I don't see the big deal. The PS2 doesn't make a profit and "succeeds"; then the PS3 doesn't make a profit but "fails" because it doesn't have shiny, irrelevant numbers to make up for it. I'm sure they'll be fine.
O_o sales are irrelevant?
but yeah, i'm sure they'll be fine (this is not sarcasm)
If you aren't making any money off said sales, then yes, they're all hells of irrelevant.
But I might be confusing it with the Xbox in the business of not making profit. But hey, I'd say they're doing better now, so why spell gloom and doom for Sony?
They need people to buy games to make back the money on the console. They need people to buy the console so that exclusive games that people will want to buy are on the console. In this way the sale of the console does matter in a loss leader scenario.
Then the Gamecube shouldn't have made more profit than the Xbox.
I think you've got it backwards, man--developers decide which console to put games on before people decide which one they're going to buy. Look at all the heavy hitters that landed on the first Playstation when it was a risky new endeavor (and ended up making it a hit), and all the big-name titles still planned for futures on the PS3 in spite of the Wii's overwhelming success (which has gotten next-to-nothing in the way of high-profile titles besides first-party ones).
but what about the high number of titles that are migrating to cross platform status? isn't that something to think about?
It would be if they were migrating to the system actually selling the most, if that's supposed to be the great equalizer here. But they're not--it's just PS3/360.
Yes, but if the two systems have the same games, then the cheaper one is going to win.
Which one is that, again?
...The one that none of those games are coming out for.
I know you're trying to be a smart ass, but you're coming off as a lobotmized third grader
I prove you wrong so you insult my intelligence. You could put that quote of yours on a postcard and just mark it "Internet."
You proved him wrong? He clearly is talking about the 360/PS3 exclusive games, and asks which one of those two systems is the cheapest. You say the Wii, acting like you're clever.
You didn't prove him wrong, you proved yourself to be an idiot.
Silly me, I must have missed that part. I was too caught up in explaining how none of that mattered because people misconstrued the difference in meaning between "Sony" and "PS3"; it was a theory postulated in reference to the PS3's future, which I never said a single thing about. Simply Sony's, which stretches far, far beyond that.
Regardless, I guess my views on a business' success being reflected by, you know, money, are a little old-fashioned now. I apologize for failing to recognize that it only affects the operation of every single business in every other industry in existence--but not video games!
For those viewers just tuning in, let's recap; man A claims profit overpowers sales in terms of success. Man B rebuts that sales determine profit and calls man A poopy. Man A points out a system that sold less and still made more money. Man B gets mad and says angry things about children with tragic medical disorders.
For those viewers just tuning in, let's recap; man A claims profit overpowers sales in terms of success. Man B rebuts that sales determine profit and calls man A poopy. Man A points out a system that sold less and still made more money. Man B gets mad and says angry things about children with tragic medical disorders.
Maybe we should get this right instead.
Man A: Sales are irrelevant to Sony.
Man B: How doe you figure?
Man A: The gamecube made a profit with lower sales than the xbox, which did not make a profit
Man B: The Gamecube wasn't using the Loss Leader strategy, the PS3 is. It's profit is based around games sales. Game sales are based around big profile games being made for the system, and that is based around the system selling.
Man A: But most games are multiplatform now between the 360 and PS3
Man B: Yes, but the cheaper one will more than likely get the most sales. Which one of the two consoles is that?
Man A: The third one that we're not talking about at the moment
Man B: O_o
Man A: I AM THE GREETEST! NOW I LEAVE EARTH FOR NO RAISINS!
(snip)
...The one that none of those games are coming out for.
But people are misreading... "Sony" is not synonymous with "PS3." I'm saying the PS3 could totally bomb and Sony could still very feasibly recover, so it's nothing worth getting all pessimistic over (or optimistic, in the case of some of the weirdos here).
The thread is about whether the PS3 is doomed/not doomed ... not Sony. Sony will do just fine, especially with their new management, but that's not the question this thread asks. The future of the PS3 is much more hazy (and therefore interesting).
mausmalone on
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
But yeah, I thought everyone here knew Nintendo and Sony used different profit strategies by this point.
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
For those viewers just tuning in, let's recap; man A claims profit overpowers sales in terms of success. Man B rebuts that sales determine profit and calls man A poopy. Man A points out a system that sold less and still made more money. Man B gets mad and says angry things about children with tragic medical disorders.
Maybe we should get this right instead.
Man A: Sales are irrelevant to Sony.
Man B: How doe you figure?
Man A: The gamecube made a profit with lower sales than the xbox, which did not make a profit
Man B: The Gamecube wasn't using the Loss Leader strategy, the PS3 is. It's profit is based around games sales. Game sales are based around big profile games being made for the system, and that is based around the system selling.
Man A: But most games are multiplatform now between the 360 and PS3
Man B: Yes, but the cheaper one will more than likely get the most sales. Which one of the two consoles is that?
Man A: The third one that we're not talking about at the moment
Man B: O_o
Man A: I AM THE GREETEST! NOW I LEAVE EARTH FOR NO RAISINS!
I didn't bring up the multiplatform tangent. And my response to it was a playful nudge at the way people are putting words in my mouth, which I kind of just proved right now.
I share other people's concern about the possibility of Microsoft dominance. Unlike the other two companies, they could potentially leverage two monopolies and overcharge the absolute shit out of everything. I know all companies are out to make money, but seriously, Microsoft is down over $6 billion on the Xbox project so far. If you guys don't think that once their in a position to do so they are going to hike everything up in order to get that back, you're fooling yourself. At least Sony's investment in Blu-Ray has the potential to gain money for all their divisions, so it may end up being a wise investment.
The worst thing, however, about Microsoft dominance of the industry is the impossibility of anyone ever entering the market again. If they're willing to lose 6 billion dollars in order to get a foothold in an industry, imagine what they'd be willing to spend in order to keep it. And, like we've seen in the past, they can take the hit because they have a virtual monopoly to rely upon for extra cash.
Maybe this doesn't make any sense anyone but me, but the thought of Microsoft in charge of the industry makes me feel a little icky.
What you're saying makes sense, but you're implying it wouldn't be like that if Sony or Nintendo gained a monopoly. I think we can all agree that ANY monopoly will result in higher prices and lower quality, and could spell the doom of the gaming industry as a whole. Not just if it were MS.
First of all, since Nintendo doesn't have a $6 billion deficit to make up, they're not going to be as aggressive in terms of pricing as Microsoft will be in the same position. Sony's losses will more than be covered should Blu-Ray become the standard Hi-Def format, so they're willing to eat the loss.
The difference is, and always will be, that Microsoft can always leverage that other (virtual) monopoly that they have, and can use to prop up their games division, and to help it from bleeding in order to keep other competition out. If there's something that Microsoft is good at, it's eradicating the competition from a market that they get in---mostly by leveraging their other successful enterprises. The success of Office and IE are almost entirely due to the use (or abuse) of their virtual monopoly in the OS space.
I would only compare them to Sony if in fact Sony had a virtual monopoly on the consumer electronics space or a virtual monopoly on the movie space, etc. etc. etc. Though they can use their other properties to help their gaming division, all of their other divisions are in highly competitive markets. Where most of Microsoft's money comes from is what might be called a not-so-competitive market---AKA a market in which they have a virtual monopoly. Should Microsoft gain dominance in the video game industry, they would effectively be able to leverage them both at the same time, something Sony wouldn't be able to do because of the nature of the industries in which they compete.
I know they'd all bleed us dry if they had the opportunity, all I'm saying is that Microsoft is going to bleed us out a lot faster due to the nature of their company---and the need to make up that 6bil debt.
This I just can't agree with. Any company in a monopoly situation will be just as horrible to their consumer. Your insistence that Microsoft would be so much worse than Nintendo and Sony is just not grounded in reality. Yes, Microsoft has done some nasty things to maintain their OS/Office monopolies, but Nintendo did similar things in the 90s, and Sony just tried to pull shit of that nature, and are getting burned badly for it.
You're taking one part of my quote (probably the least important of the bunch) and not addressing the rest.
The nature of Microsoft as a company is thanks to their financial strength (the OS market/Office market, which is essentially a cash cow, since there is no competition) is that they are the only company of the bunch capable of sustaining a monopoly thanks to the sheer amount of outside revenue they gain. Nintendo and Sony, though they'd both be no fun as a monopoly, wouldn't have the ability financially to cut off competition. Microsoft has sunk 6 billion into the Xbox project, and that there have been few rumblings about this financially speaking speaks to the kind of money they'd be willing to lay down should they get into a position where they have market dominance.
So, what I'm essentially saying is that because they're the only company of the three capable of holding and sustaining a monopoly out of the three console makers, they are the only one of the three that would really "bleed people dry". Sony and Nintendo couldn't abuse their position because they wouldn't have the financial muscle to cut off their competition that Microsoft has. Oh, they could do some things that would tilt things in their favor, but Microsoft is the only one of the three that has the financial power to kick a competitor out of the market through sheer brute force. They can only do that once they get into a position of power, but once they have enough mindshare it's definitely possible.
I share other people's concern about the possibility of Microsoft dominance. Unlike the other two companies, they could potentially leverage two monopolies and overcharge the absolute shit out of everything. I know all companies are out to make money, but seriously, Microsoft is down over $6 billion on the Xbox project so far. If you guys don't think that once their in a position to do so they are going to hike everything up in order to get that back, you're fooling yourself. At least Sony's investment in Blu-Ray has the potential to gain money for all their divisions, so it may end up being a wise investment.
The worst thing, however, about Microsoft dominance of the industry is the impossibility of anyone ever entering the market again. If they're willing to lose 6 billion dollars in order to get a foothold in an industry, imagine what they'd be willing to spend in order to keep it. And, like we've seen in the past, they can take the hit because they have a virtual monopoly to rely upon for extra cash.
Maybe this doesn't make any sense anyone but me, but the thought of Microsoft in charge of the industry makes me feel a little icky.
What you're saying makes sense, but you're implying it wouldn't be like that if Sony or Nintendo gained a monopoly. I think we can all agree that ANY monopoly will result in higher prices and lower quality, and could spell the doom of the gaming industry as a whole. Not just if it were MS.
First of all, since Nintendo doesn't have a $6 billion deficit to make up, they're not going to be as aggressive in terms of pricing as Microsoft will be in the same position. Sony's losses will more than be covered should Blu-Ray become the standard Hi-Def format, so they're willing to eat the loss.
The difference is, and always will be, that Microsoft can always leverage that other (virtual) monopoly that they have, and can use to prop up their games division, and to help it from bleeding in order to keep other competition out. If there's something that Microsoft is good at, it's eradicating the competition from a market that they get in---mostly by leveraging their other successful enterprises. The success of Office and IE are almost entirely due to the use (or abuse) of their virtual monopoly in the OS space.
I would only compare them to Sony if in fact Sony had a virtual monopoly on the consumer electronics space or a virtual monopoly on the movie space, etc. etc. etc. Though they can use their other properties to help their gaming division, all of their other divisions are in highly competitive markets. Where most of Microsoft's money comes from is what might be called a not-so-competitive market---AKA a market in which they have a virtual monopoly. Should Microsoft gain dominance in the video game industry, they would effectively be able to leverage them both at the same time, something Sony wouldn't be able to do because of the nature of the industries in which they compete.
I know they'd all bleed us dry if they had the opportunity, all I'm saying is that Microsoft is going to bleed us out a lot faster due to the nature of their company---and the need to make up that 6bil debt.
This I just can't agree with. Any company in a monopoly situation will be just as horrible to their consumer. Your insistence that Microsoft would be so much worse than Nintendo and Sony is just not grounded in reality. Yes, Microsoft has done some nasty things to maintain their OS/Office monopolies, but Nintendo did similar things in the 90s, and Sony just tried to pull shit of that nature, and are getting burned badly for it.
You're taking one part of my quote (probably the least important of the bunch) and not addressing the rest.
The nature of Microsoft as a company is thanks to their financial strength (the OS market/Office market, which is essentially a cash cow, since there is no competition) is that they are the only company of the bunch capable of sustaining a monopoly thanks to the sheer amount of outside revenue they gain. Nintendo and Sony, though they'd both be no fun as a monopoly, wouldn't have the ability financially to cut off competition. Microsoft has sunk 6 billion into the Xbox project, and that there have been few rumblings about this financially speaking speaks to the kind of money they'd be willing to lay down should they get into a position where they have market dominance.
So, what I'm essentially saying is that because they're the only company of the three capable of holding and sustaining a monopoly out of the three console makers, they are the only one of the three that would really "bleed people dry". Sony and Nintendo couldn't abuse their position because they wouldn't have the financial muscle to cut off their competition that Microsoft has. Oh, they could do some things that would tilt things in their favor, but Microsoft is the only one of the three that has the financial power to kick a competitor out of the market through sheer brute force. They can only do that once they get into a position of power, but once they have enough mindshare it's definitely possible.
I think you're understimating the size of Sony by quite a bit. They're a massive company with multiple, profitable divisions. Nintendo is also not exactly poor either, considering their entire strategy is based around making money on all of their products from day one. Sony and Nintendo could absolutely abuse their position to extremes, and they have attempted to do so.
They're in this for the money. As long as they can you, the consumer, to buy their stuff, they'll stay in the business. If Microsoft can make a profit in the gaming market without "taking over the living room" they'll stay in the market. Might they like to "take over the living room", yes, the would. But it's not some horrible skynet type thing. They just want to sell you things.
Just like Sony and just like Nintendo. All they want is to make a profit doing whatever the consumer will let them get away with. Anyone who tries to demonize one companies intentions in the market is a fucking idiot. They're all in it for the same damn thing, your paycheck.
You know the best way to make money is to monopolize a market,
I think you're understimating the size of Sony by quite a bit. They're a massive company with multiple, profitable divisions. Nintendo is also not exactly poor either, considering their entire strategy is based around making money on all of their products from day one. Sony and Nintendo could absolutely abuse their position to extremes, and they have attempted to do so.
Sony's profitable divisions are in highly competitive areas where how much they make can vary wildly from quarter to quarter based on what their competitors are doing and what movies/music are out at any given time. Microsoft's profits, however, are in highly non-competitive areas (lol anti-trust) and thus are far more dependable and steady.
And obviously, these are all omghuge companies, but should Microsoft attain a position of power, they're the most able of the bunch to use brute force financial strength to maintain that advantage. Heavily subsidized consoles is one way of course, but payoffs to developers and publishers wouldn't hurt either. They literally could price their competitors out of the marketplace because how much more they make as a company than any of the others. If they made as much as Nintendo made this entire last year in one quarter, it'd be a bad quarter for them.
Their sheer size and financial clout doesn't matter much right now when they don't have a majority marketshare, but should they ever be the market leader, their financial clout is going to keep them there. Sony and Nintendo cannot sustain the losses necessary to price their competitors out of the market (especially when one of their competitors is Microsoft), but Microsoft can.
Ah yes. It appears we are. See you in another few months gents. If you need me I'll be playing fucking video games.
Threepio on
0
Options
RoshinMy backlog can be seen from spaceSwedenRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
all the big-name titles still planned for futures on the PS3 in spite of the Wii's overwhelming success
Developing games for the 360 and PS3 cost a lot of money and developers need to at least cover their losses and make a decent profit to stay in business. This is why previous Sony exclusives are now going multi-platform. The PS3 doesn't have a big enough userbase yet to do the above.
On the other hand, developing games for the Wii and the DS is relatively cheap (compared to the 360 and PS3) and there's a huge userbase in place, which is why pretty much everyone is planning to release games on those platforms now.
Man, Nintendo needs to release a cut down dev kit that'll run on your own PC and Wii at home, for free. And then an easy path for upgrading from that to a proper tech licensing option. Then they need to push it heavily in multimedia/tech schools.
The best way to ensure your dominance is to get into the hearts and minds of your customer base who will, in the years to come, become the very same workforce you draw upon to develop your product.
I think you're understimating the size of Sony by quite a bit. They're a massive company with multiple, profitable divisions. Nintendo is also not exactly poor either, considering their entire strategy is based around making money on all of their products from day one. Sony and Nintendo could absolutely abuse their position to extremes, and they have attempted to do so.
Sony's profitable divisions are in highly competitive areas where how much they make can vary wildly from quarter to quarter based on what their competitors are doing and what movies/music are out at any given time. Microsoft's profits, however, are in highly non-competitive areas (lol anti-trust) and thus are far more dependable and steady.
And obviously, these are all omghuge companies, but should Microsoft attain a position of power, they're the most able of the bunch to use brute force financial strength to maintain that advantage. Heavily subsidized consoles is one way of course, but payoffs to developers and publishers wouldn't hurt either. They literally could price their competitors out of the marketplace because how much more they make as a company than any of the others. If they made as much as Nintendo made this entire last year in one quarter, it'd be a bad quarter for them.
Their sheer size and financial clout doesn't matter much right now when they don't have a majority marketshare, but should they ever be the market leader, their financial clout is going to keep them there. Sony and Nintendo cannot sustain the losses necessary to price their competitors out of the market (especially when one of their competitors is Microsoft), but Microsoft can.
Okay, I can see the point you're making. Microsoft does have an edge in that they've got other divisions that can easily put up the cash to hold a monopoly if Microsoft ever gains the top spot (although several factors make this unlikely). However, I still don't think Microsoft could be that much worse than Nintendo or Sony at holding a monopoly, and I don't think money alone is what is necessary to create a monopoly in the console market.
Sony was close last generation, simply because they worked hard and spent piles of money to secure exclusive deals with the biggest developers, rather than pricing competition out of the market. It wasn't a lack of money that sunk the PS3 though, so much as horrid management of their brand (and the idiotic Blu-ray trojan horse). I suspect that if they return to that position, they'll go back to locking down big-time exclusives that shut out their competitors, and will know to price their machine competitively.
Nintendo was also close to gaining a monopoly, but again, money wasn't the issue. Let's face it, Nintendo doesn't touch anything unless it will make a profit for them on day one. You can bet they have a fairly massive stockpile of cash on hand to do with as they please (and because the gaming division is all of Nintendo, they don't have to compete with other parts of a company for funding like Microsoft and Sony would have to). They also have a pretty ridiculous foothold on the portable gaming market, which is very big money as well. What sunk Nintendo was some very bad business deals with Sony (opting to go with Phillips for a disc drive addon at the last minute), as well as putting off publishers by enforcing obscenely unfair contracts to shut out competitors. Once a viable competitor showed up, publishers jumped ship en masse for Sony.
The point I'm getting at here is that gaining and holding a monopoly in this particular market is not as simple as having the most money. There are other factors that are just as important as a big wallet. Locking up exclusive deals, having a positive brand image and reputation (something that Microsoft is unlikely to gain in Japan for the forseeable future), and having a talented group of first-party developers are all just as important as having a competitive (or undercutting) price.
My question, to those folks who think MS would be willing to break the bank to maintain a monopoly on the gaming industry, is if thats the case why aren't they breaking said bank to create the monopoly in the first place?
I mean, if all they really cared about was dominating market share they could have released the 360 for $200 and ate the costs knowing that they'd sell like gangbusters with no way for Nintendo or Sony to compete with that.
I think the wii does so well because it is so accessible, nothing more.
I don't know if it will hold up to be as much of a success in terms of number of games users own per system, but I think it will be the undeniable ruler in terms of number of units sold... what that will mean for the 360 and ps3 in terms of 3rd party support? I really can't say.
To me, the Wii is a totally different class of console.. it fits in between the DS and the GC in terms of place... it's low price, high availability, and unique design make it more "toy" like than the ps3 and 360's "consumer electronic" position.
A massive flow of 3rd party support could quickly dry up Sony and MS's hopes for this console period... altho it would be pretty easy for either to try and reclaim it with some new peripherals and console updates... they can't hope to catch the landslide that is the Wii success story unless the Wii itself slows down.
The Wii currently has an excellent TIE ratio higher then the PS3. How you can throw out that it will have shitty game support and lots of users buying it for basically Wii Sports or Wii Fit only is a mystery (and thats what you are implying). In fact, the Wii has the highest attach rate of any console since 1996 according to Famitsu's numbers.
Point out where I said it didn't have one? Read what I wrote maybe? I said I was unsure "if it would" have a good ratio in the future. Besides, the PS3 is a horrible system to compare it to right now anyways. All I'm saying is, the Wii "could possiby" wind up selling a ton of consoles, but not selling many games, as people may only buy specific types (waggle designed) games for it, and everything else on one of the other consoles.
My question, to those folks who think MS would be willing to break the bank to maintain a monopoly on the gaming industry, is if thats the case why aren't they breaking said bank to create the monopoly in the first place?
I mean, if all they really cared about was dominating market share they could have released the 360 for $200 and ate the costs knowing that they'd sell like gangbusters with no way for Nintendo or Sony to compete with that.
Not a guaranteed win however. If they.. say gave away the Xbox free, no strings attached... companies may have been skeptic about it and adopted a wait and see strategy. People would have gotten one sure, it's free, no obligation, so why not? But they would still need games for it.
MS would have to spend a TON not just on the manufacture and sales of the system, but also on the obtaining of games for it.
I don't think such a plan would have worked very well for the oXbox from the get go.
However, once live went... well, live, they could have sold the system like a cell phone. Free for purchase with a 2 year contract to the live service, cancellation means ponying up the full price for the system. Or, you can buy it with no live and pay full price from the start. That may very well have worked.
As others mentioned, money helps... but it's not everything. Sony has pockets deep enough to play the price wars with MS in the console market, but at the end of the day both have to report back to the parent company and justify it.
MS's gaming division does NOT have all of Microsoft's money to play with, neither does Sony's game division have all of Sony's money to play with... if you think they do, you have no idea how these kinds of companies work.
Right now both Sony and MS are taking hits in their gaming division, if you think their parent companies are just writing out checks to cover it like it's no big deal, WRONG. They have strategies, they have gameplans, they have goals and deadlines. If they miss a target? It's not all "lol, we got mad $$ yo, just write a check and it's all good". They have to explain what happened, pour over the data and figures about why it happened, explain that all to their bosses, then come up with new targets and gameplans.
It's a constantly evolving situation. Sony may be making bad choices, REAL bad ones at times, but they certainly aren't doing it on purpose.. someone, as dense as they may be, is coming up and green lighting these in an attempt to make money. MS, for any money it loses, has a gameplan worked out and approved that shows when they estimate things to be profitable. If either company misses too many, and the parent company decides it's no longer woth it, you can bet your ass they will pack up shop and leave the console market. But both see the growth there, both see the potential for money, so it's not likely at all.
Nope. It was because Enix said they were making DQ 7 on the PSX.
Zuh? Unless I'm getting my years confused, which is totally possible, Enix's plans at the time Square jumped ship were to put DQVII on the 64DD.
Nope. Enix went to the PSX first with DQ 7, then Square cancelled FF 7 on the 64 and moved it over before any real work was done on it.
Yep, I still remember images in Gamepro (or maybe Nintendo Power) of Cloud's 3d model back when it was still going to be an N64 game. The official line for the switch was storage capacity.
My question, to those folks who think MS would be willing to break the bank to maintain a monopoly on the gaming industry, is if thats the case why aren't they breaking said bank to create the monopoly in the first place?
I mean, if all they really cared about was dominating market share they could have released the 360 for $200 and ate the costs knowing that they'd sell like gangbusters with no way for Nintendo or Sony to compete with that.
I thought Nintendo was kind of doing this? Sort of like what MS did with XNA express.
Man, Nintendo needs to release a cut down dev kit that'll run on your own PC and Wii at home, for free. And then an easy path for upgrading from that to a proper tech licensing option. Then they need to push it heavily in multimedia/tech schools.
The best way to ensure your dominance is to get into the hearts and minds of your customer base who will, in the years to come, become the very same workforce you draw upon to develop your product.
That may very well be why NST runs out of the same building as DigiPen. In order to gain support and foster good feelings for Nintendo in up-and-coming developers.
Ah yes. It appears we are. See you in another few months gents. If you need me I'll be playing fucking video games.
These threads are starting to get like the "Wii: X months later" threads. I giant spew of stupidity, people arguing points that aren't actually contrary to each other but still getting angry over it, and most of the regulars going "oh god, not this shit again."
Nope. It was because Enix said they were making DQ 7 on the PSX.
Zuh? Unless I'm getting my years confused, which is totally possible, Enix's plans at the time Square jumped ship were to put DQVII on the 64DD.
Nope. Enix went to the PSX first with DQ 7, then Square cancelled FF 7 on the 64 and moved it over before any real work was done on it.
Yep, I still remember images in Gamepro (or maybe Nintendo Power) of Cloud's 3d model back when it was still going to be an N64 game. The official line for the switch was storage capacity.
I don't remember a model for Cloud, but I do remember the N64 FF7 demo that had 3D models of Locke, Terra and Shadow. I've read some interesting stuff about it here: http://www.lostlevels.org/200510/
Nope. It was because Enix said they were making DQ 7 on the PSX.
Zuh? Unless I'm getting my years confused, which is totally possible, Enix's plans at the time Square jumped ship were to put DQVII on the 64DD.
Nope. Enix went to the PSX first with DQ 7, then Square cancelled FF 7 on the 64 and moved it over before any real work was done on it.
Yep, I still remember images in Gamepro (or maybe Nintendo Power) of Cloud's 3d model back when it was still going to be an N64 game. The official line for the switch was storage capacity.
I don't remember a model for Cloud, but I do remember the N64 FF7 demo that had 3D models of Locke, Terra and Shadow. I've read some interesting stuff about it here: http://www.lostlevels.org/200510/
Oh, that's it. The one halfway down the page, that's the one I remember seeing. I thought that kid's hair was blonde, though, which is why I thought I remembered seeing Cloud. That was in Nintendo Power, I believe. Looks like they got it wrong; shoddy journalism. SGI demo.
For those viewers just tuning in, let's recap; man A claims profit overpowers sales in terms of success. Man B rebuts that sales determine profit and calls man A poopy. Man A points out a system that sold less and still made more money. Man B gets mad and says angry things about children with tragic medical disorders.
Maybe we should get this right instead.
Man A: Sales are irrelevant to Sony.
Man B: How doe you figure?
Man A: The gamecube made a profit with lower sales than the xbox, which did not make a profit
Man B: The Gamecube wasn't using the Loss Leader strategy, the PS3 is. It's profit is based around games sales. Game sales are based around big profile games being made for the system, and that is based around the system selling.
Man A: But most games are multiplatform now between the 360 and PS3
Man B: Yes, but the cheaper one will more than likely get the most sales. Which one of the two consoles is that?
Man A: The third one that we're not talking about at the moment
Man B: O_o
Man A: I AM THE GREETEST! NOW I LEAVE EARTH FOR NO RAISINS!
I didn't bring up the multiplatform tangent. And my response to it was a playful nudge at the way people are putting words in my mouth, which I kind of just proved right now.
Blitz, words are put into your mouth because we know that once you're in a thread, it's just going to get all mucked up anyway. Every thread you start to get heavily involved in ends in you defending yourself from the PA hordes. Is it STILL the rest of us doing this? I don't have any personal issues with you, as I rather like some of the arguments you bring up, but it's the way you deliver your thoughts that just rub some of us the wrong way. And if you say that "it's just the way I am", then you need to accept that this is "just the way the rest of us are going to react." If you won't change, what makes you think we will?
That aside, I would like to put in a couple cents of my own here. Microsoft and Sony put on incredibly similar shows at E3. The game line-up is so close side-by-side, that there are 3 major factors, in my opinion (lets get that out of the way), that will affect sales.
#1: Obviously, price. The 360 is lower-priced so more people are going to buy it, especially those who are uninformed on upcoming game titles, and even some that are already out...which, a lot of us need to realize is a majority of possible buyers.
#2: Games that are already out. Right now, advantage 360. No question, unless Resistance is just so good to someone, that it negates Gears, Dead Rising, etc. While possible, it's not the most likely of outcomes.
#3: Games coming out in the near future. More than a year away shouldn't count. Period. Hell, we should barely be thinking about anything release after this holiday season, since this season is what will most likely make or break the big 3's outlook on the next 3-4 years. In which case, Sony's in a heap of trouble. Call me crazy, but the reasons to buy a PS3 over a 360 are extremely limited here.
Sony has dug themselves into a hole with this whole "cell processor, we are the future" bit. It doesn't look that much better than the 360, if at all with most games. They are losing exclusives left and right, and are going to have a hard time convincing more developers to stay with them and only them. Devs would have to be stupid not to also make a game available on the 360. They would be losing a very large amount of money.
#1: Obviously, price. The 360 is lower-priced so more people are going to buy it, especially those who are uninformed on upcoming game titles, and even some that are already out...which, a lot of us need to realize is a majority of possible buyers.
It also doesn't help that it look like Sony is still selling it at some amount of a loss.
With Nintendo’s Wii having outsold Sony’s PlayStation 3 by almost fivefold during the quarter ending in June, Sony’s CFO Nobuyuki Oneda appears to be looking on the bright side of life.
"Sales of the PS3 have risen but we booked losses due to our strategic decision to price it below the (production) cost. Actually, because the number of units sold was not as high as we hoped, the loss was better than our original
Oy. Reading this thread has been painful. Every now and again there are serious attempts at discussion, but then it gets dragged back into Stupidtown for whatever reason.
Anyway, in an attempt at getting this back on track, let's look at some scenarios and what kind of an effect it'll have on the market.
What probably will happen this year: Sony sells off all its 60GBs, then lowers the 80GB to $500. The public yawns, because a) there's not much difference between 60GB and 80GB, b) the people who would buy it at $500 have already done so, especially since the last chance at the vanishing hardware BC is a sell, and c) $500 is just too damned expensive for most people. The PS3's holiday lineup looks solid, but won't really sell systems.
Meanwile the 360 drops 50 bucks, and the insanely strong holiday line-up moves systems. (GTA4 practically counts as a system-selling exclusive, since the 360 is $150 less and comes on the system with Halo 3.) The Wii keeps on doing its thing, bolstered by Mario and Brawl.
If Sony drops the price to the 360's level this year: This is probably the best scenario, since $350 is much more mass-market friendly. GTA4 no longer gives the 360 an inherent advantage. Sony sells more systems.
But, Sony's exclusive line-up doesn't have any huge, recognizable names that can really counter the brand recognition of Halo 3. Plus, this likely won't happen. Sony would lose too much money, and ever since the top Sony execs seized control of the Playstation strategy after firing Krazy Ken, they seem to be in "OMG must control costs" mode. Meaning no drop below $500, no matter how much Kaz wants it. Hell, I wouldn't be hugely surprised if Sony doesn't drop the 80GB's price this year.
Sony drops the price of the PS3 gradually but steeply: Let's say Sony drops the entry price of the PS3 to $400 by holiday 2008. Now we're talking a price the mass market would get interested in.
But, the momentum loss would be too great. The gulf between the 360 and the PS3 would likely widen, given the 360's better price and great software this year. With no real bump in sales, nervous developers start to jump ship in even greater numbers. With less games come less opportunity for sales. Besides, the 360 can comfortably drop its price to beat each of Sony's moves (barring a massive PS3 cut Sony seems to be unwilling to do), keeping its price advantage. The PS3 likely won't cost the same as the 360 until the very end of the generation.
I really, really don't see any scenario that will get the PS3 out of third place, barring both Microsoft AND Nintendo doing things that are equally massively stupid. The thought that the Playstation brand is the "default" gaming system has been thoroughly smashed by the price at this point.
A scenario that could get the PS3 out of third place.
Well as unlikely or unbelievable as this is let try:
Halo 3 doesn't move as many systems as expected. 360 purchases slow to a crawl with only mild increase here and there (Halo 3, Christmas, nanometer upgrade). PS3 purchases increase through fall and christmas. Lots of people start buying the PS3 at it's current (recently dropped) price point due to new games(including online games). Home impresses a lot of people increases publics desire for PS3. Blu-ray purchases start to really increase. All this continues right up until MetalGearSOlid4 comes out. MGS4 because HUGE system seller, bigger then the franchise has ever been before on previous systems. Wii continues to have limited 3rd party support. Not many good games come out for it. Consumers tire of waggle.
*Shrugg* yeah I don't think this will happen either.
What probably will happen this year: Sony sells off all its 60GBs, then lowers the 80GB to $500. (snip)
(snip)
I don't understand why people think this will happen. Right now the plan is to sell through the 60GB models and then be left with 1 SKU at $600. While it would make some sort of logical sense to drop the price and keep sales flowing, what about Sony from the past 2 years makes anybody think that they're going to take the logical route?
I don't see the big deal. The PS2 doesn't make a profit and "succeeds"; then the PS3 doesn't make a profit but "fails" because it doesn't have shiny, irrelevant numbers to make up for it. I'm sure they'll be fine.
O_o sales are irrelevant?
but yeah, i'm sure they'll be fine (this is not sarcasm)
If you aren't making any money off said sales, then yes, they're all hells of irrelevant.
But I might be confusing it with the Xbox in the business of not making profit. But hey, I'd say they're doing better now, so why spell gloom and doom for Sony?
They need people to buy games to make back the money on the console. They need people to buy the console so that exclusive games that people will want to buy are on the console. In this way the sale of the console does matter in a loss leader scenario.
Then the Gamecube shouldn't have made more profit than the Xbox.
I think you've got it backwards, man--developers decide which console to put games on before people decide which one they're going to buy. Look at all the heavy hitters that landed on the first Playstation when it was a risky new endeavor (and ended up making it a hit), and all the big-name titles still planned for futures on the PS3 in spite of the Wii's overwhelming success (which has gotten next-to-nothing in the way of high-profile titles besides first-party ones).
but what about the high number of titles that are migrating to cross platform status? isn't that something to think about?
It would be if they were migrating to the system actually selling the most, if that's supposed to be the great equalizer here. But they're not--it's just PS3/360.
Yes, but if the two systems have the same games, then the cheaper one is going to win.
Which one is that, again?
...The one that none of those games are coming out for.
I know you're trying to be a smart ass, but you're coming off as a lobotmized third grader
I prove you wrong so you insult my intelligence. You could put that quote of yours on a postcard and just mark it "Internet."
You didn't "prove" anything
I asked you "a or b"
And you said "c"
Either you don't have the capicity to understand the question, or you are trying to be a smart ass. Either way, you're an idiot
Posts
except you. You're a dumbass.
Regardless, I guess my views on a business' success being reflected by, you know, money, are a little old-fashioned now. I apologize for failing to recognize that it only affects the operation of every single business in every other industry in existence--but not video games!
For those viewers just tuning in, let's recap; man A claims profit overpowers sales in terms of success. Man B rebuts that sales determine profit and calls man A poopy. Man A points out a system that sold less and still made more money. Man B gets mad and says angry things about children with tragic medical disorders.
haha lol sony.
haha lol microsoft.
^ all i get from this argument.
Maybe we should get this right instead.
Man A: Sales are irrelevant to Sony.
Man B: How doe you figure?
Man A: The gamecube made a profit with lower sales than the xbox, which did not make a profit
Man B: The Gamecube wasn't using the Loss Leader strategy, the PS3 is. It's profit is based around games sales. Game sales are based around big profile games being made for the system, and that is based around the system selling.
Man A: But most games are multiplatform now between the 360 and PS3
Man B: Yes, but the cheaper one will more than likely get the most sales. Which one of the two consoles is that?
Man A: The third one that we're not talking about at the moment
Man B: O_o
Man A: I AM THE GREETEST! NOW I LEAVE EARTH FOR NO RAISINS!
The thread is about whether the PS3 is doomed/not doomed ... not Sony. Sony will do just fine, especially with their new management, but that's not the question this thread asks. The future of the PS3 is much more hazy (and therefore interesting).
Nintendo fanboy.
But yeah, I thought everyone here knew Nintendo and Sony used different profit strategies by this point.
haha lol minigames
haha lol waggle gimmick
lol pc games
lol $4000 every year
lol phantom
Zuh? Unless I'm getting my years confused, which is totally possible, Enix's plans at the time Square jumped ship were to put DQVII on the 64DD.
You're taking one part of my quote (probably the least important of the bunch) and not addressing the rest.
The nature of Microsoft as a company is thanks to their financial strength (the OS market/Office market, which is essentially a cash cow, since there is no competition) is that they are the only company of the bunch capable of sustaining a monopoly thanks to the sheer amount of outside revenue they gain. Nintendo and Sony, though they'd both be no fun as a monopoly, wouldn't have the ability financially to cut off competition. Microsoft has sunk 6 billion into the Xbox project, and that there have been few rumblings about this financially speaking speaks to the kind of money they'd be willing to lay down should they get into a position where they have market dominance.
So, what I'm essentially saying is that because they're the only company of the three capable of holding and sustaining a monopoly out of the three console makers, they are the only one of the three that would really "bleed people dry". Sony and Nintendo couldn't abuse their position because they wouldn't have the financial muscle to cut off their competition that Microsoft has. Oh, they could do some things that would tilt things in their favor, but Microsoft is the only one of the three that has the financial power to kick a competitor out of the market through sheer brute force. They can only do that once they get into a position of power, but once they have enough mindshare it's definitely possible.
Nope. Enix went to the PSX first with DQ 7, then Square cancelled FF 7 on the 64 and moved it over before any real work was done on it.
I think you're understimating the size of Sony by quite a bit. They're a massive company with multiple, profitable divisions. Nintendo is also not exactly poor either, considering their entire strategy is based around making money on all of their products from day one. Sony and Nintendo could absolutely abuse their position to extremes, and they have attempted to do so.
You know the best way to make money is to monopolize a market,
oh shit here we go again!
Sony's profitable divisions are in highly competitive areas where how much they make can vary wildly from quarter to quarter based on what their competitors are doing and what movies/music are out at any given time. Microsoft's profits, however, are in highly non-competitive areas (lol anti-trust) and thus are far more dependable and steady.
And obviously, these are all omghuge companies, but should Microsoft attain a position of power, they're the most able of the bunch to use brute force financial strength to maintain that advantage. Heavily subsidized consoles is one way of course, but payoffs to developers and publishers wouldn't hurt either. They literally could price their competitors out of the marketplace because how much more they make as a company than any of the others. If they made as much as Nintendo made this entire last year in one quarter, it'd be a bad quarter for them.
Their sheer size and financial clout doesn't matter much right now when they don't have a majority marketshare, but should they ever be the market leader, their financial clout is going to keep them there. Sony and Nintendo cannot sustain the losses necessary to price their competitors out of the market (especially when one of their competitors is Microsoft), but Microsoft can.
Ah yes. It appears we are. See you in another few months gents. If you need me I'll be playing fucking video games.
Developing games for the 360 and PS3 cost a lot of money and developers need to at least cover their losses and make a decent profit to stay in business. This is why previous Sony exclusives are now going multi-platform. The PS3 doesn't have a big enough userbase yet to do the above.
On the other hand, developing games for the Wii and the DS is relatively cheap (compared to the 360 and PS3) and there's a huge userbase in place, which is why pretty much everyone is planning to release games on those platforms now.
It's all about economics.
The best way to ensure your dominance is to get into the hearts and minds of your customer base who will, in the years to come, become the very same workforce you draw upon to develop your product.
Okay, I can see the point you're making. Microsoft does have an edge in that they've got other divisions that can easily put up the cash to hold a monopoly if Microsoft ever gains the top spot (although several factors make this unlikely). However, I still don't think Microsoft could be that much worse than Nintendo or Sony at holding a monopoly, and I don't think money alone is what is necessary to create a monopoly in the console market.
Sony was close last generation, simply because they worked hard and spent piles of money to secure exclusive deals with the biggest developers, rather than pricing competition out of the market. It wasn't a lack of money that sunk the PS3 though, so much as horrid management of their brand (and the idiotic Blu-ray trojan horse). I suspect that if they return to that position, they'll go back to locking down big-time exclusives that shut out their competitors, and will know to price their machine competitively.
Nintendo was also close to gaining a monopoly, but again, money wasn't the issue. Let's face it, Nintendo doesn't touch anything unless it will make a profit for them on day one. You can bet they have a fairly massive stockpile of cash on hand to do with as they please (and because the gaming division is all of Nintendo, they don't have to compete with other parts of a company for funding like Microsoft and Sony would have to). They also have a pretty ridiculous foothold on the portable gaming market, which is very big money as well. What sunk Nintendo was some very bad business deals with Sony (opting to go with Phillips for a disc drive addon at the last minute), as well as putting off publishers by enforcing obscenely unfair contracts to shut out competitors. Once a viable competitor showed up, publishers jumped ship en masse for Sony.
The point I'm getting at here is that gaining and holding a monopoly in this particular market is not as simple as having the most money. There are other factors that are just as important as a big wallet. Locking up exclusive deals, having a positive brand image and reputation (something that Microsoft is unlikely to gain in Japan for the forseeable future), and having a talented group of first-party developers are all just as important as having a competitive (or undercutting) price.
I mean, if all they really cared about was dominating market share they could have released the 360 for $200 and ate the costs knowing that they'd sell like gangbusters with no way for Nintendo or Sony to compete with that.
No, threepio, come back! Playing videogames are for morons!
Let us talk about sales, graphs, and charts.
Point out where I said it didn't have one? Read what I wrote maybe? I said I was unsure "if it would" have a good ratio in the future. Besides, the PS3 is a horrible system to compare it to right now anyways. All I'm saying is, the Wii "could possiby" wind up selling a ton of consoles, but not selling many games, as people may only buy specific types (waggle designed) games for it, and everything else on one of the other consoles.
Japanese imports?
Not a guaranteed win however. If they.. say gave away the Xbox free, no strings attached... companies may have been skeptic about it and adopted a wait and see strategy. People would have gotten one sure, it's free, no obligation, so why not? But they would still need games for it.
MS would have to spend a TON not just on the manufacture and sales of the system, but also on the obtaining of games for it.
I don't think such a plan would have worked very well for the oXbox from the get go.
However, once live went... well, live, they could have sold the system like a cell phone. Free for purchase with a 2 year contract to the live service, cancellation means ponying up the full price for the system. Or, you can buy it with no live and pay full price from the start. That may very well have worked.
As others mentioned, money helps... but it's not everything. Sony has pockets deep enough to play the price wars with MS in the console market, but at the end of the day both have to report back to the parent company and justify it.
MS's gaming division does NOT have all of Microsoft's money to play with, neither does Sony's game division have all of Sony's money to play with... if you think they do, you have no idea how these kinds of companies work.
Right now both Sony and MS are taking hits in their gaming division, if you think their parent companies are just writing out checks to cover it like it's no big deal, WRONG. They have strategies, they have gameplans, they have goals and deadlines. If they miss a target? It's not all "lol, we got mad $$ yo, just write a check and it's all good". They have to explain what happened, pour over the data and figures about why it happened, explain that all to their bosses, then come up with new targets and gameplans.
It's a constantly evolving situation. Sony may be making bad choices, REAL bad ones at times, but they certainly aren't doing it on purpose.. someone, as dense as they may be, is coming up and green lighting these in an attempt to make money. MS, for any money it loses, has a gameplan worked out and approved that shows when they estimate things to be profitable. If either company misses too many, and the parent company decides it's no longer woth it, you can bet your ass they will pack up shop and leave the console market. But both see the growth there, both see the potential for money, so it's not likely at all.
Yep, I still remember images in Gamepro (or maybe Nintendo Power) of Cloud's 3d model back when it was still going to be an N64 game. The official line for the switch was storage capacity.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I thought Nintendo was kind of doing this? Sort of like what MS did with XNA express.
3DS: 1650-8480-6786
Switch: SW-0653-8208-4705
That may very well be why NST runs out of the same building as DigiPen. In order to gain support and foster good feelings for Nintendo in up-and-coming developers.
These threads are starting to get like the "Wii: X months later" threads. I giant spew of stupidity, people arguing points that aren't actually contrary to each other but still getting angry over it, and most of the regulars going "oh god, not this shit again."
I don't remember a model for Cloud, but I do remember the N64 FF7 demo that had 3D models of Locke, Terra and Shadow. I've read some interesting stuff about it here: http://www.lostlevels.org/200510/
@ShiftyPumpkin on the Twitterings. Book the Faces at [facebook.com/PerceptivePumpkinProductions]
Oh, that's it. The one halfway down the page, that's the one I remember seeing. I thought that kid's hair was blonde, though, which is why I thought I remembered seeing Cloud. That was in Nintendo Power, I believe. Looks like they got it wrong; shoddy journalism. SGI demo.
Anyway, yeah, weird stuff.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Blitz, words are put into your mouth because we know that once you're in a thread, it's just going to get all mucked up anyway. Every thread you start to get heavily involved in ends in you defending yourself from the PA hordes. Is it STILL the rest of us doing this? I don't have any personal issues with you, as I rather like some of the arguments you bring up, but it's the way you deliver your thoughts that just rub some of us the wrong way. And if you say that "it's just the way I am", then you need to accept that this is "just the way the rest of us are going to react." If you won't change, what makes you think we will?
That aside, I would like to put in a couple cents of my own here. Microsoft and Sony put on incredibly similar shows at E3. The game line-up is so close side-by-side, that there are 3 major factors, in my opinion (lets get that out of the way), that will affect sales.
#1: Obviously, price. The 360 is lower-priced so more people are going to buy it, especially those who are uninformed on upcoming game titles, and even some that are already out...which, a lot of us need to realize is a majority of possible buyers.
#2: Games that are already out. Right now, advantage 360. No question, unless Resistance is just so good to someone, that it negates Gears, Dead Rising, etc. While possible, it's not the most likely of outcomes.
#3: Games coming out in the near future. More than a year away shouldn't count. Period. Hell, we should barely be thinking about anything release after this holiday season, since this season is what will most likely make or break the big 3's outlook on the next 3-4 years. In which case, Sony's in a heap of trouble. Call me crazy, but the reasons to buy a PS3 over a 360 are extremely limited here.
Sony has dug themselves into a hole with this whole "cell processor, we are the future" bit. It doesn't look that much better than the 360, if at all with most games. They are losing exclusives left and right, and are going to have a hard time convincing more developers to stay with them and only them. Devs would have to be stupid not to also make a game available on the 360. They would be losing a very large amount of money.
A scenario that could get the PS3 out of third place.
Well as unlikely or unbelievable as this is let try:
Halo 3 doesn't move as many systems as expected. 360 purchases slow to a crawl with only mild increase here and there (Halo 3, Christmas, nanometer upgrade). PS3 purchases increase through fall and christmas. Lots of people start buying the PS3 at it's current (recently dropped) price point due to new games(including online games). Home impresses a lot of people increases publics desire for PS3. Blu-ray purchases start to really increase. All this continues right up until MetalGearSOlid4 comes out. MGS4 because HUGE system seller, bigger then the franchise has ever been before on previous systems. Wii continues to have limited 3rd party support. Not many good games come out for it. Consumers tire of waggle.
*Shrugg* yeah I don't think this will happen either.
I don't understand why people think this will happen. Right now the plan is to sell through the 60GB models and then be left with 1 SKU at $600. While it would make some sort of logical sense to drop the price and keep sales flowing, what about Sony from the past 2 years makes anybody think that they're going to take the logical route?
the two are opposites.
You didn't "prove" anything
I asked you "a or b"
And you said "c"
Either you don't have the capicity to understand the question, or you are trying to be a smart ass. Either way, you're an idiot
It's Sony.