Mummelmann said: Who here thinks the OP only makes these kind of threads and wants them to be true?

Many people have been underminding the demise of the brand.

The Playstation brand is at it's last legs. Remember that Sony is not a game company. They can easily move away from this, or make it a niche (where it is irrelivent to the company, but still kept on). This system has yet to make a profit and the cycle is about over. People are proclaiming bad sales as good becuase they are slightly less crappy then last week's sales.

The system is in last place and losing money. It is eating the profits of the former systems. The company went under a massive restructuring (this means things are bad people). The global economy is in a recession which means it will be harder to opperate (meaning that you can't carry dead weight). Nintendo has disrupted the industry (meaning Sony and Microsoft are done anyway). Microsoft's goal is to stop Sony, perhaps even go as far as to kill the brand. They have shown tht they will take the lose to do just that. Sony wants their system to be profitable (meaning they are fighting a foe who does not eat, sleep or breath, but they have to).

The last paragraph is reasons why Sony will kill the brand (or it will die). The only thing that makes the systems still relevent is that third parties do not want to support the Wii. Japanese third parties are slowly moving to Nintendo';s system. I doubt the new systems will have any steam to keep going (the Wii will long surpass both systems. The 10 year play is more of an attribute of the Wii).

There isn't much reason they will keep the brand. There are fewer reasons why it wont all fall apart soon anyway.

Smashchu2 said: Mummelmann said: Who here thinks the OP only makes these kind of threads and wants them to be true? Many people have been underminding the demise of the brand. The Playstation brand is at it's last legs. Remember that Sony is not a game company. They can easily move away from this, or make it a niche (where it is irrelivent to the company, but still kept on). This system has yet to make a profit and the cycle is about over. People are proclaiming bad sales as good becuase they are slightly less crappy then last week's sales. The system is in last place and losing money. It is eating the profits of the former systems. The company went under a massive restructuring (this means things are bad people). The global economy is in a recession which means it will be harder to opperate (meaning that you can't carry dead weight). Nintendo has disrupted the industry (meaning Sony and Microsoft are done anyway). Microsoft's goal is to stop Sony, perhaps even go as far as to kill the brand. They have shown tht they will take the lose to do just that. Sony wants their system to be profitable (meaning they are fighting a foe who does not eat, sleep or breath, but they have to). The last paragraph is reasons why Sony will kill the brand (or it will die). The only thing that makes the systems still relevent is that third parties do not want to support the Wii. Japanese third parties are slowly moving to Nintendo';s system. I doubt the new systems will have any steam to keep going (the Wii will long surpass both systems. The 10 year play is more of an attribute of the Wii). There isn't much reason they will keep the brand. There are fewer reasons why it wont all fall apart soon anyway.

If every company gave up when one of their brands (especially a long established one) weren't doing as good as it used to, then why are have the Big 3 been in business for decades, why did MS stay with Xbox, etc? The strongest argument you have is that the recession may make the executives think for the short term. However for the long term, think of what pulling out now will do. They will lose a place in a industry that could make potentially make them a huge ammount of money in the future, which they did for 2 out of 3 generations. Getting back into the industry would force them to lose a huge ammount of money like MS did, and it will be strange to use the PS brand again. The PS isn't as strong as it used to be, but it's strength clearly still shows with it's sales despite it's huge price tag.

You say that the PS brand is on it's last legs, but it's only losing by 10 millionish to the 360, in comparison to how badly the PS2 beat the Xbox brand. People still know about the brand, and that's the most important thing, as you need their attention in order to convince them later (next gen). Sony is trying to make a profit, by not cutting the price of the PS3, but by bolstering it's software development, and I believe, while it won't give it as huge of a bump as a price cut would have done, they will still bump up some hardware along with making money back from the very same software they just sold to push the hardware.

Do I think that the PS3 will beat the 360 this gen? Not really, no. But do I think that the PS3 would be absolutely crushed and it's brand image tarnished? No. If anything, it got an image of being too expensive, elitist perhaps, but at the same time that it's a reliable piece of hardware with top of the notch graphics (if Sony continues to invest in it's 1st party as it is now).

If they cary that image over to the next gen, a strong lineup of games provided by it's 1'st party developers, a improved online infrastructure, a similar but improved version of the PS3 (cell), and a cheaper price, then they could give a good run for the other competition.

=======================

To sum up that wall of text:

There's a double standard going on. Microsoft lost money with the Xbox, and in the initial years of the 360, but hanged in there with hopes that their investment will let them penetrate a market, and make money later. (Side note: For those that argue that MS only wants to sabotage Sony. I'm sure even if that was the case, MS has realized that they can make money. Unless you don't believe MS is making some profit through the 360) Sony is losing money now. Why can't they hang on this generation, and go to the next generation with the hope to make money? The strongest argument against this is that the recession and the overall state of the company will make them consider the option. However the industry has proven to Sony to be a huge source of profit in the past. Why will they lose their foothold in that industry, and throw away a brand that has been established for 3 generations, and clearly still has strength and recognition?

Sony can still make a new console, because they could still use their current technology, but only beef it up, just exactly like MS did with the 360.

Sony is clearly investing in the long term, as they are bolstering their first party line up, staying competitive, and adding new features to the online aspect. If Sony were to pull out of the industry, it would have to be very sudden and in the future, as they clearly don't look like giving up now.

I think it is, because Ken Kutaragi is no longer at Sony, he was the one that pushed for PSONE, PS2 and PS3, he is no longer at Sony, and the way Sony Computer Entertainment is talking, is that they will try to get as much money from ps3, and had to convince Sony that the ps3 is worthy investment, that tells me that the big heads at Sony doesn't see the Playstation business as important, that if anything is an indication to me that the ps3 will most likely be Sonys' last console.

DISCUSS!

I do.

And the point you made about the importance of Ken Kutaragi in SCE is one I have made before.

HE'S the one who with great struggle pushed Sony into the games business & so long as the division was profitable they stuck by it. The videogaming business is ripe for software piracy & is complicated due to retailer conflict & buyer apathy toward certain titles. It's a tough business to make money in which is why Sony used the lossleading business model to break into the biz like Microsoft did in the grandest fashion with the original XBox.

Think about it. These corporate giants struggle to break even on their expenditures bringing their consoles to market. Meanwhile a company much smaller manages to make money on every angle with profit margins far proportionally larger than its mega-sized competitors.

If the PS3 has already according to some reports blown through the equivalent of the profits of the PS2, the best-selling console in videogame history, and still hasn't closed the production loss gap yet, then SCE is in bad shape to try for another console.

When Gamecube failed Nintendo was still flush with money. That brief 2003 loss was probably expenditure for R & D for the then-upcoming DS & Wii. Sony Corp. is much bigger than SCE, true. But do you really think Sony would hang on to a business as rough as the videogame business at the detriment to the entire corporation? ESPECIALLY without Kutaragi in the mix??

In truth, Microsoft shouldn't have stuck with a product that cost them nearly $4 billion. Their motivations to stay in this business show that they seek to waste as much as it takes to secure a larger goal. They want to take over the living room & folks like Sony are in the way. Sony wants the same thing as Microsoft only in a different method. Microsoft also is desperate to diversify their portfolio before their computer operating software empire gets disrupted. But if it gets too bad for them they'll leave too.

They're doing much better than XBox 1 but they still haven't fully mastered the scene. Internationally they're weak but in the biggest market in the world (USA) they're solid. Should Nintendo ratchet up the pressure on them, watch Microsoft respond & learn what all challengers to Nintendo eventually learn: Nintendo are the masters of this business.

Nintendo has redefined how consoles should be done philosophically as well as technically. The other two can't continue on this path which has given them only limited success if that. New competitors & dark horses will emerge to complicate the scene even further so all of this crowds out a struggling Sony. Apple is the immediate example.

The market really can't support 3 major competitors as it is now so somebody's going to be replaced if a newcomer makes a compelling product. Whenever Microsoft decides to turn up the heat on Sony, Sony will find it harder to hold on. I don't think Sony will have the heart to have a chance at TWO $3 billion losses back to back. There's no guarantee a new system will wow the crowd. The PSP while resurgent in Japan did not accomplish its ultimate mission even though I'm sure by now it's recovered the production loss gap. Even with the PSP & PS2 combined, SCE cannot significantly hold off the losses of the PS3.

People will expect not only a new PSP but a new PS for the home. How will they pull this off with a schism in the international markets which see Japan as handheld first & rest of world as home console first? Can they make an internationally appealing handheld and home console? Can they stop the momentum of the incumbent market champion, Nintendo? Can they diminish the impact of new competitors trying to enter the scene?

If they can, then yes there will be another PlayStation. But if they can't, it would probably be wise not to gamble the whole company on a sector like videogames. They would probably have to make a new brand too since the name PlayStation may have run its course & sequel numbers like 4 begin to look tacky.

2009 is gonna be rough for SCE internationally. Japan's their best hope right now. If Nintendo ever reverses their rise there, that could be it. Unlike Nintendo, Sony's not making money from SCE. If the division's losses become so great that it affects the entire company on the balance sheet, the shareholders will revolt if they DON'T cut SCE loose.

John Lucas

What was PSP's ultimate goal? Pushing UMD? or getting marketshare in Handheld? The first is debatable, the latter is pretty solid for a first try...

I think you guys are over-estimating the cost of R&Ding the PS4... and I have mentioned time and time again, if Sony is smart and learned their lesson, they'll most likely just upgrade the PS3 and call it a PS4... there is no reason why they would persue ANOTHER format and a completely new OS so quickly since Blue-Ray seems to be staying and the XMB is pretty damn solid...

As for piracy issues, Blue-ray's size itself is a very effective tool... seriously, how many people would download a 50GB iso onto the comp for a game, and take hours to burn a 50GB Blueray...

As for digital download for home console games... it's NOT going to happen in the US with the crappy ass copper lines we still have... Europe and Japan, fine... but seriously we dont' even have a full fledged 3G service wtf?

I do.

And the point you made about the importance of Ken Kutaragi in SCE is one I have made before.

HE'S the one who with great struggle pushed Sony into the games business & so long as the division was profitable they stuck by it. The videogaming business is ripe for software piracy & is complicated due to retailer conflict & buyer apathy toward certain titles. It's a tough business to make money in which is why Sony used the lossleading business model to break into the biz like Microsoft did in the grandest fashion with the original XBox.

Think about it. These corporate giants struggle to break even on their expenditures bringing their consoles to market. Meanwhile a company much smaller manages to make money on every angle with profit margins far proportionally larger than its mega-sized competitors.

If the PS3 has already according to some reports blown through the equivalent of the profits of the PS2, the best-selling console in videogame history, and still hasn't closed the production loss gap yet, then SCE is in bad shape to try for another console.

When Gamecube failed Nintendo was still flush with money. That brief 2003 loss was probably expenditure for R & D for the then-upcoming DS & Wii. Sony Corp. is much bigger than SCE, true. But do you really think Sony would hang on to a business as rough as the videogame business at the detriment to the entire corporation? ESPECIALLY without Kutaragi in the mix??

In truth, Microsoft shouldn't have stuck with a product that cost them nearly $4 billion. Their motivations to stay in this business show that they seek to waste as much as it takes to secure a larger goal. They want to take over the living room & folks like Sony are in the way. Sony wants the same thing as Microsoft only in a different method. Microsoft also is desperate to diversify their portfolio before their computer operating software empire gets disrupted. But if it gets too bad for them they'll leave too.

They're doing much better than XBox 1 but they still haven't fully mastered the scene. Internationally they're weak but in the biggest market in the world (USA) they're solid. Should Nintendo ratchet up the pressure on them, watch Microsoft respond & learn what all challengers to Nintendo eventually learn: Nintendo are the masters of this business.

Nintendo has redefined how consoles should be done philosophically as well as technically. The other two can't continue on this path which has given them only limited success if that. New competitors & dark horses will emerge to complicate the scene even further so all of this crowds out a struggling Sony. Apple is the immediate example.

The market really can't support 3 major competitors as it is now so somebody's going to be replaced if a newcomer makes a compelling product. Whenever Microsoft decides to turn up the heat on Sony, Sony will find it harder to hold on. I don't think Sony will have the heart to have a chance at TWO $3 billion losses back to back. There's no guarantee a new system will wow the crowd. The PSP while resurgent in Japan did not accomplish its ultimate mission even though I'm sure by now it's recovered the production loss gap. Even with the PSP & PS2 combined, SCE cannot significantly hold off the losses of the PS3.

People will expect not only a new PSP but a new PS for the home. How will they pull this off with a schism in the international markets which see Japan as handheld first & rest of world as home console first? Can they make an internationally appealing handheld and home console? Can they stop the momentum of the incumbent market champion, Nintendo? Can they diminish the impact of new competitors trying to enter the scene?

If they can, then yes there will be another PlayStation. But if they can't, it would probably be wise not to gamble the whole company on a sector like videogames. They would probably have to make a new brand too since the name PlayStation may have run its course & sequel numbers like 4 begin to look tacky.

2009 is gonna be rough for SCE internationally. Japan's their best hope right now. If Nintendo ever reverses their rise there, that could be it. Unlike Nintendo, Sony's not making money from SCE. If the division's losses become so great that it affects the entire company on the balance sheet, the shareholders will revolt if they DON'T cut SCE loose.

John Lucas

BTW Jeronimo,

If you put all your energy into the database you could make it to the top of the VGChartz moneymakers without pissing everyone off in the process!