Sony reports $1B annual loss, first in 14 years

[atarian63]

Ha ha, looks good on them. The Peice Of Shit 3 wasn't the be all end all of gaming and now it's showing in spades.

 

Sony intentionally took a dive this generation. I have to wonder what they’re going to do to get the spotlight back when it comes time to release the PS4. Aren’t we due to start hearing early over-hyped rumors about its capabilities?

 

when a company has losses in the billions, a new console is no longer guaranteed

If Xbox/xbox360 was a stand alone console company, their losses would be several billion and they would have been out of business long ago.

[atarian63]

Hey, Toyota lost 7.7 billion for the quarter alone and have applied for Govt loans from Japan. Along with Sony, it shows Japanese companies are not immune to the slowdown.

[atarian63]

Sony's big problem is being a company designed to be in first, yet ending up third or worse in every market lately. They are losing to Nintendo and Microsoft in videogames. They are losing to Apple, Research in Motion, and Nokia in mobile phones. They are losing to Samsung (and I think Sharp) in TV. They are losing to pretty much anyone with a product line in mobile music (especially Apple). They have consistently squeezed themselves out of every market by sticking to old, out of date business models.

 

Their hugely successful Walkman couldn't get a good replacement because they couldn't see past physical music media. Their TV devision was unable to adapt to other companies managing to bring costs of production down low enough to outprice them. Their console effort was just to upgrade everything that worked in 2000, despite the market having well and truely moved on on every front except the one they risked it all on (High Def movies). They are too big and too slow to out compete their more focused, more trendy, or more forward thinking competition.

 

When Microsoft manages to out-innovate you in TWO markets, you're not a very trendy tech company anymore.

Yep, pretty sad as M$ is not much of an innovator. The actual problem for Sony in the console market is Nintendo. A great system with a low price and innovative as well. Not to mention it has sold more units than Sony and MS combined.

[Noelio]

Sony could win this war instantly by letting the hypervisor & gpu out of the cage to allow for fully functional, extremely high end pc operation.

 

I thought I'd never again buy a 360 game, but because of (and only because of) fallout 3 downloadable content I bought a second copy for the 360.

I'd very much rather play it on the ps3 but this was my only choice.

[DracIsBack]

So, then you're going with Option B, that Sony seriously thought they'd sell as many consoles at $600 as they would at $400. That's basically what you're saying here.

 

Don't put words in my mouth, please!

 

I think Sony over-estimated the loyalty of the Playstation customer, probably because of the strong track record they had with PS1 and PS2. I think they tried to repeat many elements that made the PS2 so successful with the PS3, but upped the ante too much in terms of price/technology and it backfired.

[+Random Terrain]

Don't put words in my mouth, please!

Of the various things that could be shoved into your mouth, seems like words wouldn't be so bad.

 

My sister and her boyfriend love their PS3. They surf the Internet with it on their big screen HD TV and he plays pretty much nothing but sports games and Guitar Hero.

[moycon]

If Xbox/xbox360 was a stand alone console company, their losses would be several billion and they would have been out of business long ago.

 

Good thing that's not the case or many folks wouldn't have much to play, at least they offer gamers what they want even if the console is unreliable. Too bad Sony and MS didn't team up and release the PS360. Awesome games, kick ass gaming network and have an acceptable failure rate. What a combination.

Edited May 15, 2009 by moycon

[atarian63]

If Xbox/xbox360 was a stand alone console company, their losses would be several billion and they would have been out of business long ago.

 

Good thing that's not the case or many folks wouldn't have much to play, at least they offer gamers what they want even if the console is unreliable. Too bad Sony and MS didn't team up and release the PS360. Awesome games, kick ass gaming network and have an acceptable failure rate. What a combination.

There is plenty to play on PS3 and more on Wii. Actually I would like to see a Wii/Ps3 Hybrid. That would be great!

[moycon]

There is plenty to play on PS3 and more on Wii. Actually I would like to see a Wii/Ps3 Hybrid. That would be great!

 

Right I have all 3 consoles too (This is assuming you do since you're discussing all 3 like you know what you're talking about) and you're right, there is plenty to play on the PS3 and the Wii especially. What I said though was AWESOME games. Not just plenty of games.

 

PS3Wii? Seriously? So you get Neopets meet Bratz in 1080p, is that right?

Edited May 15, 2009 by moycon

[atarian63]

There is plenty to play on PS3 and more on Wii. Actually I would like to see a Wii/Ps3 Hybrid. That would be great!

 

Right I have all 3 consoles too (This is assuming you do since you're discussing all 3 like you know what you're talking about) and you're right, there is plenty to play on the PS3 and the Wii especially. What I said though was AWESOME games. Not just plenty of games.

 

PS3Wii? Seriously? So you get Neopets meet Bratz in 1080p, is that right?

Actually I own most consoles but not the 360. I got burned on the last xbox with nothing to play.. (recently game it away) The 360 has nothing I am interested in either, since it is only a pc, why bother. That is not to say that I have much for the ps3 either though a I finally did buy some racing games. Mostly it's a blueray player with Sony direct movie download.

Really though you are kind of making my point, yep neopets, or Mario or whatever for kids,group games that are easy to play for older gen people and blueray and niche "gamer" games for young adults, it would be great! Leave 360 out of the mix and from my point of view I am missing nothing except a glorified pc,that has few if any games I want , a crappy controller , a high failure rate.

Edited May 15, 2009 by atarian63

[moycon]

Actually I own most consoles but not the 360.

 

Yes I know, that's why I like pointing it out, that way when folks read your negative posts about the 360 they know that your discussing a system you don't and never have owned.

 

Don't mistake the fact I think the PS3 is a decent system. Just something about it hasn't clicked with me, and based on sales, many people feel the same. It's in last place this generation for more reasons than it's high price you can be sure of that.

[godslabrat]

So, then you're going with Option B, that Sony seriously thought they'd sell as many consoles at $600 as they would at $400. That's basically what you're saying here.

 

Don't put words in my mouth, please!

 

I think Sony over-estimated the loyalty of the Playstation customer, probably because of the strong track record they had with PS1 and PS2. I think they tried to repeat many elements that made the PS2 so successful with the PS3, but upped the ante too much in terms of price/technology and it backfired.

 

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think you're agreeing with me more than you realize, or at least you're agreeing with one of the possibilities I presented. The PS2 launched at $300, the budget-line PS3 was $500. That's a big frickin' difference in the console world! If we accept your scenario, Sony was basically saying that people would buy a console at a $200 premium because they were longtime Sony customers. That's an odd conclusion to come to when you consider it defies all historical evidence to the contrary. Consoles need to launch in the vicinity of $300. Hell, Sony themselves had to slash the price of the PS1 down to crazy levels to undercut the Saturn. They did, and they mopped the floor with Sega.

 

Clearly, Sony intended to sell many more units, and they intended to sell them at a higher price point. To avoid losing marketshare, it would have meant that people would have bought a similar number of $500 PS3s compared to the number of $300 PS2s that were purchased. That flies in the face of basic economics-- so yeah, if that isn't over-estimating your brand, I don't know what is.

 

I just don't see Sony as being that dumb. They HAD to know that pricing the system above $500 would put it out of reach of a lot of people, and they went ahead and did it anyway. The reason is simple: royalties on PS3 sales would last a little more than 6 years. However, royalties on BluRay hardware and software could bring them money for the next 2-3 decades, easily. Sony was going for the long-term investment.

 

Again, I'm not trying to mess with you, or act like an ass. I respect your opinion and this discussion-- it's fun. At the end of it all, though, I still separate this whole scenario into one of two possibilities.

[moycon]

The PS2 launched at $300, the budget-line PS3 was $500. That's a big frickin' difference in the console world! If we accept your scenario, Sony was basically saying that people would buy a console at a $200 premium because they were longtime Sony customers. That's an odd conclusion to come to when you consider it defies all historical evidence to the contrary.

 

I know that was my reaction. If you check these very forums you can see how excited I was about the PS3. I bought into the hype that it was going to be the best system ever and blow away everything else including anything MS released. I bought into the fact that it was going to be worth the wait. I started threads with polls asking people what color they were going to get (If you recall the PS3 was shown in black, white and silver before the launch) Needless to say when I saw the price I was put off big time. I did get one a few month later though. Had to check out the greatness Sony was touting.

 

Since getting one, I don't really see much about it that made it worth thee extra cash and the extra year wait. It does have slightly better graphics than the 360 I've noticed. That's a plus. The Sony network pales to the Live network, the games that take advantage of the Sony network arent there either (No co-op in Resistance 2!? WHY!?) probably because the network cant handle the load. Hey its free though, right? The Blu Ray I could care less about. I'd rather watch one of 1,000 of movies off netflix for $5.99 a month than pay $30 for one Blu Ray. (I do have a bunch of Blu-Ray flicks, many I get when Amazon ha a buy one get one free sale but I havent bought any if they werent on sale) We all heard how AWESOME Home was going to be. We all waited and waited and waited, and when it finally came out, not unlike the PS3 itself, It was a disappointment. And the dang thing didn't even come in 3 colors like they showed us! My poll was for nothing! I think it's things like I'm talking about that assured Sony last place this round.

 

Again, I'm not trying to mess with you, or act like an ass. I respect your opinion and this discussion-- it's fun.

 

I agree, why else would we come to a video game forum but to discuss video games!!?

Edited May 15, 2009 by moycon

[Jess Ragan]

So, then you're going with Option B, that Sony seriously thought they'd sell as many consoles at $600 as they would at $400. That's basically what you're saying here.

 

It's a gross oversimplification. Sony indeed used the Playstation 3 as a Trojan Horse for the Blu-Ray media format, but they thought the feature would make the system a success, not a failure. After all, it DID work for the Playstation 2... video playback helped Sony get its foot in the door of the market, giving the company time to build a strong library of games. That strategy didn't work out so well for the Playstation 3 for a variety of reasons. The DVD format is still relatively young (not even a decade old at the time of the system's release) and people have been much more reluctant to abandon it than they were the fuzzy and failure-prone VHS. Price is also a huge factor, of course... when your console sells for significantly more than the competition and doesn't offer significantly improved performance, it's difficult to convince consumers that they should purchase it.

 

In my opinion, Sony was undone by its own hubris. It expected consumers to purchase the Playstation 3 solely on the strength of its brand name alone, forgetting the lessons learned by Sega, Atari, and Nintendo in the past. Brand power only gets you so far, and the video game market is notoriously fickle. What's wildly popular now may be completely forgotten ten years later, and Sony is well on its way toward irrelevance if it doesn't change its business strategy and its smug attitude in a hurry.

[atarian63]

Actually I own most consoles but not the 360.

 

Yes I know, that's why I like pointing it out, that way when folks read your negative posts about the 360 they know that your discussing a system you don't and never have owned.

 

Don't mistake the fact I think the PS3 is a decent system. Just something about it hasn't clicked with me, and based on sales, many people feel the same. It's in last place this generation for more reasons than it's high price you can be sure of that.

That's ok. I post negs about it as I have found little to say good about it. Hence why I don;t own one. Nice to try to use that to marginalize my opinions,but not really effective since the info about it is all out there and most know it;s shortcoming and they are many.

 

Yes, ps3 is in 3rd place but not by lots. You can be sure it is partly due to the monopolistic practices of M$ and poor marketing by sony,little else would explain it,though as I metioned before,they are both also rans compared to the Wii.

[chrisbid]

Wow, only started loosing money this year? I mean, comeon. The PS3 (as a gameing console) has pretty much failed. Everybody I know of that has one cause it was only "slightly" more expensive than a standalone BR player. For the past two years, I've seen PS3 and PSP both dry up around here. Seriously, right now, PSP has one shelf, not one section, one shelf, and PS3 has about half a section (and it started with two)

 

Of course, I don't guess that's a reflection of Sony over all, but those are two of their bigger items at the moment.

 

what is scary is how badly sony is floundering despite a virtually 100% failure rate of the Xbox 360.

 

While XBox 360 quality issues are well known, "virtually 100% failure rate" gets my pick for biggest exaggeration of the day.

 

As I said in the X-box forum, the thing is that dissatisfied people simply bitch more. There's not as much as it looks like, but what is there is magnified by the people who continually complain about it. Most of my friends have 360's, and none of them have had the system die on them.

 

for me, i know at least 5 people that have had their 360's RROD. These arent moron types that mistreat their consoles and leave them on the carpet, they are collector and hardcore players that take care of their equipment. i have a newer 360 with HDMI and as of yet have not had a RROD, but since the problem is a design flaw rather than a manufacturing defect, entire production runs are affected. in my book, that makes the failure rate virtually 100% for any production run with the heat synch defect.

[Atarifever]

I know that was my reaction. If you check these very forums you can see how excited I was about the PS3. I bought into the hype that it was going to be the best system ever and blow away everything else including anything MS released. I bought into the fact that it was going to be worth the wait. I started threads with polls asking people what color they were going to get (If you recall the PS3 was shown in black, white and silver before the launch) Needless to say when I saw the price I was put off big time. I did get one a few month later though. Had to check out the greatness Sony was touting.

If anyone wants to check what I said at the time, I said it probably wouldn't sell too good because Blu-Ray vs. HDDVD was a tallest midget contest, the 360 had a head start, people were very excited about the Wii, and the PS3 was too expensive. No, you cannot borrow my crystal ball.

[HammR25]

The main reason I try not to buy Sony products is they love forcing you to use their proprietary accessories. I also think their products have always been overpriced but this goes back to the 80s so apparently I'm wrong since they've been around a long time.

[DracIsBack]

but since the problem is a design flaw rather than a manufacturing defect, entire production runs are affected. in my book, that makes the failure rate virtually 100% for any production run with the heat synch defect.

 

One, that assumes they haven't made changes to the design since initial release; and

Two, that assumes that all XBox 360's with the original defect are going to fail

 

Neither is true. Therefore, a "100% failure rate" is a gross exaggeration in my book. An unusually high failure rate is different from "nearly every XBox 360 has failed", which is what is implied.

 

For the record, I know 14 people who've had them die (including two that have had multiple die). I agree that it's completely unacceptable and it's the single reason that I haven't bought a 360 - even though they have a good warranty process. But implying that nearly all of them are failing is pushing it.

[Lord Helmet]

There is plenty to play on PS3 and more on Wii. Actually I would like to see a Wii/Ps3 Hybrid. That would be great!

 

I go to buy new games all the time...and I always look for new Wii games. Typically I find nothing that interests me at all, and I play all sorts of genres. 9 times out of 10 I end up with a 360 game or two and no Wii games. I have 3 times more 360 games in my collection than Wii games. I love the Wii...when it's good its REALLY good...but more to play than the ps3? I have a hard time buying that since the PS3 library has a lot in common with the 360's.

 

If I was limited to the Wii as my single console...I would be very, very bored.

[Osbo]

It's bad year for a whole lot of people, not only Sony. Just today I saw that Panasonic reported a $5B loss.

[atarian63]

There is plenty to play on PS3 and more on Wii. Actually I would like to see a Wii/Ps3 Hybrid. That would be great!

 

I go to buy new games all the time...and I always look for new Wii games. Typically I find nothing that interests me at all, and I play all sorts of genres. 9 times out of 10 I end up with a 360 game or two and no Wii games. I have 3 times more 360 games in my collection than Wii games. I love the Wii...when it's good its REALLY good...but more to play than the ps3? I have a hard time buying that since the PS3 library has a lot in common with the 360's.

 

If I was limited to the Wii as my single console...I would be very, very bored.

Well, it's great we have 3 system then, everyone can find what they like.

I am the opposite end of the spectrum, I cruise the Wii section and always fine a few and same if not more for the DS, Ps3 not so much. I look through the 360 stuff and If I found a game I really wanted I would buy the machine (in spite of problems and it being M$) I bought an xbox (not 360) for that reason,though I never found more than 4 title to buy. I just never see anything and I mean anything at all that interests me. So I have my Wii which sees the most usage of my modern systems and have been exploring a few titles of the used variety on the ps3.

Seems like a good time to be gaming!

Truth be told I am mostly playing my 7800, Tempest extreme and Pac man Jr! As well as working on my arcade machines.

[STICH666]

SONY took a gable that Blu-Ray would take off. Well people are just not tired of DVD yet. It offers nothing more than DVD other than more storage capacity. VHS to DVD was incredible. No more rewinding, better quality, no multi-disk releases for regular 2-3 hour movies, ability to skip through parts, no accidentally recording over it, the improvements were endless. DVD to Blu-ray? Higher cost for a slightly better picture on an average TV. Just not worth it right now. I'd say give it 5 to 10 more years.

Edited May 15, 2009 by STICH666

[godslabrat]

SONY took a gable that Blu-Ray would take off. Well people are just not tired of DVD yet. It offers nothing more than DVD other than more storage capacity. VHS to DVD was incredible. No more rewinding, better quality, no multi-disk releases for regular 2-3 hour movies, ability to skip through parts, no accidentally recording over it, the improvements were endless. DVD to Blu-ray? Higher cost for a slightly better picture on an average TV. Just not worth it right now. I'd say give it 5 to 10 more years.

 

Disclaimer: despite that I'm constantly berating Sony for squandering its gaming marketshare on the PS3's BluRay drive, I AM, in fact, a BluRay user. And, the PS3 is my primary player (that piece of shit Samsung BD-P1200 is now in the bedroom). When I bitch about the PS3, that's "Gamer Me" talking... "Film Lover Me" thinks it's awesome!

 

If you have an HD set, BluRay is awesome. My only regret was that Superman Returns and Superman II: RDC were my last SD purchases. I now wish I had them in 1080p.

[+Random Terrain]

SONY took a gable . . .