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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Is Sony missing great potential without a gaming phone.

KBG29 said:
potato_hamster said:

Gamer brands like "Republic of Gamers" and "Razer"? The phones who are expected to sell less than 500K units in a year? Those "gamer brands". I mean, sure, they're not exactly Sony Playstation big, but they're also not "Makers of the only Phone OS that can compete with Apple" big that Google is. Let's be honest. Do you think it's a worthwhile investment for Sony to make a Playstation phone if it's going to sell less than 5 million units for year? Considering they're disappointed with the fact that they only sold 13.5 million cell phones in FY 2018, and only estimate to sell 9 million in FY 2018, I just don't see it.

Sony is disappointed in Mobile because it is loosing them Billions. Along with the drop to 9 Million units sold they are also forecasting $300 Million in losses. 

That would not be the case with 5, 10, or 15 Million PlayStation Mobile devices a year. 

If done right the investment is in a scalable ecosystem, so everything they do benefits every product. No more Mobile Communications VS Home Entertianment and Sound VS Game and Network Services VS Pictures VS Music, with each team building their own products to compete against each other. Instead, Sony would have one OS team, one App team, and one Network Services team. Everyone working towards a common goal and cutting out redundancy.

This puts more people on their OS and Store Front more of the time, with no fragmentation, which means more revenue and profits. The PlayStation 4 OS and Store are the most profitable thing at Sony, adding more ways to access the OS, Apps, Games, and Store will only increase their Revenue and Profits.

PS4 started at zero 5 years ago, and it is now profiting in the billions. Switch has been out almost a year and a half, and it has been a very successful device so far. Yet neither one runs, Android, iOS, Windows, or MAC OS. You don't need Android, iOS, Windows, or MAC OS to make a successful and profitable device. 

What makes you think they would even sell 5 million? Why would they make a playstation phone with added performance and and better quality, more complex hardware for less than they're charging for their current phone lineup? What makes you think if they're losing 300 million selling 9 million phones when they don't even have to support the OS and build up app support that it would be more profitable to do that, only sell another 5 million phones, and not be in an even bigger hole?

So you want to put the Sony music record label types... making an operating system and applications. Same with with their movie making company? Do you know the first thing about those industries? i can assure you, the apps they make for their services are just a drop in the bucket. The fact that they need to make apps for windows, PS4 OS, and android is not the issue even a little bit. At this point, I have to ask, do you know the first thing about software development? Never mind that even if Sony were to make a playstation OS for their phones, they would STILL have to make iOS and Android and Macand Windows versions of their applications and network services because you cannot expect your install base to automatically switch to your operating system. Why do you think Microsoft makes Office for Macs? Do you think they do that out of the kindness of their hearts? Our of a sense of fair competition? No. It's because they want to firmly establish Office as "the standard" and that means making sure everyone can use it. They'll still have to do everything they're doing now *and* support a new OS in ways they've never done before. Again, how is this going to make them more money?

They have already added more ways to access apps games and store. Playstation Now says "Hello!". It just makes zero sense to make an entirely new OS when an app will be nearly as effective without forcing a user to decide between Playstation and everything else. This walled garden approach you want Sony to take hasn't worked for Microsoft every single time they've tried it. Yet you still think it's effective because Apple got it right, and Steam kinda did too, while ignoring the dozens and dozens of failures. People just want to use their devices in the most convenient way possible, not in the way that's most profitable for the companies they support. It won't be more convenient for an Android user to switch to Playstation OS, not now, and almost definitely not ever.

And by the way, PS4 did not start at zero 5 years ago, it had the momentum of over 15 years of the Playstation brand pushing it right from the start. You're grossly, grossly oversimplifying things.



Around the Network
potato_hamster said:
HollyGamer said:

Actually PS brand is wasted if it's just sitting on console platform. Sony need to learn from Apple 

Yeah. For sure. That's why Sony sold so many Vitas. Because it had the Playstation brand. Because putting the Playstation Brand on devices that people don't want to buy is good for a brand's image. That's why Nintendo brings up the Virtual Boy so much when talking about their product history,

The PlayStation brand is wasted by not putting "Playstation" branding on things that no one would consider to be "Playstations". A "gaming phone" would just be a new verison of the Xperia Play, and obviously run android. I'm not sure people are willing to put upwards of $700-$1000 towards a "gaming phone" that offers marginally better performance than an iPhone or Galaxy, likely uses extremely similar architecture, plays 99% of the same games, and maybe has a few exclusives. Because realistically, that's the phone you're getting.

People can dream of Sony developing an X86-based phone that plays PS4 games all they like. That's very clearly and obviously not happening. The technology isn't there at the pricepoint that people might actually buy the thing. Have you guys stopped and asked yourself how many Razer Phones they've sold, or how many ROG Phones Asus will sell? Does anyone honstly expect either of those to sell over 500K units? FIrst reports have the Razer sales at 45K units its first two months with the expectations to sell 250-300K units its first year. Do those look like the kind of numbers that would pique Sony's interest? Google isn't pleased with the fact that the Pixel *only* sold 4 million units in 2017, and that phone has far more mass appeal than any Playstation phone would have. Why should Sony put the investment in when the ROI is so tiny?

You include vita in this comparison, you are wrong. Vita is like Wii U, it exist where smart phones are on the rise , it was exist as vague gadget not as handled nor as smart devices. 

If SONY. want to sell a lot of phones they have to choose between making areal smart phones or a handled. The vita was an attempt to subdue smart phones market. So using Vita as an example is a mistake .

And also Razer and ROG are PC gaming brand and also considered new compared to SONY (while i believe Razer is old but compared to SONY it still new) . So comparing them also wrong. 



I would welcome it, but they may want to try strengthen their mobile market before getting back into a gaming phone.



HollyGamer said:
potato_hamster said:

Yeah. For sure. That's why Sony sold so many Vitas. Because it had the Playstation brand. Because putting the Playstation Brand on devices that people don't want to buy is good for a brand's image. That's why Nintendo brings up the Virtual Boy so much when talking about their product history,

The PlayStation brand is wasted by not putting "Playstation" branding on things that no one would consider to be "Playstations". A "gaming phone" would just be a new verison of the Xperia Play, and obviously run android. I'm not sure people are willing to put upwards of $700-$1000 towards a "gaming phone" that offers marginally better performance than an iPhone or Galaxy, likely uses extremely similar architecture, plays 99% of the same games, and maybe has a few exclusives. Because realistically, that's the phone you're getting.

People can dream of Sony developing an X86-based phone that plays PS4 games all they like. That's very clearly and obviously not happening. The technology isn't there at the pricepoint that people might actually buy the thing. Have you guys stopped and asked yourself how many Razer Phones they've sold, or how many ROG Phones Asus will sell? Does anyone honstly expect either of those to sell over 500K units? FIrst reports have the Razer sales at 45K units its first two months with the expectations to sell 250-300K units its first year. Do those look like the kind of numbers that would pique Sony's interest? Google isn't pleased with the fact that the Pixel *only* sold 4 million units in 2017, and that phone has far more mass appeal than any Playstation phone would have. Why should Sony put the investment in when the ROI is so tiny?

You include vita in this comparison, you are wrong. Vita is like Wii U, it exist where smart phones are on the rise , it was exist as vague gadget not as handled nor as smart devices. 

If SONY. want to sell a lot of phones they have to choose between making areal smart phones or a handled. The vita was an attempt to subdue smart phones market. So using Vita as an example is a mistake .

And also Razer and ROG are PC gaming brand and also considered new compared to SONY (while i believe Razer is old but compared to SONY it still new) . So comparing them also wrong. 

Okay, trying to parse out this language so bear with me.

So Vita is an unfair comparison because smartphones are on the rise? How does that make sense when Nintendo sold 70 million 3DSs and is now pushing 20 million Switches in a little over a year? I don't get how you can claim the Vita wasn't a handheld. For many it was the best handheld ever made. It was a portable handheld gaming console by every definition, and very clearly played games first and foremost.

Sony decided to stop selling handhelds and they still haven't sold a lot of phones, so clearly the Vita wasn't hampering their smartphone sales.

And why is comparing gaming oriented phones catering to a gaming market which is arguably larger than console sales in many ways not a fair comparison? ASUS is a huge company. Their gaming brand is on pretty much every product they make. They sell tends of millions of ROG branded devices every single years. It's not exactly small potatoes.



potato_hamster said:
HollyGamer said:

You include vita in this comparison, you are wrong. Vita is like Wii U, it exist where smart phones are on the rise , it was exist as vague gadget not as handled nor as smart devices. 

If SONY. want to sell a lot of phones they have to choose between making areal smart phones or a handled. The vita was an attempt to subdue smart phones market. So using Vita as an example is a mistake .

And also Razer and ROG are PC gaming brand and also considered new compared to SONY (while i believe Razer is old but compared to SONY it still new) . So comparing them also wrong. 

Okay, trying to parse out this language so bear with me.

So Vita is an unfair comparison because smartphones are on the rise? How does that make sense when Nintendo sold 70 million 3DSs and is now pushing 20 million Switches in a little over a year? I don't get how you can claim the Vita wasn't a handheld. For many it was the best handheld ever made. It was a portable handheld gaming console by every definition, and very clearly played games first and foremost.

Sony decided to stop selling handhelds and they still haven't sold a lot of phones, so clearly the Vita wasn't hampering their smartphone sales.

And why is comparing gaming oriented phones catering to a gaming market which is arguably larger than console sales in many ways not a fair comparison? ASUS is a huge company. Their gaming brand is on pretty much every product they make. They sell tends of millions of ROG branded devices every single years. It's not exactly small potatoes.

Why is not unfair because Vita was promoted as a competitor and act like a device to compete with premium gadget like iPhones or android devices. It's a super premium price compared to 3DS .

ASUS of course it's big brand but their market are more of PC and not consoles and handled devices. Or i can say they are more of spare part and hardware brand rather then a gaming company . 



Around the Network
HollyGamer said:
potato_hamster said:

Okay, trying to parse out this language so bear with me.

So Vita is an unfair comparison because smartphones are on the rise? How does that make sense when Nintendo sold 70 million 3DSs and is now pushing 20 million Switches in a little over a year? I don't get how you can claim the Vita wasn't a handheld. For many it was the best handheld ever made. It was a portable handheld gaming console by every definition, and very clearly played games first and foremost.

Sony decided to stop selling handhelds and they still haven't sold a lot of phones, so clearly the Vita wasn't hampering their smartphone sales.

And why is comparing gaming oriented phones catering to a gaming market which is arguably larger than console sales in many ways not a fair comparison? ASUS is a huge company. Their gaming brand is on pretty much every product they make. They sell tends of millions of ROG branded devices every single years. It's not exactly small potatoes.

Why is not unfair because Vita was promoted as a competitor and act like a device to compete with premium gadget like iPhones or android devices. It's a super premium price compared to 3DS .

ASUS of course it's big brand but their market are more of PC and not consoles and handled devices. Or i can say they are more of spare part and hardware brand rather then a gaming company . 

PS Vita's release price: $249
3DS's release price: $249

What a super premium price in that $0 difference.

Of course ASUS is a big PC brand. So what? They make dozens if not hundreds of products directly aimed at PC gamers who tend to spend more money on gaming hardware than console enthusiasts do.  They're marketing the phone as "made for PUBG". How is that not in direct competition with whatever phone Sony would be producing? They'd be going after very similar audiences.



potato_hamster said:
HollyGamer said:

Why is not unfair because Vita was promoted as a competitor and act like a device to compete with premium gadget like iPhones or android devices. It's a super premium price compared to 3DS .

ASUS of course it's big brand but their market are more of PC and not consoles and handled devices. Or i can say they are more of spare part and hardware brand rather then a gaming company . 

PS Vita's release price: $249
3DS's release price: $249

What a super premium price in that $0 difference.

Of course ASUS is a big PC brand. So what? They make dozens if not hundreds of products directly aimed at PC gamers who tend to spend more money on gaming hardware than console enthusiasts do.  They're marketing the phone as "made for PUBG". How is that not in direct competition with whatever phone Sony would be producing? They'd be going after very similar audiences.

PS Vita release the 3G version is 300 USD not include the Memory card and it's expensive as hell 

PC gamer tend to do benchmark rather then playing and most of PC gamer care is just FPS and hardcore gaming.  



HollyGamer said:
potato_hamster said:

PS Vita's release price: $249
3DS's release price: $249

What a super premium price in that $0 difference.

Of course ASUS is a big PC brand. So what? They make dozens if not hundreds of products directly aimed at PC gamers who tend to spend more money on gaming hardware than console enthusiasts do.  They're marketing the phone as "made for PUBG". How is that not in direct competition with whatever phone Sony would be producing? They'd be going after very similar audiences.

PS Vita release the 3G version is 300 USD not include the Memory card and it's expensive as hell 

PC gamer tend to do benchmark rather then playing and most of PC gamer care is just FPS and hardcore gaming.  

That's like saying a PS4 Pro costs $499 because the special 500 million edition that was just released cost that. That still doesn't change the fact that there was a $249 model that was only missing 3G connectivity and was far, far more popular.  The 3DS also didn't come with a memory card. I don't see how you can sincerely act like the Vita was considered to be a "super premium price" when the real price difference was the difference in the cost of a memory card. So comparing a 16 GB Vita memory card at the time to a 16GB SD card the 3DS took was about $30. Sorry, that is still not "super premium". It's not even the cost of one game for either system.

PC Gamers do more benchmarking than playing games? Are you just trying to annoy the PC hardcores around here with statements like that? Complete nonsense.



potato_hamster said:
HollyGamer said:

PS Vita release the 3G version is 300 USD not include the Memory card and it's expensive as hell 

PC gamer tend to do benchmark rather then playing and most of PC gamer care is just FPS and hardcore gaming.  

That's like saying a PS4 Pro costs $499 because the special 500 million edition that was just released cost that. That still doesn't change the fact that there was a $249 model that was only missing 3G connectivity and was far, far more popular.  The 3DS also didn't come with a memory card. I don't see how you can sincerely act like the Vita was considered to be a "super premium price" when the real price difference was the difference in the cost of a memory card. So comparing a 16 GB Vita memory card at the time to a 16GB SD card the 3DS took was about $30. Sorry, that is still not "super premium". It's not even the cost of one game for either system.

PC Gamers do more benchmarking than playing games? Are you just trying to annoy the PC hardcores around here with statements like that? Complete nonsense.

And how come limited edition of PS4 are equal to PS Vita 3G??? And also 3DS market segment for DS gamer and dedicated Nintendo market , while Vita early sales are targeting games that are coming to iOS and Google Store. And from the build quality like the screen and the build are targeting premium one. 

I am a PC gamers, and active in gaming forum, they are different in terms of gaming habit. 



HollyGamer said:
potato_hamster said:

That's like saying a PS4 Pro costs $499 because the special 500 million edition that was just released cost that. That still doesn't change the fact that there was a $249 model that was only missing 3G connectivity and was far, far more popular.  The 3DS also didn't come with a memory card. I don't see how you can sincerely act like the Vita was considered to be a "super premium price" when the real price difference was the difference in the cost of a memory card. So comparing a 16 GB Vita memory card at the time to a 16GB SD card the 3DS took was about $30. Sorry, that is still not "super premium". It's not even the cost of one game for either system.

PC Gamers do more benchmarking than playing games? Are you just trying to annoy the PC hardcores around here with statements like that? Complete nonsense.

And how come limited edition of PS4 are equal to PS Vita 3G??? And also 3DS market segment for DS gamer and dedicated Nintendo market , while Vita early sales are targeting games that are coming to iOS and Google Store. And from the build quality like the screen and the build are targeting premium one. 

I am a PC gamers, and active in gaming forum, they are different in terms of gaming habit. 

They're not equal. That's my point. Just because a more expensive version exists doesn't mean that the cheaper versions cease existing. No one is claiming the PS4 Pro costs $499, and and no one should be claiming the Vita cost $299 on release. Because it never. The vita was targeting smartphone users and not the 70+ million PSP owners? What makes you think that? Was it the fact that the Vita played PSP games and not smartphone games? Was it the fact that the vita never ran Android or iOS? Was it the fact that there was only a handful of apps that were ever made for the Vita, like twitch and neflix, and not things like facebook, twitter, instagram etc? There's no reason to think it was targeting towards iOS/android users. The 3G model was for playing vita games  in online multiplayer on the go, and little more. This is clearly obvious. Just ask KBG, he actually tried to use that thing as a phone.

I'm a PC gamer also. I've never run a benchmark. Stop stereotyping people. Your comments about them might actually be something the mods would moderate you on.