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

Forums - Sony - How Sony defeated Sony

Squilliam on 12 March 2009
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:

I will sum it up in one sentance.

"When it looks like you would have been better off NOT releasing a console, the console you released is a total failure"

The brand is at its weakest level since the days of the PS1.

The profit they made with the PS2 is gone.

They now have two formidable opponents with unlimited cash to deal with.

Whats left of their brand equity is driving their sales this generation. No other console manufacturer could do as badly as they have and still retain a respectable enterprise. They didn't earn these sales with the PS3, they got them by releasing the PS1/PS2.

 

 

 

Again,  Sony is experiencing similar things that Nintendo went through years ago with the N64/Gamecube.   They haven't driven their brand equity anywhere (Unless you're one of those Sony is Doom3d!! people).  Nor did Nintendo when the N64/Gamecube came out.   They aren't the best selling console this generation,  but their primary competitor isn't really "blowing them out of the water"  either.

Ofcourse Sony is losing more money than Nintendo ever has,  They've PUT more money into their product than Nintendo ever has.  They also have made more money on their console product than Nintendo ever has.  It's all relative.

 

The point is,  Microsoft (With unlimited money pretty much) at their disposal and having the learning curve of the original Xbox (Already under their belt) and Sony doing just about (Everything wrong **According to you**)  still can't put the PS3 away.  I find it kind of pathetic honestly.    The Playstation 1 (On it's first iteration) single handedly beat Nintendo 64 into a pulp.    

 

Like I said,  If your theory is Sony stumbled so badly?  The only company doing even modestly well is Nintendo.  Everyone else has been a complete failure. 

 

 

 

Again,

 

When/If Sony discontinues the PS3 early,  they lose tons of game support, sales fall off the map, they have trouble 'giving' away the system.  Then you can come back and talk about how big of a failure the PS3 is/was.  Not until though.

Nintendo absolutely crushes Sony when you consider their respective profit during the PS1/PS2 years. They were even MORE successful than Sony and have always been so. They could never be called a failure because they made too much money.

The reason why the PS3 hasn't been put down is because its called a playstation. 5M people bought it at $600 with no games and Sony was willing to eat billions of dollars in loses to move the things. Eating the losses or going quietly doesn't matter both are incredible failures.

 



Tease.

Around the Network
NJ5 on 12 March 2009
Smashed said:
Sony is fine.
PS3 fine.
Why the thread?

Sony is fine? lol...

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Rpruett on 12 March 2009
Squilliam said:
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:

I will sum it up in one sentance.

"When it looks like you would have been better off NOT releasing a console, the console you released is a total failure"

The brand is at its weakest level since the days of the PS1.

The profit they made with the PS2 is gone.

They now have two formidable opponents with unlimited cash to deal with.

Whats left of their brand equity is driving their sales this generation. No other console manufacturer could do as badly as they have and still retain a respectable enterprise. They didn't earn these sales with the PS3, they got them by releasing the PS1/PS2.

 

 

 

Again,  Sony is experiencing similar things that Nintendo went through years ago with the N64/Gamecube.   They haven't driven their brand equity anywhere (Unless you're one of those Sony is Doom3d!! people).  Nor did Nintendo when the N64/Gamecube came out.   They aren't the best selling console this generation,  but their primary competitor isn't really "blowing them out of the water"  either.

Ofcourse Sony is losing more money than Nintendo ever has,  They've PUT more money into their product than Nintendo ever has.  They also have made more money on their console product than Nintendo ever has.  It's all relative.

 

The point is,  Microsoft (With unlimited money pretty much) at their disposal and having the learning curve of the original Xbox (Already under their belt) and Sony doing just about (Everything wrong **According to you**)  still can't put the PS3 away.  I find it kind of pathetic honestly.    The Playstation 1 (On it's first iteration) single handedly beat Nintendo 64 into a pulp.    

 

Like I said,  If your theory is Sony stumbled so badly?  The only company doing even modestly well is Nintendo.  Everyone else has been a complete failure. 

 

 

 

Again,

 

When/If Sony discontinues the PS3 early,  they lose tons of game support, sales fall off the map, they have trouble 'giving' away the system.  Then you can come back and talk about how big of a failure the PS3 is/was.  Not until though.

Nintendo absolutely crushes Sony when you consider their respective profit during the PS1/PS2 years. They were even MORE successful than Sony and have always been so. They could never be called a failure because they made too much money.

The reason why the PS3 hasn't been put down is because its called a playstation. 5M people bought it at $600 with no games and Sony was willing to eat billions of dollars in loses to move the things. Eating the losses or going quietly doesn't matter both are incredible failures.

 

Nintendo easily could have been called a failure in the N64/Gamecube eras according to you.  Are you counting Nintendo's profit from Hand-helds and consoles or only their consoles? If we're talking about consoles then let's talk about consoles.  The two need separated.

The reason the PS3 hasn't been put down is because it's called a playstation and because 5 million people bought it at 600$?   Yet you're calling it a failure?  LOL.   Your logic is absolutely absurd. If the PS3 was such a failure people wouldn't buy it, especially at that absurd 600$ price tag. Yet you're saying they won't get rid of it because people still bought it at 600$?  Excellent logic.  LOL.

 

How many games did the 360 have initially? How many people bought it at the 400$ price point with few games?  How many games does the Wii have? 

 

 

Again,

 

When/If Sony discontinues the PS3 early,  they lose tons of game support, sales fall off the map, they have trouble 'giving' away the system.  Then you can come back and talk about how big of a failure the PS3 is/was.  Not until though.

 



Squilliam on 12 March 2009
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:

Nintendo absolutely crushes Sony when you consider their respective profit during the PS1/PS2 years. They were even MORE successful than Sony and have always been so. They could never be called a failure because they made too much money.

The reason why the PS3 hasn't been put down is because its called a playstation. 5M people bought it at $600 with no games and Sony was willing to eat billions of dollars in loses to move the things. Eating the losses or going quietly doesn't matter both are incredible failures.

 

Nintendo easily could have been called a failure in the N64/Gamecube eras according to you.  Are you counting Nintendo's profit from Hand-helds and consoles or only their consoles? If we're talking about consoles then let's talk about consoles.  The two need separated.

The reason the PS3 hasn't been put down is because it's called a playstation and because 5 million people bought it at 600$?   Yet you're calling it a failure?  LOL.   Your logic is absolutely absurd. If the PS3 was such a failure people wouldn't buy it, especially at that absurd 600$ price tag. Yet you're saying they won't get rid of it because people still bought it at 600$?  Excellent logic.  LOL.

 

How many games did the 360 have initially? How many people bought it at the 400$ price point with few games?  How many games does the Wii have? 

 

 

Again,

 

When/If Sony discontinues the PS3 early,  they lose tons of game support, sales fall off the map, they have trouble 'giving' away the system.  Then you can come back and talk about how big of a failure the PS3 is/was.  Not until though.

 

First party software makes the difference here:

Nintendo GC: 26 Million sellers with 64.5 Million total giving an average of 2.5M per game.

Sony PS3: 8 Million sellers with 18 Million total giving an average of 2.25M per game.

The development cost of those Sony PS3 games are at least twice as high and Nintendo earnt an average of $90 revenue per console sold just from their own first party games @ $30 per game. ($2B total)

Im not talking about whether or not people buy the PS3 out of brand loyalty. They have gained NOTHING from releasing the PS3 and lost almost everything. They are third, they lost at least $3B dollars, they lost billions of dollars worth of goodwill from the industry. The Xbox 1 lost about as much money but at least Microsoft gained something from it. What exactly has Sony gained?

 



Tease.

Rpruett on 12 March 2009
Squilliam said:
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:

Nintendo absolutely crushes Sony when you consider their respective profit during the PS1/PS2 years. They were even MORE successful than Sony and have always been so. They could never be called a failure because they made too much money.

The reason why the PS3 hasn't been put down is because its called a playstation. 5M people bought it at $600 with no games and Sony was willing to eat billions of dollars in loses to move the things. Eating the losses or going quietly doesn't matter both are incredible failures.

 

Nintendo easily could have been called a failure in the N64/Gamecube eras according to you.  Are you counting Nintendo's profit from Hand-helds and consoles or only their consoles? If we're talking about consoles then let's talk about consoles.  The two need separated.

The reason the PS3 hasn't been put down is because it's called a playstation and because 5 million people bought it at 600$?   Yet you're calling it a failure?  LOL.   Your logic is absolutely absurd. If the PS3 was such a failure people wouldn't buy it, especially at that absurd 600$ price tag. Yet you're saying they won't get rid of it because people still bought it at 600$?  Excellent logic.  LOL.

 

How many games did the 360 have initially? How many people bought it at the 400$ price point with few games?  How many games does the Wii have? 

 

 

Again,

 

When/If Sony discontinues the PS3 early,  they lose tons of game support, sales fall off the map, they have trouble 'giving' away the system.  Then you can come back and talk about how big of a failure the PS3 is/was.  Not until though.

 

First party software makes the difference here:

Nintendo GC: 26 Million sellers with 64.5 Million total giving an average of 2.5M per game.

Sony PS3: 8 Million sellers with 18 Million total giving an average of 2.25M per game.

The development cost of those Sony PS3 games are at least twice as high and Nintendo earnt an average of $90 revenue per console sold just from their own first party games @ $30 per game. ($2B total)

Im not talking about whether or not people buy the PS3 out of brand loyalty. They have gained NOTHING from releasing the PS3 and lost almost everything. They are third, they lost at least $3B dollars, they lost billions of dollars worth of goodwill from the industry. The Xbox 1 lost about as much money but at least Microsoft gained something from it. What exactly has Sony gained?

 

Again this generation is far, far, far , far, far from over.   While it might not change 'positions' of the three companies it certainly will effect the overall 'loss' of 3B or whatever number you are currently claiming.  As you know the PS3 is on the verge of making a profit per console and actually will increase profits on future titles.  You are implying that the generation is over currently.  The PS3 cannot be a failure yet.  It is still selling competitvely (Even outselling the 360 which is half it's price)   Like I have stated several times :

 

 

When/If Sony discontinues the PS3 early,  they lose tons of game support, sales fall off the map, they have trouble 'giving' away the system.  Then you can come back and talk about how big of a failure the PS3 is/was.  Not until though.

 

 

It's just that simple.

 



Around the Network
phinch1 on 12 March 2009

Ps3 is far from dead, there waiting to get as many sales as they can at its current price to try and make as much profit before price dropping ,if your going to categorize ps3 as a failure for selling 21 million , then xbox is also a failure for being out a year earlier and only selling 29 million, the gap isn't that great despite xbox being a cheap slag of a console



Magnific0 on 15 March 2009

^I hear you, but you will soon get the xbot squad saying to you : but the 360 is making a profit since mid-2008!! and other stuff like that, sadly (like anyone knows what the books of these companies really look like)



TacoBoy49 on 15 March 2009

No one ever said Xbox 1 wasnt a failure.! microsoft admitted it by bailing out after 4 years. comparing the PS3's success to a failed Xbox 1 is dumb. Sony lost 80% of their marketshare from one generation to the next. The Xbox 360 is a failure also,just less of one than the PS3. Yes, The Wii is competion! its dumb that people dont inclue it. The ps2 fanbase was casual!



DiplomaticImmunity on 15 March 2009

sony is not defeated, it still delivers everything i wanted, if it would have started off @ $400, it would be in a better place *console race*



You should be beaten, burned to ashes then someone should throw your ashes from a plane