Topic: Sony getting hit Hard lately

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

DROWN IN THE BLUE OCEAN, YEAH

[NWR_insanolord]

This is a shame, because even though Sony is pretty much the only developer supporting the PS3, they're doing a damn good job of it. The PS3 deserves to sell with the first party lineup it has, and as long as they aren't taking a loss on it that means Sony deserves to be doing well financially.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Rumor has it that Sony is gonna monetize PSN with a premium service, so maybe they can make some profit next year.

Premium PSN plans for E3 reveal, to cost “less than £50 per year”

VG247 has learnt that Sony is to reveal plans for PSN’s premium services at E3.

According to a highly-placed source, Sony will announce a large-scale monetizing scheme for PSN at the LA show, but we’re assured nothing planned will impact the service’s current free aspects.

A string of features will be revealed, apparently costing “less than £50 per year”.

Sony will confirm plans to give all subscribers one free PSN game per month, from a choice of “two to four” every month.

“If you work it out, PSN games cost an average of £6-9 each, so over a year you’re basically going to be breaking even,” said our source.

A streaming music application similar to Spotify will be announced in Sony’s press conference on June 15. It’s thought that this can run in the background while playing games.

Rumours that cross-game voice chat is being saved as a paid feature are apparently not true, we were told.

“I can tell you now, 100 percent, that that’s not the case,” our man continued.

“There’s nothing in the premium package which will gimp regular PSN users.”

The PSN premium services announcement is thought to be a major part of Sony’s E3 conference, which will also heavily feature Move.

It’s thought that a PSP2 announcement, for this reason, is unlikely, and will be saved for either gamescom or TGS later this year.

So looks like all 3 may go with paid online services. Sony may even use one of the ideas we had for Nintendo of giving away free software every month to subsidize the cost. I hope both Sony rumors are true.

[broodwars]

Sony had better have a better offer at the press conference than just a free PSN game every month drawn from 4-5 options that will likely be significantly worse than what I'd choose on my own.  I'm sure a free Quor subscription or whatnot would get tossed in there as well, but I still don't care.  As for the streaming music option, that's something the 360 does as part of the 360 Guide Menu, and I don't see any reason why Sony couldn't just duplicate it with the XMB via a firmware update.

[NWR_insanolord]

They're not talking about streaming music from your computer like the 360; they specifically compared it to Spotify, which is more along the lines of Napster or Rhapsody, letting you listen to more or less any music out there.

[ThePerm]

i wish Sony would get hit harder, them mismanaging Spider-Man movies wants me to see them fold

[BlackNMild2k1]

Looks like Sony is FINALLY making a small profit on the PS3

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/110/1102449p1.html

Consumers should get used to a $299 PlayStation 3 for the time being.

In an interview with IGN, Shuhei Yoshida, president of Sony's Worldwide Studios, said the company is finally making money on every PS3 sold and there's no rush to bring the price down again.

"This year is the first time that we are able to cover the cost of the PlayStation 3," Yoshida said. "We aren't making huge money from hardware, but we aren't bleeding like we used to."

In May, Sony began shipping new PlayStation 3 consoles with smaller and more cost effective graphics chips. Now, Yoshida said, Sony is looking at replenishing retail stock that has been running on empty since January rather than cutting the price.

"When we bring the cost of hardware down, we are looking at opportunities to adjust prices if we believe that will increase demand," he explained. "At the moment, we are trying to catch up our production."

"We have lots of great games coming out and innovations with Move and 3DTV, so we don't believe this is the time for us to think about a price drop," he added.

Rather than cutting the price of the base model, Yoshida said the company may look at doing additional console bundles, like the one recently announced that will include Sports Champion, a PlayStation Move controller, and a PlayStation Eye for $399.

Who wants to Place Yer Bets on when the next PS3 price drop is?

[broodwars]

Looks like Sony is FINALLY making a small profit on the PS3

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/110/1102449p1.html

Consumers should get used to a $299 PlayStation 3 for the time being.

In an interview with IGN, Shuhei Yoshida, president of Sony's Worldwide Studios, said the company is finally making money on every PS3 sold and there's no rush to bring the price down again.

"This year is the first time that we are able to cover the cost of the PlayStation 3," Yoshida said. "We aren't making huge money from hardware, but we aren't bleeding like we used to."

In May, Sony began shipping new PlayStation 3 consoles with smaller and more cost effective graphics chips. Now, Yoshida said, Sony is looking at replenishing retail stock that has been running on empty since January rather than cutting the price.

"When we bring the cost of hardware down, we are looking at opportunities to adjust prices if we believe that will increase demand," he explained. "At the moment, we are trying to catch up our production."

"We have lots of great games coming out and innovations with Move and 3DTV, so we don't believe this is the time for us to think about a price drop," he added.

Rather than cutting the price of the base model, Yoshida said the company may look at doing additional console bundles, like the one recently announced that will include Sports Champion, a PlayStation Move controller, and a PlayStation Eye for $399.

Who wants to Place Yer Bets on when the next PS3 price drop is?

1-2 years from now when we start getting rumblings of the next PlayStation system.  Since they're finally making a profit on each unit, I don't see why they'd throw that away any earlier.

[TJ Spyke]

I think this is kind of old, I am pretty sure Sony said a few months ago that they were making a profit from it. If Sony doesn't want to finish last, they need to drop the price. However, they make not care about beating the Xbox 360, they may want to just try and make this gen less damaging (since I have my doubts they will actually finish this gen in the black).

[Pale]

The PlayStation 3 is plenty successful right now. It does not matter what "place" it's in.  It continues to sell at a fine rate.

In short, the fire alarms are off at Sony. They should be thrilled with how they are doing currently.

[Guitar Smasher]

Do you mean thrilled because of the mess they started from, or thrilled because their success is enviable?

[Ian Sane]

So can Sony consider the PS3 a success?  Part of the goal was for Blu-Ray to beat HD-DVD.  It did.  The problem that caused was that the PS3 was too expensive so it lost money for Sony and it had weak sales so they lost market share to MS and Nintendo.  But now they make a profit and the system is selling well.  Despite being in last place the console has strong third party support and remains relevant in the eyes of gamers.  Now that they're out of the mess caused by the Blu-Ray stuff, which worked, is the PS3 a success?

These recent profits though suggest that they really should not pursue another gen for a while now.  In retrospect the next gen probably should have only started a year or two ago.  Nintendo is number one with pretty much a Gamecube with a new controller while Sony and MS lost out because their consoles cost too much money.  Oh and the PS2 even continued to sell well for a few more years.  We probably could have stuck with the last gen for 7 or 8 years.  So let's not make that mistake again and try selling $600 consoles when we know that each time the graphical boost is going to become less and less noticable.  Nintendo should release a new console to catch up hardware-wise and the other two should try to make their motion control options successful and leave things as is for the next several years.

But this stupid 3D gimmick will probably **** all of that up.  Someone is going to jump the gun.

[ThePerm]

Sony can consider the Ps3 the same type of success that Nintendo could consider n64, its their 3rd generation of consoles and it didn't do as well as the last 2. Nintendo basically just decided to pretend they are a new competitor for a generation.

actually Wii is alot like Playstation, its this pale box that has a few really great games and then a bunch of crap i would never play.

[noname2200]

The PlayStation 3 is plenty successful right now. It does not matter what "place" it's in.  It continues to sell at a fine rate.

In short, the fire alarms are off at Sony. They should be thrilled with how they are doing currently.

To the best of my knowledge, the division with the PS3 in it has not had a profitable year since 2006, and my impression is that the PS3 is solidly to blame for that.  I'm also not sure that's going to change this year either.  "Losing slightly less money now than before" should not lead to sighs of relief. 

Of course, in light of the business aptitude Sony's displayed this generation, they probably have popped open the champagne...

[TJ Spyke]

Perm, the N64 was profitable from day one. Nintendo did not lose billions of dollars on it. The PS3 caused Sony (the company, not just the PlayStation brand) to lose money in a fiscal year for the first time in over 15 years. Sony may be happy to finally be making money on the system, but I don't see how they could possible be thrilled. Well, maybe it's like someone who has a hole in their boat and manage to plug it right before they sink would be thrilled.

[ThePerm]

that is true, but it wasn't SNES successful. It was loss of net gain. Still n64 is a great system. Sony's accounting has got to be confusing since they are such a diversified company. Stilll Spidermaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

[Chozo Ghost]

Nintendo is number one with pretty much a Gamecube

Once again you're repeating that myth, which is absolutely false. The Wii is 2-3 times more powerful than the GC. Just because the games seldom make use of that power doesn't change the fact that the hardware is a leap forward.

But the thing is, the PS3/360 are probably 5-10 times as powerful as their previous systems, so the Wii's leap isn't as great but you're outright lying when you say its the same as the GC.[/quote]

[ThePerm]

its 2-3 times more overclocked then a gamecube, however because it lacks hardware shaders it doesn't help it to look better. However developers can still make software shaders using the added clock speed. The other thing is memory plays a bigger factor than processing power. Gamecube could do a lot more than it ever did with more memory. Still even though Wii has more memory, its still dwarfed by the other systems memory. 512mb vs (155mb rumored)
and jeez researching ram, ram is such an upmarked product

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAM_price_fixing

im surprised the price hasn't gone down yet.

[Pale]

Hindsight is pointless.  I don't care if they weren't profitable for the past few years. I don't care if the PS3 started out rocky. Sony shouldn't care either because they can't change it.

Challenging the Wii is also impossible at this point, so that shouldn't be a concern of theirs either.

What they are doing is continuing to carve out market share from Microsoft.  This is where their decisions early in the generation can start to pay off.  The 360 is looking stale but the PS3 still continues to look like cutting edge tech to the average consumer.  They have positioned the platform in a place where they will have the opportunity to go for market leadership again in the next gen.

In short, they have done everything I think they can do to right the ship, and that is why they should be thrilled.


All of you that rant about how the PS3 is a failure should really look in the mirror at yourself as a Nintendo fan.  The GameCube did the exact opposite. Started out really well, ended like hell.  Yet somehow that was OK.  Same could be said for the N64.  What Sony has done over the last two years should be greatly respected.  They have brought extremely important, high budget games to the forefront (I.E. Uncharted Series, Little Big Planet).  They have done amazing things for the small scale / indie scene on PSN (I.E. PixelJunk series, Flower, etc.).

At this point in my career as a gamer I'm really starting to understand the importance of all the players when it comes to pushing the industry forward.  We shouldn't be afraid to respect and enjoy each company's victories.

[Arbok]

I don't care if the PS3 started out rocky. Sony shouldn't care either because they can't change it.

They should care, as taking that type of attitude that "our mistakes are in the past, ignore them" leads to repeating them.

The GameCube did the exact opposite. Started out really well, ended like hell.  Yet somehow that was OK.

No it wasn't. That was awful, and I have yet to see someone spin the Gamecube sales on here otherwise.

Same could be said for the N64.

And should be said as it took a company from #1 to #2, and the Gamecube continued the trend from #2 to #3.

The PS3 is much like the N64 in that it has good games (and I will defend that the N64 had some of the greatest that Nintendo itself produced), but its conception and creation is one for the "biggest mistakes in the industry" books. The decline from the PS2 to the PS3 in audience dwarfs what either the N64 or Gamecube saw in retrospect, and I would slump all three in the category of disappointing consoles from a sales perspective.

[Ian Sane]

the Wii's leap isn't as great but you're outright lying when you say its the same as the GC.

I'm not lying, I'm being cheeky.  I know it isn't the same.  But the upgrade is so minor that it makes my point - we jumped to the next gen too soon.  The Wii is such a minor update that if they didn't have the controller they would never get away with calling that a new generation.  People were fine with the idea of sticking with PS2/Cube/Xbox level visuals for a while longer.
 

 They should care, as taking that type of attitude that "our mistakes are in the past, ignore them" leads to repeating them.

I think the fact that they've made chicken soup out of chicken **** suggests that have learned a thing or two.  As Pale has pointed out Nintendo never did this with their "flop" consoles.  The N64 became more irrelevant each year and then the Cube came out and Nintendo sunk even further.  They never went up ever until the Wii, it was just a steady downward slope from the N64 launch on.  Sony's path with the PS3 is now curving up.
 
We'll find out if they actually learned anything in the future but right now you can at least say that they've rolled with the punches.  Not everyone accomplishes that.

[vudu]

The 360 is looking stale but the PS3 still continues to look like cutting edge tech to the average consumer.

How so?  The two systems look pretty much identical to the average consumer.  And with third party games tending to be slightly inferior on the PS3, I'd argue that the 360 looks better than the PS3 to Joe Gamer.

[Pale]

Man I couldn't disagree more.  The latest trend is that multiplatform games are better on PS3.  The 360 looks like an average and old computer and the PS3 is still a shiny new game system that does fancy new things like 3D and has a blu-ray player.

Exclusives have been much better on PS3 as of late as well.

[vudu]

The latest trend is that multiplatform games are better on PS3.

Could you site some examples, because this is the first time I've heard someone who's not a complete fanboy make that claim.  (Note:  This is not a dig; I'm saying you're not a fanboy and therefore I'm interested in why you think this.)  I can't think of any super recent examples, but I've heard lots of claims that 3rd party games have better frame rates, better lighting, etc. on 360 (most recently with Bayonetta).

I'm not going to argue about which system's exclusives are better because not only is it subjective but it's also irrelevant to this discussion.

[BlackNMild2k1]

If Crytek is right, 360's 3D implementation (of Crytek games atleast) will be on par with the PS3 since they figured out a way to do 3D without taxing the system of resources.

But I also think that the PS3 looks more valuable in the eyes of the average consumer with the big 3D and Bluray push in just about any electronics store nationwide. 360 may have the lionshare of the the popular games and the buzz of Xbox Live, but the average consumer isn't a hardcore gamer and wouldn't know/care about most of that stuff. It's gonna come down to which of the 2 machines would you buy if they were sitting on the shelf next to each other and you had $300+ to spend. Your average consumer would likely buy the PS3 since it's seen as more than just a games machine, it's also a HD movie player that does 3D.