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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Who here thinks ps3 is Sonys' last videogame console?

Akvod on 28 April 2009
Jeronimo66 said:

Is this because you think that the iPod touch is going to be bought primarily as a handheld gaming console? You use the recession against the PS3, but why would you think that Apple would spend the huge ammount of money to break into this industry when we're in a recession (and they sell more expensive "high quality" products)? There's a difference between trying to stay and to penetrate.

How much money did MS use to pentrate the market? How much money do you think Apple will have to spend?

 

No I don't think so, and when did I use the recession against the ps3?

Your thread title in that thread I linked was "The iphone is becoming a serious gamers machine guys, that you can't possibly deny.

As for the recession quote I can't look through 20+ pages for the quote I'm looking for>.<



Around the Network
joshin69 on 28 April 2009

Jeronimo66
Clearly you dislike Sony and the PS3, you posts prove the point.



 

 assumption is the mother of all f**k ups 

Maskedpainter on 28 April 2009

If the loses company wide continue unabated then I could see it happening, sadly though we'll see most likely another console, priced at 1200 dollars and like the PlayStation(s) before it we will be told that this system can do what no other system can do, yada yada and you'll be compelled to get a second job to pay for it.

Quite frankly I think Sony products are over priced and generally suck all around, so if they want to bring yet another overly expensive system to the market where they are losing buckets of money per system sold. God Bless them and I hope they keep it up, the Wii brand will need to feed every 6 years.




Akvod on 28 April 2009
Maskedpainter said:
If the loses company wide continue unabated then I could see it happening, sadly though we'll see most likely another console, priced at 1200 dollars and like the PlayStation(s) before it we will be told that this system can do what no other system can do, yada yada and you'll be compelled to get a second job to pay for it.

Quite frankly I think Sony products are over priced and generally suck all around, so if they want to bring yet another overly expensive system to the market where they are losing buckets of money per system sold. God Bless them and I hope they keep it up, the Wii brand will need to feed every 6 years.

A bit of an exageration?



Mummelmann on 28 April 2009
Smashchu2 said:
Akvod said:

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 PSy2 beat the Xbox brand. People still know abo ut 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, the 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 want s 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 theoverall 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.

Uggg, there were some pretty bad and flat out aweful assumptions here. Where is that other guy who had a good argument?

1)Microsoft is not in the business to make money. I repeat

Microsoft is not in it to make money

Go read this. It explains the entire strategy. It is doubtful they will stay in the market long after Sony's demise (the brand with either fail or become a niche. I'll explain this if someone asks me to).

2)Boxes do not mean anything. If I sold one unit and made 1million dollars in profit verses selling 1million units and making $1 dollar (total), where was the better investment?  By your logic, it would be the $1 becuase it's all about the number of boxes that are sold. Sony is down 10million units, but they have lost **** tons of money doing so, even eating their old system's profits.

3)The brand is not strong (and does not matter). Brand name doesn't go very far.Brands have died. New ones have been born, and then those die. A brand name does not mean long term profits. Look at the Wii. It does not have any Nintendo branding, but it still sold. The DS dropped the successful Gameboy brand and is beating it's records. On the other hand, Nintendo's brand began to faulter with the N64, and again with the Gamecube. The Playstation 3 is also losing despite the strong Sony brand. How can you justify them making multimillion dollar decisions when the brand name obviously does nohold.

4)I when people try to say "It's a long established brand." NO IT'S NOT. It's ~15 years old. That is not long. That is not as long as a lot of other products. This means nothing.

Here is the thing people do not understand. The investors are the ones making the decisions. The PS3 was planned for a 10 year plan, but it is not meeting that. Instead, it's losing money with no end in sight. It has been about 3 years and it is still not profitable. Nintendo, in it's low period, never lost a cent. In Sony's low point, they have lost a lot of money. Part of the reason the company is hurting is probably due to the massive turn around of the Playstation brand, a brand that was once profitable but is now hurting the company in both bad economic times and bad business times.

Also, Sony's heart and soul is not games. It's prodominatly music and movies and anything that relates to that. Look at the playstation line. It has pretty much been a mover of their other formats. The PS2 had a DVD player, and the PS3 basically pushed Blu-Ray. If their movie sector was hurting, they'd try to fix it. If their game sector as hurting, they will probably downsize it or kill it.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, we all know that MS don't like making money, this is why Bill Gates is listed as the most destitute man on the planet. Oh, wait... Of course they want to make money, they said themselves that they wanted to conquer the "living room entertainment arena" or some such way back when and they are in it to stay (thankfully).

Bolded; no, just no. When you've sold 300-350 million consoles worldwide you don't just "kill it". I find it ludicrous that many people in here are so rabid in claiming the power of industry woes over only one participant (Sony).

@Maskedpainter; yes, Sony products suck and this is why the Bravia line of TV's is hailed as the best in the world by experts.

And people say Sony fanboys are childish... this is the kind of thread that proves them wrong (when they claim that one side is "worse" than the other).



Around the Network
Reasonable on 28 April 2009

Question - not meant to flame but genuine query.

Why do some posters here feel Sony isn't naturally a games company and MS is? Nintendo is the only one of the three I would see as through and through a games company (it might not be, that would just be the general feel I have).

I just don't get some of the arguments and there seems to be a double standard of sorts in play in this thread.

How can people feel Sony will quit due to losses and the fact they aren't a games company while MS won't quit despite the fact that strictly speaking (i.e. total investment so far vs total return so far) MS may never had made a dollar of clear money yet out of their investment and seem to me to represent even less of an obvious games company that Sony?

If you're using such simple metrics as losses and company focus to judge things then both should be pulling out in fact and leaving it to Nintendo, Sega, etc. - the out and out games companies.


Just to be clear I don't see any of the current three going anywhere unless something truly catastrophic afflicts their business in the future.

The video games market is looking to end up massive (and it's already pretty big), there is lots of money to be made and both MS and Sony remain in good positions to do so for the foreseeable future: hardly grounds for bailing out IHMO.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

S.T.A.G.E. on 28 April 2009
Reasonable said:
Question - not meant to flame but genuine query.

Why do some posters here feel Sony isn't naturally a games company and MS is? Nintendo is the only one of the three I would see as through and through a games company (it might not be, that would just be the general feel I have).

I just don't get some of the arguments and there seems to be a double standard of sorts in play in this thread.

How can people feel Sony will quit due to losses and the fact they aren't a games company while MS won't quit despite the fact that strictly speaking (i.e. total investment so far vs total return so far) MS may never had made a dollar of clear money yet out of their investment and seem to me to represent even less of an obvious games company that Sony?

If you're using such simple metrics as losses and company focus to judge things then both should be pulling out in fact and leaving it to Nintendo, Sega, etc. - the out and out games companies.


Just to be clear I don't see any of the current three going anywhere unless something truly catastrophic afflicts their business in the future.

The video games market is looking to end up massive (and it's already pretty big), there is lots of money to be made and both MS and Sony remain in good positions to do so for the foreseeable future: hardly grounds for bailing out IHMO.

 

 

Microsoft has been publishing games and first party titles way before Sony started failing at their craft and used the Videogame industry as a crutch to stand on.



Mummelmann on 28 April 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Reasonable said:
Question - not meant to flame but genuine query.

Why do some posters here feel Sony isn't naturally a games company and MS is? Nintendo is the only one of the three I would see as through and through a games company (it might not be, that would just be the general feel I have).

I just don't get some of the arguments and there seems to be a double standard of sorts in play in this thread.

How can people feel Sony will quit due to losses and the fact they aren't a games company while MS won't quit despite the fact that strictly speaking (i.e. total investment so far vs total return so far) MS may never had made a dollar of clear money yet out of their investment and seem to me to represent even less of an obvious games company that Sony?

If you're using such simple metrics as losses and company focus to judge things then both should be pulling out in fact and leaving it to Nintendo, Sega, etc. - the out and out games companies.


Just to be clear I don't see any of the current three going anywhere unless something truly catastrophic afflicts their business in the future.

The video games market is looking to end up massive (and it's already pretty big), there is lots of money to be made and both MS and Sony remain in good positions to do so for the foreseeable future: hardly grounds for bailing out IHMO.

 

 

Microsoft has been publishing games and first party titles way before Sony started failing at their craft and used the Videogame industry as a crutch to stand on.

 

What? This post shows that your (apparent) hatred towards a company has obscured history from your view. Sony used videogame market as a crutch? They made a massive gamble against established gaming superpowers Nintendo and Sega at the time, a huge, huge risk unlike any taken by other console makers in recent times (yes, MS took a chance as well but the market for their product was already there as proven by Nintendo and Sony).

If anything, it was MS who took up Nintendo's craft and failed (somewhat, at least compared to the ambitions they had) at it, last gen.

Go read some videogame history, you're either getting quite a few things backwards or you're being ignorant on purpose. How can you loathe a company like this? Unless they dumped toxic spills in your family's backyard and made you all sick or something, there really is no rational reason to hate a company (or their products for that matter). I am again struck by the comical thought of Sony fanboys "being worse" than "everyone else". Amazing, pure and simple. I suppose you should remove your avatar as well, he is a character from a franchise that is born and raised on the inferior Sony consoles.



S.T.A.G.E. on 28 April 2009
Mummelmann said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Reasonable said:
Question - not meant to flame but genuine query.

Why do some posters here feel Sony isn't naturally a games company and MS is? Nintendo is the only one of the three I would see as through and through a games company (it might not be, that would just be the general feel I have).

I just don't get some of the arguments and there seems to be a double standard of sorts in play in this thread.

How can people feel Sony will quit due to losses and the fact they aren't a games company while MS won't quit despite the fact that strictly speaking (i.e. total investment so far vs total return so far) MS may never had made a dollar of clear money yet out of their investment and seem to me to represent even less of an obvious games company that Sony?

If you're using such simple metrics as losses and company focus to judge things then both should be pulling out in fact and leaving it to Nintendo, Sega, etc. - the out and out games companies.


Just to be clear I don't see any of the current three going anywhere unless something truly catastrophic afflicts their business in the future.

The video games market is looking to end up massive (and it's already pretty big), there is lots of money to be made and both MS and Sony remain in good positions to do so for the foreseeable future: hardly grounds for bailing out IHMO.

 

 

Microsoft has been publishing games and first party titles way before Sony started failing at their craft and used the Videogame industry as a crutch to stand on.

 

What? This post shows that your (apparent) hatred towards a company has obscured history from your view. Sony used videogame market as a crutch? They made a massive gamble against established gaming superpowers Nintendo and Sega at the time, a huge, huge risk unlike any taken by other console makers in recent times (yes, MS took a chance as well but the market for their product was already there as proven by Nintendo and Sony).

If anything, it was MS who took up Nintendo's craft and failed (somewhat, at least compared to the ambitions they had) at it, last gen.

Go read some videogame history, you're either getting quite a few things backwards or you're being ignorant on purpose. How can you loathe a company like this? Unless they dumped toxic spills in your family's backyard and made you all sick or something, there really is no rational reason to hate a company (or their products for that matter). I am again struck by the comical thought of Sony fanboys "being worse" than "everyone else". Amazing, pure and simple. I suppose you should remove your avatar as well, he is a character from a franchise that is born and raised on the inferior Sony consoles.

 

 

Sony was getting their collective asses handed to them until they joined the videogame industry. The only sincere member of Sony was Kutaragi because he believed the gaming industry was profitable. Sony sales generational console  (based on their format of choice) translates directly into the sales outside of the videogame industr. Did you or did you not know this? Microsoft didn't fail at publishing games. They let go alot of susidiaries during the economic downfall, which also included one of their famed titles Microsoft Flight Simulator.

As for Tekken...it wasn't born and raised on Sony consoles, it was an arcade title before it hit the PSone. The console version of the game might have been exclusive to Sony consoles, but it is more an arcade game than anything. Take Tekken 6 for example, for it has been out for two years straight in the arcades. The loyalty of the Tekken franchise no longer belongs to Sony, for Namco wants profit. You don't have to be a Sony fanboy to love Tekken....you just have to love Tekken. I wont kiss Sony's ass about Tekken if they didn't make it...and they've made nothing but their systems.

Second of all, I don't hate Sony. I just hate when fanboys actually believe they are true gaming companies. Sony uses the gaming industry as a way to bolster format sales, and Microsoft is afraid of the console gaming taking profit away from the PC industry. The only true gaming company is Nintendo. I can accept the truth, even though I am PS360. If you can accept the truth, you wont be blinded. I love my PS3 and my 360, but I refuse to go through Microsoft or Sony if anything happens, because I don't respect them. I deal with the middlemen (Best Buy, PlayNTrade, Gamestop) and only purchase systems with the games I like. I have a detatched relationship with makers of the products I buy.



errorrrr on 28 April 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Feylic said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Feylic said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Feylic said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
AdventWolf said:
No chance, the PS3 still has a long life though. A lot of momentum can come their way in the next couple of years if they continue to develop more good games. The Playstation name is huge!

 

 

Sony nor Microsoft develop games.....they aren't Nintendo.

Is that your final answer?

 

 

 

It can't be proven wrong so yes.

Um... you do know what SCE stands for right? any reason it would be on the back of some game boxes?

 

 

Do you know what MGS is? WOW....yeah...its the gaming division Sony created which houses actual developing companies to make games for them. Microsoft does it too....i'm not impressed. Nintendo actually makes games.

Metal Gear Solid?!    

And there you have it, thanks for proving yourself wrong.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? SCE stands for Sony Computer Entertainment. MGS stands for Microsoft Gaming Studios. It's the same concept in which they gather a bunch of developers into one unit creating games for them.

Who makes Ape Escape, LocoRoco, and Patapon?? I thought Sony Japan Studio makes them... You don't call a "team" under a studio a different studio... TeamICO is not really a studio but a group of developer under SCEJ... it's the same with Namco Tales team... so BamCo dont make the Tales game then according to your logic??

 

Sony was getting their collective asses handed to them until they joined the videogame industry. The only sincere member of Sony was Kutaragi because he believed the gaming industry was profitable. Sony sales generational console  (based on their format of choice) translates directly into the sales outside of the videogame industr. Did you or did you not know this? Microsoft didn't fail at publishing games. They let go alot of susidiaries during the economic downfall, which also included one of their famed titles Microsoft Flight Simulator.

As for Tekken...it wasn't born and raised on Sony consoles, it was an arcade title before it hit the PSone. The console version of the game might have been exclusive to Sony consoles, but it is more an arcade game than anything. Take Tekken 6 for example, for it has been out for two years straight in the arcades. The loyalty of the Tekken franchise no longer belongs to Sony, for Namco wants profit. You don't have to be a Sony fanboy to love Tekken....you just have to love Tekken. I wont kiss Sony's ass about Tekken if they didn't make it...and they've made nothing but their systems.

Second of all, I don't hate Sony. I just hate when fanboys actually believe they are true gaming companies. Sony uses the gaming industry as a way to bolster format sales, and Microsoft is afraid of the console gaming taking profit away from the PC industry. The only true gaming company is Nintendo. I can accept the truth, even though I am PS360. If you can accept the truth, you wont be blinded. I love my PS3 and my 360, but I refuse to go through Microsoft or Sony if anything happens, because I don't respect them. I deal with the middlemen (Best Buy, PlayNTrade, Gamestop) and only purchase systems with the games I like. I have a detatched relationship with makers of the products I buy.

Your definition of a gaming company is so exclusive... How can Nintendo be a gaming company anymore now that they have CAMERAs on DS where you dont even use it for games... web browser for a handheld wtf??? that's nothing related to games... yea sure... Gaming company is an irrelevant term in this discussion.

If Nintendo is bleeding out of the ass in the stuff they make (which turns out to be only game related), think they won't just file for bankruptcy? The difference between Nintendo, and Sony and Microsoft is that once Nintendo pulls their plug on game, they have nothing left where as Sony and Microsoft have other stuff.

Unlike Sega, Nintendo don't have make pachinko machines (japanese styled pinball machine), so they are really left with nothing... if you argue other wise, nintendo is not a 'gaming' company then by your very own skewed point of view.

I think some of you guys think that Sony or Microsoft actively don't care about their crap... It might be true, but seriously, within any human being, I can't seriously think any one in their right mind would actively try to make something crap... Sure, they can make something bad, but I doubt they really is out there to make something bad.

Whether Sony is a gaming company or not (which I think the term itself is irrelevant), what's wrong with Sony staying in the business?