Support NeoGAF

[Clear]

While this is true for now I doubt that will be the case of the console over its lifetime. Unless Sony kills the PS3 completely after the PS4 launches (doubtful) the numbers attributed to it over its lifetime will be very different. Also since we are looking at the division as a whole it is possible that the PS3 isn't attributed to "all" the losses taken over the course of those reports.

The PS3 gets blamed for a lot of things that it isn't solely responsible for. The huge upfront costs into CELL and BD were projects that Sony had bigger aspirations for than just PS3, also you need to factor in the huge costs of building PSN and the rest of its related network services in the first place - that infrastructure is again about more than simply supporting PS3, and essentially is an independent entity.

The reality is simply that had Sony not seen an upside to the project in the long-term, they would have replaced it by this point.

 

[RedSwirl]

Actually, didn't Microsoft originally get into the console business in order to block Sony from getting into the OS business? From what I think I heard, Sony was thinking of moving into releasing an OS (to go along with Vaio I guess), so Microsoft came from the other direction and entered the console business... or something like that.

 

[yurinka]

The problem with PCs is that you're bound by OS: each version of the game has to be ported to every OS if you want maximum reach.

Thats what steam is learning the hard way. porting steam to multiple OS's cool! until you realise that only games made for that OS will be avaliable.

In addition to this, there is the fragmentation of the hardware. In console you make the game for 1 hardware and that lasts from 5 to 10 years. This can't be said in PC, where it's outdated really fast for gaming and you need to update your HW if you want run decently mid/high end games, which shrinks your userbase too much.

 

[staticneuron]

The PS3 gets blamed for a lot of things that it isn't solely responsible for. The huge upfront costs into CELL and BD were projects that Sony had bigger aspirations for than just PS3, also you need to factor in the huge costs of building PSN and the rest of its related network services in the first place - that infrastructure is again about more than simply supporting PS3, and essentially is an independent entity.

The reality is simply that had Sony not seen an upside to the project in the long-term, they would have replaced it by this point.

That is a good point. It does bring up some questions. How many devices outside of the PS3 had cells in them and was the cost to create the PSN completely counted in that division? Is SOE also apart of that?

Actually, didn't Microsoft originally get into the console business in order to block Sony from getting into the OS business? From what I think I heard, Sony was thinking of moving into releasing an OS (to go along with Vaio I guess), so Microsoft came from the other direction and entered the console business... or something like that.

I highly doubt that has any truth to it. And if Sony "DID" plan on getting into the OS business why would MS entering the console business stop them?

 

[TheBioLover]

No way. What a dumb idea.

 

[yurinka]

NOOOOOOOOOO

next thread idea:

should Microsoft go PC Only and Copy Steam?

They are trying to do it with the Windows 8 store.

 

[DiscoJer]

I highly doubt that has any truth to it. And if Sony "DID" plan on getting into the OS business why would MS entering the console business stop them?

Not so much the OS, but by making the box you connect to the TV able to do anything a computer could, it would make the computer (and thus Windows) redundant. Want to listen to music, watch videos (youtube or netflix), check email? Just use your TV and Sony console.

To a certain degree this has happened (see the popularity of Netflix on consoles), but I think no one (besides Apple) expected the tablet to take off, that's the real threat to MS - people are using it for web browsing, apps, and so forth, that was never likely going to happen on a TV.

 

[Sydle]

In addition to this, there is the fragmentation of the hardware. In console you make the game for 1 hardware and that lasts from 5 to 10 years. This can't be said in PC, where it's outdated really fast for gaming and you need to update your HW if you want run decently mid/high end games, which shrinks your userbase too much.

Not if the game is processed server side. Your hardware doesn't matter any more as long as it can display video.

That is a good point. It does bring up some questions. How many devices outside of the PS3 had cells in them and was the cost to create the PSN completely counted in that division? Is SOE also apart of that?



I highly doubt that has any truth to it. And if Sony "DID" plan on getting into the OS business why would MS entering the console business stop them?

It's true. MS thought that the PC was going to be more living-room centric for digital entertainment, with platforms that could potentially make the PC redundant, and Sony was clearly heading in the direction of wanting to take over the living room. If Sony succeeded without Windows on that platform then it could threaten the most lucrative platform in their business.

 

[staticneuron]

Not so much the OS, but by making the box you connect to the TV able to do anything a computer could, it would make the computer (and thus Windows) redundant. Want to listen to music, watch videos (youtube or netflix), check email? Just use your TV and Sony console.

To a certain degree this has happened (see the popularity of Netflix on consoles), but I think no one (besides Apple) expected the tablet to take off, that's the real threat to MS - people are using it for web browsing, apps, and so forth, that was never likely going to happen on a TV.

It's true. MS thought that the PC was going to be more living-room centric for digital entertainment, with platforms that could potentially make the PC redundant, and Sony was clearly heading in the direction of wanting to take over the living room. If Sony succeeded without Windows on that platform then it could threaten the most lucrative platform in their business.

I see what you guys are saying. I guess that made MS's move a smart one. Despite the Loss on the hardware, now one really has bad things to say about live (except for the complaints about price vs features).

 

[Raonak]

To be fair, the most popular games on Steam are all Valve games. That said, Mac + Linux players tend to make up <1% of a "PC multiplatform" game, so there is a disproportionate amount of effort needed to port things.

True, but for how long? especially the effect smartphones/tablets will have on the PC space, look windows8, plus not to mention steam is getting snuggly with linux. I mean, we are probably talking about a timeframe 5 years away. (end of PS4?)

 

[heyf00L]

Even if the PS division itself has been eating money, there's no doubt in my mind that the PS has helped push other Sony tech such as DVD, surround sound, HDTVs, Bluray, etc from which they make a lot of money. Of course it failed with UMD, but UMD was stupid.

 

[Plywood]

Meh, you'll get a thick skin. Don't let the haters wear you down. Live and learn.

Hanging on the edge of tomorrow.

 

[Meier]

Uhh what PS+ Platform? There is no PS+ without a PS3 or PSV to serve.

 

[Neuromancer]

That would be great for me and terrible for Sony. Their whole business is built on the idea of controlling the device sitting in your living room -- that includes both the hardware and the software.

Yep. Sorry OP but your idea just isn't plausible.

 

[MidgarBlowedUp]

I'm pretty happy with PS+.
Ended up having up get a bigger HD just to hold most of the stuff I got for free.
Now I need another Vita mem card too.

If anything Steam needs to add a service like PS+

 

[fallagin]

If sony's console business does at some point become non viable I do hope that they keep making games like Sega, there are alot of really good studios that they have and it would be a shame if all of their Ip dissapears.

If they did that right now though they would likely be undermining their consoles and handhelds, so that is not gonna happen.

 

[JDSN]

No you dolt, you got it all wrong, only Nintendo can go third party.

 

[IrishNinja]

counter-question: should sega buy ios? my sources say yes

 

[SSM25]

first post etc etc



They lost all of their PS1/2 profits with PS3. It's a massive failure. Having a successful quarter every now and then doesn't change anything.

Has MS made back all the billions they lost with the original xbox with the 360?

Sony aint going anywhere just yet.

 

[Nome]

True, but for how long? especially the effect smartphones/tablets will have on the PC space, look windows8, plus not to mention steam is getting snuggly with linux. I mean, we are probably talking about a timeframe 5 years away. (end of PS4?)

Right, so it's even more likely the top games on Steam will be Valve games, as everyone will be moving to separate delivery platforms.

 

[Loofy]

The PS3, followed the PS2, arguably the most successful game console ever and one with one best gaming libraries ever, and it lost marketshare, probably will never recoup its investment, and brand was damaged initially.

Meh. GM lost alot of marketshare to toyota, probably will never be number 1 again. That doesnt mean they should ditch making cars.
People seem to be pretending that the 360 and PS3 arent neck and neck worldwide.

 

[xJavonta]

No. Leave Steam to Valve.

 

[Atomski]

PC only ha.. they wouldnt survive as they would totally fuck it up.

Now if they released games on PS3 and PC I think this would help Sony as it would expand their market. It works for MS and many third party developers.

 

[Atomski]

In addition to this, there is the fragmentation of the hardware. In console you make the game for 1 hardware and that lasts from 5 to 10 years. This can't be said in PC, where it's outdated really fast for gaming and you need to update your HW if you want run decently mid/high end games, which shrinks your userbase too much.

People really over blow this.. my PC is 5 years old and I can still play recent stuff. Sure not on max.. but the games still look and run better than the console versions.

Dont be fooled you dont need to upgrade nearly as much as people try to make it out. Some PC gamers are hardware hobbyist as well and thus why they are always upgrading.. that hardly has anything to do with gaming but rather people pushing benchmarks.

 

[Wiktor]

I think ultimatelly they will have to, as console model seems to be heading to extinction. But it's not there yet, for now they should continue to make consoles. At the same time they need to be slowly expanding their pc presence just to be on the safe side. They do seem to be doing that though. I mean, as publisher Sony is supporting PC more than Microsoft does, which is kind of hilarious.

 

[OccamsBlender]

uhm sony is doing just fine, the vita when it went on sale on amazon sold out instantly so there is demand for it. Sony jus got to do the impossible and like drop price 30%+

LOL.

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/09/08/the-ten-year-decline-of-sony/

So much frightening stuff in that article...

 

[Schlachtor]

Should Sony Go PC Only?
Looking at the commercial failures of Ps3 .....

Mother of god.....

 

[Gully State]

No, but I'd love to see Uncharted being developed for high end PC hardware..

 

[Canis lupus]

Should Steam be Nintendo exclusive? They can still put it on pc you know.

 

[Fezan]

Sony should Develop for PC
Nintendo Should Develop for IOS
Xbox should develop for ??

 

[Mushroomer25]

In a future where the PS4 ultimately sinks an independent Playstation (who breaks free of Sony after a bankruptcy deal), then I could see PC development as a natural evolution of the brand. With a big enough push, they'd stand toe-to-toe with Valve.

 

[Pranay]

this one of the most dumb threads i have seen

However what Sony will do is that if you can buy a game from their psn the ie the PS version, you will able to stream at Vita and PC

 

[NemesisPrime]

Still don't know why people say the PS3 is a commerical failure. It's not lighting up the world like PS2 or PS1, but it has been very profitable.

Now you can say all you want about the Vita tho.

PS3 has not been profitable.

But yeah... it is doing pretty ok sales wise now.

 

[Pranay]

PS3 has not been profitable.

But yeah... it is doing pretty ok sales wise now.

Yes PS3 has been a financial disaster but it will rather carry a better momemtum now then what most would had predicted in its first 3 years.

 

[the TMO]

Should Sony beg for Steam on Ps4 and trash the PSN? Yes.

 

[Theonik]

Ok so they lost 5 billion on the xbox and another 2-3 billion when launching the 360?

That graph really makes it seem as if people really shouldn't be worried about what the PS3 is doing and more about what the PS4 and Xbox720 is going to do to those lines.

The difference is that MS has tens of billion of annual profit they traditionally like to throw down the drain so serve whatever purpose they like and views it as a long term investment while Sony can't afford to do that. MS has already given up on making back any of the money they lost on Xbox and considers it as an investment for breaking into the living room for example.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Looking at the phenomenonal success of PS+ and Steam, and the financial and commercial failures of Ps3 and PSV respectively, do you think Sony should expand their online retail market and put it on the PC and make game development more open to indies?

Sony could still sell hardware, but they'll be branded as streamlined PCs with the intent of playing games on the new PS+ platform.

I see many postives for this:
- Anyone with a mid to high end PC is a potential customer
- Can sell
- Future backward compatibility no longer and issue with new hardware as the architecture will be PC based.
- Can make games available on other networks
- Can use existing game streaming technology they bought to play old games
- No longer burden with a closed system that might struggle to sell games and make profit

The downsides is that Sony could lose presence in the retail chains like Walmart and best buy.

What are your thoughts?

No, never. They should not do that in a million years. Also, how is the PS3 a commercial when it supposedly sold about as many units as the X360 despite it coming out an entire year later. Yeah, they lost a ton of money on it, but haven't they been making profit on it for a while now?

 

[Sentenza]

Sony is basically a hardware company that use software to sell that hardware. What you say is contrary to Sony interest.

Except they are (well, they were) selling hardware at loss and making money out of their software sales.
Which would make their business model quite weird, if their aim was to generate profit out of the hardware.

 

[sixteen-bit]

Should Sony beg for Steam on Ps4 and trash the PSN? Yes.

Wait so why did they buy Gaikai?

 

[mrklaw]

first post etc etc



They lost all of their PS1/2 profits with PS3. It's a massive failure. Having a successful quarter every now and then doesn't change anything.

No they didn't. It's not like they put the PS1 profits in a giant piggy bank and had to break it open for PS3. You make profit in a year, great. Make a loss the next year, whatever. You don't measure success by overall profit or loss over multiple generations

 

[Someone47]

They should make their own OS for computers make games only for that. That way they would still have a strong brand attached to their games with out a console.

 

[params7]

PS3 still sold 70 MILLION+ units.

Why the fuck wouldn't Sony follow it up with Ps4? The maker of the most sold console of all time just can't exit the industry because their electronics and handheld markets are failing. No no no

 

[mr_toa]

this one of the most dumb threads i have seen

However what Sony will do is that if you can buy a game from their psn the ie the PS version, you will able to stream at Vita and PC

Exactly, given what we know about the PS4 hardware and Sony's purchase of Gaikai they've already made their play for the future with very PC-centric hardware and a streaming platform to reach the remainder of their audience.

 

[ghst]

No, never. They should not do that in a million years. Also, how is the PS3 a commercial when it supposedly sold about as many units as the X360 despite it coming out an entire year later. Yeah, they lost a ton of money on it, but haven't they been making profit on it for a while now?

i feel like the answer to this is in abundance in not only this thread, but all over this forum. there's just a part of your brain that doesn't want to hear it.

to this thread: no. i mean, it'd be great for gamers and all, but it's exactly the kind of service-based pragmatism which sony remains in stoic defiance of. there's a moderate chance that a bloated and expensive ps4 will be something of a self inflicted death blow, but it's a befitting end.

i want a one in a million shot, a blaze of glory. i want to see the millennium falcon consumed by the flames of the second death star. while my open platform head knows of the bounty that could be reaped (planetside 2 is a good time), my dogged traditionalist heart wants to see sony die the way they've always lived, like sega with the dreamcast or nintendo with the gamecube.

 

[dorkimoe]

They should focus more into their SOE games and put them ON steam.

If planetside 2 wasnt on steam, it wouldnt be half as successful as it is

 

[Bomber Bob]

Looking at the phenomenonal success of PS+

what?

 

[Melchiah]

PS3 has not been profitable.

But yeah... it is doing pretty ok sales wise now.

From this very thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44747906&postcount=136

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=44748219&postcount=146

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

No they didn't. It's not like they put the PS1 profits in a giant piggy bank and had to break it open for PS3. You make profit in a year, great. Make a loss the next year, whatever. You don't measure success by overall profit or loss over multiple generations

Even if you just look at PS3 on its own, according to that graph it has lost money for years. It's not just some blip on the report and hardly a "whatever" as you seem to put it.

Let's assume there was a blank slate going into the gen - Sony's gaming sector is all new and PS3 is their first effort. Even with that consideration, the graph will still show a big initial loss that they have still not fully recovered from.

A lot of this argument seems to revolve around semantics - yes, it is "making a profit" right now and has been for years... but making a profit does not mean it's profitable in the grand scheme of things!

If I lose £100 on a business, and then make a £20 profit the next year, yeah i've made a profit that year, but i'm still £80 down as a whole. My business is going to suffer as a result. I mean why else are Sony being relegated to "junk" status and why is there so much doom and gloom if they are making a profit? It's because they aren't profitable overall.

When I raise the comparison to the previous gen, it's more of an incidental (and slightly funny) observation of how much they have dipped in comparison to yesteryear. Looking at PS3 on it's own does not change much - it's still a failure.

 

[10k]

Still don't know why people say the PS3 is a commerical failure. It's not lighting up the world like PS2 or PS1, but it has been very profitable.

Now you can say all you want about the Vita tho.

Didn't start makin a profit till 2010.

 

[10k]

NOOOOOOOOOO

next thread idea:

should Microsoft go PC Only and Copy Steam?

brilliant

this gives me an idea for a third thread...

Screw it, I'll join the party.

"Should Nintendo become like Steam and go PC only?"