Infamous Chris
Banned
JWrong, showing that he simply hates Apple.
Nah, JWong just hates anything that competes and does better than Sony. Everyone knows this by now :lol
JWrong, showing that he simply hates Apple.
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'd guess a lot, from the amount of people that use it, and the amount of those that use premium items.How much money do Sony make every year from HOME?
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
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.
Would they continue making games, spaces, clothing, and premium items if they didnt make any money off of it?Has any third party gone on the record stating they have been profitable working with Home?
So if Sony eventually drops out of the gaming market... who do you think should replace them?
Has any third party gone on the record stating they have been profitable working with Home?
So if Sony eventually drops out of the gaming market... who do you think should replace them?
Even if Sony quits from making consoles they could still make games as third party, so some people wouldn´t need quit gaming altogether.
Nobody. We were fine with 2 main competitors.
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.I also was under the impression that Home was one of the least profitable parts of the PSN infrastructure.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/24/sonys-hirai-playstation-network-not-yet-profitable/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.
Sony will sell the Playstatoion brand to Samsung in 2015 or 2016
therr I said it
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.Nobody. We were fine with 2 main competitors.
Would they continue making games, spaces, clothing, and premium items if they didnt make any money off of it?
So if Sony eventually drops out of the gaming market... who do you think should replace them?
I thought Xbox Live had that demographic on lockdown...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.
JWong just had a stroke.Apple, duh.
Nobody. We were fine with 2 main competitors.
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
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.
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".Isn't their gaming/Playstation "division" actually doing well?
I thought Xbox Live had that demographic on lockdown...
Samsung Playstation doesn't have that nice a ring to it
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".
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.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.
Vita doesn't have a nice ring to it, but people accept it.
I dont
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.
I believe there are 18 different SKUs of the iPad.
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.
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 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.
I'm pretty sure it was primarily the $600 price point and the challenge of developing for Cell.
I would be interested in an Apple or Samsung console taking the place of Sony.
Other news stories imply that it is sold at a loss: -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
http://www.examiner.com/article/sony-to-sell-playstation-vita-for-a-loss-profitable-3yrsIn 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.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-06-09-how-sony-will-offset-loss-making-vitaSony 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.
Sony doooooooooooom, but IMO they're still the best company for gaming
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.