You are welcome to look at the talkback but please consider that this article is over 12 years old before posting.
Forum - View topicNEWS: Sony Cites PS3 Price, Downturn for Quarterly Loss
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
enurtsol
 Posts: 14886 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Sony has been losing money for 4 straight years now. If this keeps going, they wouldn't be able to afford too much of a loss for each PS4 console whenever it comes out. They were losing $241-$307 each for the original PS3. So they can't make the PS4 so powerful yet sell it so low (relatively), like they did for the PS3.
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Mesonoxian Eve
Posts: 1858 |
|
|||||||||||
This is what happens when a company gets arrogant to think it dominated a gaming market. The PS3 was rejected the second its price was announced at $600. Even with the price drops, it's clearly evident where developers are favoring. It didn't help Sony also started removing features of the PS3 which made it a viable purchase. Personally, I have no pity for this company's loss. Customers have been losing for the past 7 years, and if Sony fails as a business, good riddance. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Apollo-kun
 Posts: 1213 Location: City 7, Macross 7 |
|
|||||||||||
|
I love my PS3, but I'll be the first to admit Sony is clueless about pricing and business practices. Having a system that has constant updates that actually strip features away is not how you treat a console, and the constant price cuts seemed to come across as an act of desperation.
Unfortunately, Sony's financial woes aren't going to let up anytime soon. The PS Vita is perhaps the most ludicrously priced bit of hardware they've come up with yet. They're expecting me to shell out 250 for the CHEAPEST version of the system, another 100 for a decent memory card, and then 50 bucks per game? With just one game, the base price for a first time PS Vita buyer would be around 400 dollars, which is absolutely the most idiotic price for a handheld I've ever seen a company charge. Furthermore, they make customers pay to play their old PSP games on the handheld, games that they already PAID for. I could buy 2 3DSes and two games for less, or a 360, or a Wii, or a PS3. Just like the Game Gear, Neo Geo, and PSP, the handheld with the better graphics is going to lose due to such a high bar of entry. Which is a darn shame, because the PSP was a pretty good system, and some of my favorite games are on it. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Emerje
 Posts: 7406 Location: Maine |
|
|||||||||||
|
Supposedly the PS4 will be much cheaper to produce than the PS3 at launch. Blu-ray drives can be produced very cheap now and they'll continue to come down. The rumored hardware is based on current PC hardware which will also be cheaper to produce come the time of the PS4's launch. Sony won't make the same mistake they made with the PS3 and try to fill it with hardware straight from the labs, they'll use existing, but still very powerful hardware rather than start from scratch.
Emerje |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||||
Sorry, in what way exactly are developers not favouring the PS3 these days? I mean, I'd have completely agreed with you three years ago. In the early days of the generation, 360 had almost all the exclusives and PS3 had very little of note. Halo, Gears of War, Bioshock, Mass Effect...not to mention a lot of JRPGs like Tales of Vesperia, Lost Odyssey, Star Ocean and Blue Dragon. Plus a number of major, formerly PS exclusive franchises including Devil May Cry and Grand Theft Auto and Final Fantasy went multi-platform. Yet more recently we've seen a swing in the exact opposite direction. Just looking at releases from the last couple years* you can pretty much divide games into two groups: Things that are available on PS3 and things that are Gears of War. Meanwhile, many of those formerly 360 exclusive games have gone multi-platform. Bioshock, Mass Effect, Tales... So no, quite to the contrary, I'd say that if anything developers are increasingly favouring PS3 these days. *not counting Wii games of course EDIT: Whoops. My mistake about Dragon Age. Last edited by ikillchicken on Sat Feb 04, 2012 1:41 am; edited 2 times in total |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Takeyo
 Posts: 736 |
|
|||||||||||
|
Not commenting on your main point, ikillchicken, but Dragon Age: Origins was a multi-platform release from the get go. I bought it on launch day for the PS3.
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
TitanXL
 Posts: 4036 |
|
|||||||||||
|
And the PS3 versions tend to have better/more content than their 360 versions... like Tales of Vesperia, Star Ocean: The Last Hope, Eternal Sonata, and etcetera.
I attribute the shift from the JRPG standpoint due to the 360 pretty much dead in Japan. When the generation first started, Microsoft obviously wanted to catch as many gamers as they can, so they bought rights for either games or 'time exclusive DLC', where DLC for games like Fallout would be available on the 360 a month before it was available on PS3 (and maybe PC, not sure) Blue Dragon was made specifically so Microsoft could try to capture Japanese gamers. I also wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft called in a huge favor to get FF13 released on the 360. However, the 360 has been sinking ever since then, and nowadays retailers have started to phase it out due to that. So the Japanese devs Microsoft tried to buy can't really take their offer anymore since the games they make wouldn't sell for beans in their own country. Or perhaps the deal they made was always time-exclusive; as in those JRPGs had to be released on the 360 for a year or two before the PS3 version, but they kept the PS3 version hush-hush. After all, Vesperia pretty much proves they always intended to have Patty and other things in the game that weren't in the 360 version, so maybe they were paid to release an 'unfinished' version a year before, or something. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
ArsenicSteel
 Posts: 2370 |
|
|||||||||||
That's pretty much has to be the case in order to give people reason to buy the PS3 port of games that are a year or more old. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Teriyaki Terrier
 Posts: 5689 |
|
|||||||||||
Mesonoxian Eve, I completely agree with you. Bluntly put, the Sony of today makes me wonder what happened. Twelve years ago, I bought myself a PS2 and back then, as Eve and others know, this was the game system of it's time and it was popular. My PS2 is a extremely simple game system, all the game system can do is play video games to a certain extent play dvd's. Not blu-ray dvd's, but some dvd's. Yet, I've never once ever had an issue with the game system. Hard to believe these days with modern game systems, but I've had no disk read errors, any issues with the fan or internal issues. This unit has even been accidentally knock over once or twice and still no issues. Definitely helps that this PS2 is made in Japan and quality parts were used in the creation of this unit. Now and days, the same can't be said about Sony's current line of Playstation units, let alone game systems these days. I've been gaming for seventeen years and I think Sony really thought they dominated the game market and based on their name alone people would be willing to pay high prices. That ideology might have worked years, maybe even decades ago, but these days, such tactics just don't work anymore. I remember the initial price of the PS3 when it first came out and in all my seventeen, nearly eighteen years of gaming, I had yet to see such a price hike from game system, to it's newest generation. Even when the PS2 first came out, the system wasn't as nearly as much, and that was in the year 2000. What really hurt Sony the most with the PS3 is that features were constantly being removed. At one point, the features that were being removed were becoming more memorable than the system it self. Removing Linux was probably easily the worst feature they could remove at the time, but what was worse was knowing that even more features and functionally would be removed. But the fact that some of the "updates" Sony released for the PS3 had caused a great deal of PS3 units to become "bricked" or in layman terms, non functioning. Given past relations with Sony over the time I've been a gamer, I'd like to say I could look past these mistakes, but for the last seven years, the consumers have been constantly losing, with very little gain, so I don't pity Sony either. At one time, they were a great company and really were a company I held in high regards, not only as a gamer either. But times have changed and Sony no longer is the Sony I remember as a younger gamer. With last year event(s) with Sony, coupled with other aspects as well, I will no longer ever buy a Sony game system ever again. I don't take any enjoyment in saying that, as the PS2 (the first generation) was a great game system. Probably the last great game system, but oh well. Too bad the PS2 has been retied, but at least I was able to play a Dragon Quest game on the platform. I'll likely never sell the system, but rather I'll probably either keep it for nostalgia or so. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
bglassbrook
 Posts: 1243 Location: Gaithersburg, MD |
|
|||||||||||
You'd think simply appealing to their sense of laziness would do that: Interested in this game but don't want to swap between 4 discs? Click here to buy!
You are looking at it like a handheld gaming device, rather than a tablet/smartphone with console-quality gaming capabilities. Didn't buying the PS3 cure you of thinking you were buying 1-thing simply based on how it was marketed? |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Apollo-kun
Posts: 1213 Location: City 7, Macross 7 |
|
|||||||||||
In short: when I see a spade, I call it a spade. The PS3 was always marketed as a multimedia machine, not just a console, unlike the Vita. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
GrilledEelHamatsu
 Posts: 703 |
|
|||||||||||
There is NO such thing as PS4. No patents,no trademark, nothing. Its nothing more than a figment of Sony fan's imagination. Sony CANNOT afford to build one. Their revenue is shrinking & they've lost too much on PS3. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Mesonoxian Eve
Posts: 1858 |
|
|||||||||||
They're not favoring the PS3, they're favoring the license waiver.
You'd do so only because of the gaming catalog, which isn't the issue here. It's the way Sony is doing business.
No, we've not. We're seeing a long-overdue inclusion. This direction has its victims, though. Whether or not these games are "dumbed down" for the PS3 isn't for me to say, but customers of this console are upset they're not getting what was promised them. I can only assume others are happy they got ... extras.
This is, again, a misconception of the events. The 360 didn't have exclusives, but rather developers went with the console with the cheaper development costs. Of course, I wouldn't have put it past Microsoft in the least bit to take advantage of this gap and state "exclusives", which would be true for them at the time frame. It's not like these games made it to the Wii, either.
I'd also like to point out Bioshock was released on the PS3 first, then the 360. It's the very reason I own the 360 now. Had this game not been ported, I'd be waving a remote to play games. |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Apollo-kun
Posts: 1213 Location: City 7, Macross 7 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
mdo7
 Posts: 6374 Location: Katy, Texas, USA |
|
|||||||||||
hm, Bioshock came out on 360 first (hence it carried "only on Xbox 360 and PC"), didn't came to PS3 till a year later. 
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group