44 replies to this topic

[Crispy Bacon]

They've always treated their engineers like Rockstars, but Microsoft treats their programmers the same way, Google is similar.  The difference is that Sony doesn't have a solid money maker to fall back on, everything they do is losing them money.  Microsoft has the Windows division, most notably Windows Server, which makes them lots of money in enterprise agreements that reach into the tens of millions.

 

Google has their advertising, which gives them a lot of flexibility to try their hand at several different markets.

 

Sony doesn't have anything that makes them money, and they are drowning.

 

Very interesting. You would think Sony, seeing their losses piling up left and right, would change their approach and put some control on how spending is handled in their divisions. This would explain why PS3, specifically, was such a money disaster for them. Basically, they let Ken Kutaragi go balls-to-the-wall without any concern or care for costs. The result? All of PS2's massive profits get wiped out. Looking back on it, was forcing Ken out of the division the real answer to their problem with PS3? I'm not so sure. Their whole corporate structure is what's hurting them it seems.

[routerbad]

Very interesting. You would think Sony, seeing their losses piling up left and right, would change their approach and put some control on how spending is handled in their divisions. This would explain why PS3, specifically, was such a money disaster for them. Basically, they let Ken Kutaragi go balls-to-the-wall without any concern or care for costs. The result? All of PS2's massive profits get wiped out. Looking back on it, was forcing Ken out of the division the real answer to their problem with PS3? I'm not so sure. Their whole corporate structure is what's hurting them it seems.

They didn't let him, he withheld information from them.  He wanted to create the "Rolls-Royce" of consoles, and it ended up being a very powerful console with no value to a typical gaming consumer.

 

Nintendo is attacking from the other point of view, a console that they feel is "good enough" and a controller that while it holds the potential to be transformative, will end up being an overly complex controller unless they can entice 3rd party developers with games that are typically limited to the PC to make the jump based on what the controller offers.

 

This is the first time Nintendo has ever eased their third party development restrictions, which is a bold move on their part, and an admission that they do need third parties on board to have a successful product.  They still need more games, more very compelling games, not just announcements but releases (honestly WTF is up with Pikmin?) to start to drive sales in the right direction.  They won't be able to pull marketshare from Sony or Microsoft unless they get third party developers on board, with the games that western consumers flock to, to make games for the platform, with at least visual parity on those versions.  They can't expect the controller to sell the console, games have to do that, and they have been showing that they are willing to make their system a better place for third parties, though some will still refrain at first because of poor sales on third party games since N64.

 

I want them to compete very badly, just as much as I would love Sony to compete, but I believe that Sony would have been better served by offering a little less on the spec sheet so they could make a profit on the console from the outset, I would have been sold if they hadn't been pushing their services so hard.  I'm a gamer, I want to buy a machine that I will play games on, not circle jerk with internet acquaintances or let people tell me what to do.  I really hope the price point it right, because I want a PS4 very badly as well, but if it is anywhere from 450+ I will have to take a pass until the price comes down.  I want them to do well in the marketplace, but I question their strategy here simply because they don't have the money to lose.  

 

Nintendo has the money to take a gamble this gen and reassess the next, something Sony had the opportunity to do between PS2-PS3.  They bet wrong, and it cost them dearly.  I'd have fired the entire hardware engineering team for what happened.  I'm going to bet on Wii U this gen only because of my preferences and opinions, but I'd love to be compelled to buy a PS4 at launch, however unlikely. 

 

EDIT:  I'm sorry for some of the runon there, and the overuse of comma(commi?)

Edited by routerbad, 10 April 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[Crispy Bacon]

They didn't let him, he withheld information from them.  He wanted to create the "Rolls-Royce" of consoles, and it ended up being a very powerful console with no value to a typical gaming consumer.

 

Nintendo is attacking from the other point of view, a console that they feel is "good enough" and a controller that while it holds the potential to be transformative, will end up being an overly complex controller unless they can entice 3rd party developers with games that are typically limited to the PC to make the jump based on what the controller offers.

 

This is the first time Nintendo has ever eased their third party development restrictions, which is a bold move on their part, and an admission that they do need third parties on board to have a successful product.  They still need more games, more very compelling games, not just announcements but releases (honestly WTF is up with Pikmin?) to start to drive sales in the right direction.  They won't be able to pull marketshare from Sony or Microsoft unless they get third party developers on board, with the games that western consumers flock to, to make games for the platform, with at least visual parity on those versions.  They can't expect the controller to sell the console, games have to do that, and they have been showing that they are willing to make their system a better place for third parties, though some will still refrain at first because of poor sales on third party games since N64.

 

I want them to compete very badly, just as much as I would love Sony to compete, but I believe that Sony would have been better served by offering a little less on the spec sheet so they could make a profit on the console from the outset, I would have been sold if they hadn't been pushing their services so hard.  I'm a gamer, I want to buy a machine that I will play games on, not circle jerk with internet acquaintances or let people tell me what to do.  I really hope the price point it right, because I want a PS4 very badly as well, but if it is anywhere from 450+ I will have to take a pass until the price comes down.  I want them to do well in the marketplace, but I question their strategy here simply because they don't have the money to lose.  

 

Nintendo has the money to take a gamble this gen and reassess the next, something Sony had the opportunity to do between PS2-PS3.  They bet wrong, and it cost them dearly.  I'd have fired the entire hardware engineering team for what happened.  I'm going to bet on Wii U this gen only because of my preferences and opinions, but I'd love to be compelled to buy a PS4 at launch, however unlikely. 

 

EDIT:  I'm sorry for some of the runon there, and the overuse of comma(commi?)

 

Ahhh, so booting Ken was completely justified. Makes sense. Still, you'd think they'd look at instances like this and require their engineers to provide details on costs for R&D and such. There has to be some control somewhere to remain afloat. This approach will just continue to hurt them, but they seem to be okay with it. I think, with PS3, Sony got waaaaay too confident and was looking at the success of the PS2 as a gauge to how well the PS3 would perform. I guess when you're on the top of the mountain, you believe you can sell anything to anyone at any price. That mindset certainly bit them in @$$ and they are paying for it.

 

I'm with you on wanting PS4 to be a success. I want one. I think their approach with the hardware is clearly more reasonable than PS3, but it remains to be seen how they will ultimately benefit from it. Will there be a loss right out of the gate? Will it break even? Will it profit? I'm real curious to see how this works out for them. Maybe, for all we know, they are at a "do or die" point and are throwing all their chips into the pile. Very bold and admirable, if true, but it will be their end if it fails. I have no doubt about it.

[Nintyfan86]

If memory serves me correctly, the 2004-6 period before the PS3 had strange changes in the industry, all of which negatively impacted Sony:

 

• Their market leader status combined with crazy Kenny's arrogance was annoying to both Nintendo and Xbox fans
• Halo 2 jump started this momentum wave for Microsoft, and the 360 promotion expanded on it
• Sony's DRM-rootkit fiasco infuriated everyone
• 360's launch went well from the, "it is impossible to find, hot item" perspective. 
• Nintendo had this huge wave of momentum from Nintendo fans hyping the 'Revolution'
• Once the Wii launched, everyone wanted it regardless of what their 'gamer' friends advised
• Everyone went XboxWii60 early on except Sony fans

I remember having all three by the end of 2006. Well, I already had to get the 360 replaced at that point, LOL. 

 

It was like 2006-2010 were rebuilding years for Sony to become fan favorites again. It seemed like EVERYONE hated them at launch. PS3 was the unnecessary console no one wanted. 

 

Now, it is like Nintendo is in this position somewhat:

 

• Abandoned the true gamer on Wii in 2011.
• Horrific 3ds launch
• Horrific Wii U launch
• Late games
• Broken promises Re: third parties 
• Potential to be the PS3 of this generation (it it gets current gen ports)

I hope not, but it is similar. 

 

 

 

[Mewbot]

Eh, well, Nintendo is slowly acquiring more and more studios and rights to games (bayonetta 2) anyway, in the future (I hope) there will be less time in between game releases and there will be more games made by Nintendo. Even right now, Nintendo is probably the largest software developer of all time. Even if they make games a lot less often than those yearly games (CoD, AC) their games have lasting appeal, unlike CoD where if the new one is out and you only have the old one you're uncool. (and nobody plays online anymore, online's the only reason people buy CoD games)