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

Forums - Sony - Why Sony (Playstation) is not doomed

Tagged games:

 

How doomed is PS?

Not doomed at all 97 44.91%
 
Probably not doomed 32 14.81%
 
Probably doomed 40 18.52%
 
Doom 4 18 8.33%
 
Definitely doomed 24 11.11%
 
I don't have an opinion and I suck 5 2.31%
 
Total:216
Scoobes on 10 October 2012

I don't think Playstation as a brand is doomed. For Sony, Playstation is too important a brand to let go. It's the last major brand they have left where they're still relatively competitive and need it to thrive.

I actually think the Playstation brand would live in in some way even if Sony went under. It's still a big enough brand that if another company wanted to get into the business, buying the Playstation group/brand would be an easy way in.




Get your Portable ID!

Around the Network
RoryGamesFree on 10 October 2012
Scoobes said:
I don't think Playstation as a brand is doomed. For Sony, Playstation is too important a brand to let go. It's the last major brand they have left where they're still relatively competitive and need it to thrive.

I actually think the Playstation brand would live in in some way even if Sony went under. It's still a big enough brand that if another company wanted to get into the business, buying the Playstation group/brand would be an easy way in.

well, for one I sincerly doubt Sony will go under, for another I agree if they did someone would pick up the brand/gaming division, it's still imo the best known brand of the consoles, the Wii is getting there and the XBOX is still someway behind in most of Europe and Japan.

I expect a PS4 for certain, regardless of when and at what launch price, a PS5 really depends on if they get the PS4 price/specs balance right.



slowmo on 10 October 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
slowmo said:
Jay520 said:



No, it said the brand wasn't in as much trouble as some people think. By 'some people,' he's referring to people that say Playstation is doomed. I know this because he says so in the title and by this sentence which precedes the body of his article: " Here’s why I think Sony isn’t doomed, and why the PS4 is in a much better position than you might think:"

No where does he say, in absolute terms, that Sony is not in trouble. He's saying, in relation to some people, it's not in as much trouble as some people think. What he is saying in absolute terms is that Sony isn't doomed.

"I think a lot of it is understandable and some completely reasonable, but it’s a glass-half-empty perspective that’s largely unfair. Here’s why I think Sony isn’t doomed, and why the PS4 is in a much better position than you might think"

That's pretty clear to me that he's saying Sony isn't trouble and in fact the position is much better.  It's from the first paragraph.  The definitive statement is the bolded section.  He is pretty clearly saying that he can understand why people think Sony are in trouble but he will not conceed the point they are because he states it's "largely unfair".  That my friend is as absolute as you get imo.


What!?

Isn't doomed = isn't in trouble at all? 

I said much better "than you might think."

I said a lot of the doom and gloom is largely unfair. "Largely" CLEARLY implies not ALL of it. Also, "some [of the doom is] completely reasonable."

Please stop with the strawmans.


Yes or No answers please...

Sony are at this time in trouble?

Sony need to make a number of changes in their business practice still?

 

The very fact you call me a strawman speaks volumes for your debating skills.  Still not seen this evidence of their flourishing sales, especially in light of the fact the industry is in a huge decline year on year.  The  PS3 sales have been in decline for the last 2 years havent they now?



slowmo on 10 October 2012
VGKing said:
slowmo said:
So bleeding billions this last 6 years means all is fine with the PlayStation brand. You guys are starting to sound as misguided as Sega fans were towards the end. If drastic changes aren't made in strategy then yes they are in trouble, we will know more when the PS4 is released though.


The Xbox 360 is no cash cow either. 1 Billion in costs for RROD repairs. Ouch.

Add on to that the fact that the console was sold at a loss for the first few years.

Do I even need to mention all that timed-exclusive DLC Microsoft is buying while the PS3 version of these games achieve very similar sales.

And this relevant to this thread in what way?

 

Shoo ...



osed125 on 10 October 2012
RoryGamesFree said:
Sony will save themselves by launching late, very late if needed, in fact I think PS4 might not be with us till as late as early 2015, that will allow Sony two key things, low cost to build and sell and a good launch catalogue, this will mean that although they will be at least a year behind MS and two behind Nintendo, they will sell much stronger at launch than the PS3 did and eventually end up again fairly even with MS, although without the loss leading damage of PS3, for Sony this makes the most sense and will allow them to stay in the market and likely mean a PS5, I also expect an XBOX 4 and a Wii 3 (though I doubt either will have those names)

That could be a double edge sword. First, third parties will prefer to make their games for the newer hardware, and that could potentially hurt the PS3 sales (Sony can't rely only on first party games). 

Second, releasing the console too late would mean they won't have a big install base compare to the other consoles (at least at the beginning) so that makes it harder for developers to choose the PS4 to make their games. 

And third, if they make a beast of a system developers will have a hard time trying to make games for all 3 system. Yes the PS4 will be the most powerful, but like I mentioned before, the next xbox and Wii U will most likely have a big install base, and that means they will have to make all versions equally (or just slightly better), losing a lot of graphics potential Sony's spent money on. 



Nintendo and PC gamer

Around the Network
selnor on 10 October 2012

I think Sony is pulling out of console market in terms of hardware. Or at least its their goal in the near future.

The latest Gaikai move is proof that you no longer will need to own a Playstation hardware device to play the best exclusives.

PS3 might even be there last console.



DanneSandin on 10 October 2012
RolStoppable said:
DanneSandin said:

Well, considering the rising costs of developing games nowadays I understand the paid DLC idea. But, we could also blame MS for the high costs of developing games since they launched the first HD system. But then again, Epic really pushed them to make Xbox360 as powerful as possible. So, really, it's Epic's fault all this!!! And really, developers could have chosen to release the DLC for free on the PS3 - if they wanted to.

And it's not really evil by MS to turn the Xbox into a useless PC; it would just be stupid by costumers to buy it if it wasn't what they wanted.

Microsoft introduced paid DLC in the sixth generation. Most third parties will not decline a chance to charge more, so it's basically the responsibility of console manufacturers to keep these companies in check. After all, it was the behavior of (unlicensed) third parties who led to the video game crash in the USA in the early '80s. But because Microsoft allowed it, Sony followed. And because both allow it, Nintendo felt forced to follow as well. There are examples of good paid DLC, but more often than not it's used to rip people off, making people pay for stuff that used to be included as unlockables.

Ultimately, I think gamers don't like being used as tools, so Microsoft may be in for a rude awakening next generation. Just like Sony was in the seventh generation when they put the burden of Blu-ray adoption on gamers by including the format in the PS3. Sony may have taken about a $200 loss on every PS3, but to gamers the $600 price tag felt like they had to take a $200 loss (as it was at least $200 more than they expected to pay/were willing to pay). So gamers shouted "screw you" at Sony and let them crash and burn.

Back in the sixth gen xbox wasn't that big, so Sony could simply have ignored paid DLC's back then. And I'm not quite convinced that it's up to the console makers to keep 3rd party money hating in line. Just look at Capcom, or EA; they've taken a lot of heat for their DLC's. But I do agree that lots of DLC's is quite a simple and greedy way to make some easy money...

What do you mean that MS will have a rude awakening? In what way? Consumers gonna say no to DLC's and MS will crash and burn?



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

DanneSandin on 10 October 2012
RolStoppable said:
DanneSandin said:

Back in the sixth gen xbox wasn't that big, so Sony could simply have ignored paid DLC's back then. And I'm not quite convinced that it's up to the console makers to keep 3rd party money hating in line. Just look at Capcom, or EA; they've taken a lot of heat for their DLC's. But I do agree that lots of DLC's is quite a simple and greedy way to make some easy money...

What do you mean that MS will have a rude awakening? In what way? Consumers gonna say no to DLC's and MS will crash and burn?

Sony did ignore paid DLC back then and it didn't hurt them one bit, because it wasn't something that gamers wanted anyway. Console makers build the console; they are the overlords; they have the final say on everything. Capcom and EA could make their DLCs the way they are, because neither MS or Sony used their veto.

Consumers saying "no" to a multimedia hub where games are of secondary concern. We'll have to wait and see how the Nextbox will handle things, but if Microsoft's actions over the last few years are anything to go by, it won't look all that great for gaming.

You sure they don't want a multimedia hub baked into their console? As long as it doesn't hurt the game experience in any way I'd be interested...



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Andrespetmonkey on 10 October 2012
slowmo said:
Andrespetmonkey said:


What!?

Isn't doomed = isn't in trouble at all? 

I said much better "than you might think."

I said a lot of the doom and gloom is largely unfair. "Largely" CLEARLY implies not ALL of it. Also, "some [of the doom is] completely reasonable."

Please stop with the strawmans.


Yes or No answers please...

Sony are at this time in trouble? Yes

Sony need to make a number of changes in their business practice still? In general, obviously. Regarding PS home consoles, it seems likely to me that their going to make the right choices with PS4. As for why, well that's what the article is for. This is not a "yes or no" answer because "yes" or "no" would not be my full answer in the slightest.

 

The very fact you call me a strawman speaks volumes for your debating skills.  You argued against a false representation of my position. That's the very definition of a strawman argument.  Still not seen this evidence of their flourishing sales, especially in light of the fact the industry is in a huge decline year on year.  The  PS3 sales have been in decline for the last 2 years havent they now? It's been in decline, sure, 2010 followed a  major re-design and rebranding so of course 2011 couldn't top that, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been incredibly successful, sold very well and made a lot of money in 2010 and 2011 (and is continuing to do so in 2012).

You've not addressed anything in my other reply, I'd appreciate a reply.





My Music

DanneSandin on 10 October 2012

@APM: In the post above you mention that you think Sony is going to make the right decision for PS4; what would that be, in you opinion? Just curious.



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.