Sony would make a fantastic 3rd Party Developer/Publisher

[TEXAN*]

You've got the Japan Studio, London Studio, Sony Santa Monica, Team ICO, Naughty Dog, SOE, Zipper Interactive, Polyphony Digital, Guerrilla Games, Evolution Studios...and more.

They could be bigger than EA or Activision if they chose to. Imagine all the people who could play God of War, or ICO, or Uncharted if they made games on PC, Microsoft, Nintendo, Apple products, etc.

People used to say this about Nintendo, but Sony is actually much better suited to it. Look at all that talent. Without having to worry about losing billions on hardware, their games studios could be as successful as their film studios.

Howard Stringer is under alot of pressure from shareholders to get the Playstation division profitable. If PS3's fortunes don't turn around, in my personal opinion I doubt he shall be green lighting a PS4.

Pure-Play publishing could and should be his solution to profitability.

 

[Nesh]

Hardware cost due to the Blu Ray functionality seems to be the primary reason for the reduced profitability I believe. Which may not be the case next time around.

Although I agree that they have talented software development houses, these games are tied to the PS brand, as exclusive and unique games which is partially one of the reasons of their appeal. In the case of Nintendo I am sure that Mario and Zelda wouldnt be perceievd the same if they went multiplatform. The PS brand stands for so much more now than just games and Sony gets royalties from many companies on top of the revenues it gets from its own studios.

In the PS1 and PS2 days the userbase was so large that when they broke even on hardware their houses had an extremely large userbase to sell their products to and gain lots of revenues as well as revenues from products of other houses.

I doubt they will ignore that opportunity in the future

 

[obonicus]

Yeah, we need this argument again, Laa-Yosh's last one wasn't enough. Sony just reorganized their business putting a lot more emphasis on the Playstation brand. They could undo that, naturally, but it's not the trend we're seeing. I mean, we could have Microsoft shareholders demand that they put a stop on that strategy as well, since the actual profits are pretty scant, and it's not like MS' stock has done much for a while (they do still pay dividends, right?). Consoles are still an important part of the business for them. If the PS4 turns out as a money sink like the PS3 (and there's no reason to think it'll be, given Stringer's recent comments on how interesting Nintendo's idea to actually make money on console sales is) yeah, PS5 is not likely.

Sony, as a 3rd party, would be like EA or Activision. They would have no stake in increasing the install-base for any console, so they'd have no incentive to take bigger risks on software. There'd be no MAG, no LBP, Killzone 2 and Uncharted wouldn't look the way they do and Gran Turismo would be damn-near annualized, each version with a few minor, but infuriating flaws/absences that would only be corrected in the next game, which you'd buy, naturally (and in which PD would break something else). Sucker Punch and Insomniac would probably look for someone else to publish their games, or else be the Ratchet/Sly studios. We'd sure as hell not have Trico.

 

[Arwin]

I think the very best developers are likely to develop hardware as well as software and vice versa, or at least you have a *very* close relationship between hardware and software makers. I think so because software informs hardware requirements and vice versa, and the closer you keep the two in your company's DNA, the more likely you will be able to develop a compelling game experience, at least when it comes to innovation. Nintendo is currently maybe an even better example.

For both, the uniqueness of their games is partly informed by the hardware they make. Even a deceptively simple game like flower has part of its strong effect coming from the combination of a use of sixaxis for motion control and the Cell processor for animating 100.000 blades of grass on screen at once and hundreds of petals ...

That's not to say that Sony couldn't improve a lot, or that they would necessarily be a bad 3rd party publisher mind you. But also don't forget that some of the Sony tied developers are as good as they are and can make great games precisely because they focus on one platform. Many of the games you mention are technological showcases in some form or other and just wouldn't have made the same impact if their technical prowess had had to make multi-platform engine compromises.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think this is fair game. The same was said of Nintendo last gen; only fair Sony get dealt the 'give up' card now that they're on the back foot

 

[patsu]

They are already a 3rd party developer with SOE. *snores*

 

[obonicus]

I think this is fair game. The same was said of Nintendo last gen; only fair Sony get dealt the 'give up' card now that they're on the back foot

Well, sure, but didn't we just have this discussion when Killzone 2's numbers turned out to be disappointing? I mean, there's merit to those endless 'was blu-ray a good idea' threads too, it's just that I'm not sure there's much more to say about it.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thing is, if people are tired of them, they don't have to post. I can say the same thing of every NPD thread! I just don't visit them, and leave those wanting to badger about the same discussions the freedom to do so.

 

[TheChefO]

As one that missed that prior conversation, I'm glad TEXAN made this thread.

I think it's an interesting idea. The same thought was kicked around in one of the MS threads on whether MS would drop xbox in a heartbeat if they could license their software for another to manufacture.



I think both MS and Sony are thinking long and hard about the future of their hardware endeavors after losing billions recently and seeing the wild success Nintendo has had.

Where that leads these two companies is anyone's guess, but I imagine they both are having second thoughts about business as usual.

 

[tirminyl]

Howard Stringer is under alot of pressure from shareholders to get the Playstation division profitable. If PS3's fortunes don't turn around, in my personal opinion I doubt he shall be green lighting a PS4.

I think the problem many make is thinking that Sony is only a game company. Howard Stringer is under a lot of pressure to get Sony as a whole profitable. If you look at their reports there are other divisions hemorrhaging money and that have been on a decline for years.

If you look at past data Sony has always released their consoles as a loss lead. They thought that just because it worked with the PS1 and PS2 they could get away with that same business model on the PS3 and as you say, the rest is history.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think the problem many make is thinking that Sony is only a game company. Howard Stringer is under a lot of pressure to get Sony as a whole profitable. If you look at their reports there are other divisions hemorrhaging money and that have been on a decline for years.

If you look at past data Sony has always released their consoles as a loss lead. They thought that just because it worked with the PS1 and PS2 they could get away with that same business model on the PS3 and as you say, the rest is history.

Well the problen was that with PS1 the price was attractive compared to the competition. And they went after 3rd parties strongly.

With PS2, there was the hype leading up to it. Strong initial sales, large decline then price adjustments to bring demand back online. And Dreamcast just didn't put up a good fight despite launching first.

With PS3. It was just a multitude of problems. Delayed due to Blueray. Hugely overpriced compared to the competition. And this time, unlike Dreamcast, the X360 was able to leverage their launch much better with courting 3rd party devs much more strongly than Sega did with Dreamcast.

So unlike PS2, even with some price adjustments PS3 wasn't able to regain sales momentum after initial sales due to hype. And the price adjustments still didn't bring it inline with mainstream expectations unlike PS2.

I think the loss leader strategy is perfectly fine. But the problem is that you still have to keep the machine within reach of the masses. Enthusiasts will buy it no matter the price. But you aren't going to get anywhere with a loss leader product unless you can move large quantities of product to the masses.

Add to that, the global recession hitting just when Sony most needed to make another price cut to blunt the momentum the X360 was gaining from its price cut. Unfortunately the recession hit Sony as a whole extremely hard, negating for the most part their ability to cut prices (taking more of a loss) on the gamble that it could increase hardware sales and by extension hope that it increased software + accessory sales enough to compensate.

It's a multitude of things that just haven't gone Sony's way this generation. Huge initial price. Stronger competition than in the past. Delayed console with regards to the competition. Recession hitting the company hard at a time when they most needed make adjustments to sell through more in order for a loss leader strategy to work.

Change any one of those, and it's quite possible they could be in a better position. As it is. They aren't out of the game yet. Assuming Sony (as a whole, not just the gaming division) survives the recession, they are still in a position to come through this OK. And while they may not have the cash reserves to burn through as do the competition, the company has a strong enough past record that fiancial institutions should be willing to help the company stay afloat through the recession. So I'm not currently worried that they won't survive.

Regards,
SB

 

[tirminyl]

Buddha, I think you just detailed my

the rest is history.

comment

 

[obonicus]

I think the problem many make is thinking that Sony is only a game company. Howard Stringer is under a lot of pressure to get Sony as a whole profitable. If you look at their reports there are other divisions hemorrhaging money and that have been on a decline for years.

If you look at past data Sony has always released their consoles as a loss lead. They thought that just because it worked with the PS1 and PS2 they could get away with that same business model on the PS3 and as you say, the rest is history.

In the Reeves interview thread, in his latest interview I believe Reeves not only compliments Nintendo directly, but compliments their 'sell consoles at a profit' strategy. I think it's pretty clear where Sony's going to be next-gen.

 

[tirminyl]

In the Reeves interview thread, in his latest interview I believe Reeves not only compliments Nintendo directly, but compliments their 'sell consoles at a profit' strategy. I think it's pretty clear where Sony's going to be next-gen.

Yep. As far as I have seen, Nintendo has not had a loss since 98 (don't make me go digging please). Their consoles have generated profits because they put emphasis on software and not hardware.

There can be emphasis on both but I don't think Sony needs to re-architect every gen. Their consoles should be an evolution of each-other. Building a thousand dollar gaming machine (we assume) is ridiculous when you know the consumers spending and what they are willing to pay.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

There can be emphasis on both but I don't think Sony needs to re-architect every gen.

Every console since they began has been a complete rearchitecture apart from Wii! All Nintendo's profits came from behaving just like Sony (in the hardware development front) since '98.

Edit : Actually, the Gameboy line was very profitable and was derivative.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Buddha, I think you just detailed my comment

Well, sorta, except that I disagree that a loss leader strategy for consoles is necessarily a bad idea.

It's just that you really need to move a lot of consoles which in turn needs to move a lot of accessories and software in order to make it work.

And/or have significant cost reductions for parts used in your console. But even then, the plan won't be to make money off consoles. The cost reductions (for a loss leader strategy) would be so that you can reduce price to move more consoles to sell more software and accessories.

The problem with the PS3 with regards to this strategy is that it isn't priced to move. The global recession is only exacerbating the problem. And the fact that the competition has a compelling product at a lower price just compounds that.

So, I agree with how you came to your conclusion. I just don't necessarily agree with your conclusion.

MS is making it work so far though the profit isn't entirely known as it's buried among the whole entertainment division which also includes the Zune among other products incurring a loss.

Regards,
SB

 

[cbarcus]

Sony is producing the best hardware

If one follows the major computing trends, they may notice that the following is happening:

1) power efficiency has become critical

2) SIMD processing and stream programming represent a major paradigm shift, but are necessary changes for efficient processing of rich-media applications. All of the bitching developers merely represent resistance to this significant and difficult change. Expect to see language design catching up some time within the next decade.

3) Cloud computing/Timeshare/advanced client-server model

Will the thin-client OnLive be successful? If they can overcome the latency and image quality issues, and provide compelling content, there will probably be a place for them among the well connected (the US significantly lags behind in broadband development). Apparently the UK now averages over 3Mbps, and broadband reaches 95% of the society.

I keep expecting web tablets to be the next killer device, but so far the component price hasn't been right.

4) In the long term (2 more generations/by 2020?) we will probably see FPGAs and ASICs taking over much more functionality in the console space because these technologies offer several magnitudes of performance (100-1000 times) increases over microprocessors and DSPs. Dedicated power-efficient MPEG4 chips in low-cost Blu-ray players and mobile devices are an obvious example of how these are used.

Sony, under the guidance of Kutaragi, made the HD leap with scalable technology. Blu-ray capacity can significantly increase if needed (at least 200 gigs is possible today if there is a market), and the Cell can efficiently scale to many more cores. If realism and the detail it offers is an important style (certainly not the only style), then this is the technology we should be looking at. Sony has repeatedly demonstrated that the organization knows how to combine high performance and reliability at a low cost, and that the PS3 will follow suit with an affordable "slim" version within the next year or so.

Nintendo has successfully developed a new market, and I believe Microsoft is attempting the same with their Natal technology because they cannot compete with regards to performance. This may not seem at all obvious to some when cross-platform games look superior on the 360. I am aware that Natal has really stimulated the imagination of many, but I've seen expectations routinely go beyond what this technology is capable of. Regardless, Molyneux is brilliant, and I cannot wait to see what he comes up with next.

Videogames are successfully competing with film and TV as the preferred entertainment medium, and I expect that development costs will continue to increase to feed an ever expanding industry. $150 million can buy a lot of content. We are already seeing a great diversity in content with XBL and PSN providing avenues for low-cost alternatives. The history of the film industry may be somewhat analogous to what we can expect to happen in the videogame industry, and for the curious I highly recommend Martin Scorsese's A Personal Journey through American Movies.

 

[Akumajou]

Well the problen was that with PS1 the price was attractive compared to the competition. And they went after 3rd parties strongly.

You mean when Sega allegedly angered a lot of 3rd parties and consumers by launching 4 months early with mostly first party games and a higher price point that reflected the cost of both new consoles a year earlier in Japan and not even mentioning the growing discontent by the way they supported the Sega CD and green lighting the 32X right?

Its not like sony had it easy, they were supposed to have a hard time (and they did, initially lose to Saturn in Japan) but Sega sure did make it easy.

With PS2, there was the hype leading up to it. Strong initial sales, large decline then price adjustments to bring demand back online. And Dreamcast just didn't put up a good fight despite launching first.

You mean that Sony somehow built a loyal fanbase that appart from the "hype" was insignificant to the real reason people where buying first year PS2s because they could justify buying a movie player that granted them access and saved space on what they could whatch, despite the fact that the console had a weak first year game library but that loyal fanbase and converts were enjoying the then unheard of ability of replaying old console games with enhancements.

...and somehow the other consumer base was losing confidence after the premature ejection of Saturn that also allegedly angered 3rd parties and consumers and many other things that contributed to a general vote of no confidence to buying DreamCast and its games library thanks in part to wince making it a cake walk for pirates...

And then there was the looming hype of a console to end all console specs war and how in the hell was Sega going to survive against a new, richer opponent...

With PS3. It was just a multitude of problems. Delayed due to Blueray. Hugely overpriced compared to the competition. And this time, unlike Dreamcast, the X360 was able to leverage their launch much better with courting 3rd party devs much more strongly than Sega did with Dreamcast.

Uh you must mean delays to an optimistic announcement made by ignoring the physical limitations of making a console that does not melt some of its own components rendering it useless.

Again Dreamcast? Unfortunately back then 3rd party game devs and consumers must have remembered previous Sega products to lack any, strenght in opening their wallets and blindly screaming SEGA as they handed their cash away at any form of support.

So unlike PS2, even with some price adjustments PS3 wasn't able to regain sales momentum after initial sales due to hype. And the price adjustments still didn't bring it inline with mainstream expectations unlike PS2.

I am wondering how you are writting Sony's obitchuary by comparing 2 and a half years of PS3 existance to the PS2s lifecycle that lacked a major economic crisys.

I believe that your "mainstream" expectators did expect the PS3 to do well but seriously "PS2 well" is a far cry for anyone to expect, even Sony would lack such expectations.

I think the loss leader strategy is perfectly fine. But the problem is that you still have to keep the machine within reach of the masses. Enthusiasts will buy it no matter the price. But you aren't going to get anywhere with a loss leader product unless you can move large quantities of product to the masses.

Things change, tech gets bigger and hotter and more expensive, this gen is a lesson for hitting physical barriers that humbled AMD, IBM and even mighty Intel.

The other side of reality is that Nintendo just could not afford to spend on higher spec simply because they actually do not have the money Sony has, cannot waste and write off billions like Microsoft and unlike Sega, Nintendo actualy has the balls to say no and not waste money... except for Virtua Boy

Add to that, the global recession hitting just when Sony most needed to make another price cut ...Regards,
SB

Recession is hitting everyone without prejudice, many consumers are changing their spending habits and many more are seeking alternative ways to "work" to pay those bills and have spending money. While I agree with you I would not underestimate Sony because they know that even a price cut is not going to help unless you build a game library of game content the consumer cannot get anywhere else.

Nintendo does not have money to burn,they only make one type of product even when they are reaping in the profits of this gen.

Microsoft is the only company that does not really have to worry about where their cash is comming from because the entire world seems to buy Microsoft software and operating systems, sure they posted a loss but it was laughable at best because of the word of mouth against Vista.

Sony was already a 3rd party dev and they were pretty much like EA, Activison,etc it sucked but people bought into the adverising.

Sega's best games are with their consoles, even the 3d Sonics, there is very little pride in their mp games and the ones that have that old Sega spirit are getting ignored reguardless of any advertising because the game seems so alien to even the general hardcore audience.

That is pretty much what would happen to both Sony and Nintendo, just shadows of their former selves.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I was originally not going to even reply to this due to various reasons, but some of it I just had to reply to.

Its not like sony had it easy, they were supposed to have a hard time (and they did, initially lose to Saturn in Japan) but Sega sure did make it easy.

At no point did I say or even imply that it was easy for the PS1. I have no idea where you got that idea.

As to the PS2, there was most certainly a dip in sales of PS2 (at least in the US) after the initial sell through. Including after supply was able to meet initial demand that was drummed up by the hype leading up to PS2. As you already pointed out one of the reasons was the lackluster game selection. The other that you didn't point out was it's initial high price. 399 USD. Demand didn't really start to pick up until the software selection improved and the price was cut.

In fact, there were even sites speculating on the decline of the Playstation brand during that period.

Uh you must mean delays to an optimistic announcement made by ignoring the physical limitations of making a console that does not melt some of its own components rendering it useless.

Did you miss the whole thing about the scarcity of laser crystal used for the blue (violet) laser used to read BlueRay discs? It not only impacted timely delivery of BluRay players but also the PS3. That's not to say it was the only factor but it certainly was a major one.

Again Dreamcast?

You bring up Dreamcast again with a bunch of stuff on Sega? When I was only using it to point out that the X360 was far more competition for Sony's PS3 than than the Dreamcast was for Sony's PS2.

I am wondering how you are writting Sony's obitchuary by comparing 2 and a half years of PS3 existance to the PS2s lifecycle that lacked a major economic crisys.

Again, I'm not sure where your imagination is coming up with these things. The obituary for Sony? What? This when I'm writing why I think the loss leader strategy with regards to console sales isn't a bad thing? And giving reasons why it hasn't worked yet for PS3. Some of which aren't even under the control of Sony.

The other side of reality is that Nintendo just could not afford to spend on higher spec simply because they actually do not have the money Sony has, cannot waste and write off billions like Microsoft and unlike Sega, Nintendo actualy has the balls to say no and not waste money... except for Virtua Boy

Where in the world did this come from? I have no idea. As far as I know, Nintendo aren't operating using a loss leader strategy. And uh, just for your information. Nintendo has a lot more cash than Sony.

I make a post defending Sony's strategy going into the PS3, and get a lengthy post blasting me for... Actually I'm not entirely sure what. Your post wanders all over the place, but I'm guessing you think I hate Sony or something. Which is certainly not the case as I have a PSP and other Sony electronics.

Regards,
SB

 

[RobertR1]

Haven't been really fond of Sony's software offerings so far this gen so I can't say I'd be enthusiastic about this. Perhaps as a software developer they would have a different direction which could be good, I suppose.