What does Sony have to do to get back on top?

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not sure why you call the blu-ray thing a success for Sony. They were only one of about 15 members of the blu-ray association. So they took a huge hit for the team. Not exactly smart.

And the biggest reason the PS3 was so much at launch was paying for the cell and all the research that went behind (IBM). It was way over budget and late which also hurt them. It caused them to launch late as well.

KC_Hokie

Blu Ray players were more expensive than the PS3 when it released, and PS3 was considered one of the top Blu Ray players on the market. The Blu Ray drive was a huge factor in the steep price.

Sony was one of the members of the Blu Ray association, but they hold a pretty high % of the Blu Ray market, more than most of the others.

I wouldn't call losing money for several years in order to help the other members of the blu-ray association a smart decision by Sony.

That's your opinion. Hindsight is 20/20, and fact of the matter is, Sony owns a large % of the Blu Ray association, Blu Ray won the format war in large part because of the PS3, so whether or not it was a smart decision is entirely subjective.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not sure why you call the blu-ray thing a success for Sony. They were only one of about 15 members of the blu-ray association. So they took a huge hit for the team. Not exactly smart.

And the biggest reason the PS3 was so much at launch was paying for the cell and all the research that went behind (IBM). It was way over budget and late which also hurt them. It caused them to launch late as well.

KC_Hokie

Blu Ray players were more expensive than the PS3 when it released, and PS3 was considered one of the top Blu Ray players on the market. The Blu Ray drive was a huge factor in the steep price.

Sony was one of the members of the Blu Ray association, but they hold a pretty high % of the Blu Ray market, more than most of the others.

I wouldn't call losing money for several years in order to help the other members of the blu-ray association a smart decision by Sony.

Are you kidding?? The PS3 put Blu-Ray on the map...I can guarantee ANYONE in that association would be OK if you told them "Hey you'r egoing to lose money in the beginning but once we put the name out there and beat up HD-DVD there will be no more competition and we will rake in the sales after that".

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Blu Ray players were more expensive than the PS3 when it released, and PS3 was considered one of the top Blu Ray players on the market. The Blu Ray drive was a huge factor in the steep price.

Sony was one of the members of the Blu Ray association, but they hold a pretty high % of the Blu Ray market, more than most of the others.

arkephonic

I wouldn't call losing money for several years in order to help the other members of the blu-ray association a smart decision by Sony.

That's your opinion. Hindsight is 20/20, and fact of the matter is, Sony owns a large % of the Blu Ray association, Blu Ray won the format war in large part because of the PS3, so whether or not it was a smart decision is entirely subjective.

Owning 10% tops maybe of a format and losing money for three of the last six years in the process isn't exactly much of a success.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

Blu Ray players were more expensive than the PS3 when it released, and PS3 was considered one of the top Blu Ray players on the market. The Blu Ray drive was a huge factor in the steep price.

Sony was one of the members of the Blu Ray association, but they hold a pretty high % of the Blu Ray market, more than most of the others.

SRTtoZ

I wouldn't call losing money for several years in order to help the other members of the blu-ray association a smart decision by Sony.

Are you kidding?? The PS3 put Blu-Ray on the map...I can guarantee ANYONE in that association would be OK if you told them "Hey you'r egoing to lose money in the beginning but once we put the name out there and beat up HD-DVD there will be no more competition and we will rake in the sales after that".

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Console makers like Sony and MS take a hit and sell for a loss. They were losing more on the cell than the blu-ray.

I wouldn't call losing money for several years in order to help the other members of the blu-ray association a smart decision by Sony.

KC_Hokie

That's your opinion. Hindsight is 20/20, and fact of the matter is, Sony owns a large % of the Blu Ray association, Blu Ray won the format war in large part because of the PS3, so whether or not it was a smart decision is entirely subjective.

Owning 10% tops maybe of a format and losing money for three of the last six years in the process isn't exactly much of a success.

Lol what are you smoking? It was a huge success...if Sony didnt put them in PS3's we might be using HD-DVD's right now.

Anyway, beating a dead horse. Im done.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

That's your opinion. Hindsight is 20/20, and fact of the matter is, Sony owns a large % of the Blu Ray association, Blu Ray won the format war in large part because of the PS3, so whether or not it was a smart decision is entirely subjective.

SRTtoZ

Owning 10% tops maybe of a format and losing money for three of the last six years in the process isn't exactly much of a success.

Lol what are you smoking? It was a huge success...if Sony didnt put them in PS3's we might be using HD-DVD's right now.

Anyway, beating a dead horse. Im done.

Um, no, it wasn't exactly a huge success, as tons of people were still buying movies on DVD's. Plus HD-DVD's were already winning before Blu-Ray became involved. The only reason why Blu-Ray won was because Sony stuck the format inside of each PS3 system.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

That's your opinion. Hindsight is 20/20, and fact of the matter is, Sony owns a large % of the Blu Ray association, Blu Ray won the format war in large part because of the PS3, so whether or not it was a smart decision is entirely subjective.

SRTtoZ

Owning 10% tops maybe of a format and losing money for three of the last six years in the process isn't exactly much of a success.

Lol what are you smoking? It was a huge success...if Sony didnt put them in PS3's we might be using HD-DVD's right now.

Anyway, beating a dead horse. Im done.

I've got to agree KC here. CELL was the bigger cost for the system, but Blu Ray was still expensive, and was likely not worth the costs. BR is still behind DVD, and DD is starting to take over. BR is only starting to help PS3 games in the last 2 years.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

That's your opinion. Hindsight is 20/20, and fact of the matter is, Sony owns a large % of the Blu Ray association, Blu Ray won the format war in large part because of the PS3, so whether or not it was a smart decision is entirely subjective.

SRTtoZ

Owning 10% tops maybe of a format and losing money for three of the last six years in the process isn't exactly much of a success.

Lol what are you smoking? It was a huge success...if Sony didnt put them in PS3's we might be using HD-DVD's right now.

Anyway, beating a dead horse. Im done.

So Sony lost money in three of the last six years as a 5-10% owner of blu-ray (and paying more fees than anyone in the process) in order to be last this generation in console sales.

That's not a 'success' on paper.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="charizard1605"]I understand that it's your opinion, and I respect it, but you have to understand, that is not an argument that you can make or defend against anyone.Even if you were to look at best consoles of all time, you'd need to look at the stuff the systems brought to the table when they launched- sure, something like wireless controllers is considered standard now, but is it fair to expect it on a system that launched in 1991?- and on that count, again, the SNES, the PS2, the PS1 and perhaps most of all, the N64 have the PS3 beaten.And as for the quality of game libraries, it depends on what you're looking for. The N64 has probably the greatest AAA titles to total games released ratio, and it has some of the most groundbreaking games of all time. The SNES represents the pinnacle of the 2D era. The PS2 wins by sheer numbers. The PS3 doesn't even chart on any of those parameters.It's a great system, and my personal favorite from Sony (after the PSP, of course), but honestly, it wouldn't even be in the running for 'greatest console of all time.charizard1605

[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Sony actually owns a rather small share of the blu-ray association and have spent more towards blu-ray fees over the last five years than anyone else.

Owning 10% tops maybe of a format and losing money for three of the last six years in the process isn't exactly much of a success.

Lol what are you smoking? It was a huge success...if Sony didnt put them in PS3's we might be using HD-DVD's right now.

Anyway, beating a dead horse. Im done.

Um, no, it wasn't exactly a huge success, as tons of people were still buying movies on DVD's. Plus HD-DVD's were already winning before Blu-Ray became involved. The only reason why Blu-Ray won was because Sony stuck the format inside of each PS3 system.

Firstly, Sony should launch the next Playstation at a more reasonable price. Secondly, they need to build upon the Playstation Network. It's an decent free service at the moment but if they want to get back on top next gen they need to focus more on the online side of things such as chat, multiplayer etc. I know this isn't want some gamers want to hear but it's true. Online gaming is set to get bigger and more popular therefore Sony need to improve their online service.

[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

Lol what are you smoking? It was a huge success...if Sony didnt put them in PS3's we might be using HD-DVD's right now.

Anyway, beating a dead horse. Im done.

Um, no, it wasn't exactly a huge success, as tons of people were still buying movies on DVD's. Plus HD-DVD's were already winning before Blu-Ray became involved. The only reason why Blu-Ray won was because Sony stuck the format inside of each PS3 system.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="SRTtoZ"]

Lol what are you smoking? It was a huge success...if Sony didnt put them in PS3's we might be using HD-DVD's right now.

Anyway, beating a dead horse. Im done.sethman410

Um, no, it wasn't exactly a huge success, as tons of people were still buying movies on DVD's. Plus HD-DVD's were already winning before Blu-Ray became involved. The only reason why Blu-Ray won was because Sony stuck the format inside of each PS3 system.

HD-DVD was already big within movie distributors, etc., before Blu-Ray came along. Blu-Ray wouldn't have been successful if Sony didn't have the format installed on every PS3 system.

Firstly, Sony should launch the next Playstation at a more reasonable price. Secondly, they need to build upon the Playstation Network. It's an decent free service at the moment but if they want to get back on top next gen they need to focus more on the online side of things such as chat, multiplayer etc. I know this isn't want some gamers want to hear but it's true. Online gaming is set to get bigger and more popular therefore Sony need to improve their online service.

LazyMushroom

Expect the PS4 to be at least $100 cheaper than the PS3 at launch.

they need to bring some quality Jrpgs back in the scene, SCEJ need to get back to business.

Sony Corp as a whole is loosing money still. The only think that can save them is to change their name to Microsoft after they get bought out by MS. FoxbatAlpha

Sony Corp as a whole is loosing money still. The only think that can save them is to change their name to Microsoft after they get bought out by MS. FoxbatAlpha

[QUOTE="FoxbatAlpha"]Sony Corp as a whole is loosing money still. The only think that can save them is to change their name to Microsoft after they get bought out by MS. Cow4ever

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="FoxbatAlpha"]Sony Corp as a whole is loosing money still. The only think that can save them is to change their name to Microsoft after they get bought out by MS. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] How can you not think that? PS2 didn't have online, bluray, wireless controllers and much worse hardware just to name a few examples. It' hardly an opinion PS3 just beats it factually. arkephonic

True, except there's this other department the PS2 crushes the PS3 in: Games. The size and quality of the PS2's library crushes that of the PS3.

Yeah, considering this generation is done and everything and every PS3 game to ever be released has been released already, right?

That doesn't matter. He was stating that the PS3 as of right now is better than the PS2, despite that this gen isn't over yet.

[QUOTE="arkephonic"]

[QUOTE="Demonjoe93"]

True, except there's this other department the PS2 crushes the PS3 in: Games. The size and quality of the PS2's library crushes that of the PS3.

Demonjoe93

Yeah, considering this generation is done and everything and every PS3 game to ever be released has been released already, right?

That doesn't matter. He was stating that the PS3 as of right now is better than the PS2, despite that this gen isn't over yet.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Sony generates more revenue and has more assets...where did you come up with that?KC_Hokie

Stop being the b****.

they need to bring some quality Jrpgs back in the scene, SCEJ need to get back to business.

HAZE-Unit

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011)

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011)

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011)

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

JohnF111

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011)

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]links pleaseKC_Hokie

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011)

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011)

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="sethman410"] That's how much they made? That's surprising if so.sethman410

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011).

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

JohnF111

Sony must write off a lot on taxes in order for them to not look worse off than they are. You can't lose billions for three of the last six years and have as much cash on hand they claim to have.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011).

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

KC_Hokie

Sony's assets are $47,288 million [Source: http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Sony-Corp/Financial-Statement/Assets]

Microsoft's are $108,704 [Source: http://www.microsoft.com//investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q4/default.aspx]

Not even close. Not on revenue either.

This is confusing, your source says "USD$inmillions, translated from JPY ￥" yet says 158,000. :?

I'm out i can't work any of this out it's all FYI and assets and accountant talk.

If Sony want to take the number 1 spot back they need to do the following:

1. £299 maximum launch price

2. Quality titles at launch, PS3 launch was awful.

3. Easy to devolp for. I would suggest bringing it inline or at least similarwith PC development. They really want to take feedback from developers seriously.

4. They need to bring PSN up to date with features such as cross game chat and increase the speed of downloads.

5. Standard headsets included with every system sold.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011).

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

KC_Hokie

Sony's assets are $47,288 million [Source: http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Sony-Corp/Financial-Statement/Assets]

Microsoft's are $108,704 [Source: http://www.microsoft.com//investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q4/default.aspx]

Not even close. Not on revenue either.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="sethman410"] That's how much they made? That's surprising if so.sethman410

I'd say abandon the complex CPU ideas in future consoles. Dragging out development and forcing developers to put in extra effort to get the same results just slow them down.

I believe it's because of the CELL Sony had so much trouble this gen. When the PS3 did hit, it had the brand power but this slowed them right down.

While it's nice to have powerful hardware, it's also a business and development needs to be quick. In the end it turned out to be as useful as the Sixaxis, no one other than Sony makes true use of it. Caused problems with multiplats, just doesn't seem worth it.

But Sony was arrogant back then, after two successful gens.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"] [QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]

Sony - US$ 155.94 billion (2011).

MS - US$ 108.7 billion (FY 2011)

So there you.. oh wait :shock: I'm actually shocked at that, i far expected MS to be worth(assets) of about 200bill.

Cow4ever

Sony's assets are $47,288 million [Source: http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Sony-Corp/Financial-Statement/Assets]

Microsoft's are $108,704 [Source: http://www.microsoft.com//investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q4/default.aspx]

Not even close. Not on revenue either.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I figured out what happened. The yen to USD convertion was off.

Sony's assets are $47,288 million [Source: http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Sony-Corp/Financial-Statement/Assets]

Microsoft's are $108,704 [Source: http://www.microsoft.com//investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q4/default.aspx]

Not even close. Not on revenue either.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Oh lol guess I was wrong. This explains it.Cow4ever

Their net income for year ending 2011 was down $3 billion.

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I figured out what happened. The yen to USD convertion was off.

Sony's assets are $47,288 million [Source: http://www.stock-analysis-on.net/NYSE/Company/Sony-Corp/Financial-Statement/Assets]

Microsoft's are $108,704 [Source: http://www.microsoft.com//investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q4/default.aspx]

Not even close. Not on revenue either.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Sony claims to be sitting on $12 billion in cash which makes zero sense too. How can you lose billions for three of the last six years and sit on that much cash.

KC_Hokie

Their net income for year ending 2011 was down $3 billion.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Cow4ever"] Oh lol guess I was wrong. This explains it.JohnF111

The Cell CPU for example cost Sony an estimated $400 million. Sony has stated they won't spend that kind of money on the PS4. I bet they would spend it again if they actually had $12 billion in cash or cash assets.

[QUOTE="JohnF111"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Sony claims to be sitting on $12 billion in cash which makes zero sense too. How can you lose billions for three of the last six years and sit on that much cash.

KC_Hokie

The Cell CPU for example cost Sony an estimated $400 million. Sony has stated they won't spend that kind of money on the PS4. I bet they would spend it again if they actually had $12 billion in cash or cash assets.