelda and Super Smash Bros (Thats called nostalgia).

What the hell does this mean? True gaming system. MS extending their appeal to more than just the core gamers means 360 isn't a 'true gaming system'?

Hardcore/Core gamers aren't the only gamers in the market despite some of you trying to convince yourselves other-wise.

I bet Sony would have loved PS3 to be more like PS2 was where they attracted not just core gamers but casual gamers as well and made them so hugely successful. I guess PS2 wasn't a 'true' gaming system.

And lol at nintendo = casuals and nostalgia.

Some of you self-proclaimed 'hardcores' are such a joke sometimes.

 

1. True gaming system= most varied library and applies more games that give  the most experiences  and less shovelware.

2. Hardcore gamers aren't the majority in the market, but they are what keeps the everything going when the casuals dont give a damn (which is most of the time)

3. The PS2 was a console dedicated to gaming and less politics which Nintendo had issues with third parties last gen and Microsoft couldnt get enough games to come out.

4. Name a console which has games that have nostalgia written all over them. If it isn't Nintendo, I dont know who it is.



S.T.A.G.E. on 11 January 2012
d21lewis said:
Sony is the parent that gives the kid whatever they ask for--even if they can't afford it. It results in a bunch of spoiled ass kids that don't appreciate anything. They see another parent do something and they think, "Oh. Their kid got that so my kids deserve it too!" It's neighbor, Microsoft's kid got a new car. Sony goes into debt buying a similar car. The kid is thankful.

Microsoft is the parent that has a good job and gets their kid fancy things--but the kid has to have a job and some responsibilities. "You want a new car? I'll pay for half.", Microsoft says. That's fair. The kid has a nice fancy car. It's much flashier than what that Nintendo has. Microsoft has money in the bank. Could they have offred a free car? Sure. But why should they?

Nintendo is the creative, artsy, fun loving and sometimes high off their ass parent. "Microsoft bought their kid a car!" You tell Nintendo. "Here's a pogo stick." Nintendo replies. Sony bought their kid a car, too! And some sort of pogo stick that looks like a dildo." ,You tell Nintendo. "Here's a bicycle." Nintendo replies. Nintendo doesn't care what anybody else is doing. They just give you what they think you deserve because they feel they know best.

So who loves who more? The answer: Late at night, they all meet up and have swinger parties at Sega's house.


Brilliant. :)



S.T.A.G.E. on 11 January 2012
NintendoFanDj said:
Sony also has arguably the best first party development team out of the "Big 3" and they show no sign of not slowing down in getting more developers to join SCE.

 

 


Nintendo has better first party development team. Especially Nintendo. Most of the first party Sony games I played like KillZone, Resistance, Uncharted, Littlebig Planet and ModNation got boring after a few plays. On the other hand Nintendo first parties keep me entertain for years. Some of them don't  but pretty much all of them do. 

Although that your opinion I believe so is mine here.

Sony has larger and more varied studios all over the world. They also have far more new IP's. Nintendo doesn't tend to focus on new IP's but more so newer experiences with nostalgia characters.



sergiodaly on 11 January 2012
Play4Fun said:
sergiodaly said:
Play4Fun said:
sergiodaly said:
slowmo said:
"People will get a second job to buy a PS3"

They care about your money just the same as Microsoft and Nintendo

/thread

yeah... and selling at a loss says exactly that...

of course they care about money... its a business... but i do think, sony does want to reach people by giving them good products with good support to make them fans, gain market share, after this comes profit ... MS IMO has a different approach... they want to give people a product that is profitable, mainly (XBL gold yearly fee says exactly that), and the quality and support come after that!
nint is a mix of them both... being Japanese and being American can have a lot to do with it.  

of course this is opinion and a personal view of things.

about the quote on your post... i would get a second job to be able to have anything worth, or that i really want (car, phone, console, shoes, bigger breast for my GF, etc) its called common sense.


You think Sony sells at a loss for the fans? They sell at a loss because they think they can recoup those losses and get those profits elsewhere. It's called a loss leading strategy.

MS is just the same as Sony, they use the loss-leading strategy too. They also want to make people fans of their products and gain marketshare. Any company that sells products wants that.

The whole "second job" fiasco was arrogance from Sony being a bit too over-confident coming from two very successful previous generations. No console is worth $600 except to a small subset of hardcore fans and Sony learned that this generation. 

of course its a strategy... losing money was never their plan... but its how they use their strategy and how they see the customer as a part of the strategy that i think is different.

"... Sony being a bit too over-confident ..." sorry but that does exist... they were confident in their product... if they didn't show that who would? MS? nint? imo gamers are very sensitive persons that can spin what ever they want to feed their agenda.

"... No console is worth $600 ..." if it cost 800$ to make how can't it be worth 600? that does not make sense... you couldn't see the value in it, i accept that... i don't see it too in a 12.000$ wrist watch but some other find, and buy them.


No. Losing money was their plan because they planned to recoup those losses from other sections of there company. For example, they used PS3/PS2 to push adoption of blu-ray/DVD even though they had to take losses for it. But they made back those losses from Blu-ray/DVD players becoming more popular and selling.

If both were gaming-only companies, they wouldn't sell at losses like they do because it wouldn't be feasible and would drive them into bankruptcy. They don't lose money for their fans' sake.

I did not say Sony were confident in their product. I said they were over-confident (there's a difference) from their previous domination and brand name power.  Sony messed up with the PS3 pricing, it's as simple as that. There is no 'agenda spinning' there.

The console market, not just me, doesn't care if it costs you $800 to manufacture a console. Only a small minority of hardcore fans are going going to see the value in spending $600  to buy it.

have it your way... its like i am not even here... all my statments were opinions... i have mine and you yours!

Proudest Platinums - BF: Bad Company, Killzone 2 , Battlefield 3 and GTA4