So did third parties and MS later with the same excuse. They could but we get information that it was correlated to increasing costs. So they could and did it for that reason
Microsoft acquired Activision Blizzard King for $69 Billion on 2023-10-13
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
Yet they were able to loose money on the PS5 at launch to gain market share quickly.
PS5 Broke Even and Started to Turn Profit for Sony
Sony has confirmed that the standard version of PlayStation 5 broke even. So the Japanese company has reasons to be happy.www.gamepressure.com
In 2021 they were even turning a profit on hardware. So no one can say its just based on currency. They were willing to loose money to head off MS having a higher installed base in the new gen. Now that the threat is gone they are willing to raise prices to preserve the profit
Again this isn't the same and they are profitable on the BR PS5 since a long time. This is the reason, there is not many PS5 DE. It is not on the plan to lose money on PS5 in the future. If they lower the price again out of US it means PS5 model(new Ps5 model or PS5 slim?) is profitable or it is the end of the currency crisis.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22015306/vpavic_4278_20201030_0292.jpg)
Sony’s $499 PS5 is no longer selling at a loss
The PS5 won’t be costly like the PS3.
www.theverge.com
If there were no currency problem, price would not have rise.
Sony annual profit is nearly three time lower than Microsoft profit in one quarter. This is sustainable for MS and not for Sony.
EDIT: And PS5 is not the first PS console to be profitable a few months after release.
PlayStation 4 No Longer Sold at a Loss
When the PlayStation 4 launched in November 2013 it was sold at a loss. However Sony said it [...]
www.vgchartz.com
It was the case for PS4 too and this is how a good management for a platform holder without infinite money. If Sony was bleeding money because of mismanagement, they would finish like SEGA.
I remember people being critical of Sony when they were losing some November or December NPD because they did not want to discount PS4 hardware.
Last edited:
Only you are not mentioning that the PS5 was sold as much as the XBOX Series X, and that both manufacturers were selling at a loss at launch. They didnt price it lower than competition to trump it and they dont have that financial luxury to support such strategies either. MS on the other hand have that luxury to keep prices lower, which is a strategy monopolies do to prevent or break competition.Yet they were able to loose money on the PS5 at launch to gain market share quickly.
PS5 Broke Even and Started to Turn Profit for Sony
Sony has confirmed that the standard version of PlayStation 5 broke even. So the Japanese company has reasons to be happy.
In 2021 they were even turning a profit on hardware. So no one can say its just based on currency. They were willing to loose money to head off MS having a higher installed base in the new gen. Now that the threat is gone they are willing to raise prices to preserve the profit
Plus, both had supply constraints and were out of stock. So PS5's pricing couldnt do anything to begin with to increase install base more.
So did Sony have a price advantage? You know very well that they didnt and they dont. Especially now
MS also has a significantly cheaper offering with Series S that was more available.
So where do you get he idea that Sony was doing price wars to destroy competition is beyond me.
MS has equal distribution access, network access and access to media.
There are literally no barriers of entry for MS.
Currently MS sells the Series X and Series S cheaper and everybody has knowledge of their product, MS buys IPs and has huge amounts of cash and have the financial luxury to strike deals if they want.
There is nothing at all that can picture Sony as a monopoly.
So apparently, unlike monopolies Sony doesnt have any advantage as a company over MS, other than the fact that the market just prefers Playstation more, and from there Sony harvests the benefits of the market's choice.
Last edited:
Hang on a minute - that was due to exchange rates with the dollar. That has nothing to do with milking markets where they have the lead.
Yes, everyone keep it friendly and don't argue the reasons for counterpoints - only their validity or not.
Let’s say MS exits the console industry. It’s Sony remaining and Nintendo. Two monopolies effectively.
While regulators cannot take back things they should have or not have done, the reality is they can only go forward. But the reality is that you’re now bound to the fact that gamers no longer really have a choice.
Your regulatory bodies will want to introduce new competition into the market and therefore create policies that would be favourable for new entrants.
If this is not your definition of what regulators would be responsible in doing, then we do have different opinions of what they do, because in Canada they would make policies that are favourable for new entrants to enter the market to increase the amount of choice available.
If you understand the context I am writing from, then I should ask why it doesn’t start sooner instead of waiting for later. In the games industry where we are losing now cloud streaming platforms.
And you have an extremely condescending way of writing. I work in an extremely heavily regulated industry here in Canada. I am not a regulator, nor do I pretend as though I can do their job. But I do know what actions they take here to make things possible to enable new entrants to increase choices and lower prices. If this is the wrong way to write about the various options regulatory bodies can be involved in supporting a more competitive market you’re more than welcome to explain why instead of just waving away anyone who isn’t working as a regulator.
Sony raised prices on games before inflation was as big of a deal as it is now. That was in 2020 when the consoles launched. If I remember correctly, inflation was not even a reason brought up back then for the change. On the console side, you have a point, though.
MS won't exit the console market. But if it was the case, it would be because of the Xbox division mismanagement. Sony was on verge of collapse after PS3. If MS had followed the same strategy than with Xbox 360, they would have won the last generation and probably finish the job this generation. And it would have been Sony fault with one of the worst console launch with the PS3. But MS began to do some error from mid 360 generation to now and Sony did a good job.
Sony was not far from falling from the same error than MS with the camera.
PS4 Could Have Launched Without Hard Drive and With Just 4GB Ram - IGN
Sony has revealed the PS4 nearly skipped a hard drive altogether, and the decision to include one ultimately helped take the camera out of the box.
Not really sure what you are trying to say. I am saying Sony was willing to eat money to gain market share at the start of the generation and once they built up enough of a lead and started making a profit on the hardware they raised the prices of it. If they were getting outsold by MS in those areas its doubtful they would still raise the price.
Sony’s $499 PS5 is no longer selling at a loss
The PS5 won’t be costly like the PS3.
If there were no currency problem, price would not have rise.
Sony annual profit is nearly three time lower than Microsoft profit in one quarter. This is sustainable for MS and not for Sony.
Losses are not sustainable for any publicly traded companies. There is only so long stock holders will accept losses.
EDIT: And PS5 is not the first PS console to be profitable a few months after release.
PlayStation 4 No Longer Sold at a Loss
When the PlayStation 4 launched in November 2013 it was sold at a loss. However Sony said it [...]
It was the case for PS4 too and this is how a good management for a platform holder without infinite money. If Sony was bleeding money because of mismanagement, they would finish like SEGA.
I remember people being critical of Sony when they were losing some November or December NPD because they did not want to discount PS4 hardware.
its great management compared to the same company that launched the ps3. PS3 dropped from $500/$600 to $250 by the end of the generation. the ps4 dropped from $400 to $350. Know what the difference was ? The ps3 had tough competition. Since Sony's entry into the console market the PS3 geneartion was the closest generation for all console makers. Wii @ 102m PS3 @ 88m X360 @ 84m . Sony started the ps4 era with a great price but barely moved the price of the console That generation was Ps4 117m , Xbox One 60ish ? , Wii u 13m.
I like how you try and paint Sony as this small company and yet you skirt around history of the big video game companies going to Sony for chips and cd technology. You forget sony using their collaboration on dvd to bolster ps2 and for ps2 to bolster dvd. Then of course Sony building fabs to produce Cell chips and uses their collaboration on bluray to try and bolster the ps3 and ps3 to bolster ps3. Of course we forget that its inclusion in the ps3 helped to make that platform a success vs hd-dvd.
It makes me laugh that you are here talking about Sega while complaining about MS. You realize that Sony bought companies to enter the market , Sony bought exclusive games to enter the market and sony used technology from other parts of their business to beat Sega.
What would be more likely to happen is that MS exists the market and then these regulators make half hearted attempts to introduce new competition. The real issue is the sheer amount of investment (money and time) to even get to 60m consoles. Look at all MS has bought to get where they are now. Look at all sony has bought to get to where they are now. There are very few companies that would be willing to enter a market which will likely become more and more niche when compared to mobile going forward. You also have the issue of Sony continuing to buy studios. So the amount of investment would have to be even greater for a new company to get even to where MS is now.
Like I've said in the past games take even longer than ever to make. So lets say a studio wants to actually compete on consoles. Yes its easy to get all the multiplatform games on it. Apple could easily do it just using one of their platforms. The can have all the multiplatform games and all the iphone games on it. But sony will still be there with their content pipe line getting even larger as they buy more companies. Sure Apple could open 20-30 studios but it would take the better part of a decade for anything to come out of them. So where do we end up ? Apple or tencent or someone else coming in and buying activision , buying ubi soft and so forth and so on. Because simply that is really the only way into the market in a sane sustainable way.
When the PS3 launch this was easier to drop cost of console semi conductor. PS4 release with a HDD not the PS3, this is one element where cost don't drop a lot during the lifecycle of a console. This time it will be worse like MS said with less possibility to drop console cost.
And again your hypothesis for the console price rising is false and price increase is not only a console stuff. This is not because you repeat something false than it will be the truth.
Strong dollar creating headwinds to US businesses – DW – 10/27/2022
A rising US dollar is eroding other currencies and wreaking havoc on economies. But It also hits demand for US exports, causing American businesses painful losses.
www.dw.com
Maybe you forget this event.
Last edited:
Thats a big if and regulators arent going to do any favors to a huge mega corporation like MS, because of that unlikely scenario.
MS is a healthy powerful corporation that doesnt have any problems in their ability to compete.
Sony is more likely to vanish or shrink as a company and exit if things go south than MS ever will.
Regulators arent trying to find and create competitors themselves. We arent living in state run economies. Regulators job is to maintain an environment where the free market works. Regulators step in if there is market manipulation or there is potential market manipulation. That doesnt involve finding competitors. How you describe regulators is how you adjusted their role and the way they operate based on your personal views.
If that was the case regulators would have dismantled MS to multiple companies already and they would have been trying to do favors to small GPU manufacturers so that the market isnt just AMD and NVIDIA. But that was never brought into the matter, was it?
Regulators WILL regulate Sony or Nintendo if they also do practices that appear potentially undesireable. Regulators had no issues with MS purchasing Zenimax and other studios. You d bet that if Sony or Nintendo were the ones purchasing ABK they would have been also investigated.
Last edited:
Correct. I was responding only to the hardware price-rise part. The game price increase was everywhere and not local to markets where Sony didn't have stiff competition.
One, because sony dont compete with nintendo only in high performance market. According to Sony.
They already have monopoly in Japan, crushing in EU the only market where they have competition is US.
Sony does not have a monopoly at least in the proper definition of the word.
"the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service"
Are they a very dominating leader, are they using their power to bully others in the business, sure.
Are they pushing legal boundaries and just being assholes, I would guess so.
But not a monopoly and they look to have gotten where they are by doing it brick by brick.
While MS seems to trying to shift the market in a big swoop, which looks to be running afoul of the current laws and regulations.
As for companies exiting, well anybody can at any time exit, its just about the ROI, if it is not enough then why continue?
Last edited:
If GPUs suddenly become too highly priced and there is no other option but to pay them then yes, people will complain and that would be the starting point of things.
Owning a monopoly is not illegal in itself. Thus, regulators cannot dismantle a company just because you are a monopoly.
Regulators will do nothing if there is nothing to be done.
Except when people feel like there is no alternative available and they have to purchase, and consumers begin complaining, regulators will step in to see what can be done. Thus one of the least invasive remedies is reintroducing competition for instance via incentives.
I’m not making up this scenario to be literal on what I believe will happen. No. MS is not likely to leave due to stiff competition, they would leave because it’s not profitable to continue to stay in gaming.
I’m just making up an hypothetical example here to explain the larger ways regulation can impact an industry in more ways than just blocking mergers.
If an investigation takes place and finds out it is the result of price fixing then yes. Otherwise not.
Of course its not. But here you are advocating that Sony being a market leader is a problem and the regulators should step up and help MS because MS supposedly cant compete adequately, whereas such demand for regulatos to step up in the OS market where MS is a monopoly does not exist.
Regulators are checking for signs of price fixing/cartel/formation of trusts and market manipulation.
This is what happened to Standard Oil with the Sherman Antritrust Act and broke it to multiple companies.
This is why Nintendo was fined in the 90s https://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/11/...ay-25-million-in-rebates-on-price-fixing.html
And I am trying to find articles which I cant find that covered the fact that all companies making games for Nintendo were forced to sign a contract that prevented them from porting their games on other platforms. This stopped after antitrust laws came in effect
edit: The only thing I could find is this https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1488&context=facscholar
Nintendo wins antitrust suit - UPI Archives
A federal court jury ruled in favor of Nintendo of America in a $160 million antitrust case brought by Atari Corp., finding that Nintendo did not monopolize...
www.upi.com
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
That would be a duopoly.
I think this is where you are completely misunderstanding the purpose or operation of market regulators. You project this notion of a body where decisions are made with the aim of intending to bring balance in individual markets, but neither the EU or UK legislation gives the regulator such power. Outside of acquisitions and mergers over a certain value, they cannot solicitously interfere in market activity unless market abuses taking place.
Sony upping the prices on games and consoles is not a market abuse, consumers in the free market will decide if those price hikes are reasonable. Releasing games on your own platform is not market abuse, nor is seeking exclusivity of content. Such practices have been common the videogame market since its inception, and have existed in music, literature and theatre (including movies and TV) for much longer.
None of what you think the market regulators should be doing, particularly promoting Microsoft's ability to compete when it seemingly cannot with all its advantages of being one of the biggest companies on earth, the largest software development company in the world, and running the third largest server service in the world.
What I read here, is that this acquisition should be allowed to proceed because Xbox is not as popular as the two competing console platforms, and they cannot attain industry deals (like getting Activision-Blizzard to agree marketing deals with their platform) for whatever reason, but that's between them and that company, it's not a matter for market regulators.
Please read what I've written, because I do know where you've coming from, but where you are coming from is not a place that actually exists. Nor should it. Market regulators should not approve this acquisition because Microsoft sell less plastic boxes than Nintendo or Sony, market regulators should assess the acquisition and make an independent determination of what the acquisition will mean for the multiple industries that have been declared as being impacted, including desktop operating systems which is not a market Sony even exists in.
edit: typos.
Last edited by a moderator:
New entrants can’t compete. I didn’t say MS cannot compete. When stadia, Luna, go belly up it’s a sign of the difficulty.
Regulators don’t need to get involved unless people feel like there is no longer a suitable choice for gaming. Currently with PC gaming always being there, this is not likely to happen.
Similar threads
