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

Forums - Sony - At what level does the Vita become a success?

Tagged games:

think-man on 21 August 2013

It will never be a success in some peoples eyes.



 

How to Make friends In Dark Souls 3

Around the Network
NobleTeam360 on 21 August 2013

A combination of all of the items you listed.



TimCliveroller on 21 August 2013

When it sells 1m units of a brand new 3rd party game.



Ex Graphics Whore.

BHR-3 on 21 August 2013

when we see games on it a console equivalents of COD GTA BF NFS ect and more Vita exclusives from sony 1st party studios with those it will get the sales people want out of it



                                                             

                                                                      Play Me

ironmanDX on 21 August 2013
think-man said:
It will never be a success in some peoples eyes.

Most for good reason, if you've read some of the posts that is. If you or I owned a Vita and enjoyed it thoroughly over the time of ownership, then it could individually be considered as a success but not as a success to everyone. It has to turn a profit for me to consider it one and at least contend in the market with the 3DS. I loosely use the word contend, %30 market share. It's a good system to millions, to millions it would be considered a success but not to me.



Around the Network
RCTjunkie on 21 August 2013

When it makes a profit the company is satisfied with.



WHO IS JESUS REALLY?

RazorDragon on 21 August 2013

If it sells more than the Game Gear, it's already a success. Kind of. Anyway, if Nintendo had profits with only 22m GameCube units sold, everything can be a success, depending on how you look at it.



DucksUnlimited on 21 August 2013
benao87 said:
DucksUnlimited said:

Those things aren't mutually exclusive though. They could have created the Vita AND been involved in other ventures if they so wished. The entire point of oppertunity cost is that you only have a set amount of resources, which is not the case in this scenario. 

 

The childish insults are uneccessary and aren't doing your argument any favors.


I'm afraid that you do not understand the concept of opportunity cost. They are surely getting indirect benefits from the PSV venture, however that's not the point.

I apologize if you found the last part as an insult, it was merely to illustrate that you are ignoring a lot of important stuff. Look, I'm not here to prove you wrong, as this is supposed to be a subjective matter. For all that I care, Sony themselves have known that PSV won't turn profit, and they are just trying to pump some studios to make better relationships for the PS4, I don't know, and frankly I don't care. But if you are taking profit as a measure for success you will need to take a lot of stuff into consideration, and $1 is not a success.

Bolded: Care to illistrate how, rather than just making a baseless claim? The definition is "the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen." But the other "alternatives" you listed are not alternatives to the Vita, as they could have easily been implemented in conjunction with it. Sony won't have lost anything with the Vita if it turns a profit because Sony didn't invest into it in place of something else.

I like that you state that this is a subjective matter, then immediately follow that by making the objective claim that a $1 profit is not a success. In fact, the notion that you even started trying to persuade me otherwise on what you yourself consider a matter of opinion is very funny.



DucksUnlimited on 21 August 2013
JWeinCom said:
DucksUnlimited said:
JWeinCom said:
benao87 said:
DucksUnlimited said:

Even if it only made a dollar, it would still be a success (albeit an extremely minor one). You're arguing that something isn't a success because something more succesful could have been made. That doesn't make the initial investment a failure, just less of a success.

Not at all, you need to include "oportunity cost" into that meassure.

Sony decided that creating a second handheld was more profitable, or better for them, than make a more impressive PS4, creating or buying some sturios, or I don't know, anything that could bring them profit.

PSV exists because it was more profitable than other ventures. It could be very well that one thing that Sony wants is something intangible like Brand Building, which could not really be meassured. But saying that making just $1 is a succes, well, you are delusional.


Thank you for saving me the effort.

I'd suggest you read my response.


I did.  You post the idea that Sony has unlimited resources which is absolutely not true.  Sony has a finite amount of resources particularly in regards to cash.  The company is in debt and needs to make money to offset that. Investing wisely is key.   If you hold to the idea that making one dollar over the course of 5 years would be a success, than there is no point in continuing this.

No, I never posted that idea. The fact that you're saying that either implies that you aren't understanding what I'm saying or have to put words in my mouth to support your argument. What I'm saying is that the amount of money they invested in Vita isn't even close to preventing them from investing in other things. They didn't have to choose between investing in the Vita and investing in something else. If they were in that bad of a position their TV division would've been long gone by now.

I find it funny that despite how many times you claim that a $1 profit isn't a success, neither one of you have provided a reason why. If a company releases a product and by the end of the product's life have made more money than they have lost, that is a success, regardless of how small (and yes, in that case it would be extremely small.)



JWeinCom on 21 August 2013
DucksUnlimited said:
benao87 said:
DucksUnlimited said:

Those things aren't mutually exclusive though. They could have created the Vita AND been involved in other ventures if they so wished. The entire point of oppertunity cost is that you only have a set amount of resources, which is not the case in this scenario. 

 

The childish insults are uneccessary and aren't doing your argument any favors.


I'm afraid that you do not understand the concept of opportunity cost. They are surely getting indirect benefits from the PSV venture, however that's not the point.

I apologize if you found the last part as an insult, it was merely to illustrate that you are ignoring a lot of important stuff. Look, I'm not here to prove you wrong, as this is supposed to be a subjective matter. For all that I care, Sony themselves have known that PSV won't turn profit, and they are just trying to pump some studios to make better relationships for the PS4, I don't know, and frankly I don't care. But if you are taking profit as a measure for success you will need to take a lot of stuff into consideration, and $1 is not a success.

Bolded: Care to illistrate how, rather than just making a baseless claim? The definition is "the loss of potential gain from other alternatives when one alternative is chosen." But the other "alternatives" you listed are not alternatives to the Vita, as they could have easily been implemented in conjunction with it. Sony won't have lost anything with the Vita if it turns a profit because Sony didn't invest into it in place of something else.

I like that you state that this is a subjective matter, then immediately follow that by making the objective claim that a $1 profit is not a success. In fact, the notion that you even started trying to persuade me otherwise on what you yourself consider a matter of opinion is very funny.

No, the fact that a one dollar profit is not a success is 100% fact.  If Sony invested that money into ANY interest bearing account, or investing in government bonds or something, they'd make significantly more money.  That means they could make more than a dollar by DOING NOTHING.  So, by investing money, time and resources into the Vita, they make less than they could have made by doing nothing.

There was another option they had besides the Vita (investing money in an interest bearing account) that made more out of the money than the Vita.  Therefore, it was a bad investment and unsuccessful.  And putting the money in a bank (or the corporate equivalent of that) isn't the only thing they could have done.  Unless Sony is the world's most efficient company (they aren't) there are bound to be projects that were not funded because of the Vita.  I don't know where you got the idea that Sony has enough money to do everything they want to do, but they don't.  No company does.