[Log4Girlz]

Really? I don't think they'll ever become PCs, rather they'll become handheld/console hybrids. This is something Nintendo and Sony have been moving towards for years now. We're definitely going to see less dedicated consoles, but we will always have dedicated handhelds, and they will be able to function as consoles.

Tablets are baby PC's. Their main function is apps. Consoles will eventually be app centric as well (videogames not counting as apps).

[GDGF]

It's going to be an exciting year for Nintendo fans. God I cannot wait until the Wii U drops. I really wanna see what SEGA will do with Wii U.

Can't wait to see Sega on this thing.

[Grampa Simpson]

If there is one thing that's certain it's that there will be three consoles next gen.

That's what GAF keeps telling me, but I'm reluctant to believe. Maybe Sony won't step out of their comfort zone, but the cost of being a year late and with less GPU oomph than the 360 at a higher cost hurt them. The PS4 being a set top box that hooks up to racks at a colocation facility would be a huge improvement for them. Especially if the PS4 can also be expressed as software elsewhere. Download the PS4 for your laptop and carry a controller with you. All you need in order to play is sufficient bandwidth.

Next advantage is that they can push improvements every year. Lets say that the 2014 (launch) PS4 is a POWER7 and a high end NVIDIA GPU with 4 gigs of RAM and a basic OS behind it with the GPU outputting directly to the network.

In 2015, newly produced blades have a faster GPU.

In 2016 they improve the GPU and something else.

They get to keep pushing the technology up a little at a time, transparently.

They also don't waste hardware. They only have to have as many PSX blades as there are active players at any one time.

It also offers a wider variety of business models. They don't have to stick to the packaged game paradigm.

I think Kaz will think long and hard before he puts out a new $400 console with this type of technology on the horizon.

[DCKing]

The suggestion is silly. Sony is an electronics company, and has used the PlayStation brand as part of their entertainment offerings for very long. Their expertise is firmly in producing electronics, as opposed to creating network services. They are not even considering this now.

Besides, just because you have a good internet connection doesn't mean the entire market has. Some parts of the US and most of Japan and western Europe are probably well off, but game streaming over network is still a very limited market. And then we're still forgetting how intensive all this stuff is and how unreliable even the best of network technology still is at this time. Let's not even throw any already established image recognizing input in the mix, which would require the game to be bandwidth intensive in two directions.

If any company would go for a cloud-based solution first, it would most definitely without question be Microsoft. But that's still ways off.

I'm convinced cloud gaming is gaming's future. But the next generation will still not be for that. The one after maybe. It's not even anything MS/Sony/Nintendo can control, it's bottlenecked by the development of broadband internet.

[clemenx]

Isn't SCE the only healthy part of Sony nowadays? No way Sony ditches the Playstation. Playstation brand earned its way to be synonym with "videogames" along Nintendo.

[AceBandage]

Isn't SCE the only healthy part of Sony nowadays? No way Sony ditches the Playstation. Playstation brand earned its way to be synonym with "videogames" along Nintendo.

Well, it was...
The PS3 kind of changed that.

[Log4Girlz]

I totally think Minecraft should be packaged with the system.

[AzaK]

I was sitting here thinking about the Subscreen only play feature and I really hope that Nintendo either mandates that devs support subscreen only play, or strictly control who can break from it. The reason I want this is that I can imagine wanting to do a reasonable amount of gaming on the subscreen only.

Now I realise that the Subscreen is going to enhance gameplay tonnes, and I also realise that some games have it at their core design but I just hope Nintendo exerts some controls on it. I don't want a system where developers could just throw a HUD on the Subscreen, forcing you do dual screen play. In those types of scenarios I want Nintendo to force the dev to add Subscreen only play.

I wonder if Nintendo will have some sort of logo for it in the marketting materials? "Subscreen Only Play".

[Emitan]

I was sitting here thinking about the Subscreen only play feature and I really hope that Nintendo either mandates that devs support subscreen only play, or strictly control who can break from it. The reason I want this is that I can imagine wanting to do a reasonable amount of gaming on the subscreen only. Now I realise that the Subscreen is going to enhance gameplay tonnes, and I also realise that some games have it at their core design but I just hope Nintendo exerts some controls on it. I don't want a system where developers could just throw a HUD on the Subscreen, forcing you do dual screen play. In those types of scenarios I want Nintendo to force the dev to add Subscreen only play. I wonder if Nintendo will have some sort of logo for it in the marketting materials? "Subscreen Only Play".

If they did that then developers can't actually use the subscreen. Playing on the controller is cool, but this would seriously limit design.

[AceBandage]

Certain games will easily allow for UTab only play.
Others will not.
It's just in how the game is designed.

[EatinOlives]

Well, it was... The PS3 kind of changed that.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Sony knows what it was doing even when they decided to make the PS3 extremely expensive at launch. For Sony as a corporation, it was far more valuable for Blu-Ray to be the next home video format more than anything. Hence the Blu-Ray trojan on the PS3, hence the high price, hence their "last place". If they don't use the PS brand as mainly another trojan for a format they want to push (and I see no reason for them to do that twice in a row), they'll be fine brand-wise.

[-Pyromaniac-]

I'm utterly blown away that people are doubting a next playstation lol. Jeebus christ.

[AceBandage]

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Sony knows what it was doing even when they decided to make the PS3 extremely expensive at launch. For Sony as a corporation, it was far more valuable for Blu-Ray to be the next home video format more than anything. Hence the Blu-Ray trojan on the PS3, hence the high price, hence their "last place". If they don't use the PS brand as mainly another trojan for a format they want to push (and I see no reason for them to do that twice in a row), they'll be fine brand-wise.

This last generation has shown us otherwise...
I'm not saying that they won't make another Playstation console.
I'm just saying that Sony isn't in the same position they were at the end of the PS2 era, and they've been on a run of poor decisions and bad mistakes*.


*This is not pertaining to the console or game quality. Simply from a business standpoint.

[guek]

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure Sony knows what it was doing even when they decided to make the PS3 extremely expensive at launch. For Sony as a corporation, it was far more valuable for Blu-Ray to be the next home video format more than anything. Hence the Blu-Ray trojan on the PS3, hence the high price, hence their "last place". If they don't use the PS brand as mainly another trojan for a format they want to push (and I see no reason for them to do that twice in a row), they'll be fine brand-wise.

Nah.

I mean, to a certain extent yes. They were aware of that adding blu-ray was going to greatly help the storage medium. But to suggest they did so knowing full well it would cost them dominance in the console sector is very silly. They never planned for a massive decline in the playstation brand, it just happened. Blu-ray was meant to help the PS3 as much as the playstation brand was meant to help Blu-ray. Sadly it didn't go both ways.

I'm utterly blown away that people are doubting a next playstation lol. Jeebus christ.

For sure. I'm just doubting a relevant next playstation. Wacka wacka!

[-Pyromaniac-]

This last generation has shown us otherwise... I'm not saying that they won't make another Playstation console. I'm just saying that Sony isn't in the same position they were at the end of the PS2 era, and they've been on a run of poor decisions and bad mistakes*. *This is not pertaining to the console or game quality. Simply from a business standpoint.

eh not really. From the price drop on, they've been on a string of good decisions for the most part. Very impressive rebound. It's never as complicated as people think. They got themselves in a hole because they pushed their bluray agenda, resulting in the high launch price, and they got arrogant, much like many companies get after a large success, see Nintendo and the 3DS launch.

Since the price drop they've been on the right track and have been generally smart about things.

[AceBandage]

eh not really. From the price drop on, they've been on a string of good decisions for the most part. Very impressive rebound. It's never as complicated as people think. They got themselves in a hole because they pushed their bluray agenda, resulting in the high launch price, and they got arrogant, much like many companies get after a large success, see Nintendo and the 3DS launch. Since the price drop they've been on the right track and have been generally smart about things.

The price drop was only a moderate help to the PS3, though.
And they've done nothing to help the PSP (which only rebounded in Japan because of Capcom).
And the Vita is showing more of the same arrogance and poor decision making that you saw on the PSP.
I am definitely not confident on the PS4's future at the moment, but Sony is more than free to prove me wrong.
How they handle the Vita, especially in the West, will be very telling.

[Conor 419]

You'd think come next gen, Sony will sit back a bit. You would imagine that they'll produce a moderately powerful system which is competitive but does nothing special technically. It'd have similar control schemes to the other two, and on top of this it'll have a a nice innovative feature which is central to the system. This would all be backed by a good, solid and modern service. This console would act as an intermediate while they get back on their feet and it'd be open to lots of room for upgrade with subsequent redesigns.

Instead, what will we see? They're probably going to (again) build the most ridiculously powerful system that they possibly can, charge about four and a half grand for it, it'll launch with a new Killzone game which scores 58 on Metacritic and PSN will go down on launch day.

Get it together Sony.

[guek]

I wonder when the Wii is finally going to hit $99. I'm surprised it's still at $150, though it does come packaged with NSMBWii. I wonder if they'd be making a loss at $99...

[-Pyromaniac-]

The price drop was only a moderate help to the PS3, though. And they've done nothing to help the PSP (which only rebounded in Japan because of Capcom). And the Vita is showing more of the same arrogance and poor decision making that you saw on the PSP. I am definitely not confident on the PS4's future at the moment, but Sony is more than free to prove me wrong. How they handle the Vita, especially in the West, will be very telling.

No, the vita is showing the only option to stay in the handheld game. What else can they do? Release a device similar to the 3DS at a lower cost (than the vita currently is)? And what? Get fucking devoured by the 3DS. Release a lower cost device, maybe something not so traditional, and then what? Get devoured by smartphones/3DS again. The Vita, contrary to what people realize, is pretty much their only option. It's their only differentiator. It's the best option. The fact that it happens to be the best option isn't a testament to Sony making poor decisions, it's a testament to the state of handheld gaming.

And price drop being a moderate help? What planet have you been on lately. The price drop + the revamped marketing campaign that came with it propelled the console into its rebound. They've outsold the 360 every year since then haven't they? Save the latest year I believe.

But back to the Vita. Sony had 2 options, release a device like that and RISK failing in the handheld market, but also a chance to appeal to the west. Or, release a device along the lines of other handhelds like the 3DS and ipod touch and then what? Get devoured by those because there'd be no reason to get the Sony one. Or the final option, not release a handheld system at all....not easy.

[guek]

No, the vita is showing the only option to stay in the handheld game. What else can they do? Release a device similar to the 3DS at a lower cost (than the vita currently is)? And what? Get fucking devoured by the 3DS. Release a lower cost device, maybe something not so traditional, and then what? Get devoured by smartphones/3DS again. The Vita, contrary to what people realize, is pretty much their only option. It's their only differentiator. It's the best option. The fact that the best option isn't a testament to Sony making poor decisions, it's a testament to the state of handheld gaming. And price drop being a moderate help? What planet have you been on lately. The price drop + the revamped marketing campaign that came with it propelled the console into its rebound. They've outsold the 360 every year since then haven't they? Save the latest year I believe. But back to the Vita. Sony had 2 options, release a device like that and RISK failing in the handheld market, but also a chance to appeal to the west. Or, release a device along the lines of other handhelds like the 3DS and ipod touch and then what? Get devoured by those because there'd be no reason to get the Sony one. Or the final option, not release a handheld system at all....not easy.

I kind of agree with your estimation of the Vita. If they were indeed destined to play second fiddle to the 3DS, I think they should have done much more in the realm of profitability. Some people on this board will argue until they're blue that the Vita is profitable, but even if it is, I really doubt that it's by that much. I see nothing wrong with building a niche device that will never receive massive mainstream success but will still net you a nice tidy profit on each unit from day 1.

[AceBandage]

No, the vita is showing the only option to stay in the handheld game. What else can they do? Release a device similar to the 3DS at a lower cost (than the vita currently is)? And what? Get fucking devoured by the 3DS. Release a lower cost device, maybe something not so traditional, and then what? Get devoured by smartphones/3DS again. The Vita, contrary to what people realize, is pretty much their only option. It's their only differentiator. It's the best option. The fact that the best option isn't a testament to Sony making poor decisions, it's a testament to the state of handheld gaming. And price drop being a moderate help? What planet have you been on lately. The price drop + the revamped marketing campaign that came with it propelled the console into its rebound. They've outsold the 360 every year since then haven't they? Save the latest year I believe. But back to the Vita. Sony had 2 options, release a device like that and RISK failing in the handheld market, but also a chance to appeal to the west. Or, release a device along the lines of other handhelds like the 3DS and ipod touch and then what? Get devoured by those because there'd be no reason to get the Sony one. Or the final option, not release a handheld system at all....not easy.

I don't believe the PS3 has ever outsold the 360 in NA in a year... World wide, sure, simply because the 360 does nothing in Japan. It's still quite a ways behind, though, even with that.

As for the Vita, personally, if I was Sony, I'd have taken the "no new system" approach.
I just don't see the Vita even reaching the PSP's level of sales.
Instead, they should have focused on making a PS4 that would be a perfect console.
Why they feel that the only way to compete is based completely on hardware power is beyond me. That isn't how they became so successful with the PS2 and PS1.

[BD1]

I think we're going to see a lot of games and applications designed just for use on the Wii U Controller. (I don't know that they'll brand them though). We've already seen Reversi. I'd bet on Sudoku, Chess, Brain Age-style games and probably many of the mobile platform games. Not to mention the rumored E-Reader.

What I'm excited about is the possibility of stand alone apps that work in conjunction with games. For example, what if EA released an app called "Madden Playbook". Maybe you want to design plays or customize your playbook in Madden 14. Without having to launch Madden, you just pick up the controller, open the app and start playing around with formations and plays. Want to design a play? Whip out the stylus and draw something up. When you're done, you just save it and the next time you load Madden it will automatically sync your Playbook.

Activision could release the CoD: Elite app for you to browse on the controller. How about an app that lets you customize or tinker on your sports car for a racing game? Track editor in the next F Zero? Stage builder for Smash Bros 4?

I think there is so much potential for developers to tap into "app surfing" tablet culture, where player can always be touching their games, even when they aren't playing them.

[-Pyromaniac-]

I kind of agree with your estimation of the Vita. If they were indeed destined to play second fiddle to the 3DS, I think they should have done much more in the realm of profitability. Some people on this board will argue until they're blue that the Vita is profitable, but even if it is, I really doubt that it's by that much. I see nothing wrong with building a niche device that will never receive massive mainstream success but will still net you a nice tidy profit on each unit from day 1.

exactly, you can't beat nintendo at its own game, and you can't beat smartphones and whatnot at theirs. So do something neither can possibly offer and collect what profits you can for the next couple of years. Of course now it's up to them to get the games, but I guess that's what we have to wait and see. But going after a niche is the smart thing to do when entering a big boys market and you don't have the firepower to hang with them.

[EatinOlives]

Nah. I mean, to a certain extent yes. They were aware of that adding blu-ray was going to greatly help the storage medium. But to suggest they did so knowing full well it would cost them dominance in the console sector is very silly. They never planned for a massive decline in the playstation brand, it just happened. Blu-ray was meant to help the PS3 as much as the playstation brand was meant to help Blu-ray. Sadly it didn't go both ways.

I disagree.

Here's my theory: Business-wise, what's better for Sony in the long term? Doing well for another game console generation for 6 years, or establishing dominance of the entire home video industry for far longer? They decide the latter, they say "fine, we'll put a cutting edge technology on the PS3". You stick a high-end (for its time) Blu-ray player that boosts its price to very high prices, now they have to sell it using the "posh, high-end premium hardware" angle. So that's how they play it. They stick in an exchangeable hard drive, 6 USB ports, 2 HDMI ports, SD slot cards, touch buttons, an entire PS2 inside it, etc. to really make this obvious and justify the cost. In other words, they build the rest of the PS3 around the Blu-ray play because business-wise that's where the money is. Of course, they try to sell it as a gaming-related medium, playing the whole "good storage" angle, etc. They additionally take a hit (IIRC they sold the PS3 at a $400 loss initially) and bring Blu-Ray drives into as many homes as possible.

If you believe this, a lot of their other behaviors become all the more obvious. After Blu-ray "wins" the format wars, then they focus on the PS3 as a gaming console. They strip down the console little by little, trim back on everything from the HDMI ports, USB ports, touch controls, PS2 hardware, etc., and start aggressively dropping the price as much as they can. After all, if they were trying to sell the PS3 as a high-end device in the long haul they wouldn't have made the PS3 visibly cheaper later.

Now look where they are. PS3 is in "last place", but it's hardly Dreamcast'd. The console played a big role in making Blu-Ray the established next-gen video format, and now they can use the brand to focus on other things. Using it to drive 3D, for instance, is another one of their ventures although it's not as "invasive" to the console as Blu-Ray was.

So there's my theory. I know a lot of people like to think Sony went stupid, but honestly on a business sense Sony isn't stupid. They didn't get to this point in the industry if they made stupid decisions and they most definitely didn't put Blu-Ray in the PS3 for gaming purposes. I find my theory far more plausible than "Sony derped, now they're in last place".

[Deguello]

I don't think there's much chance that Sony will bow out of the console race. However, the likelihood of that is far greater than the likelihood of Nintendo bowing out.

Sony has essentially squandered an entire decade's worth of market leadership in a few years. They've pissed away the proceeds of both the PS1 and the PS2, and are in the red as far the history of their video game department is concerned, not just their whole company.

I do not foresee anybody bowing out next generation, but if we are talking about likelihoods, Sony far outpaces the other two. It's just facts and math.

[guek]

I disagree. Here's my theory: Business-wise, what's better for Sony in the long term? Doing well for another game console generation for 6 years, or establishing dominance of the entire home video industry for far longer? They decide the latter, they say "fine, we'll put a cutting edge technology on the PS3". You stick a high-end (for its time) Blu-ray player that boosts its price to very high prices, now they have to sell it using the "posh, high-end premium hardware" angle. So that's how they play it. They stick in an exchangeable hard drive, 6 USB ports, 2 HDMI ports, SD slot cards, touch buttons, an entire PS2 inside it, etc. to really make this obvious and justify the cost. In other words, they build the rest of the PS3 around the Blu-ray play because business-wise that's where the money is. Of course, they try to sell it as a gaming-related medium, playing the whole "good storage" angle, etc. They additionally take a hit (IIRC they sold the PS3 at a $400 loss initially) and bring Blu-Ray drives into as many homes as possible. If you believe this, a lot of their other behaviors become all the more obvious. After Blu-ray "wins" the format wars, then they focus on the PS3 as a gaming console. They strip down the console little by little, trim back on everything from the HDMI ports, USB ports, touch controls, PS2 hardware, etc., and start aggressively dropping the price as much as they can. After all, if they were trying to sell the PS3 as a high-end device in the long haul they wouldn't have made the PS3 visibly cheaper later. Now look where they are. PS3 is in "last place", but it's hardly Dreamcast'd. The console played a big role in making Blu-Ray the established next-gen video format, and now they can use the brand to focus on other things. Using it to drive 3D, for instance, is another one of their ventures although it's not as "invasive" to the console as Blu-Ray was. So there's my theory. I know a lot of people like to think Sony went stupid, but honestly on a business sense Sony isn't stupid. They didn't get to this point in the industry if they made stupid decisions and they most definitely didn't put Blu-Ray in the PS3 for gaming purposes. I find my theory far more plausible than "Sony derped, now they're in last place".

You do understand that Sony doesn't own Blu-ray, right? My argument is that even if what you're saying is true, I don't think Sony anticipated slipping from market dominance as much as they have. Blu-ray is an important brand, but so is Playstation. Sony gains royalties from blu-ray sales, but only a fraction.

[AceBandage]

I disagree. Here's my theory: Business-wise, what's better for Sony in the long term? Doing well for another game console generation for 6 years, or establishing dominance of the entire home video industry for far longer? They decide the latter, they say "fine, we'll put a cutting edge technology on the PS3". You stick a high-end (for its time) Blu-ray player that boosts its price to very high prices, now they have to sell it using the "posh, high-end premium hardware" angle. So that's how they play it. They stick in an exchangeable hard drive, 6 USB ports, 2 HDMI ports, SD slot cards, touch buttons, an entire PS2 inside it, etc. to really make this obvious and justify the cost. In other words, they build the rest of the PS3 around the Blu-ray play because business-wise that's where the money is. Of course, they try to sell it as a gaming-related medium, playing the whole "good storage" angle, etc. They additionally take a hit (IIRC they sold the PS3 at a $400 loss initially) and bring Blu-Ray drives into as many homes as possible. If you believe this, a lot of their other behaviors become all the more obvious. After Blu-ray "wins" the format wars, then they focus on the PS3 as a gaming console. They strip down the console little by little, trim back on everything from the HDMI ports, USB ports, touch controls, PS2 hardware, etc., and start aggressively dropping the price as much as they can. After all, if they were trying to sell the PS3 as a high-end device in the long haul they wouldn't have made the PS3 visibly cheaper later. Now look where they are. PS3 is in "last place", but it's hardly Dreamcast'd. The console played a big role in making Blu-Ray the established next-gen video format, and now they can use the brand to focus on other things. Using it to drive 3D, for instance, is another one of their ventures although it's not as "invasive" to the console as Blu-Ray was. So there's my theory. I know a lot of people like to think Sony went stupid, but honestly on a business sense Sony isn't stupid. They didn't get to this point in the industry if they made stupid decisions and they most definitely didn't put Blu-Ray in the PS3 for gaming purposes. I find my theory far more plausible than "Sony derped, now they're in last place".

Sony definitely went stupid.
Their marketing for most of the PS3's life and all of the PSP's life was horrendous.
It appealed to NO ONE.
Their software support on the PSP was basically non-existant as far as big titles go. The PS3 was far too hard to program for, and with no good reason.

They won in the fact that they pushed their BluRay agenda, but is that really winning?
They're still losing millions (billions?) and streaming movies is becoming larger each month.

[EatinOlives]

You do understand that Sony doesn't own Blu-ray, right? My argument is that even if what you're saying is true, I don't think Sony anticipated slipping from market dominance as much as they have. Blu-ray is an important brand, but so is Playstation. Sony gains royalties from blu-ray sales, but only a fraction.

Like you said, they still get royalties. Again, what do you think brings them more money in the long run: a good console generation, or Blu-ray royalties from the entire home video industry?

Remember that Sony's a very, very large corporation. Their strategic actions of one division aren't always done solely to benefit that division, and if we look at the PS3 from a tunnel-vision perspective of only gaming, it makes simply no sense. And it makes no sense to accept that perspective and insist that Sony just "derped". Building the PS3 around Blu-Ray to secure dominance of that format in the home video industry, once more, sounds more plausible than Sony just seemingly fucking up because they wanted a nice-looking console. That just makes no sense.

[guek]

Like you said, they still get royalties. Again, what do you think brings them more money in the long run: a good console generation, or Blu-ray royalties from the entire home video industry?

A healthy playstation brand, without question. They don't own Blu-ray! It was a joint venture with something like a dozen companies iirc.

Also, while I think there's merit to the claim that sony isn't completely idiotic on the basis that they're a massive corporation, they've obviously been doing something wrong for the better part of the last decade. The company is currently in the toilet.

Building the PS3 around Blu-Ray to secure dominance of that format in the home video industry, once more, sounds more plausible than Sony just seemingly fucking up because they wanted a nice-looking console. That just makes no sense.

It makes sense if you think back to the tenor of the industry back in 2006. Everyone thought the playstation brand was invincible. Even with $599 US DOLLARS on the table, people thought PS3 would eventually dominate its competitors, including Sony. Practically NO ONE predicted the decline the playstation brand.

[EatinOlives]

A healthy playstation brand, without question. They don't own Blu-ray! It was a joint venture with something like a dozen companies iirc. Also, while I think there's merit to the claim that sony isn't completely idiotic on the basis that they're a massive corporation, they've obviously been doing something wrong for the better part of the last decade. The company is currently in the toilet.

Methinks you don't know how much money an established storage format brings in. It's just a leetle more than "winning" a console generation. Not owning Blu-Ray doesn't nullify that. The royalties are still a better return in the long term.

It makes sense if you think back to the tenor of the industry back in 2006. Everyone thought the playstation brand was invincible. Even with $599 US DOLLARS on the table, people thought PS3 would eventually dominate its competitors, including Sony. Practically NO ONE predicted the decline the playstation brand.

You don't see how that momentum could've very well been used to further the Blu-Ray format in its stead? Really?

At any rate, that's my theory. You guys can believe your "Sony's stupid, let's all point and laugh" theory, I'll believe mine.

[Hiltz]

I wonder when the Wii is finally going to hit $99. I'm surprised it's still at $150, though it does come packaged with NSMBWii. I wonder if they'd be making a loss at $99...

Wii sales are not so hot these days but the platform did slightly outsell the PS3 for 5 months in 2011 (Jan,Feb,May,July, and December) and apparently tied sales in one month and another month PS3 won by just 3K more units. January 2012 sales were pretty bad. 360 sold more than the Wii and PS3 combined.With a significant lack of Wii software in 2011 and again this year (based on what we know so far), Nintendo may end up doing another price cut before the holiday season.

[snesfreak]

It makes sense if you think back to the tenor of the industry back in 2006. Everyone thought the playstation brand was invincible. Even with $599 US DOLLARS on the table, people thought PS3 would eventually dominate its competitors, including Sony. Practically NO ONE predicted the decline the playstation brand.

I did, but I wasn't on GAF at the time.

[AceBandage]

Methinks you don't know how much money an established storage format brings in. It's just a leetle more than "winning" a console generation. Not owning Blu-Ray doesn't nullify that. The royalties are still a better return in the long term. At any rate, that's my theory. You guys can believe your "Sony's stupid, let's all point and laugh" theory, I'll believe mine.

Obviously not enough...

Wii sales are not so hot these days but the platform did slightly outsell the PS3 for 5 months in 2011 (Jan,Feb,May,July, and December) and apparently tied sales in one month and another month PS3 won by just 3K more units. January 2012 sales were pretty bad. 360 sold more than the Wii and PS3 combined.With a significant lack of Wii software in 2011 and again this year (based on what we know so far), Nintendo may end up doing another price cut before the holiday season.

It'll be $99 by the end of the summer. No question.

[Shin Johnpv]

No, the vita is showing the only option to stay in the handheld game. What else can they do? Release a device similar to the 3DS at a lower cost (than the vita currently is)? And what? Get fucking devoured by the 3DS. Release a lower cost device, maybe something not so traditional, and then what? Get devoured by smartphones/3DS again. The Vita, contrary to what people realize, is pretty much their only option. It's their only differentiator. It's the best option. The fact that it happens to be the best option isn't a testament to Sony making poor decisions, it's a testament to the state of handheld gaming. And price drop being a moderate help? What planet have you been on lately. The price drop + the revamped marketing campaign that came with it propelled the console into its rebound. They've outsold the 360 every year since then haven't they? Save the latest year I believe. But back to the Vita. Sony had 2 options, release a device like that and RISK failing in the handheld market, but also a chance to appeal to the west. Or, release a device along the lines of other handhelds like the 3DS and ipod touch and then what? Get devoured by those because there'd be no reason to get the Sony one. Or the final option, not release a handheld system at all....not easy.

Or they could have made a moderate priced handheld that stood out because of the software it offered. Games are still king. The DS didn't beat the PSP because it was cheaper, it won because of games. Set yourself apart through what people can play on your system.

[Instro]

Methinks you don't know how much money an established storage format brings in. It's just a leetle more than "winning" a console generation. Not owning Blu-Ray doesn't nullify that. The royalties are still a better return in the long term.

Sony makes next to nothing from Blu-ray royalties.

[Rösti]

I'm utterly blown away that people are doubting a next playstation lol. Jeebus christ.

Considering the current status of Sony's economy, it's kinda difficult to discuss any potential next generation plans of Mr. Ridge Racer & Co in a somewhat sensible way. Either you have a normal profit model as base, where gross operating rates will however be a common denominator; or we could see Sony go the same route as with PS3 and detail a model with high R & D expenditures. The latter I doubt however, as Sony probably is seeking to improve its creditworthiness and there could be problems for it to withstand major market movements during development and close after launch of a system of the same caliber as PS3. I don't doubt they will create a new system though, but I understand why some people have doubt. Personally I think it could be wise for Sony Computer Entertainment to overlook its current strategy regarding path dependency; they ran a great course between between 1994-2005 (excluding Cell Broadband Engine development).

As for the Wii U there's not much to say at the moment. I'm expecting a firm reply from Jerald Nagae next week regarding the Wii U trademark issues. He will be back in office on Monday. I'm also contemplating digging some in Panasonic's potential involvement in the making of the Wii U discs. I theorized previously in this thread that the discs for Wii could be based on the ADA discs from Panasonic, as the format (120mm) correlates to what Nintendo mentioned at E3 2011, and max data transfer speed (144 Mbps) is appropriate for next generation: http://panasonic.net/avc/media/ada/lineup.html

Panasonic has been Nintendo's closest partner regarding media discs for Gamecube and Wii, for those that didn't know.

[guek]

Methinks you don't know how much money an established storage format brings in. It's just a leetle more than "winning" a console generation. Not owning Blu-Ray doesn't nullify that. The royalties are still a better return in the long term.

Well obviously either I'm underestimating or you're overestimating. Until someone brings up actual numbers, I think you can put your overconfidence aside. I will say though that my stance is based on the fact that sony is continually hemorrhaging money, so clearly a partial stake in Blu-ray isn't miraculously saving them at the moment.

You don't see how that momentum could've very well been used to further the Blu-Ray format in its stead? Really?

Read my comments. I said I think it's possible, just not to the extent that Sony anticipated. I find the idea that this is exactly how sony planned things to happen quite implausible.

At any rate, that's my theory. You guys can believe your "Sony's stupid, let's all point and laugh" theory, I'll believe mine.

Misrepresenting and belittling another person's argument is going to do you any favors. It just makes you come across as childish. There's a huge difference between saying "durr, sony is stoopid," and claiming that a large tech company that's been losing billions of dollars annually may have made some missteps.

[TunaLover]

The company is currently in the toilet.

Panasonic and Sharp are in worst position than Sony, and I think they have chances of turning things around. It's really mindblowing than companies with that huge holes still can survive, but it seems they can.

Heck, I think that Sony can afford a Vita bomb too *sigh* =/

[AceBandage]

Panasonic and Sharp are in worst position than Sony, and I think they have chances of turning things around. It's really mindblowing than companies with that huge holes still can survive, but it seems they can.

Too big to fail, basically.
Despite getting a new, lower, credit rating, they can still borrow a lot of money, and have a ton of investors.
But they also have an insane amount of debt. Something Nintendo will never have (as long as people like Yamauchi and Iwata run it).

[Sadist]

Is it known which company will make the Wii U discs?

[AceBandage]

Is it known which company will make the Wii U discs?

As Rosti said, it's likely Panasonic, as they've been doing it for Nintendo for a while now.

[AzaK]

If they did that then developers can't actually use the subscreen. Playing on the controller is cool, but this would seriously limit design.

I'm not so sure though. I understand this is a dangerous area to get into; controlling what devs can and can't do and I wouldn't expect Nintendo to enter into that lightly.

I guess what I was trying to communicate is that if the majority of games end up requiring dual screen play, that will severely limit the advantage of being able to play while someone uses the telly; something Nintendo is promoting in their videos. The "telly off play" feature can be made more practical if devs are encouraged (Rather strongly) to allow players to play with both.

If Nintendo says "do what you want", I'm sure devs will be throwing HUDS only on that Subscreen and not bothering to implement a "put hud and game on subscreen" mode. That would be something I would find disappointing.

[Shin Johnpv]

Methinks you don't know how much money an established storage format brings in. It's just a leetle more than "winning" a console generation. Not owning Blu-Ray doesn't nullify that. The royalties are still a better return in the long term.

Sony shares what little is made off licencing of bluray with 17 companies. Besides the fact that of the 17 companies Sony doesn't even own the most patents or largest "share" of it, that would go to Panasonic.

The best info I can find about what is paid per disc, shows about 20 cents of each disc sold going to patents. With the majority of that going to Panasonic, on a HIGH estimate, Sony is only making a couple cents per bluray sold. The other per disc cost, that again goes to all of the BR group is 4 cents per disc. From what I remember of an older Forbes article they make about 7 - 10 DOLLARS per PS3 game sold.

So even if they made HALF of the patents fee on Bluray, 100x as many blurays as PS3 games would need to be sold, just for them to MATCH what they make off game sales.

Having a first place console that sold a ton of software would make them more money, than what bluray will make in that time period. Maybe if Bluray lasts 30 years it might be different, but I don't know if it will.


*edit*

If some one can find better sources or better amounts go right ahead. Those where the best values I could find.

[guek]

Sony shares what little is made off licencing of bluray with 17 companies. Besides the fact that of the 17 companies Sony doesn't even own the most patents or largest "share" of it, that would go to Panasonic. The best info I can find about what is paid per disc, shows about 20 cents of each disc sold going to patents. With the majority of that going to Panasonic, on a HIGH estimate, Sony is only making a couple cents per bluray sold. The other per disc cost, that again goes to all of the BR group is 4 cents per disc. From what I remember of an older Forbes article they make about 7 - 10 DOLLARS per PS3 game sold. So even if they made HALF of the patents fee on Bluray, 100x as many blurays as PS3 games would need to be sold, just for them to MATCH what they make off game sales. Having a first place console that sold a ton of software would make them more money, than what bluray will make in that time period. Maybe if Bluray lasts 30 years it might be different, but I don't know if it will. *edit* If some one can find better sources or better amounts go right ahead. Those where the best values I could find.

Thanks for chiming in with actual numbers. It always annoys me when actual data exists that could prove or disprove an argument that isn't brought up. I was too lazy to search for it myself though >_<

[antonz]

Sony shares what little is made off licencing of bluray with 17 companies. Besides the fact that of the 17 companies Sony doesn't even own the most patents or largest "share" of it, that would go to Panasonic. The best info I can find about what is paid per disc, shows about 20 cents of each disc sold going to patents. With the majority of that going to Panasonic, on a HIGH estimate, Sony is only making a couple cents per bluray sold. The other per disc cost, that again goes to all of the BR group is 4 cents per disc. From what I remember of an older Forbes article they make about 7 - 10 DOLLARS per PS3 game sold. So even if they made HALF of the patents fee on Bluray, 100x as many blurays as PS3 games would need to be sold, just for them to MATCH what they make off game sales. Having a first place console that sold a ton of software would make them more money, than what bluray will make in that time period. Maybe if Bluray lasts 30 years it might be different, but I don't know if it will. *edit* If some one can find better sources or better amounts go right ahead. Those where the best values I could find.

Your numbers seem pretty accurate to what I recall. Would take something like 75 billion Blu Ray discs sold just to make back close to the amount of money the PS3 lost the company. Of course players and stuff net them more money but the general idea is as you say Blu Ray will never make up for what it cost sony.

[HylianTom]

You'd think come next gen, Sony will sit back a bit. You would imagine that they'll produce a moderately powerful system which is competitive but does nothing special technically. It'd have similar control schemes to the other two, and on top of this it'll have a a nice innovative feature which is central to the system. This would all be backed by a good, solid and modern service. This console would act as an intermediate while they get back on their feet and it'd be open to lots of room for upgrade with subsequent redesigns. Instead, what will we see? They're probably going to (again) build the most ridiculously powerful system that they possibly can, charge about four and a half grand for it, it'll launch with a new Killzone game which scores 58 on Metacritic and PSN will go down on launch day. Get it together Sony.

I'll say it aloud: I'd rather Sony not get it together and Nintendo end-up having Japan essentially to themselves.

After all the shit they and their fans have flung over the past decade-and-a-half.. yes.

[AceBandage]

I'll say it aloud: I'd rather Sony not get it together and Nintendo have Japan essentially to themselves.

Well, that looks to be the case, either way.
The 3DS will become the dominate system in Japan unless Sony does something drastic.
And I don't mean a price cut.
They need games. Big games. Lots of them. Now.

[snesfreak]

I'll say it aloud: I'd rather Sony not get it together and Nintendo end-up having Japan essentially to themselves. After all the shit they and their fans have flung over the past decade-and-a-half.. yes.

Yep, I liked Sony better when the only game hardware they made was the SPC700.

[blu]

I'll say it aloud: I'd rather Sony not get it together and Nintendo end-up having Japan essentially to themselves. After all the shit they and their fans have flung over the past decade-and-a-half.. yes.

Petty fanwars cannot be a good reason for anybody to wish Sony's exit from the console market. For a healthy market you need variety. Nintendo might be the strongest consoles company with the best track record in the industry but they alone cannot make sure the market stays healthy - nobody is immune to mistakes. For everybody's sake, I hope Sony pulls it together.

[Alistair Roo]

^ It's a shame Panasonic, Sanyo and LG quitted the videogame industry
after the Real 3DO fiasco

and the same goes to Sega