DieAppleDie said: if Sony left the industry many companies would enter in a race for the hole they would leave, it would be interesting to watch, but i prefer SonyCE were it is......i would prefer Msoft leaving
In my perfect world, Nintendo, Sony and Sega would temporarily unite, force Microsoft out of the console business and split up again to build their own hardware. A man can dream.
Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.
CChaos said: I've read the article twice now and...I think the biggest problem is I don't think I'm able to figure out what he's getting at. Sure, the games would sell if they were all made multi-platform, but I can't really see them making as much money as would offset the loss of hardware income. I mean, even thinking about that doesn't make a tonne of sense, especially with the Super Slim and what I imagine is a better margin for the PS3.
Is he trying to say that if Sony cut hardware out of the mix, it'd somehow make the company profitable again directly through games? Cause, if so, that's one of the most bizarre things I've heard in a while.
Sony has traditionally been using the razor and blades model (selling hardware at a loss, making the money back on software), so there isn't much hardware income to speak of. The PS3 lost billions on hardware over its lifetime, so that's what the suggestion to go software-only is based on.
You are wrong. Sony dont make consoles so that they can make back money on the software. They sell a defective console at launch at a loss and make that money back by selling the later SKUs at a profit (since the price of parts falls considerably over the years). They did this very successfully for both the psx and ps2. However, with the ps3 they lost so much money in the initial launch years that they probably wont make back the money they lost by the end of the ps3's lifetime. But this is slightly different from them selling hardware and just expecting software to cover for it.
Also, considering the position sony are in, the ps4 will probably be sold at a profit or very close to manufacture cost to reduce/eliminate any losses from the get-go (or at least that is what indications are). So I dont think they will do as badly as this gen.
Look at the reliability of the consoles sold at loss and those that aren't. And don't mention the words "more powerful" or the Gamecube will destroy you.
Not sure I follow you. Neither the article or the clip mentioned a difference in the reliability of the initial fat or the later "slim" consoles. And even if there is a greater reliability in the slim consoles, this could just be from sony learning from their mistakes (though I understand from your article that the point was that the same problem occurred with both the psx and ps2). Personally I find it hard to believe that sony would be deliberately making defective consoles since they have a reputation for solid products though I guess its a possibility. Either way, Im sure that most of their sales were probably NOT due to replacement psx or ps2s like you are suggesting... unless you have some proof?
And im not sure where your "more powerful" or Gamecube comments come from since they are irrelevant and fairly silly to boot.
It's simple. Sony sells a console at loss at launch to quickly establish an userbase and get third party support. A % of those launch units will fail 2-3 years after they are bought and the owner have to buy a new one, but then Sony is making money with the hardware. This failure rate is higher in Sony consoles.
The Sony = reliable is a thing of the past.
Of course most of their sales were not from replacements, but if more money can be earned this way, why not?
Some claim that it is that way because their consoles are more powerful (the parts are "newer", less proven, etc), but the Gamecube was more powerful and more reliable than the PS2.
The article is funny because of other reasons too.
1) Stating that Sony's first party defined PlayStation while it's actually mostly third party IPs that are or were the cornerstones of success.
2) Talking about memorable IPs in the same paragraph, immediately followed by a misspelling of Jak & Daxter. That's how memorable these IPs are.
3) The belief in Sony first party superiority. The Halo series launched on a console with a much smaller userbase (Xbox) than the Killzone series (PS2), so it's safe to say that Halo would continue to outshine Killzone, if both series were to be on the same platform.
4) Disruption in the marketplace if Sony were to go multiplatform. As it is, third parties have no trouble to compete with Sony first party software on PlayStation systems, so why should Sony going multiplatform suddenly pose a problem for them?
Maybe I forgot about something, but these were my personal highlights.
I think Rols post sums it all up pretty nicely. Sonys making too much money on 3rd party to give up the hw business.
No Sony needs to stay. I can't stand Microsoft and Nintendo doesn't really cater to my needs even though I can respect them immensely. I usually only buy Nintendo systems late in the console cycle when there's a good 3d mario, a zelda, SSB, and another that I'm interested in (in Wii's case it was DKCR). I really like their platformers but not as much as I like the onslaught of Sony first party titles. They are the company that invests in new IPs and wows you with their new franchises every gen while Nintendo is the pillar the industry needs to remind them all the time that gameplay is still king and platformers can still sell (I wish more people would notice that).
DieAppleDie said: if Sony left the industry many companies would enter in a race for the hole they would leave, it would be interesting to watch, but i prefer SonyCE were it is......i would prefer Msoft leaving
In my perfect world, Nintendo, Sony and Sega would temporarily unite, force Microsoft out of the console business and split up again to build their own hardware. A man can dream.
this x100. Let's get the 3 companies that actually care about the gamer, and not about protecting their OS market, to make consoles again.
I definitly think that with the current product developmetn and marketing team, SONY would be better off exiting the business and re-entering it at a better time for them.
If they hire a new marketing team and manage to create a business at their pace like Nintendo, then they can put microsoft out of business.
The problem is, at this point, it looks like its the other way around.
CChaos said: I've read the article twice now and...I think the biggest problem is I don't think I'm able to figure out what he's getting at. Sure, the games would sell if they were all made multi-platform, but I can't really see them making as much money as would offset the loss of hardware income. I mean, even thinking about that doesn't make a tonne of sense, especially with the Super Slim and what I imagine is a better margin for the PS3.
Is he trying to say that if Sony cut hardware out of the mix, it'd somehow make the company profitable again directly through games? Cause, if so, that's one of the most bizarre things I've heard in a while.
Sony has traditionally been using the razor and blades model (selling hardware at a loss, making the money back on software), so there isn't much hardware income to speak of. The PS3 lost billions on hardware over its lifetime, so that's what the suggestion to go software-only is based on.
Whoever wrote that article seems to overlook the fact that the sales of 3rd party games is MUCH larger than that of 1st party games on the PS3. So any increase in 1st party sales on Xbox 720/Wii U would be offset by the loss of all the profits they are gaining from the 3rd party games. PS3 should be profitable by now, so those are profits they won't have. PSP is profitable and PS2 is still selling.
Playstation is an iconic brand. Without Playstation, millions and millions of people would never have played any games. Sony brings affordable gaming to low-income families in 3rd world countries with the PS2. Would Microsoft ever do that? Nintendo? No. Sony cares about the gamer.
BTW, PS4 could easily be sold at a profit from Day 1. Sony could just make a console equal in power to a Wii U, and it would sell purely based on better 3rd party support, PSN and brand recognition.
The article is funny because of other reasons too.
1) Stating that Sony's first party defined PlayStation while it's actually mostly third party IPs that are or were the cornerstones of success.
2) Talking about memorable IPs in the same paragraph, immediately followed by a misspelling of Jak & Daxter. That's how memorable these IPs are.
3) The belief in Sony first party superiority. The Halo series launched on a console with a much smaller userbase (Xbox) than the Killzone series (PS2), so it's safe to say that Halo would continue to outshine Killzone, if both series were to be on the same platform.
4) Disruption in the marketplace if Sony were to go multiplatform. As it is, third parties have no trouble to compete with Sony first party software on PlayStation systems, so why should Sony going multiplatform suddenly pose a problem for them?
Maybe I forgot about something, but these were my personal highlights.
CChaos said: I've read the article twice now and...I think the biggest problem is I don't think I'm able to figure out what he's getting at. Sure, the games would sell if they were all made multi-platform, but I can't really see them making as much money as would offset the loss of hardware income. I mean, even thinking about that doesn't make a tonne of sense, especially with the Super Slim and what I imagine is a better margin for the PS3.
Is he trying to say that if Sony cut hardware out of the mix, it'd somehow make the company profitable again directly through games? Cause, if so, that's one of the most bizarre things I've heard in a while.
Sony has traditionally been using the razor and blades model (selling hardware at a loss, making the money back on software), so there isn't much hardware income to speak of. The PS3 lost billions on hardware over its lifetime, so that's what the suggestion to go software-only is based on.
Whoever wrote that article seems to overlook the fact that the sales of 3rd party games is MUCH larger than that of 1st party games on the PS3. So any increase in 1st party sales on Xbox 720/Wii U would be offset by the loss of all the profits they are gaining from the 3rd party games. PS3 should be profitable by now, so those are profits they won't have. PSP is profitable and PS2 is still selling.
Playstation is an iconic brand. Without Playstation, millions and millions of people would never have played any games. Sony brings affordable gaming to low-income families in 3rd world countries with the PS2. Would Microsoft ever do that? Nintendo? No. Sony cares about the gamer.
BTW, PS4 could easily be sold at a profit from Day 1. Sony could just make a console equal in power to a Wii U, and it would sell purely based on better 3rd party support, PSN and brand recognition.
And people say Nintendo fanboys are bad...
your just as bad as him. he'll blindly defend sony and you'l blindly defend nintendo. its how fanboys are supposed to work. anyway sony aint going anywhere, so anyone that wants this to happen can carry on having wet dreams about it.
