Sony is bleeding money - business strategy discussion
- Thread starter -tkf-
- Start date
the r&d may stil lbe done , but it doesn't mean they can't cut back when they get to the finish line. Less ram / less rops / slower ram and so on.
I doubt they will be able to get away with extra for wifi this gen , controller rechargers yea sure , i like not having them built into the controller as i can keep multiple packs charged and switch when i need.
I wonder if we will see Nintendo with a $300 2012 system , Sony with a $300 2013 system and ms with a $500 2013 system sold at $300 or some such thing and i wonder how that will affect the dynamics between the 3 companys if one company is able to get such a large graphics lead on the others
It would seem that the timing of the hackers and their intentions of bringing Sony down as found on Geohotz blog site is going to affect any funds Sony might have to pony up specially since they are in the process of launching the PSP2 or NGP.
Clearly the hackers are trying to hurt Sony and they certainly have had an impact over the past 30 days.
WRT to PS4 development cost hopefully the NGP shows that Sony has learned from this generation will be approaching the next hardware generation more pragmatically with a stronger emphasis on off the shelf components and a stronger emphasis on development tools. If that is in fact the case R&D cost for PS4 should be significantly less than the investment we saw on Cell/PS3.
Would be cool for us if MS did that, more power to the people but sad for competition in the long run if Nintendo and Sony is left behind.
nitnendo can become the apple of the pc world. Not a huge market share , but pulling in decent money to keep going .
If sony fails then I'm sure someone else can get in. Mabye valve , google or even apple at this point.
I certianly perfer 3 console makers.
Actually in my ideal world MS would buy nintendo and another company would buy sony's game division mabye google (though i don't like them or apple ) i'd kinda like to see samsung do it.
Of course a $300 2013 sony console woulodn't be bad in the end. They have some exclusives that fans will want no matter what , if they aren't loosing per console sale perhaps they can make due with the smaller market share ?
I certianly see Sony having a tough time getting the Board to green light another ps3 level expense however even if sony is able to bounce back in the next 2 years.
GAF has more detailed interpretations on the numbers here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=431048
... if you like accounting. ^_^
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=431048
... if you like accounting. ^_^
Maybe they can't but I doubt that would have a huge impact. Lets assume that the next gen consoles will have an introduction price of around $400 (it worked for the 360). Sony will have to have hardware for $400 and can't go above that price and sell it at cost.
MS could have hardware for $500 and sell it for $400 but the question is how much of a difference those $100 in hardware will make in the end.
You will get more RAM, maybe some more silicon in the GPU/CPU but will that results in huge on screen differences? I doubt it. Not that we have reached the diminishing returns yet, but you need for sure more and more power to actually make a visible on screen difference, at least as it would be perceived by the majority.
Sure, the $500 console would win most of the bulletpoint discussions on the internet forums, and some would say that is advantageous for word of mouth, marketing and the like.
If MS would take that approach it would be more to have the title of the most powerful console, not that it would make too huge impact on the games and gamers...
It depends .
I know pc ram is going to be priced diffrently than console ram , but right now i can go from 4 gigs to 8 gigs with about $40 usd
So lets just say that there is a $100 diffrence. MS could have 8 gigs . Heck ms could have 16gigs of ram vs sonys 4 or 8 gigs.
I think going from 4-8 gigs will be a huge diffrence. Just think of the diffrence we would have seen this gen if the ps3 had even an extra 256MBs of ram
If MS just doubles the ram sony is going with they might still have a sizable budget for other things they could certianly go with more silicon for the gpu or cpu over what sony does and with proper design choices they could end up making a big diffrence.
If they are going edram again it could allow them to go from say 50MBs to 100MBs while still doubling the system ram.
I think its hard to say what $100 could do. But it would be a big increase in the overall budget. $100 extra on a $400 budget would be basicly adding 1/4th more money to it .
I know pc ram is going to be priced diffrently than console ram , but right now i can go from 4 gigs to 8 gigs with about $40 usd
So lets just say that there is a $100 diffrence. MS could have 8 gigs . Heck ms could have 16gigs of ram vs sonys 4 or 8 gigs.
I think going from 4-8 gigs will be a huge diffrence. Just think of the diffrence we would have seen this gen if the ps3 had even an extra 256MBs of ram
If MS just doubles the ram sony is going with they might still have a sizable budget for other things they could certianly go with more silicon for the gpu or cpu over what sony does and with proper design choices they could end up making a big diffrence.
If they are going edram again it could allow them to go from say 50MBs to 100MBs while still doubling the system ram.
I think its hard to say what $100 could do. But it would be a big increase in the overall budget. $100 extra on a $400 budget would be basicly adding 1/4th more money to it .
The most powerful console hasn't won the previous 2 generations, I think all 3 companies have taken note and will likely approach the next round more wisely.
They'd have bled even more money? What makes you think PS3 h/w sales are so dependent upon texture quality and enough to justify increasing the costs further? Also bear in mind the final motherboard layout for RSX and its GDDR3... unless you are suggesting they go with even more expensive XDR chips. How would this have been economical in any sense?
How does doubling the amount of RAM to 16GB allow a decent budget for silicon etc for a console launching at $400-500, especially if you're considering a larger edram chip in addition to the CPU and GPU. They're not going to go with a heavy loss-leader again.
Earthquake and tsunami aside, Sony should continue to clean up internal issues. Titanio found another look at Sony's corporate issues here:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...stringers-makeover-fail/article2032492/page1/
(I didn't check if the link has been posted)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...stringers-makeover-fail/article2032492/page1/
(I didn't check if the link has been posted)
This isn't about sony bleeding money from the ps3. Its about the visual quality increase a 256MB xdr and 512MB GDR set up would have had a marked visual improvement over the current ps3 and in fact the xbox 360
I'm specificly talking about MS here . IF sony went with a cheaper console it would allow ms to increase their visual lead.
$100 diffrence in price might allow ms to double the ram , increase silicon , increase edram or a number of things that would provide a marked improvement in visuals.
The arguement was that with a $100 ms wouldn't be able to create a visual diffrence to justify the cost and sony would be able to get away with the cheaper console . I disagree . $100 on a $400 console as sugested by the previous poster in the conversation would be 1/4th the price. Thats alot of money when looking at the budget . A rival having that advantage over you could be a huge problem
In. the. Sony. losing. money. thread...
Yes read the thread and follow the discussion. What he quoted had to do with a subset of a conversation. The points he commented on where not about sony loosing money , but the advantage another company would have if sony wouldn't be able to compete price wise with them.
The comment he quoted had to specificly do with how much the amount of ram would affect the visual fidelity of games on the platform. The original post i replied to said that $100 diffrence in prices wouldn't allow for a meaningful gap in visuals.
My point was that if the ps3 had 512mb of gdr ram it would have had noticiable visual improvements over the xbox 360.
The same goes with the 360. Epic showed MS that value of going with double the ram and in the end the gears demo convinced MS to double the ram.
Its very easy if you keep up with the thread and read whats going on .
It's also very easy to lose track of the topic, and just as easy to check a thread's title and move any OT discussion to another thread. eg. Posting in the next-gen thread, "given the latest Sony financials show Sony are struggling, this could mean they can't invest as much in their hardware and MS could gain a hardware advantage."
Excellent article, thank you for sharing some of the conversation on GAF was clearly channeling this story.
Curious to hear others thoughts on why Sony is losing money, personally I think the story raises some excellent points but not sure that the conclusion is sound. IMO the commoditization of consumer electronics technology has as much to do with Sony's troubles making margin as anything else but of course the leadership does have a lot to answer for. I would also like to hear what others thoughts are about possible sources of revenue for Sony moving forward; personally I could see them doubling down on the Playstation brand as it is one of the few things the company owns that could be profitable. The music and Movie departments are 2 other potential sources of revenue but generally speaking I think their hardware business best days are behind them too much competition from China and Korea.
For me, prior to 2005, if I wanted a high end home electronic product, Sony was always at or near the top of my list. It was almost automatic for me to look at Sony anytime I was looking for a new TV, DVD or CD player.
Nowadays, there is tough competition from Samsung, LG, Sharp and others that are usually cheaper and sometimes perform better. It's just a tougher market now with other brands forcing Sony to compete -- personally it's a good thing overall.
You mean for this quarter ? As I understand, the disaesters and the tax writeoff are the main cause. They should churn out a profit without these items.
This GAF thread talks about it:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=431048
I saw that but it appears that some are saying that the tax write-off was due in part to Sony not being able to carry forward other deductions due to a decline in revenue so Sony decided to take the write off now.
Similar threads
