• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NY Times: Sony is in "the fight for its life"

D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
The $600 price point definitely hurt the PS3, but I think a bigger part of it is how Microsoft built a bridge for the western game development scene to flood onto consoles.

I'm pretty sure it was primarily the $600 price point and the challenge of developing for Cell.
 

commish

Jason Kidd murdered my dog in cold blood!
I dont' give two cares if sony lives or dies. I do agree with a lack of innovation.
 
Lol at these two. All of Sony's developers help each other out. And i am not sure what you even mean about HOME. It makes a shit ton of money, and a lot of developers make a living off of HOME, so i'm sure Sony ia pretty happy with it

Has any third party gone on the record stating they have been profitable working with Home?
 

jrDev

Member
I would stop console gaming for sure. I have no interest in the direction MS is going and I sure as hell dont' like Nintendo. God help us if Apple jumps in too, if that isn't a trio from gaming hell then I don't know what is.

This is hilarious!!

Btw, I'm not taking you seriously ok, twas just funny to read...
 

TunaLover

Member
Even if Sony quits from making consoles they could still make games as third party, so some people wouldn´t need quit gaming altogether.
 
If it were me, I'd start letting people if they didn't want to cooperate. I'd hire people from outside of the company who have no problem with this. I know it is japan, but they have to loosen up.
 

Gisk

Banned
Has any third party gone on the record stating they have been profitable working with Home?

I also was under the impression that Home was one of the least profitable parts of the PSN infrastructure. Some real numbers about that would be appreciated.
 

Grayman

Member
Even if Sony quits from making consoles they could still make games as third party, so some people wouldn´t need quit gaming altogether.

No one sane is going to make it rain on Sony studios when they are not doing it to shift hardware that makes them money off COD and Skyrim. Sony's first party revolves around unsustainable projects to help the hardware which earns royalties from third party game sales.
 

90sRobots

Member
To everyone that would stop gaming if Sony went out of business: please actually do it. It would reduce the whiny, immature gamer quotient significantly and you could put the money you saved towards seeking psychiatric help.
 

surly

Banned
I also was under the impression that Home was one of the least profitable parts of the PSN infrastructure.
The only info I can find is from July 2010 where a guy from Sony said that HOME is "quite profitable", but doesn't mention any figures apart from there being 14 million users of HOME, although a "user" counts as anyone that's tried it at least once.

As for it being one of the least profitable parts of PSN, here's something from 6 months later in December 2010: -

Sony has yet to make the free-to-use PlayStation Network profitable, Sony's Kazuo Hirai told Reuters Japan. However, he expects the PSN to start making money in the following fiscal year.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/24/sonys-hirai-playstation-network-not-yet-profitable/
 

Elios83

Member
I agree with the article although I'd say that who's fighting for its life is Sony as an electronics company.
Hirai has already taken the bold step to refocus the company around games, digital products and mobiles for the future.
People thinking that the gaming business could be in danger are completely off, Sony is more and more a gaming and contents company (in the latest presentation it was stressed how both PS3 and Vita businesses are profitable) while they're turning their back on their now unprofitable electronics roots.
Basically Hirai is giving the electronics business its last chance, they want to see if they can stay in the market with the proper changes and initiatives, if the strategy doesn't work in time for FY2013, they'll abandon the TV business and all the other unprofitable products.
 

2San

Member
Nobody. We were fine with 2 main competitors.
Don't know. Only having 1 console in the high end(and online MP) section, sounds terrible. The 360 would never be this cheap without having a direct competitor. It would leave MS open to think up even more crazy stuff exploit consumers.

I think the handheld market will be fine, since Nintendo doesn't seem to exploit their consumer and being on top of their game(it's not them being nice, it keeps competitors from entering the market where they are active at).
 
Would they continue making games, spaces, clothing, and premium items if they didnt make any money off of it?

So the answer to my question is "no"?

So if Sony eventually drops out of the gaming market... who do you think should replace them?

Sony would sell off the studios they bought this gen and last so the gaming side would still survive. They would most likely just move to multiplatform development. Basically the only thing that would change largely would they would stop making the actual console.

Basically, all big and important Sony studios would go down the same road as say Bungie.
 

Xilium

Member
Isn't their gaming/Playstation "division" actually doing well?

I know the company as a whole is in dire straights but articles like this probably should be in the off-topic section since it's Sony's other electronic devices (primarily TV's) that are dragging the company down. When the thread is in the gaming section, people instantly point to the PS3 and PSP/PSV as the reason for the company being in the state its in.

To everyone that would stop gaming if Sony went out of business: please actually do it. It would reduce the whiny, immature gamer quotient significantly and you could put the money you saved towards seeking psychiatric help.
I thought Xbox Live had that demographic on lockdown...
 
Nobody. We were fine with 2 main competitors.

Seriously, the industry would probably be better off with only two console makers as 3rd parties could spend less resources to reach the entire console market.

Competition from PC and ios would ensure that the two left standing would have to compete for customers.
 
Lol at these two. All of Sony's developers help each other out. And i am not sure what you even mean about HOME. It makes a shit ton of money, and a lot of developers make a living off of HOME, so i'm sure Sony ia pretty happy with it

Who helped out with GT5? Who is helping out with TLG?

What I mean by Home is that it failed in its intended purpose and has now become just a playground for its fans while the vast majority of the PS3 user base ignore it. I know it is profitable but it has little appeal for the wider audience.
 
Isn't their gaming/Playstation "division" actually doing well?

I know the company as a whole is in dire straights but articles like this probably should be in the off-topic section since it's Sony's other electronic devices (primarily TV's) that are dragging the company down. When the thread is in the gaming section, people instantly point to the PS3 and PSP/PSV as the reason for the company being in the state its in.

The gaming division has returned $400 million in profits the past two years in a row.

So they're definitely in a pretty good spot there. They just need a smooth transition into next-gen and no major mistakes like with the PS3.
 
-Sell the film studio
-Shut down the music bit, because FUCK ME record labels are dumb (actually with One Direction hitting it huge this would be idiotic at the moment but like shut most of your labels ffs)
-Stop releasing portable hardware that isn't laptops, morons, no-one likes your mp3 players
-Focus on TVs, gaming and laptops, because that shit works
 

LJ11

Member
Pioneer made the best television on the market, it was rather affordable and only a couple of hundred dollars more than what competitors offered but you paid for a much better picture, it wasn't even close. Yet they bailed years ago. It's just a dead end in the television business, seems that way for the Japanese manufacturers. Even if they offer superior quality they have zero pricing power. Pioneer didn't have a million tv models, didn't benefit them one bit.

Guess the writing was on the wall for Japanese CEs when Pioneer pulled out.
 

HylianTom

Banned
They just need a second job.

ColbertLaughing.gif
 

surly

Banned
Isn't their gaming/Playstation "division" actually doing well?
It lost about 4.5 billion dollars in the first 4 years the PS3 was on the market and someone above said that it returned $400 million the past 2 years in a row. I highly doubt that they'll end the generation in the black, so the answer to that would be "no".
 
Problem that Sony have is they have a lot of debt off of the back of a losses over a number of years. They just didn't change quickly enough, its questionable if they are even changing now!

It'll be difficult to downsize and pay the debts they racked up as a larger company.
Not impossible though.

They need to cut back on their number of goods plain and simple. Steamline to just one basic HD TV and back it up with other models that have clear differences (e.g. type of screen etc.) - but make sure its marketable. They don't need to leave that market, just sell in it properly! (not hard to see that many products ALL being TVs is a bad sign).

To deal with management problems, along with the streamlining - centralise and promote those who appear to be most helpful in the process - they'll be good hands generally.

Gaming? Bring out a tablet. Thats what I'd do anyway - directly compete within what is still a growing market and a market where we all know the ipad will lose market share over time.

Don't rush into a PS4. Seriously - don't let others force your hand. Caution here is best I think, I just don't see much reason for a new generation especially in the current state of the world economy (and still a possibility to worsen)!


But yeah streamlining is key, especially if they want to be flexible enough to compete and take a strong position in developing markets.
 
It lost about 4.5 billion dollars in the first 4 years the PS3 was on the market and someone above said that it returned $400 million the past 2 years in a row. I highly doubt that they'll end the generation in the black, so the answer to that would be "no".

The first 4 years of the PS3 are a sunk cost and are irrelevant to the discussion of the future viability of the playstation brand. The more recent profitability figures are a much better indication of current division health, unless of course you believe Sony is likely to repeat the same mistakes they made with the PS3.
 

surly

Banned
The more recent profitability figures are a much better indication, unless of course you believe Sony is likely to repeat the same mistakes they made with the PS3.
They repeated the same mistakes with the Vita. Also, you don't really know what the figures are for the last couple of years for their gaming business cos they no longer have a separate gaming division.
 
They repeated the same mistakes with the Vita. Also, you don't really know what the figures are for the last couple of years for their gaming business cos they no longer have a separate gaming division.

How did they repeat the same mistakes? The Vita isn't some overpowered super expensive device. I believe the Vita is supposed to be profitable almost from day one.


Q: The PS Vita price was a nice surprise at E3. But at that price is the system going to be sold at a loss form day one?

Andrew House: I think as a business it will definitely be profitable from day one. In terms of hardware specifically, it's really not something we tend to comment on, but I would say it will be a significantly better situation than for example, the PlayStation 3. This is in a much, much healthier place from a profitability stand point.


http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-06-13-sonys-andrew-house-editorial
 
The first 4 years of the PS3 are a sunk cost and are irrelevant to the discussion of the future viability of the playstation brand. The more recent profitability figures are a much better indication of current division health, unless of course you believe Sony is likely to repeat the same mistakes they made with the PS3.

no sunk cost is the money they spent from profits they had from PS2 for the PS3, 4 years of not making a profit is called insanity.
 
They repeated the same mistakes with the Vita. Also, you don't really know what the figures are for the last couple of years for their gaming business cos they no longer have a separate gaming division.

No, they didn't repeat the same mistakes at all.

The R&D budget on the Vita was low, so low that it allowed the gaming division to remain profitable despite increased expenditure for this effort. They are using essentially off-the-shelf mobile chip components that will allow for easier cost reductions down the road due to economics of scale, they are not losing a substantial amount on the hardware. Arguably, with memory card prices, they are probably breaking even when all is considered. To even claim that the Vita is repeating the same mistakes is just flat out wrong.

Sony recently discussed gaming division profitability in Kaz's restructuring report, and their analysis indicated $400 million from gaming this prior year.

no sunk cost is the money they spent from profits they had from PS2 for the PS3, 4 years of not making a profit is called insanity.

No one is arguing that the PS3 was an absolute disaster initially. The argument is the current and forward financial health of the gaming division, and reporting the most recent data is a better measure than simply looking at huge losses that were incurred years ago and are not reflective of the current environment.
 

jmdajr

Member
Its amazing just how many different products/divisions they have compared to Microsoft/Apple/Nintendo..

yeah it's killing them
 

surly

Banned
How did they repeat the same mistakes? The Vita isn't some overpowered super expensive device. I believe the Vita is supposed to be profitable almost from day one.


Q: The PS Vita price was a nice surprise at E3. But at that price is the system going to be sold at a loss form day one?

Andrew House: I think as a business it will definitely be profitable from day one. In terms of hardware specifically, it's really not something we tend to comment on, but I would say it will be a significantly better situation than for example, the PlayStation 3. This is in a much, much healthier place from a profitability stand point.


http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2011-06-13-sonys-andrew-house-editorial
Other news stories imply that it is sold at a loss: -

In an interview with Reuters Japan, Sony’s Kaz Hirai stated that Sony aims to make a profit on the PlayStation Vita in three years. Sony often sells their hardware at a lost, so this isn’t anything new for the company as they sold the PlayStation 3 at a loss despite the $600 price tag.
http://www.examiner.com/article/sony-to-sell-playstation-vita-for-a-loss-profitable-3yrs

And: -

Sony hopes money made from game sales will make up for the three years of loss it expects to make on powerful handheld console PS Vita.

In an interview this week Sony number two Kaz Hirai said the Japanese company expects to begin making a profit on the hardware within three years.

Sony announced US and Euro pricing this week at E3. The Wi-Fi model will go for $249 / €249 and the 3G plus Wi-Fi for $299 / €299. Game and Play.com were the first UK retailers to put a price on Vita, with both listing the Wi-Fi only version for £229.99 and the 3G plus Wi-Fi model for £279.99.

The price, cheaper than many expected for what is a powerful gaming handheld, is a deliberate attempt by Sony to broaden the Vita's appeal beyond core gamers and technology enthusiasts, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe boss Andrew House told Eurogamer yesterday at E3.

And it's willing to take a hit on each Vita sold because it reckons game sales will compensate.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-09-how-sony-will-offset-loss-making-vita
 
Cutting their handheld division would be a huge mistake.

Honestly, the biggest opportunity for Sony would be in the mobile space.

The problem is they are still stuck in the backwards ass notion that they can create proprietary hardware and sell high end games on only one device.

They need to embrace the market reality of iOS and Android. They need to recognize that this is a huge market place for games, and not just the shovelware variety.

They would have huge success if only they brought the playstation brand and lineup to the iPhone and Android.

If they do not execute on this in the coming years, it will be a colossal misstep that will end up costing them severely because it's an untapped market of consumers and Sony is one of the best and only players in the industry that can provide this high-end software platform.

Vita is a great device, but there's no way it's going to make Sony much money in the long run because the handheld landscape has entirely changed. They need to put out a cheap controller adapter that turns any phone into a Vita. Period. It solves the problem of people not wanting to buy and carry around multiple portable devices. It embraces the reality that EVERYONE only wants to carry their phone, and if all it takes to be able to play serious games is buy a cheap little adapter, then that's a very small barrier to entry than what they have now that requires people to buy a $250 separate handheld system.

I like this idea. Good strategy. Helps them to streamline the hardware, shows they're thinking and reacting to the market. Building yet another handheld device in a market that has become dominated by smartphones is just throwing more money away.

They probably need to sell off their TV division, or figure out a way to simplify it into a single model (The Bravia) with different sizes.

They've got other issues as well, obviously. They are losing the battle for your living room in every area - BluRay, gaming, TVs, etc. Simplify or die.
 
Top Bottom