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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Oh no... IGN: "Sony Will Let Microsoft Make First Move - Hirai sees no point in announcing first."

Persistantthug on 21 January 2013
spaceguy said:
Persistantthug said:
MoHasanie said:
Persistantthug said:
MoHasanie said:
hmm, seems to me that Sony is more interested in seeing the Xbox 720 because they are not sure what to do with the PS4. A lot of people here blame Sony for releasing a year after Microsoft and claim the head start was a big factor in the PS3's poor performance, and I think that will be a big factor next generation too.


What poor performance?

PS3 has been outselling XBOX 360 for several years in a row.

And according to some reports, XBOX 360 is the 7th generation console in last place.

Just sayin.

Sorry, I needed to specify that I meant its poor peformance when it lauched. Of course now its doing fine. 


But even then, that's not really true.

The first full year on the market, the full 2007 year, the PS3 did approx 8 million units.  Do you consider that poor performance?  That's actually pretty good.  At the very least, it's far from poor.

In comparison, XBOX 360's first full year (2006), 360 it did less than 7 million units.

http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending=Yearly

 

 

For all intent and purpose, You're sentiment is wrong.  But I do understand that you're not the only one.  I just wanted to educate you a bit. ;)


You missed a big part, the first year sony had to drop price and lost lots of money. Thats not a success if you have to cut cost right off the jump. So I think your intent and purpose is wrong.  I just wanted educate what you easily left out. Sony took it in the shorts in the beginning.

I don't see how Sony wanting to drop the price is something of a failure.

The PS3 had several price drops.....1 pricedrop per year, and every year until 2010.

Since when is it a failure if a company wants to pass on manufacturing cost savings onto customers?  You sentiment seems a bit backwards to me.



Around the Network
spaceguy on 21 January 2013
Persistantthug said:
spaceguy said:
Persistantthug said:
MoHasanie said:
Persistantthug said:
MoHasanie said:
hmm, seems to me that Sony is more interested in seeing the Xbox 720 because they are not sure what to do with the PS4. A lot of people here blame Sony for releasing a year after Microsoft and claim the head start was a big factor in the PS3's poor performance, and I think that will be a big factor next generation too.


What poor performance?

PS3 has been outselling XBOX 360 for several years in a row.

And according to some reports, XBOX 360 is the 7th generation console in last place.

Just sayin.

Sorry, I needed to specify that I meant its poor peformance when it lauched. Of course now its doing fine. 


But even then, that's not really true.

The first full year on the market, the full 2007 year, the PS3 did approx 8 million units.  Do you consider that poor performance?  That's actually pretty good.  At the very least, it's far from poor.

In comparison, XBOX 360's first full year (2006), 360 it did less than 7 million units.

http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending=Yearly

 

 

For all intent and purpose, You're sentiment is wrong.  But I do understand that you're not the only one.  I just wanted to educate you a bit. ;)


You missed a big part, the first year sony had to drop price and lost lots of money. Thats not a success if you have to cut cost right off the jump. So I think your intent and purpose is wrong.  I just wanted educate what you easily left out. Sony took it in the shorts in the beginning.

I don't see how Sony wanting to drop the price is something of a failure.

The PS3 had several price drops.....1 pricedrop per year, and every year until 2010.

Since when is it a failure if a company wants to pass on manufacturing cost savings onto customers?  You sentiment seems a bit backwards to me.

They didn't drop because they wanted to. It's because sales where a mess at first.



spaceguy on 21 January 2013
spaceguy said:
Persistantthug said:
spaceguy said:
Persistantthug said:
MoHasanie said:
Persistantthug said:
MoHasanie said:
hmm, seems to me that Sony is more interested in seeing the Xbox 720 because they are not sure what to do with the PS4. A lot of people here blame Sony for releasing a year after Microsoft and claim the head start was a big factor in the PS3's poor performance, and I think that will be a big factor next generation too.


What poor performance?

PS3 has been outselling XBOX 360 for several years in a row.

And according to some reports, XBOX 360 is the 7th generation console in last place.

Just sayin.

Sorry, I needed to specify that I meant its poor peformance when it lauched. Of course now its doing fine. 


But even then, that's not really true.

The first full year on the market, the full 2007 year, the PS3 did approx 8 million units.  Do you consider that poor performance?  That's actually pretty good.  At the very least, it's far from poor.

In comparison, XBOX 360's first full year (2006), 360 it did less than 7 million units.

http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending=Yearly

 

 

For all intent and purpose, You're sentiment is wrong.  But I do understand that you're not the only one.  I just wanted to educate you a bit. ;)


You missed a big part, the first year sony had to drop price and lost lots of money. Thats not a success if you have to cut cost right off the jump. So I think your intent and purpose is wrong.  I just wanted educate what you easily left out. Sony took it in the shorts in the beginning.

I don't see how Sony wanting to drop the price is something of a failure.

The PS3 had several price drops.....1 pricedrop per year, and every year until 2010.

Since when is it a failure if a company wants to pass on manufacturing cost savings onto customers?  You sentiment seems a bit backwards to me.

They didn't drop because they wanted to. It's because sales where a mess at first.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-05-29/ps3-price-cut-too-little-too-latebusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

I think you forgot about 2007.

http://kotaku.com/5018899/sony-lost-over-3-billion-to-ps3-cost-pricing-imbalance



Scisca on 22 January 2013
bonkers555 said:
platformmaster918 said:
bonkers555 said:

When you are in a bad financial situation like Sony, its a bad idea to put the ball in the competitor court. So Sony won't make a move until M$ does, what if M$ decide not to start the race and let this play out for another year. Who have the bigger bank roll to play chicken? Who have more to lose? I don't give a shit really and hope Nintendo come out on top again.

I think MS NEEDS a new console first as they have been getting outsold pretty bad despite being less expensive.  Like others and myself have stated you don't throw a console together in 6 months.  They've already got their plans made Kaz just wants to be coy about spoiling the surprise.  They MIGHT change the HDD in their new console if MS offers more than they were going to as that won't effect the architecture or price very much.

I don't think M$ really need to hurry on the next console. Company like Sony and M$ goal is profit and right now it seem that M$ have figure out that the Xbox brand can be very profitable. They are riding the success in America where the last NPD shows that they out sold the PS3 MORE then double. 24 staight months of being the #1 console in the biggest video games market is nothing to worry about.  Profits over ride marketshare and sales.

If you don't think so, then you are just wrong, nothing more to it :) Who cares if they are No. 1 in America, if they lose everywhere else and are significantly behind PS3 world wide? Look at the games announced for X360 and PS3 for 2013. PS3 has a ton of awesome games coming, new God of War, The Last of Us, Beyond: Two Souls, Puppeteer, Sly 4 are just a few of many great titles. What will the Xbox get? It's MS's time to make a move, Sony is fine where it's at. They are in command right now, so it's in their best interest to stick to this gen as long as possible.



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.

sales2099 on 22 January 2013

MS E3 is always before Sonys.

Does a 1 day difference count as part of Kaz's plan to announce after?



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Around the Network
Persistantthug on 22 January 2013
spaceguy said:
spaceguy said:
Persistantthug said:
spaceguy said:
Persistantthug said:
MoHasanie said:
Persistantthug said:
MoHasanie said:
hmm, seems to me that Sony is more interested in seeing the Xbox 720 because they are not sure what to do with the PS4. A lot of people here blame Sony for releasing a year after Microsoft and claim the head start was a big factor in the PS3's poor performance, and I think that will be a big factor next generation too.


What poor performance?

PS3 has been outselling XBOX 360 for several years in a row.

And according to some reports, XBOX 360 is the 7th generation console in last place.

Just sayin.

Sorry, I needed to specify that I meant its poor peformance when it lauched. Of course now its doing fine. 


But even then, that's not really true.

The first full year on the market, the full 2007 year, the PS3 did approx 8 million units.  Do you consider that poor performance?  That's actually pretty good.  At the very least, it's far from poor.

In comparison, XBOX 360's first full year (2006), 360 it did less than 7 million units.

http://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending=Yearly

 

 

For all intent and purpose, You're sentiment is wrong.  But I do understand that you're not the only one.  I just wanted to educate you a bit. ;)


You missed a big part, the first year sony had to drop price and lost lots of money. Thats not a success if you have to cut cost right off the jump. So I think your intent and purpose is wrong.  I just wanted educate what you easily left out. Sony took it in the shorts in the beginning.

I don't see how Sony wanting to drop the price is something of a failure.

The PS3 had several price drops.....1 pricedrop per year, and every year until 2010.

Since when is it a failure if a company wants to pass on manufacturing cost savings onto customers?  You sentiment seems a bit backwards to me.

They didn't drop because they wanted to. It's because sales where a mess at first.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-05-29/ps3-price-cut-too-little-too-latebusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

I think you forgot about 2007.

http://kotaku.com/5018899/sony-lost-over-3-billion-to-ps3-cost-pricing-imbalance


No I didn't forget about 2007.  That was their 1st pricedrop, where the PS3 became $500

But it seems you forgot, or simply didn't know, that the PS3 sold 8 million units in 2007.....inspite of your linked Doom & Gloom articles.

 

My point is,

-in 2007, Sony wanted to price drop.

-In 2008 Sony wanted to price drop

-in 2009 Sony wanted to price drop

-In 2010 Sony DIDN'T want to price drop.

-In 2011 Sony wanted to price drop.

 

How this is all bad.....well, it's beyond me.  But the fact is, almost every year Sony has price dropped, and PS3 is doing great.  What's the problem?  I see none.



sales2099 on 22 January 2013
Persistantthug said:


No I didn't forget about 2007.  That was their 1st pricedrop, where the PS3 became $500

But it seems you forgot, or simply didn't know, that the PS3 sold 8 million units in 2007.....inspite of your linked Doom & Gloom articles.

 

My point is,

-in 2007, Sony wanted to price drop.

-In 2008 Sony wanted to price drop

-in 2009 Sony wanted to price drop

-In 2010 Sony DIDN'T want to price drop.

-In 2011 Sony wanted to price drop.

 

How this is all bad.....well, it's beyond me.  But the fact is, almost every year Sony has price dropped, and PS3 is doing great.  What's the problem?  I see none.

While 360 hasnt officially dropped price since 2008, yet is still maintaining 2nd place to this day. The problem is that this whole time PS3 was making gains, it was clawing and scratching for every inch, while MS was coasting for the past 4 years.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

Persistantthug on 22 January 2013
sales2099 said:
Persistantthug said:
 


No I didn't forget about 2007.  That was their 1st pricedrop, where the PS3 became $500

But it seems you forgot, or simply didn't know, that the PS3 sold 8 million units in 2007.....inspite of your linked Doom & Gloom articles.

 

My point is,

-in 2007, Sony wanted to price drop.

-In 2008 Sony wanted to price drop

-in 2009 Sony wanted to price drop

-In 2010 Sony DIDN'T want to price drop.

-In 2011 Sony wanted to price drop.

 

How this is all bad.....well, it's beyond me.  But the fact is, almost every year Sony has price dropped, and PS3 is doing great.  What's the problem?  I see none.

While 360 hasnt officially dropped price since 2008, yet is still maintaining 2nd place to this day. The problem is that this whole time PS3 was making gains, it was clawing and scratching for every inch, while MS was coasting for the past 4 years.

Maybe Microsoft Games couldn't afford a price drop.....

RROD and all.

 

Lots of people would scoff at that statement, but if you understand that the XBOX brand has actually lost more $ over the last 10 years than it has made, and investors were calling for an end to the XBOX brand, then you'd understand how serious my statement is.



Dodece on 22 January 2013

@persistanthug

1. If memory serves me correctly the PS3 had five price drops in its first year on the market. Two in North America, two in Europe, and one in Japan. Which started out cheaper then the rest anyway. Without those the console would have bottomed out, and died quickly. Major developers threatened Sony in public that they would with withdrawal their support of the platform without those price cuts.

2. Even with the price cuts the machine as a pure game console wasn't very attractive. It really didn't have a lot of games. All of the major exclusives were ages away at that time. Thankfully for Sony their price cutting made their console the cheapest BluRay player on the market. The early software attach ration was somewhat proof that a good number of units were purchased primarily as movie watching devices.

3. While Microsoft spent a billion dollars to repair the hardware failure fiasco. The system itself has generated a very impressive profit for the company. Wiping out that loss many times over. The major difference between Microsoft and Sony is this. Sony is passing on savings to regenerate its customer base on its current platform. While Microsoft has funneled the wealth into building the brand. Which they have been busy about the past few years. Microsoft has been building, and buying studios at a impressive rate. Microsoft has basically eliminated the software gap moving into the current generation. They now have as many studios as Sony.

4. Seeing as the Xbox/Xbox 360 are actually sheltered within a larger division. Your last statement isn't fact but pure speculation on your part. The division houses a lot of different product lines, and the amount of money just going into pure research and development is also unknown. Besides I have never heard a cacophony of cries for Microsoft to discontinue the brand. Unlike some companies Microsoft has a way of always coming up jackpot for the investors.



http://live.xbox.com/member/Dodece

Persistantthug on 22 January 2013
Dodece said:
@persistanthug

1. If memory serves me correctly the PS3 had five price drops in its first year on the market. Two in North America, two in Europe, and one in Japan. Which started out cheaper then the rest anyway. Without those the console would have bottomed out, and died quickly. Major developers threatened Sony in public that they would with withdrawal their support of the platform without those price cuts.

2. Even with the price cuts the machine as a pure game console wasn't very attractive. It really didn't have a lot of games. All of the major exclusives were ages away at that time. Thankfully for Sony their price cutting made their console the cheapest BluRay player on the market. The early software attach ration was somewhat proof that a good number of units were purchased primarily as movie watching devices.

3. While Microsoft spent a billion dollars to repair the hardware failure fiasco. The system itself has generated a very impressive profit for the company. Wiping out that loss many times over. The major difference between Microsoft and Sony is this. Sony is passing on savings to regenerate its customer base on its current platform. While Microsoft has funneled the wealth into building the brand. Which they have been busy about the past few years. Microsoft has been building, and buying studios at a impressive rate. Microsoft has basically eliminated the software gap moving into the current generation. They now have as many studios as Sony.

4. Seeing as the Xbox/Xbox 360 are actually sheltered within a larger division. Your last statement isn't fact but pure speculation on your part. The division houses a lot of different product lines, and the amount of money just going into pure research and development is also unknown. Besides I have never heard a cacophony of cries for Microsoft to discontinue the brand. Unlike some companies Microsoft has a way of always coming up jackpot for the investors.

The American price drops were 2007 = $500...... 2008 = $400......2009 = $300........2010 = ZERO price drop........2011 = $250.

Feel free to add all of the other regions if you want, but personally, I don't know or understand exchange rates.  That's why I only refer to American....no offense to anyone intended.

 

 

Secondly,

But to show you that what I said about MS has ground:  Why did Microsoft close ENSEMBLE, close DIGITAL ANVIL, close ACES, and close FASA studios?

Had you or anyone else ever wondered why, Instead of Microsoft buying their good buddies BIOWARE, Microsoft instead had to stand by and watch EA snap them up.

Because while it is true Microsoft has virtually limitless $......MICROSOFT GAMES does not.

Microsoft couldn't spend the money at that time.  Sure, you can say XBOX brand is doing fine now, but back then, XBOX was seen as an anchor to Microsoft, and it was made many times worse when RROD hit.

 

I really don't want to turn this into a Microsoft thing.  So I'll try and stop there.