Sony Playstation Marketing: a quiet place in days gone?

You are overlooking some substantial Microsoft u-turns: Nokia/Windows Phone, PlaysForSure, Xbox One always online, vowing never to sell Xbox One without Kinnect. This week Microsoft announced their "always available" ebook store was closing.

Markets change and product strategies have to change with them. Stop readily gulping down what companies say and look at what companies do. I genuinely believe Microsoft are committed to their current strategy but I believed Apple was committed to delivering their Qi charger in 2018, the one they cancelled last week.
I’ve had some trouble responding here’s because it’s hard to separate commitment from communications to some degree. And as your write market changed and product strategies change as well. So while I can see how the relation between communications and commitment exists, such that we hold companies to the promises they communicate, the actual communication and commitment are two separate entities.

You can question the commitment a company has for a variety of reasons . But it doesn’t have to do with their communication strategy.

If I use your examples most of the issue is around the fact that MS has made large changes to their business. A lot of this as a result of the fact that their business plan was failing or a stark change in leadership occurred and they didn’t want MS heading in that direction further.

If I were to use your examples starting with Nokia; MS never communicated they were going into mobile. They were arrogant and didn’t think their walled garden strategy could ever fall especially to something like mobile.
By the time Balmer decided to get into mobile they lost the race. So they had to cancel. (For now).

Investors desperately pushed MS to come up with a mobile strategy because the leadership was not responding to changing marketing conditions. The purchase of Nokia was their move. And conditionally the failure of mobile was their exit.

Xbox One is a symptom of lack of communication, if they communicated that hey were going to go heavy on Kinect and TV well before reveal they would have found out quickly no one would have wanted it. An extra $100 peripheral with a weaker console, the only reasonable change to stay in business was to remove Kinect. It was a technology that had much better applications outside of gaming.

eBook strategy was once again a failure on MS, they didn’t tell anyone they were doing it and they thought they could get a piece of the pie that amazon was eating up. It’s removal once again is because no one used it.

It would appear to me that by not communicating some ideas and gauging interest and having a thought out plan that aligned with the rest of company goals, MS suffered quite a few losses.

If people are getting commitment and communications confused I understand why there is such a division here in opinions. I am okay with a change in commitments if it makes sense for the business to stay alive or move resources elsewhere to stay competitive. I’m generally not okay with if they announce something I didn’t expect at all; unexpected cancellation of good services or investing into something I think has no future.

Since I generally invest money into companies I watch, I am looking for communications and data points to help guide that decision. It’s up to me to decide if the market will respond positively for what they are attempting to do before I buy stock.

But when a company says nothing at all, I have no data points to work with and nothing I can infer with. And it’s much more “hope” to invest in those companies and I don’t For the reasons cited above. I have to really trust the management team to invest in something like that.

A lot of people accuse me of a lot of things, but I’m investing multiple thousands of dollars for investment purposes. I’ve got a lot riding on the success and failure of things and I can’t wait years after the successes to make a purchase because the prices go up. I have a need to know sooner than later. That might be different need for customers however and I see that now.
 
Last edited:
Neither do I, but the mainstream does. You can see my personal cynicism for all Sony's great offerings over my years on this forum where yes, I bought a PS3 camera expecting great things. But few people wait and see for concrete evidence.

Sales evidence contradicts your assertion. The vast, as in 95% and greater, of consoles, games and accessories are not made upon immediate release where is is only PR to go on but over a much slower period when the realisation of pre-launch PR is embodied in facts rather than aspiration and promises. The mainstream buy based on what has been delivered and how things are, not on promises.

I’ve had some trouble responding here’s because it’s hard to separate commitment from communications to some degree. And as your write market changed and product strategies change as well. So while I can see how the relation between communications and commitment exists, such that we hold companies to the promises they communicate, the actual communication and commitment are two separate entities.

I struggle to comprehend your entire post but it boils down to this opening paragraph where you intimate that what companies commit too is different from what they communicate. Can you give just one example of this for either Sony or Microsoft, because I don't follow this at all.

As a separate point if what companies want/intend to do is different from what they communicate, on what basis do you apportion trust in that company?
 
I struggle to comprehend your entire post but it boils down to this opening paragraph where you intimate that what companies commit too is different from what they communicate. Can you give just one example of this for either Sony or Microsoft, because I don't follow this at all.

As a separate point if what companies want/intend to do is different from what they communicate, on what basis do you apportion trust in that company?
Communication is the act of a company relaying news or information about what they're doing.

That's not the same as making business decisions. You can communicate that you're doing X. And then you can communicate that you are no longer doing X.
1) Doing and not doing X are business decisions.
2) Communication of doing X and not doing X is them communicating that.
3) The act of communication is a form of soft commitment to delivery. It is illegal for a company to promote completely false things to manipulate their stock prices etc.

By point of (3), when a company communicates their intentions, I know a reasonable amount of business resources will be sent to deliver on what was communicated. To the extent that their direction is still profitable. If the company is completely unable to deliver on it or the market has changed in such a way that it's no longer a viable product, I expect them to communicate changes on it. When we receive no communication on it, when people want to know more, that's usually a cause for concern because we can anticipate problems.

If someone asked me whether a company is committed to doing something despite ALL logic, I would expect to hear in the communication process that they are 'committed to delivering X'. An example is that Phil Spencer was committed to Crackdown 3 (and said it several times), even though it should have been cancelled, it still shipped. When I hear 'committed to' in communications then I have reasonable expectation of the companies commitment to seeing it through.

On the other hand, a lot of finger pointing towards MS is like the cancellation of Scalebound or other properties. Those were announce properties but for whatever reason it could not be seen through to the end. Thus when those properties are cancelled they take that as being fully uncommitted to everything they communicate. And that part I disagree with.

But not communicating is uncommitted imo. Because you didn't communicate you have no responsibility to delivery, you have no hard deadlines, everything you do can be cancelled quietly or deadlines shifted because you aren't under public scrutiny. You can only hope they are working on those things, but you have no idea of where it lands on their priority. Its hard to kick in gear if the deadlines are soft. And everyone knows, seeing projects to completion require deadlines, without deadlines most of the time projects go way overdue or are cancelled outright.
 
Last edited:
Communication is the act of a company relaying news or information about what they're doing.

I fundamentally disagree. What you call 'communication' I call PR. Communication is differentand does not need to be intentional. You can infer much through lack of implicit communication by nothing more than observation of actions. The corporate equivalent of body language.

Look at Sony's communication (your definition) on cross-platform play then look at their communication (my definition). There is quite a gulf there. Do you believe what they say (PR) or what they do?

That's the problem with swallowing PR.
 
I fundamentally disagree. What you call 'communication' I call PR. Communication is differentand does not need to be intentional. You can infer much through lack of implicit communication by nothing more than observation of actions. The corporate equivalent of body language.

Look at Sony's communication (your definition) on cross-platform play then look at their communication (my definition). There is quite a gulf there. Do you believe what they say (PR) or what they do?

That's the problem with swallowing PR.
Ah. Right I see your perspective.

I guess I was referring to corporate communications.
Communications is uni-directional, it is the company announcing things to their existing or potential customers.
Things like the PS blog, E3, State of Play, any form of announcements at a conference etc. These are communications by my definition - they are official mechanisms in place to make announcements on the operations and direction of the business. The main goal here is to reach your existing and potential customers with the purpose of directing them into additional sales. TLDR; you're trying to reach customers and make them think about buying into some sort of conversion of sale.

Public relations is a bit different, you may want to call this media relations as well. It's basically forming a positive bond between your brand/company and the public or the media. I see most PR as being bi-directional communications. I wouldn't call these types of communications as being where you hold you hold your announcements, unless you're dealing with crisis management. But I see PR as being entirely curated for your existing customer base, PR is not usually not designed to be consumed by potential customers. It's really about positive brand management.

Forum posts, twitter responses to questions, interviews are all PR imo, comments on amazon etc. These are like unpaid advertising to build a positive image of the company. I suppose crisis management is part of this as well. There are certainly elements of PR in corporate communications as well, like the Disability controller from MS. It's not really the direction their headed... but it's something they'll announce and promote to bolster their public image.

To be clear I don't make investments on a company based on their PR ;) Betting off PR is pretty risky shit.
 
Last edited:
Everything is doomed, playstation is cancelled! :runaway:

Just the calm before the storm. Like every other generation...
 
But now... things changed. Microsoft is no longer worried with that, and even invites others that suffer the same problem, ou have it worse, to join.
Isn't this a contradiction? Or does Microsoft expects Nintendo, and mobile users to add a Keyboard and mouse to their devices?
It's up to developers to make those decisions. MS and Nintendo provide support for the underlying framework to make it happen.

There are a lot of questions that remain about the profitability of these services, and if they will be a good thing for gamers, specially when other players enter the market and all start to keep their games on their services as exclusives, forcing people to subscrive several to get all the games they can get now.
So most games finish their sell in the first month of sales, and then there is a steep drop off entirely with very little ability to pocket additional revenue later in its lifecycle, especially with used games etc.
  • When subscribed to game pass, because your model is more subscription based now, you can change the way you develop titles as well as how your budget. You can spend significantly less on marketing unlike the traditional models.
  • Game Pass can help mitigate risk: Your profit arrives over time, you can deploy games earlier with less content or features and add more content over time instead of taking a massive risk to develop a huge game up front.
  • Your games have much wider audiences, and many more people that would normally not purchase your title can try and play it now. Resulting in additional revenue that you'd never get.
  • Game Pass doesn't require the labour of creating a demo.
  • Data points suggest that those on subscription services are likely to spend upwards to $25 EU on DLC
  • Most games are sold first traditionally, and they can now pick up trailing revenue on game pass after the initial sell.
The need for a Microsoft console seems to be way inferior with this option available.
The point is that MS doesn't care where you play your games.
They will lose some sales on Xbox yes.
But they will gain many more sales on PC since there are bound to be more people who own Sony or Nintendo consoles and PC but only want to play a game or two on xbox.
What exclusives? These are not exclusives... on so many stores these are just Microsoft published games!
Halo MCC is on Steam
Quantum Break in on Steam
Cuphead is on NSW
Ori and the blind forest on Steam / heavy rumours / leaks / mining that we'll see this on NSW as well
 
There won't be any evidence until next gen consoles are out, by which it'll be too late to do something about it. What if sales of PS5 are down 20% next gen because a bunch of PS gamers have been eyeing Xbox the past couple of years before release and decide that they want to invest in a long-term future of a library that'll remain valid for many years to come?

And for those saying, "what if MS doesn't deliver," doesn't matter. You buy the hardware anyway expecting promises to be fulfilled. Same as voting for politicians. Same as buying a PS4 expecting some great PS2 titles to appear on the store with network play and trophies. If MS's pre-next-gen propaganda manages to woo buyers, even if they never deliver in the following years, they're still lost sales. That's why marketing doesn't rest. That's why regardless how well Sony is doing now regards sales, and how well they can be expected to do with PS5, they should still be making positive noises and presenting a strong future image.

Neither do I, but the mainstream does. You can see my personal cynicism for all Sony's great offerings over my years on this forum where yes, I bought a PS3 camera expecting great things. But few people wait and see for concrete evidence. Few people wanting a next gen console are going to wait two or three years to see if BC is actually maintained, or if game streaming actually is rolled out to their mobile platform of choice, etc.

Your assumption seems to be that all the PS4 gamers out there who have enjoyed this generation will switch sides because MS will have better PR?!

The same PR that oversold Kinect and Hololens? The same PR that said their machine was more balanced?

And that Sony won’t be able to do anything about it? And it’s never too late, just ask MS.

Really, Sony gamers are not that easily swayed, they know what they like (just look at last gen!) - much like those who still bought an Xbox One at launch.

And don’t you think anyone considering such a thing would already be buying into the Xbox ecosystem and there would be some kind of evidence of a sway, we are likely around a year from nextgen.
 
Last edited:
Your assumption seems to be that all the PS4 gamers out there who have enjoyed this generation will switch sides because MS will have better PR?!

The same PR that oversold Kinect and Hololens? The same PR that said their machine was more balanced?

And that Sony won’t be able to do anything about it? And it’s never too late, just ask MS.

Really, Sony gamers are not that easily swayed, they know what they like (just look at last gen!) - much like those who still bought an Xbox One at launch.

And don’t you think anyone considering such a thing would already be buying into the Xbox ecosystem and there would be some kind of evidence of a sway, we are likely around a year from nextgen.
He's not saying any of this. I don't think anyone is. No one can predict the future and how well you handle PR is probably not going to win you anything either other than some good will with your own customer base. There are going to be new entrants and new vectors into the gaming industry in the coming generation however.

Communicating your intentions and opening up your ideas to public scrutiny is an opportunity to get good feedback and make your product better to ensure you don't do something like TV TV TV in a silo thinking you've hit the jackpot when you've rolled snake eyes. I think that's about all I can say about the concern centred around the lack of communications.
 
Your assumption seems to be that all the PS4 gamers out there who have enjoyed this generation will switch sides because MS will have better PR?!

The same PR that oversold Kinect and Hololens? The same PR that said their machine was more balanced?

And that Sony won’t be able to do anything about it? And it’s never too late, just ask MS.

Really, Sony gamers are not that easily swayed, they know what they like (just look at last gen!) - much like those who still bought an Xbox One at launch.

And don’t you think anyone considering such a thing would already be buying into the Xbox ecosystem and there would be some kind of evidence of a sway, we are likely around a year from nextgen.
It is not just PR. It's the combination of great features/services and the proper communication to accompany them.
 
I’m sure much of the forum talk are biased MS posts either paid for or fanboys
And now this concern trolling

Woah, strong reactions there. I don't even own an Xbox or Nintendo, i sure dont get paid for pointing out things Sony could greatly improve upon either.

What they hell are you talking about? What are people buying consoles for? They have the most games of any current gen console, period.

Like said before, a few exclusives here and there ain't the saving grace. Most people buy Playstation because of brand name, most don't buy a console for its exclusives. Heck, most i know have a PS4, but no exclusives. FIFA and COD seem most popular. In the end of PS4's lifespan there will be about 15 to 20 AAA exclusives for the platform, of which some will land on PC.
It's strongest defence points for PS are in general it's AAA exclusives, most other things aren't really liked by many. Censorship, PSN+ being meh lately, BC is a mess, not too many inspiring new IP's etc. With in mind that MS is going to improve its AAA exclusive library, not counting PC, and they will, i assume, not just hand victory to Sony as easy as Xone gen, we could have a better competitor this time around.
AAA games you often play once or twice, i think in general one doesn't own more then 10 titles, the platform should offer more then some singple player AAA games.

Sony could be very active in signaling on what they are going to improve upon with their PS4 but in special their next generation of systems. MS isn't going to hand it this easy next time around. Look at Nvidia, they sell the most GPU's to gamers, being arrogant and confident that AMD wont ever compete or even try to.

On a side note, i'm reading on different forums that Sony exclusives are being criticized on multiple points lately, one of them is their 'Western cinematic experiences', 'Only 3rd person games that are noteworthy', 30fps instead with nice graphics of focussing on framerate etc.

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/are-playstation-exclusives-the-best-games-in-the-industry.1475354/

We can't deny there's points where Sony could improve, but we aren't hearing much from them lately.
 
Last edited:
It is not just PR. It's the combination of great features/services and the proper communication to accompany them.

All those things are a distant second to content when it comes to selecting which eco system you going to join.

It's strongest defence points for PS are in general it's AAA exclusives, most other things aren't really liked by many. Censorship, PSN+ being meh lately, BC is a mess, not too many inspiring new IP's etc. With in mind that MS is going to improve its AAA exclusive library, not counting PC, and they will, i assume, not just hand victory to Sony as easy as Xone gen, we could have a better competitor this time around.
AAA games you often play once or twice, i think in general one doesn't own more then 10 titles, the platform should offer more then some singple player AAA games.

I'm sorry but that reads like bait and I shouldn't be responding but I am just to say I won't be in the future:confused:
 
Your assumption seems to be that all the PS4 gamers out there who have enjoyed this generation will switch sides because MS will have better PR?!
No. I didn't say anything of the like. I said while Sony are quiet, people will be hearing about what MS is promising which may be enough to convince them (them being some, obviously, and not the entire PS fanbase, nor even a majority, not even the slightest bit implied) to buy into the MS ecosystem.

At the moment for me, it seems next gen will be separated between the two platforms as some exclusives for PS5, and a far wider reaching ecosystem in XB. XB looks to promise (eventually) that whatever games I buy, I'll be able to play them on console and PC and steam them, should I ever care to, to mobile devices, which'll then mean also being able to connect one's phone to a TV while away play games. That is a compelling offering and my console-buyometer is moved a few points in MS's direction as a result. Sony have nothing to move it back the other way.

If there is a political party in power, and everyone's happy with them, they still campaign for re-election. No party would sit silently expecting to get re-elected, especially if the opposition is looking like a good alternative.
 
No. I didn't say anything of the like. I said while Sony are quiet, people will be hearing about what MS is promising which may be enough to convince them (them being some, obviously, and not the entire PS fanbase, nor even a majority, not even the slightest bit implied) to buy into the MS ecosystem.

At the moment for me, it seems next gen will be separated between the two platforms as some exclusives for PS5, and a far wider reaching ecosystem in XB. XB looks to promise (eventually) that whatever games I buy, I'll be able to play them on console and PC and steam them, should I ever care to, to mobile devices, which'll then mean also being able to connect one's phone to a TV while away play games. That is a compelling offering and my console-buyometer is moved a few points in MS's direction as a result. Sony have nothing to move it back the other way.

If there is a political party in power, and everyone's happy with them, they still campaign for re-election. No party would sit silently expecting to get re-elected, especially if the opposition is looking like a good alternative.

A few movers I can agree with, but Sony have a clear offering to people like myself, so clear I don’t need PR to remind me. I know what I will get from Sony, they have never truly let my expectations down to the point I’d abandon them or switch sides.

I will always buy PlayStation because of its exclusives, for some reason MS exclusives never really clicked for me, Halo was ok Gears bores me...and driving games are driving games (I’m not a petrol head, but Sony satisfies that itch)...and of course I love VR which Sont continues to support and MS stay away from.

I do always buy all consoles, but this gen I’ve used Xbox very rarely, I got X so I could get the best versions of 3rd party games but alas since buying have only really used it for UHD (though I confess my gaming time is extremely limited these days). I’m very interested to see what all this investment will bring, I’m hopeful of so good exclusives.
 
I agree. PS360 generation shows us though that tens of millions of PS users aren't that loyal, and Sony needs to be securing them. This isn't about an all-of-nothing mass exodus, but reducing market-share shrinkage by engaging in the userbase and ensuring their eye never wanders.
 
What exactly has Microsoft shown so much more than Sony so far that is bound to move millions of PS4 owners into XBox territory?
 
Who said 'bound to'? Why do you guys argue in such crazy absolutes? Everyone's purchasing decision is based on a scale between options. For some, that's 100% PS no matter what. For others, it's 100% XB no matter what. For the greater majority, it's somewhere between based on all-round offerings. Every feature or service you can offer increases interest in your platform. That doesn't equate to stealing sales, but it means moving the needle a more in favour of the tipping point being on your side of the scales.

So as I say above, MS is vocally offering a 'future-proof' platform, pushing the needle a little more in favour of XB for those who value that which is probably a large part of the market given it's 3rd party titles that are played the most. If Sony come out and say, "PS5 will be BC with all PS4 titles, improving their quality even," the needle moves back more towards Sony. If Sony don't say anything and people keep hearing more and more about how 'future-proof' Xbox games sounds, the needle slowly keeps moving in favour of XB.

To date, the only counter-argument for Sony not saying anything is, "they don't need to." That's an argument for inaction, for not being proactive, so sitting back and doing squat. There's no positives to the counter-arguments. If people were suggesting Sony are funding better elsewhere, or marketing in more effective, less ostentatious ways, it'd be a decent response. But so far the discussion seems to be gravitating towards a consensus, "yeah, Sony aren't doing or saying much, but it doesn't matter," which goes completely against PR. Gillette is by far and away the best selling male grooming brand in the world, so why the hell do they keep advertising? Coca-cola sells crazy quantities always, so why the hell do they bother advertising? People will always buy chocolate because it's yummy, so why the hell does Cadbury's have competitions and advertising? Because marketing isn't just about direct sales, but also very much about staying in the consumer mindset, and never, ever fading.

If Sony's marketing was still strong, we wouldn't be having this conversation!
 
If Sony come out and say, "PS5 will be BC with all PS4 titles, improving their quality even," the needle moves back more towards Sony. If Sony don't say anything and people keep hearing more and more about how 'future-proof' Xbox games sounds, the needle slowly keeps moving in favour of XB.

Certainly true, but that has little consequence now. What matters is what people know that will sway their decision when they chose their console and place their order / pre-order in the future.

To date, the only counter-argument for Sony not saying anything is, "they don't need to." That's an argument for inaction, for not being proactive, so sitting back and doing squat.

Less counter-argument but seemingly needing the restate the obvious; virtually no company talks future product strategy of products not yet announced.Anybody who expects otherwise really is in cloud cuckoo land.

For Microsoft this is their current product strategy. Semantics? No. Microsoft went on the record regarding Xbox backwards/forwards compatibility. We know what that means for original Xbox and Xbox 360 software. PS4 is not backwards compatible, nor PS4 known to be forwards compatible with PS5. Only time will tell if PS5 will play any previous PlayStaton console's games.
 
Back
Top