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

Forums - Gaming - Sony fighting to stay relevant?

Jay520 on 28 September 2012
sales2099 said:

1.) Like I said, franchise A would generate more money and total sales then franchise B....hence its technically bigger.

2.) Fanbase numbers are only as good as the frequency of the franchise. Frequency also means that your current in the minds of the gamer. .

3.) One game every 7 years, no matter how popular that one release was, will be forgotten as years and the next big games come out. You need to be current, you need to be on the back of gamers minds almost every year. That is why I think frequency matters.

4.) But to drive this home.....Uncharted (A) has moved more consoles in all 3 games then GT5 (B) has done alone. "Franchise" sales, Frequency, Being current. Thats what matters (to me at least).



1.) What do you mean "technically bigger"? Where do you get that definition? The generally accepted definition of bigger is more common or more popular. People equate "bigger" with "bigger fanbase". That's the default definition of bigger. You're in the minority. If you go ask a bunch of people (even people on this site) what's bigger between Madden and Grand Theft Auto, the majority would say Grand Theft Auto. .

2.) Madden may be in the minds of gamers. But that doesn't mean its bigger. Its fanbase is still extremely smaller than GTA's fanbase. And besides, GTA is still in the minds of gamers. It's still on of the most played games and GTA5 will surely be huge. This doesn't support your point .

3.) GTA5 won't be releasing until 2013. That would be 5 years after GTA4 released. Is GTA is being forgotten? No, if it were, it still wouldn't be one of the most played online games on the HD consoles. And GTA5 wouldn't sell the insane amounts that we both know it will sell. This doesn't support your point.

4.) You don't know that. Considering Uncharted's fanbase is around 6m and GT's fanbase is nearing 8m, I don't know how you reached that conclusion. Most would assume that GT' has pushed more console due to its larger fanbase.

Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 28 September 2012
JayWood2010 said:

 

@Sales2099

@Jay520

@Leo-J

 

First off Sales2099 is the only one looking at this from a business persepective.  Leo is taking this from a bias perspective, and  Jay you just, idk.   Everything Sales2099 has said that I've read is correct.  Yes Madden is huge btw why do you guys think they sale it every year.  Can you imagine how much profits they are getting out of a game that barely has to update each year?   

 

Halo/Gears/Forza is way bigger than Sony's first party.  I don't even know why this is being argued.  If you're going to argue let's look at the numbers. These are how much each franchise has sold this gen

 

Halo-28.99m and with Halo 4 that's going to increase

Gears of War-18.04m

Forza-11.45m

Total-58.48

 

Uncharted-14.57m

Gran Turismo-7.87m

God of War-7.53m

Total-29.97

 

Halo alone almost matches the totals for all three of Sony's exclusives.  With halo 4 it will pass all three. 

 

And Leo, so you said PSN is the best online service?  XBL has much more  respect for multiple reasons but I know what you're going to say.  FREE, am I correct.  Sorry but Steam is 10x better than PSN and it's also free.  

 

If you all really think it's ok for a company to go from making an insane amount of profits with the PS2 to losing billions with the ps3 you have a problem.  Graphics is not even noticeable between X360 and PS3, play pc if you wanna a difference.  600 dollars was a huge mistake just like the Vita is making a huge mistake with making memory cards over priced and an expensive portable console.  Get rid of your bias opinions, Sales2099 is the only one correct here so I don't understand the argument here.  Please explain.

 

 


Thats great bro. Microsoft might have three titles that are strong, but those sales are supplemented by the fact that Sony has way more games for potential sales.



Kenology on 28 September 2012
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not and the original Xbox never sold over 25 million consoles. The original Xbox had investors worrying whether there should be a second version of the console. You should've seen the internet for Nintendo though, they were talking about how Nintendo should just make games like Sega and call it a day back then. Everyone was talking about doom and gloom back then because Nintendo was now going head to head with huge corporations.

I don't think that's true.  The Cube didn't sell a ton of units but Nintendo sold a TON of software on that system.  The Gamecube was most certainly profitable.  I don't have the numbers to show, but I'm sure someone does...  Everyone who was talking about gloom and doom for Nintendo then were looking at the weekly Media Create/monthly NPD reports, they couldn't have been looking at Nintendo's financial statements becaue Nintendo was making a SHIT TON of money off the Gamecube.

Im talking about the reception or dare I say public perception on the interwebs, my friend...not the reality. I know Nintendo profitted off the Gamecube. people were responding to the 60/20/20 marketshare stranglehold Sony had. I didnt believe it then and I dont believe it in Sonys case as well. 

Ok. But this sentence makes it should like you're saying the complete opposite: "The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not..."

The cube was not insanely profitable. It did very well though.  They barely sold roughly a quarter of what the Wii attained in sales.

Hmmm... now you're just getting into semantics.  I won't even ask you to quantify "insanely", but I think you're mistaken.  Nintendo made tons of money during the Gamecube era, off of the Gamecube, specifically software sales.  We know that as a fact.  I think you might be backpedaling a bit.



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 September 2012
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not and the original Xbox never sold over 25 million consoles. The original Xbox had investors worrying whether there should be a second version of the console. You should've seen the internet for Nintendo though, they were talking about how Nintendo should just make games like Sega and call it a day back then. Everyone was talking about doom and gloom back then because Nintendo was now going head to head with huge corporations.

I don't think that's true.  The Cube didn't sell a ton of units but Nintendo sold a TON of software on that system.  The Gamecube was most certainly profitable.  I don't have the numbers to show, but I'm sure someone does...  Everyone who was talking about gloom and doom for Nintendo then were looking at the weekly Media Create/monthly NPD reports, they couldn't have been looking at Nintendo's financial statements becaue Nintendo was making a SHIT TON of money off the Gamecube.

Im talking about the reception or dare I say public perception on the interwebs, my friend...not the reality. I know Nintendo profitted off the Gamecube. people were responding to the 60/20/20 marketshare stranglehold Sony had. I didnt believe it then and I dont believe it in Sonys case as well. 

Ok. But this sentence makes it should like you're saying the complete opposite: "The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not..."

The cube was not insanely profitable. It did very well though.  They barely sold roughly a quarter of what the Wii attained in sales.

Hmmm... now you're just getting into semantics.  I won't even ask you to quantify "insanely", but I think you're mistaken.  Nintendo made tons of money during the Gamecube era, off of the Gamecube, specifically software sales.  We know that as a fact.  I think you might be backpedaling a bit.


Not at all. If you read my first statement, I said the hear say around the net was that Nintendo was in trouble. I didnt believe that then, i dont believe this now for Sony. If anything this has proven how truly strong the Playstation brand is and why they are promoting the likes of Kaz Hirai.



oni-link on 28 September 2012
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not and the original Xbox never sold over 25 million consoles. The original Xbox had investors worrying whether there should be a second version of the console. You should've seen the internet for Nintendo though, they were talking about how Nintendo should just make games like Sega and call it a day back then. Everyone was talking about doom and gloom back then because Nintendo was now going head to head with huge corporations.

I don't think that's true.  The Cube didn't sell a ton of units but Nintendo sold a TON of software on that system.  The Gamecube was most certainly profitable.  I don't have the numbers to show, but I'm sure someone does...  Everyone who was talking about gloom and doom for Nintendo then were looking at the weekly Media Create/monthly NPD reports, they couldn't have been looking at Nintendo's financial statements becaue Nintendo was making a SHIT TON of money off the Gamecube.

Im talking about the reception or dare I say public perception on the interwebs, my friend...not the reality. I know Nintendo profitted off the Gamecube. people were responding to the 60/20/20 marketshare stranglehold Sony had. I didnt believe it then and I dont believe it in Sonys case as well. 

Ok. But this sentence makes it should like you're saying the complete opposite: "The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not..."



Ouch...somebody got caught with their pants down (just like those ppl saying the Wii U is less powerful than PS360)    Honestly, just looking at Nintendo financials shows the GCN was profitable.  It sold a ton of games (thanks to it's loyal fanbase) plus the hardware was sold for a profit.



Around the Network
oni-link on 28 September 2012
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not and the original Xbox never sold over 25 million consoles. The original Xbox had investors worrying whether there should be a second version of the console. You should've seen the internet for Nintendo though, they were talking about how Nintendo should just make games like Sega and call it a day back then. Everyone was talking about doom and gloom back then because Nintendo was now going head to head with huge corporations.

I don't think that's true.  The Cube didn't sell a ton of units but Nintendo sold a TON of software on that system.  The Gamecube was most certainly profitable.  I don't have the numbers to show, but I'm sure someone does...  Everyone who was talking about gloom and doom for Nintendo then were looking at the weekly Media Create/monthly NPD reports, they couldn't have been looking at Nintendo's financial statements becaue Nintendo was making a SHIT TON of money off the Gamecube.

Im talking about the reception or dare I say public perception on the interwebs, my friend...not the reality. I know Nintendo profitted off the Gamecube. people were responding to the 60/20/20 marketshare stranglehold Sony had. I didnt believe it then and I dont believe it in Sonys case as well. 

Ok. But this sentence makes it should like you're saying the complete opposite: "The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not..."

The cube was not insanely profitable. It did very well though.  They barely sold roughly a quarter of what the Wii attained in sales.

Hmmm... now you're just getting into semantics.  I won't even ask you to quantify "insanely", but I think you're mistaken.  Nintendo made tons of money during the Gamecube era, off of the Gamecube, specifically software sales.  We know that as a fact.  I think you might be backpedaling a bit.

lol...I think so



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 September 2012
Jay520 said:
sales2099 said:

1.) Like I said, franchise A would generate more money and total sales then franchise B....hence its technically bigger.

2.) Fanbase numbers are only as good as the frequency of the franchise. Frequency also means that your current in the minds of the gamer. .

3.) One game every 7 years, no matter how popular that one release was, will be forgotten as years and the next big games come out. You need to be current, you need to be on the back of gamers minds almost every year. That is why I think frequency matters.

4.) But to drive this home.....Uncharted (A) has moved more consoles in all 3 games then GT5 (B) has done alone. "Franchise" sales, Frequency, Being current. Thats what matters (to me at least).


1.) What do you mean "technically bigger"? Where do you get that definition? The generally accepted definition of bigger is more common or more popular. People equate "bigger" with "bigger fanbase". That's the default definition of bigger. You're in the minority. If you go ask a bunch of people (even people on this site) what's bigger between Madden and Grand Theft Auto, the majority would say Grand Theft Auto. .

2.) Madden may be in the minds of gamers. But that doesn't mean its bigger. Its fanbase is still extremely smaller than GTA's fanbase. And besides, GTA is still in the minds of gamers. It's still on of the most played games and GTA5 will surely be huge. This doesn't support your point .

3.) GTA5 won't be releasing until 2013. That would be 5 years after GTA4 released. Is GTA is being forgotten? No, if it were, it still wouldn't be one of the most played online games on the HD consoles. And GTA5 wouldn't sell the insane amounts that we both know it will sell. This doesn't support your point.

4.) You don't know that. Considering Uncharted's fanbase is around 6m and GT's fanbase is nearing 8m, I don't know how you reached that conclusion. Most would assume that GT' has pushed more console due to its larger fanbase.

Makes sense, especially in Europe GT is definitely a seller over there. The sales are stabalized over there as opposed to Japan and the US.



Jay520 on 28 September 2012
JayWood2010 said:

 

@Sales2099

@Jay520

@Leo-J

 

1.) Yes Madden is huge btw why do you guys think they sale it every year.  Can you imagine how much profits they are getting out of a game that barely has to update each year?   

2.) Halo/Gears/Forza is way bigger than Sony's first party.  I don't even know why this is being argued.  If you're going to argue let's look at the numbers. These are how much each franchise has sold this gen

3.) If you all really think it's ok for a company to go from making an insane amount of profits with the PS2 to losing billions with the ps3 you have a problem.  Graphics is not even noticeable between X360 and PS3, play pc if you wanna a difference.  600 dollars was a huge mistake just like the Vita is making a huge mistake with making memory cards over priced and an expensive portable console.  .

4.) Get rid of your bias opinions, 5.) Sales2099 is the only one correct here so I don't understand the argument here. Please explain.



You didn't specify which segments are directed at who, so I'll just respond to everything.

1.) I never said otherwise.

2.) I never said otherwise.

3.) I never said otherwise .

4.) Point the bias out .

5.) I'm not going to explain the entire argument to you. If you want to understand the argument, then look through the thread. If you don't feel like doing that, I'm not going to do it for you.

Jaywood2010 on 28 September 2012

@ S.T.A.G.E.  Do I really need to bring out a list of each console exclusive between the two.....bro.  Sony had nothing in it's first couple years and Microsoft hasnt in its last few years. Most likely they will come out pretty even, but as I said before X360 software sells way more.  You can argue all you want but at the end of the day what I said is true.  




       

Train wreck on 28 September 2012
oni-link said:
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Kenology said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not and the original Xbox never sold over 25 million consoles. The original Xbox had investors worrying whether there should be a second version of the console. You should've seen the internet for Nintendo though, they were talking about how Nintendo should just make games like Sega and call it a day back then. Everyone was talking about doom and gloom back then because Nintendo was now going head to head with huge corporations.

I don't think that's true.  The Cube didn't sell a ton of units but Nintendo sold a TON of software on that system.  The Gamecube was most certainly profitable.  I don't have the numbers to show, but I'm sure someone does...  Everyone who was talking about gloom and doom for Nintendo then were looking at the weekly Media Create/monthly NPD reports, they couldn't have been looking at Nintendo's financial statements becaue Nintendo was making a SHIT TON of money off the Gamecube.

Im talking about the reception or dare I say public perception on the interwebs, my friend...not the reality. I know Nintendo profitted off the Gamecube. people were responding to the 60/20/20 marketshare stranglehold Sony had. I didnt believe it then and I dont believe it in Sonys case as well. 

Ok. But this sentence makes it should like you're saying the complete opposite: "The Wii was insanely profitable. The Cube was not..."



Ouch...somebody got caught with their pants down (just like those ppl saying the Wii U is less powerful than PS360)    Honestly, just looking at Nintendo financials shows the GCN was profitable.  It sold a ton of games (thanks to it's loyal fanbase) plus the hardware was sold for a profit.


I wouldnt say that, if you go back and actually read different news archives, you would see that most of the earnings that Nitendo attributed in the gcn-gba years were from gameboy advance sales.