Support NeoGAF

[Captain Tuttle]

So they're figuring to make up the losses on games and overpriced peripherals.

Games will probably be $50-$60, that "storage solution" will be salty too. I think this thing could struggle if the games cost too much.

 

[JudgeN]

I would hope Sony learned its lesson that portable games can't be any higher then $40. Looking at the Vita it seems like developers are able to port there 360/PS3 engines over without to much trouble bring down the cost game production. I'm going to guess game price will stay the same $30-$40, I pray I'm correct.

 

[staticneuron]

Good in what way? I'm talking about sells here - In the only objective way I can think of, sales, Angry birds is better than most games recently released.
"Casuals" are what made the DS the monster it is today, with 140+ million in sells. When the DS and PSP launch there were no "Smartphones" in the current sense, The iPhone was announced in 2007! 3 years after the PSP. And it still took some time to the current mobile market to explode in the way that it has. And today, we have these kind of experiences on these things for a fraction of the price of what you paid for portable games on the PSP and DS. The "Casuals" won't care, we both agree - now the question is, will the "gamer" segment care, and is this segment even big enough to support a console being sold at a loss. We can't know that yet, but if you look at the future, like the nVidia Kal-El on mobile devices and devices like the Xperia Play and platforms like the PS Suite, it's clear where the wind are blowing even for some "gamers", but not only that - The Vita is now competing with the 3DS on this very small "gamers" segment.

Sorry about the "good" comment, I should have worded it better. What I meant by that was games made to cater to gamers and not to cash in on casuals. And yea you mentioned before that the DS was catered to casuals but the PSP was not. It wasn't even priced in a range for casuals to even look at in terms of an impulse purchase. The PSP made it to 70 million. That is not thanks to casuals. The biggest selling titles, the cost, the narrow appeal and the attach rate all prove that there is a market for this device and no matter how many examples you prove that the casuals attention might stray from the nintendo franchise, you still haven't come up with a point to counter the PSP success which also supports the idea that the PSVita will also survive on its own.

The PSP sold half the DS, that's what I mean by "lost". I admit that the PSP catered mostly to the "gamers" segment - but the fact that they sold 70 million units is in no way proof catering only to the "gamers" segment will result in 70 million sells. We'll have to see how the thing will turn out, but I don't expect it selling anywhere near the amounts we saw this gen - And I still have strong worries about Sony's ability to return the investment if they are indeed selling at a loss.

Why? What makes you reasonably think that at any point in its life, the PSP was actually the best choice for a casual? Even for an impulse purchase?

No industry is forcing anything down anybody's throat. This is a direct response to consumers decisions. 3D is a buzzword for a reason. This is from someone who can't watch a 3D movie without bleeding from my eyes.
I think Sony would have done better for themselves if they made something that felt "right" for it's era. The Vita is a successor to the PSP in many ways, just as the 3DS is a successor to the DS, and I don't think people have interest in these devices any more.
I am not enamored with anything - I'm looking around me, and I see kids playing Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja on their iPhones instead of Pokemon. They don't want a Vita for their birthdays - They want an iPad. That's the future, and people should adapt to it.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. The movie industry and various electronic companies made this push. Even if you are going to use avatar as an example. Avatar came out in December 2009 and during CES 2010 (not even a full month later) Sony, LG, Toshiba, Samsung, Panasonic and others showcased their new 3D tv's. Movies pushed this and it is obvious the major electronic corps were in on it and obviously did the R&D to follow up the movie industry with their attempts. In 2010 there were only 4 million 3d TV's sold WW iirc and there was a stronger push during the year not only in terms of content but also for new TV tech.

The reason I talk about this is because Nintendo made such strides in the industry by guiding how tech is used and implemented, The DS, the Wii and what they were trying to do with the 3DS is open a venue in the gaming industry that is cost effective for them and unexplored by their competitors at the time.

Sony's success has been based on releasing the most powerful tech at the time taking a loss on the hardware and raking it all back in on software sales I imagine once they hit 50+ million units sold on any device with a tie ratio of 4 and above, they would be in a good spot.

 

[padlock]

Almost as much as I love Sony fan retards, I'd wager.

That being said, I do think Nintendo fucked up by pricing the 3DS at 250, it left them wide open for Sony to come in and do this. If they had priced it at 199, Sony would not have been able to pull this stunt.

Now Nintendo will have a hard time cutting the price of the 3DS without looking a bit desperate.

3DS will be fine. All Nintendo has to do is pack in a good game (Mario Kart or Starfox would probably work) around the holidays when the PSV gets released, and they'll sell extremely well.

 

[dude]

Sorry about the "good" comment, I should have worded it better. What I meant by that was games made to cater to gamers and not to cash in on casuals. And yea you mentioned before that the DS was catered to casuals but the PSP was not. It wasn't even priced in a range for casuals to even look at in terms of an impulse purchase. The PSP made it to 70 million. That is not thanks to casuals. The biggest selling titles, the cost, the narrow appeal and the attach rate all prove that there is a market for this device and no matter how many examples you prove that the casuals attention might stray from the nintendo franchise, you still haven't come up with a point to counter the PSP success which also supports the idea that the PSVita will also survive on its own.

Why? What makes you reasonably think that at any point in its life, the PSP was actually the best choice for a casual? Even for an impulse purchase?

I have many reasons to believe a lot of the PSP sales were not by people like you and me. They were kids, teenagers and the like - not the "gamer" segment we talked about, but not the mothers or older people most people think about when mentioning "casuals". These people, while they might have quite enjoyed the PSP, are now playing on mobile devices. I'm also saying that by the time these 3 years have passed even the "gamers" segment will find itself on mobile devices - Look at the Kal-El video I sent, look at the Xperia Play and the PlayStation Suite. If the Vita feels somewhat irrelevant now, in 3 years it'll be a relic of past times.
I'm not saying it'll happen over night or that Vita will start as a flop - but we won't see numbers like 70 million in sells anymore, let alone 140 million, and if Sony is selling this thing at a loss - they're in quite a bit of danger of not returning the investment. There might be a couple of years of grace for dedicated portable gaming, until the tech really hits off on the mobile devices, but betting on three years seems way too risky to me.
This is, I think, the last generation of portable gaming as we know it. The future, for Sony for example, is PlayStation Suite. Nintendo should really be thinking about their's, or they'll find themselves in a bad place.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. The movie industry and various electronic companies made this push. Even if you are going to use avatar as an example. Avatar came out in December 2009 and during CES 2010 (not even a full month later) Sony, LG, Toshiba, Samsung, Panasonic and others showcased their new 3D tv's. Movies pushed this and it is obvious the major electronic corps were in on it and obviously did the R&D to follow up the movie industry with their attempts. In 2010 there were only 4 million 3d TV's sold WW iirc and there was a stronger push during the year not only in terms of content but also for new TV tech.

The reason I talk about this is because Nintendo made such strides in the industry by guiding how tech is used and implemented, The DS, the Wii and what they were trying to do with the 3DS is open a venue in the gaming industry that is cost effective for them and unexplored by their competitors at the time.

Sony's success has been based on releasing the most powerful tech at the time taking a loss on the hardware and raking it all back in on software sales I imagine once they hit 50+ million units sold on any device with a tie ratio of 4 and above, they would be in a good spot.

The push was because it was predicted that there will be a demand. This can't be "shoved down the throat" if no one is making you buy it. If no one buys 3D TVs, the "push" will die down as TV companies look for something else they think the consumer might want etc.
I don't know if the demand for 3D was really overblown, I don't know about TV sales (though I'm not that surprised to see not many 3D TVs were sold). But I do see 3D movies selling very well, and it seems many people are impressed by 3D.

But, Maybe foraying into 3D was the mistake Nintendo made, if indeed 3D is not as successful as it seems to be, and that's why people were unimpressed with the 3DS. I tend to believe that's not it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just feel like people are not interested in dedicated gaming devices as they used to be.

 

[_Xenon_]

3DS = 249
NGP = 249

I can't see there's any competition here. Now let's hope Sony won't stupid enough to release NGP 1000 NGP 2000 etc every year.

 

[FrankT]

Somewhat surprising but I'm sure they have learned something with the PS3 and the scale of loss isn't anywhere close as far as a percentage level. Being they are ramping up development of the PS4 in the next year with this and a PS3 price cut it might be tight for awhile. Hopefully not pushing them right back into loss territory.

 

[Gravijah]

3DS = 249
NGP = 249

I can't see there's any competition here. Now let's hope Sony won't stupid enough to release NGP 1000 NGP 2000 etc every year.

In handheld gaming, those refreshes actually seem to help sales.

 

[dude]

In handheld gaming, those refreshes actually seem to help sales.

Yeah, I was just about to say that this is actually the smartest thing they could do.
Yearly refreshes are important.

 

[staticneuron]

I have many reasons to believe a lot of the PSP sales were not by people like you and me. They were kids, teenagers and the like - not the "gamer" segment we talked about, but not the mothers or older people most people think about when mentioning "casuals". These people, while they might have quite enjoyed the PSP, are now playing on mobile devices. I'm also saying that by the time these 3 years have passed even the "gamers" segment will find itself on mobile devices - Look at the Kal-El video I sent, look at the Xperia Play and the PlayStation Suite. If the Vita feels somewhat irrelevant now, in 3 years it'll be a relic of past times.
I'm not saying it'll happen over night or that Vita will start as a flop - but we won't see numbers like 70 million in sells anymore, let alone 140 million, and if Sony is selling this thing at a loss - they're in quite a bit of danger of not returning the investment. There might be a couple of years of grace for dedicated portable gaming, until the tech really hits off on the mobile devices, but betting on three years seems way too risky to me.
This is, I think, the last generation of portable gaming as we know it. The future, for Sony for example, is PlayStation Suite. Nintendo should really be thinking about their's, or they'll find themselves in a bad place.

Well, I think the only reason people purchased the PSP was the games and again looking at sales I doubt there is an overlap as great as your suggesting between the people willing to us phones/tablets as gaming devices and to ignore a dedicated option.

I have seen the demo's for the next tegra's but the issue remains the same. Content and buttons. I have a sneaky suspicion sony will be just fine in the vita.

The push was because it was predicted that there will be a demand. This can't be "shoved down the throat" if no one is making you buy it. If no one buys 3D TVs, the "push" will die down as TV companies look for something else they think the consumer might want etc.
I don't know if the demand for 3D was really overblown, I don't know about TV sales (though I'm not that surprised to see not many 3D TVs were sold). But I do see 3D movies selling very well, and it seems many people are impressed by 3D.

But, Maybe foraying into 3D was the mistake Nintendo made, if indeed 3D is not as successful as it seems to be, and that's why people were unimpressed with the 3DS. I tend to believe that's not it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just feel like people are not interested in dedicated gaming devices as they used to be.

There is a difference between predict and create. And just like with HD, they are going to "remove" choice from the equation. It is like trying to purchase a CRT television anymore. They simply are not on shelves anymore. If you go out to purchase a TV now, your options are limited by what is offered. They did it to CRTs, they forced HD and mark my words, they are going to force 3D as well. if you want a new TV in the coming years it will be a 3D television. So even if you don't "care" about using 3D it will still support their talk about consumer adoption.

I personally think it is still "content" that harmed the 3DS but only time will tell, on all fronts.

 

[dude]

Well, I think the only reason people purchased the PSP was the games and again looking at sales I doubt there is an overlap as great as your suggesting between the people willing to us phones/tablets as gaming devices and to ignore a dedicated option.

I have seen the demo's for the next tegra's but the issue remains the same. Content and buttons. I have a sneaky suspicion sony will be just fine in the vita.

The Xperia Play has buttons.

But well, we'll have to see I guess - I stand by my words, I don't see a dedicated gaming platform having a justification in consumer's eyes.

There is a difference between predict and create. And just like with HD, they are going to "remove" choice from the equation. It is like trying to purchase a CRT television anymore. They simply are not on shelves anymore. If you go out to purchase a TV now, your options are limited by what is offered. They did it to CRTs, they forced HD and mark my words, they are going to force 3D as well. if you want a new TV in the coming years it will be a 3D television. So even if you don't "care" about using 3D it will still support their talk about consumer adoption.

I personally think it is still "content" that harmed the 3DS but only time will tell, on all fronts.

Sounds a bit like tinfoil hats. They killed CRTs for the same reason they killed horse chariots, black and white TVs, gramophones and dial phones - no one wants them anymore.
There's no reason for a company to not sell you something you want, and there's no reason for a company to manufacture something you don't want, when you're free to choose what to buy.

 

[TheExodu5]

This was pretty obvious. I said there was no way they would charge less than $399 for this...but I was wrong. I didn't expect them to go for another loss leader tactic.

 

[itxaka]

So if you wanna hurt Sony the best thing is to buy it on day one so they loss a lot of money!

Hear that anti-sony guys, here is your chance to crush sony!



Now on a more serious tone, are they sure they can sustain it? I mena, they will be involved into R&D for the PS4 during 2 of those years and will have to sell it for a loss as well unless they want the 599 US DOLLARS fiasco to happen again.

What happens if it sells like shit? Or it's software doesn't sell enough?

As they say, looks like too many egss on the same basket.

 

[Vinci]

I have never seen a company so adamant on playing Russian roulette with its future. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[richiek]

They've always done this and Microsoft does this, but every time GAF acts like it is some new and crazy idea. They just can't seem to wrap their heads around it. Was it not painfully obvious when they announced the price that is was selling at a loss? Consider how much smart phone hardware costs when it isn't subsidized in a contract and then consider how much better the components are in the psv. Pachter needs to break this down for the kiddos.

I thought that the consensus was that MS & Sony need to move away from the "razor blade model" of selling consoles at a loss to remain viable in the video game market.

 

[The Technomancer]

I have never seen a company so adamant on playing Russian roulette with its future. Utterly ridiculous.

Thats really what this comes down to me. Its insanely risky after they blew all of their PS2 money.

 

[Esch]

3 years is a long time

 

[Faxanadu]

Newsflash. Normal people don't give a fuck what things cost the companies they buy from. They buy things based on perceived value. By underpricing Sony is creating value, by overpricing Nintendo is destroying it.

Thats not hypocrisy, thats common sense.

You make sense but that's not how some of the posters are portraying that.

No people don't like paying 250 for old and dated hardware, but people don't mind paying 250 for advanced forward thinking hardware.

Go figure.

Dated compared to what other glassless 3D dedicated gaming portable currently on the market?

 

[Vinci]

I thought that the consensus was that MS & Sony need to move away from the "razor blade model" of selling consoles at a loss to remain viable in the video game market.

When the result of this business model applied to a system like the PS3 is that it amounted to zeroing out all of Sony's prior success in the industry, then yes, it would probably have been wise to at least keep the amount of time selling at a loss to a minimum - say, a year or so. Three fucking years is insane when you factor in that they have no idea how this is going to sell, whether they'll be forced to drop price on it faster than anticipated due to market pressure, have no idea if another economic collapse could take place.

They are literally putting the company and its employees at great risk.

 

[Angry Fork]

This is contradictory to what has been said time and time again.

PS1 and PS2 were both sold at a loss and recuperated, PS3 is the only one that fucked up for them. I will be supporting Vita day one, shit is monstrous and Nintendo needs a smack in the head to get them straight.

Dated compared to what other glassless 3D dedicated gaming portable currently on the market?

Nobody wants to spend 250$ for a gimmick either.

 

[Callibretto]

You make sense but that's not how some of the posters are portraying that.



Dated compared to what other glassless 3D dedicated gaming portable currently on the market?

dated compare to Vita... 3DS reception when it was first revealed is crazy right, way better than PSP visual, some are even saying it's better than Wii or something. some people says PSP2 is fucked because we expect PSP2 visual would be around this level, so 3DS will have the advantage or even playing field as PSP2 while still have it's dual screen and touch advantage. it just sucks for them that NGP is revealed with even better graphic and with all the input device you can think of, and as the only competitor in dedicated handheld device, it's no wonder they got compared. and then MGS3D footage show up and people calling downgrade, then comparison to PS2 appear and some people think PS2 looks better.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

I have never seen a company so adamant on playing Russian roulette with its future. Utterly ridiculous.

Thats really what this comes down to me. Its insanely risky after they blew all of their PS2 money.

That's pretty much what I thought when I saw "PS Vita for $249". Though I can't really blame this decision, the traditional handheld market is shrinking and if the PSV has any chance of being profitable I don't see much other choice at this point (except maybe sell it for $600 to a small number of Sony diehards).

I'm more interested in who let the PSP/3 people design it in the first place given this had to be pretty apparent years ago?

 

[Curufinwe]

I have never seen a company so adamant on playing Russian roulette with its future. Utterly ridiculous.

You must mean gaming company, because there's a huge list of companies who have behaved far more riskily than Sony is doing. AIG for starters.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0470889802/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[Faxanadu]

Nobody wants to spend 250$ for a gimmick either.

Rear touchpad is not a gimmick?

 

[Corky]

Rear touchpad is not a gimmick?

1 feature doesn't make the entire thing a gimmick...

Several does.

 

[Plinko]

3DS = 249
NGP = 249

I can't see there's any competition here. Now let's hope Sony won't stupid enough to release NGP 1000 NGP 2000 etc every year.

Just looking at that, no there isn't any competition. Hands down, Vita wins.

Now, take into account memory storage costs (which it is reasonable to assume where Sony will be recouping some of the loss) and the possibility that games will be higher than $40. The shifts the entire balance for the average consumer.

 

[corporate cheerleader]

Just looking at that, no there isn't any competition. Hands down, Vita wins.

Now, take into account memory storage costs (which it is reasonable to assume where Sony will be recouping some of the loss) and the possibility that games will be higher than $40. The shifts the entire balance for the average consumer.

Yeah, downloading NGP games doesn't sound so great when you consider the possible amount of storage they take and the price of the memory cards.

 

[Vinci]

That's pretty much what I thought when I saw "PS Vita for $249". Though I can't really blame this decision, the traditional handheld market is shrinking and if the PSV has any chance of being profitable I don't see much other choice at this point (except maybe sell it for $600 to a small number of Sony diehards).

If your company is unable to design an appealing system that is intelligently constructed to keep costs down, while also providing your company a high likelihood of profit, then your company is in deep shit. As much as I can appreciate what the VITA brings to the table, it's obviously too ahead of its time and should never have been designed in such a way if it was necessary for the company to lose money for three straight years.

You would think after the PS3 fiasco Sony would have learned something, but apparently not.

EDIT: And quit scoring 'value' based on component cost and/or technology of gaming handhelds. It's not that simple.

 

[Zoe]

They said "within three years" not "three years straight."

And selling at a loss has worked for them 75% of the time.

 

[The Lamp]

I would hope Sony learned its lesson that portable games can't be any higher then $40. Looking at the Vita it seems like developers are able to port there 360/PS3 engines over without to much trouble bring down the cost game production. I'm going to guess game price will stay the same $30-$40, I pray I'm correct.

Hell no. 3DS games are $50 and they can't even be as big or powerful as Vita games probably will be

 

[btkadams]

Yeah, I was just about to say that this is actually the smartest thing they could do.
Yearly refreshes are important.

lol i don't think they are ever yearly. but yeah handheld refreshes are probably what gets handheld sales so high. i'm one person and i've had 3 DSs and 3 PSPs.

 

[Wazzim]

Yeah well good luck, one security/marketing/line up mistake and they'll have a huge problem because Nintendo will sell millions with their Mario/Zelda rehashes. They always do.

 

[Vinci]

They said "within three years" not "three years straight."

And selling at a loss has worked for them 75% of the time.

Selling at a profit has worked for Nintendo every single time, and they've lasted in this industry longer than anyone. This isn't by chance.

 

[TheExecutive]

This seems like an incredibly conservative estimate. These are off the shelf parts after all...

 

[funkystudent]

hope whatever loss they are making on the HW can be offset by a reasonable amount of software sales.


heck if they can make money off the ps3 after the price it first cost to make they can turn around anything.

 

[McHuj]

Wow. It's not surprising that they're selling it at a loss, what I find surprising is that it will be three years before it's profitable. I thought they would be able to get the costs down much sooner.

 

[Mrbob]

Just looking at that, no there isn't any competition. Hands down, Vita wins.

Now, take into account memory storage costs (which it is reasonable to assume where Sony will be recouping some of the loss) and the possibility that games will be higher than $40. The shifts the entire balance for the average consumer.

I don't believe so. If people want cheap games they will buy iOS. Not 3DS. Also, I expect Sony to offer a better range of price points for games than Nintendo will on 3DS. PSN will be a lot more active with digital downloads that go from 1 to 15 dollars.

 

[TheExecutive]

Yeah well good luck, one security/marketing/line up mistake and they'll have a huge problem because Nintendo will sell millions with their Mario/Zelda rehashes. They always do.

All this means is that nintendo will reach the all important $150 mark first. Not a good thing for Sony- like I said in another post i believe they will be profitable before then though.

 

[Vinci]

hope whatever loss they are making on the HW can be offset by a reasonable amount of software sales.


heck if they can make money off the ps3 after the price it first cost to make they can turn around anything.

They haven't.

Wow. It's not surprising that they're selling it at a loss, what I find surprising is that it will be three years before it's profitable. I thought they would be able to get the costs down much sooner.

Yes, I could rationalize them selling it at a loss for a short timeframe. But almost three years?

 

[GenericUser]

i am ok with this. they can even keep the ps4 at bay, just keep pumping out games on vita.

certainly dont exactly know why i am saying this, maybe its just "good enough" for me.

 

[Drek]

When the PSP launched there were almost no 3d games on phones, it was before the first iPhone launched and before the mobile market exploded. It wasn't just a different world, it was a whole damn other universe in terms of mobile devices. You can't compare the PSP or the DS to today's landscape.

And there isn't a phone, tablet, etc. that will offer the graphical fidelity of the Vita. Which is what gamers want. If anything its advantage to that segment will be even more pronounced this time around since they're bringing real "gamer" games with a real "gamer" interface.

The PSP lost against the DS, why? What did the DS offer? It offerred Brain Age, Animal Crossing - it catered to the "blue ocean" market nintendo talked so much about, like women and older people. Where are those people getting these experiences now? On their pads, smartphones and the likes.

Does Sony care about that? Thats the real question. If they think moving 70 million PSPs was a success (which they've indicated they do) then their real goal is to just move more software with the Vita than they did with the PSP. They aren't going after the "blue ocean" who have moved on to their phones and tablets. They're going after the same gamers who bought the PSP.

Like you said, the PSP lost out to the DS because it couldn't touch the very demographic you are now painting as the "game changer" for handhelds.

I doubt Sony can achieve enough of a success to turn a profit with a console they're selling at a loss. But clearly, they're in a bind - They couldn't have sold it for more, 250$ is pushing the boundaries as is. They'll have to find very creative way to justify the Vita's existence in the eyes of consumers who are not you or me, and frankly, I can't think of a way for them to do that.

Why do you assume they're selling at a hardware loss? The quote was that it would be profitable in three years, i.e. all costs recouped. That means R&D. Which implicitly states that they're making money per unit, just not very much. Chances are that three year window even includes a price cut, much like Sony did with their PS3 projections.

And don't delude yourself, please, it's pathetic - The thing can't compete with the iPod anything. Even if it has more horsepower. People who are buying a product that competes with iOS products expects many features that Vita doesn't have (like apps). Sony can't market this device as a iOS competitor, they must go the Nintendo route and market it as something that can live along side your iOS device.

When I worked at Gamestop a while back I saw many people buy PSPs as an alternative to music and video players. The Vita only furthers the reason those people did that, a desire for high level game functionality.

It isn't going to be marketed as "the only device you need" but it can easily be marketed as an alternative device for teens, people who want "just a damn phone" (which is a growing market segment believe it or not) etc.. But most importantly its a gamer's system. The PSP moved 70 million units and those went almost entirely to "gamers" in a market where Nintendo dominated across the board, even within the "gamer" demographic. Now we see a relatively weaker Nintendo handheld (in terms of unique features, current library, and pricing) against a more competitively priced Vita with a large in place games service with PSN.

If Sony "only" sells 80 million Vitas with an attach rate two or three times that of the PSP I'm pretty sure they'll make a hell of a lot of money and chalk it up as a big success.

 

[longdi]

3DS = 249
NGP = 249

I can't see there's any competition here. Now let's hope Sony won't stupid enough to release NGP 1000 NGP 2000 etc every year.

Sony is awesome.
Nintendo is not.

 

[Dark Octave]

Crazy how Sony is selling it at a loss and some people still think $250 is too expensive.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

Just looking at that, no there isn't any competition. Hands down, Vita wins.

Now, take into account memory storage costs (which it is reasonable to assume where Sony will be recouping some of the loss) and the possibility that games will be higher than $40. The shifts the entire balance for the average consumer.

Don't forget games, Mario alone is worth $50 on the battlefield.

If your company is unable to design an appealing system that is intelligently constructed to keep costs down, while also providing your company a high likelihood of profit, then your company is in deep shit. As much as I can appreciate what the VITA brings to the table, it's obviously too ahead of its time and should never have been designed in such a way if it was necessary for the company to lose money for three straight years.

You would think after the PS3 fiasco Sony would have learned something, but apparently not.

EDIT: And quit scoring 'value' based on component cost and/or technology of gaming handhelds. It's not that simple.

Pretty much, I was getting at that in the follow on sentence that wasn't quoted.

 

[Vinci]

Why do you assume they're selling at a hardware loss? The quote was that it would be profitable in three years, i.e. all costs recouped. That means R&D.

Last I checked, companies do not factor R&D into these sort of discussions. They might be in this particular case, but Sales Age has commented on this issue several times in the past.

Crazy how Sony is selling it at a loss and some people still think $250 is too expensive.

What someone is willing to pay for an item is not determined based on component cost.

 

[Bending_Unit_22]

If Sony "only" sells 80 million Vitas with an attach rate two or three times that of the PSP I'm pretty sure they'll make a hell of a lot of money and chalk it up as a big success.

I would have made it 72 point font as well if I could.

with an attach rate two or three times that of the PSP

Uhhhhhh, ok.

 

[Majmun]

Sony haters should buy a PSV on launch and make Sony bleed money.

That being said. I don't hate Sony but I'll be buying a PSV on launch.

 

[StuBurns]

Sony haters should buy a PSV on launch and make Sony bleed money.

That being said. I don't hate Sony but I'll be buying a PSV on launch.

I remember people talking about that with PS3, get the best and cheapest bluray player, never buy a game. Sony is kindly throwing a couple of hundred dollars in there for you.

 

[gofreak]

If your company is unable to design an appealing system that is intelligently constructed to keep costs down, while also providing your company a high likelihood of profit, then your company is in deep shit. As much as I can appreciate what the VITA brings to the table, it's obviously too ahead of its time and should never have been designed in such a way if it was necessary for the company to lose money for three straight years.

They said less than 3 years, and I still think they were probably referring to it hitting hardware profitability sooner than PS3 did - which I think took 3 years. Without the context of the journalist's question it's hard to say.

But even if they did mean it could take up to 3 years to reach hardware profitability, I've little doubt the business overall will be profitable much sooner than that. It's fine to design things that make a loss on one end if the profits overall justify it.

 

[ToyBroker]

Selling at a profit has worked for Nintendo every single time, and they've lasted in this industry longer than anyone. This isn't by chance.

Because none of these companies were around lol.


You honestly think, going forward, Sony or Microsoft are going to close shop in video gaming? YA. FUCKING. RIGHT.


Gamers talking about all this business stuff is so ridiculous.