For video game players, the competition among the three game console manufacturers must seem like a Dead or Alive tournament. There's always a winner and a loser, but someone else is always lined up for another bout with the winner.
Few tears were spilled when the No. 4 console maker, Sega, dropped out of the market a few years ago. But can you imagine if, in a year from now, there were only TWO console game makers?
Not only COULD it happen, but we're going to tell you why it WILL happen.
Can Video Games Bring Down a Multinational Corporation?Sony has a book value of $27 billion. It has nearly $9 billion in cash. Sony's not going anywhere. Or is it?
Sony is looking at a potential for demise it has never faced before. With the failure of its TV and music electronics businesses and its up-and-down movie business, it has relied more and more on the video game business to keep profits up.
But now even its video game business can't save the company. In fact, it's the video game business that could put the whole company right down the toilet.
Here's a story of a company in trouble. Sure, you think you could help it by buying a new PS3 at the end of the year. But purchasing a PS3 this year could be the very thing that pushes Sony over the edge.
The Seeds Are Sown
Sony's troubles didn't just begin this year, but we all started to realize the wheels were falling off the train when Sony started delaying the release of the new PlayStation 3. The first excuse Sony made was that licensing issues were causing the delay from Spring 2006 to November 2006.
Around the same time Sony was putting off the release, analysts released a disturbing story about the disparity in the cost of raw materials for the PS3, compared with the estimated purchase price.
Analysts had predicted the PS3 cost would be in line with the cost of the Microsoft XBox 360 consoles.
In a February story for CNet, it was estimated that the total cost of components for the PS3 would be in the neighborhood of $725 to $905 -- and that was before it was rumored that Sony would have to put PS2 components in the box because the new chip lacked the ability to emulate the earlier PSOne and PS2 games.
The CNet story said, "The materials price estimates do not include marketing, software development, advertising or other costs, which will push Sony's total cost per console even higher."
That there is such a disparity between the price of materials and the suggested retail price for a new console is not unusual because most new consoles are sold as loss-leaders, with the game maker making up the difference with the high margin of profit they get by selling games for the console.
In contrast, the materials cost for the XBox 360 is estimated at only $501, and should continue to drop as the console ages. While Sony pays $200 to $300 for each raw Blu-ray drive, Microsoft pays only $20 for the simpler DVD drives.
The Truth Hits Home
With such estimates for raw materials, video game fans should have known that the new machine would need to cost a lot more. But a huge audience that was prepared to cheer the announced price of the PS3 instead sat in stunned silence when the suggested retail price was announced at the E3 conference: $499 for the basic system and $599 for the premium one.
Of course, the single most costly item in the PS3 is the Blu-ray drive. Analysts originally figured Blu-ray would add at least another $200 or so to the price of the machine, but that figure has gone way up.
First, there's more than just the mechanical equipment to figure in. Sony must also pay for all the codecs that must be licensed.
Second, the slow adoption of high density DVD technology will keep prices high for years.
Finally, all manufacturers of the blue lasers that are required for high density DVDs are having problems getting up to speed in creating the machines. This will result in low yields, further driving up the price of the drives.
Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi was not ambivalent about the pricing of the console -- he kept saying it was a premium machine, sold at a premium price. Want a PS3? Work a little harder!
"Our ideal," Kutaragi said, "is for consumers to think to themselves, 'OK, I'll work more hours and buy it.' We want people to feel that they want it, no matter what."
But the consumer reaction was swift -- and harsh. Even the Official Playstation Magazine had a bold cover headline that asked, "Is It Worth $600?"
In June, a month after Sony announced its price points for the PS3, analysts at Merrill Lynch estimated Sony would lose more than $1 billion in the console's first year of existence. By comparison, Sony lost only $458 million during the first year the PS2 was available. The company followed that with two strong years of profit -- $759 million in Year 2 and $1.3 billion in Year 3.
But Merrill Lynch warned that this generation of consoles was not like the last. Microsoft beat Sony for the next generation consoles by a year and a price reduction for the XBox could result in additional losses for Sony -- $730 million in Year 2 and $457 million in Year 3. That's nearly $2 billion in losses over three years.
The Cost of Doing Business
Of course, analysts questioning Sony's moves is nothing new. More than 10 years ago, just six weeks before Sony introduced the original PlayStation, the head of the project team quit amid rumors of difficulties in getting the console out on time.
Analysts at the time believed Sony could lose as much as $200 million on the project in the first year.
Sony's answer at the time was to require retailers to bundle the packages with one or two games, which still left Sony underwater, but not as much as it would have been.
This, of course, begs the question, "Will Sony pull the same thing this year?" It makes sense, especially considering that Sony will be charging a premium price for its games (above $59 and below $99, according to most sources).
The bad news for Sony this year isn't restricted to video game competition. The company is also liable for a large share in the laptop battery recalls being conducted by Dell and Apple. Nearly 6 million batteries have been recalled in the past two months -- all of them manufactured by Sony.
The battery fiasco alone could cost Sony as much as $500 million.
"The most important thing for Sony is maintaining the No. 1 quality, whatever the category or area," Sony Marketing (Japan) Inc. Senior Vice President Kiyoshi Shikano told MarketWatch this month. "So in that sense, unfortunately, the recent happenings have caused some small damage for the business."
In addition, Sony is far behind its competitors in the fast growing LCD flat-screen TV market and has lost its decades-long edge in portable music devices to Apple Computer's iPod players.
Sony is also likely to face a fight in Europe over its partnership with Betlesmann AG. A European court ruled in July that the European Commission was wrong to approve the venture. The court decision means Sony and Bertelsmann will have to re-apply to win European Commission approval for their venture.
At the movie box office, Sony has had great success with its Spiderman franchise, but must wait until May 2007 for the next installment to arrive. The company's biggest film this year has been Will Farrell's Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, which has made $145 million thus far, but lags far behind Disney's hit sequel for Pirates of the Caribbean, which has already made more than $1 billion worldwide this summer.
The Market Leader Goes Into the Cellar
Although the PS2 captured more than a 70 percent share of the previous generation of console sales, it is entering the next generation at a distant third, with Microsoft predicted to sell 10 million XBox 360 consoles and Nintendo selling 4 million of its new Wii consoles, while Sony will be able to push out only 2 million consoles to consumers by the end of this year.
That fact alone has analysts betting that Sony will introduce price cuts quickly. But price cuts, in combination with the losses Sony takes on each machine it sells, are a double-edged sword.
"By reducing the price, it appears that Sony may have prolonged its recouping period of initial investments on the PS3 by a few years," John Yang, a Tokyo-based analyst with Standard & Poor's, told the Wall Street Journal today. According to the Wall Street Journal article, Yang estimates the PlayStation 3 will be unprofitable for at least three years.
The Journal story brings up another point that may draw the most fear in the ranks of Sony -- the PlayStation will no longer dominate game developers. When the original PlayStation and PS2 were introduced, Sony had an impressive lineup of developers who made games exclusively for its consoles. That won't be the case with the PS3.
"We don't want the PlayStation 3 to be the overwhelming loser, so we want to support them," Michihiro Sasaki, senior vice president of Square Enix, told the Wall Street Journal. "But we don't want them to be the overwhelming winner either, so we can't support them too much."
So the price cuts have already begun. On Friday Sony announced a price cut for Japanese buyers (about $410 in U.S. dollars for the low-end version), there was no indication that such a price cut would be given to American customers.
In addition to lowering the price of the low-end model, Sony added an HDMI port to the machine, which further increases the price of raw materials. Sony will undoubtedly be losing even more money than ever before.
Do the Math
As a result, Sony is forecasting an $862 million operating loss for the current fiscal year. But that's going to seem like chicken feed, compared to the loss it's liable to see in 2007.
How much will Sony lose in the next 12 months? Let's count it up.
Sony plans on making 6 million PS3 units before April. Let's say that they sell every one of them at full retail price. With what we know about the materials price -- particularly the price of Blu-Ray players -- let's say that they will lose only $300 for every PS3 they sell.
6,000,000 x
$300
= $1.8 billion
That's the same amount that analysts figure the PS3 will cost the company over the first three years. Why the disparity?
The analysts are counting on Sony making up the sales of machines with the sales of video games. But it's not going to be as easy for Sony this time. Few game developers are making games exclusively for the PS3.
Also, Sony has already said that games would be at least $10 more than the games for the XBox 360 and at least $20 more than the games for the Nintendo Wii. With everything being the same, would you pay $10 or $20 more for the same game that you could play on your XBox 360 or Wii?
In addition, Sony will be nickle-and-diming you at every opportunity -- particularly with the HDMI cable, which will likely cost between $99 and $129. (That's surely why they added an HDMI port for the low-end PS3. They'll make their money back on the cable for it.)
Surely the discounts will come quickly, but they'll all be a drag on Sony's bottom line. Let's say Sony loses $400 on every box they sell. Here are the numbers:
6,000,000 x
$400
= $2.4 billion
That really starts taking a mammoth chunk out of Sony's cash. Add to that the half-billion dollars of free laptop batteries they've got to give out and the losses start approaching $3 billion.
But a company like Sony can afford to lose $4 billion, can't it? Once upon a time, that might have been true, but Sony is a much different company today than it was just a few years ago.
The Japanese people who owned shares in Sony could see the value in building for the future. But, with its purchase of Columbia Studios and Columbia Records, Sony has become much more of a multinational company. Today, for the first time in its history, less than half of the company is owned by Japanese investors. Investors in the West demand more short-term benefits.
Devoting nearly half of its cash reserves to losses in the video game and computing sectors, with no guarantee of future profits for another two years, could send the company's stock into a tailspin, once its investors realize the full measure of the grave situation for the company.
In such a situation, Sony could start selling off large chunks of the company. But even that would come at a large cost. For example, selling off the movie division would result in the loss of the Spiderman franchise for the PlayStation. Without an exclusive there, Microsoft and Nintendo would gain the edge in game sales, since their games cost less than Sony's.
Sony has become a minor player in the music player and TV industries, so they wouldn't be able to make much money off selling their stake in the aging Walkman and Trinitron franchises.
When things are all said and done, the most valuable piece of the pie at Sony is its video game division. They could very well put it up for sale. And who could be the potential buyer?
Microsoft.
That's right. I said it. Just think about it.
Who could benefit the most by purchasing Sony's video game division?
Microsoft.
You might say there's no way the U.S. government would allow such a thing. Anti-trust, you say.
Just remember who's running the government. A Microsoft takeover would be treated with the same kid gloves that created DaimlerChrysler.
Who knows? This time next year you could be playing games on a PlayStation 360.
Want a PS3? Work a Little Harder!
So you want to save Sony. What can you do?
Well, as Sony's Kutaragi says, you need to work a little harder and make a little more money.
Stop complaining that the PS3 costs $600. It doesn't. In order to cut down on its losses, Sony is liable to do the same thing to consumers that it did 11 years ago at the original Playstation launch -- it'll require that you buy two games in order to get a machine. That'll boost the price for you to around $725 or so.
But there's more! Want an HDMI cable? That'll be another $100 to $125. Now we're at $850 or so. You've got a Blu-ray player, so you'll want a few Blu-ray movies -- Sony titles only, of course. Buy six of them while you're at it! At an average list price of $25 each, we're talking another $150. That pushes our total price to an even $1,000.
That'll go a long way to saving Sony.
Now who's going to save you?

Labels: Advertising, evermore, Games, Microsoft, Nintendo, PlayStation, PS2, PS3, Sega, Sony, Videogames, Wii, XBox-360


222 Comments:
HDMI cables only cost $15 at Walmart. Yeah, they are $100 at Best Buy for Monster, but if you buy that then you're ripping yourself off.
buying more PS3s will indeed put Sony farther into a loss. however, the more consoles they buy the more games are bought. their profit on games far supersede the loose on a console. i'm saying that the more money loose up front on console means the more money they can make in profit.
Nice work here. Thanks for putting it all into perspective.
And if you do buisness at Walmart, you're ripping yourself and everyone else off in the long run.
totally makes no sense. they'll stop selling if they it makes them go bankrupt. they're not "stupid". selling console games is as profitable as playing "Deal or No Deal"; you can't lose. also, it speeds up BluRay adoption, and guess who gets loyalty from every BluRay disc sold.
Spider-Man is not a PS2 exclusive - they make Spider-Man and Spider-Man: the movie games for all consoles.
when dreamcast went under, xbox wasnt even around yet, there were only 2 console manufacturers then.
No way Microsoft will buy Sony, for simple reason: culture clash. You mentioned DaimlerChrysler. Do you even know how expensive, both in time and money, it was to integrate the two company? Japanese corporate culture is even more different.
Besides, DaimlerChrysler was a merger of companies in same business field. Microsoft wouldn't know how to run a profitable consumer electronics business, let alone movie studios and such. You don't just buy something that expensive without knowing how to manage it.
HDMI cables might cost $15, but unless you want to make your own connector (haven't studied on how to do this with HDMI yet, or if it's possible), you will probably be stuck buying a proprietary Sony connector, because there's no way they would let that be standard. You know they've thought of that.
Well my friend, seems you should have stick to computers and instead of going toward accounting.
You have no idea what you are talking about. MS loses 200$ a console and they are still alive... Sony still looses money with the PS2 even now... Consoles don't put money in you pocket... loyalty, contract with game makers and game selling does... Stop blogging... you will have more credibility since this is not helping.
who wasted their time writing this garbage. If they knew anything about what they talking about this article could have been informative. Go read real reports from people who actually research a subject and dont just plagerize little pieces of a topic to prove your own point. most decent article write will show both sides of a view also. i don't know if sony is making a grave mistke or not but i know that this article is crap.
Get the shovel, since most of the market is in christmas and birthday presents "Most Of", understanding that adults do play video games, I don't think little Jimmy can convince mommy to fork out $700.
I'd more likely think Disney would buy Sony if things got rough for Sony. That way:
> Disney can keep the movie business and the music label
> Sell off the PC business, remember Jobs is on the board and would have no need for it
> Sell the PS3 line to Microsoft, that way to earn eternal MS support for Mac Office
> Kill off the portable music player, again Jobs doesn't need it
> Determine what to do with the rest, like TVs, LCDs, etc., esp. if they're not cost effective
That way the cost to Disney would be effectively zero after the sale of the PS3 line and PC line, and maybe the TVs and LCDs.
- You compare Sony's best movie success with Pirates... Pirates played in more than 1 bio dollars world wide - and holds the 3rd place of the world wide box office hits. This means not only Sony is doing bad - all studios except Disney do bad this year...
don't use this number to prove your point.
Compare Sony's performance to the rest of the pack!
- "Sony would lose more than $1 billion in the console's first year of existence. By comparison, Sony lost only $458 million during the first year the PS2 was available. " Did you apply inflation rates?
- a loss of $3 - $4 billion - in the beginning you said they have 9 billion in cash. What's the problem?
- Microsoft buying Sony? MS buys small game studios... not a multinational...
- That report estimates the Bill of Materials for Blu-ray player to 400$ - that is a standalone player. The Playstation could share components. The cost to add Blu-ray to a Playstation should be less than for a standalone player.
- "In addition, Sony is far behind its competitors in the fast growing LCD flat-screen TV market and has lost its decades-long edge in portable music devices to Apple Computer's iPod players."
A company can't excel everywhere... Sony obviously chose to excel with PS3 and Blu-ray... not with I-Pod clones... and low margin LCDs...
The way I look at it this gives me a good reason to buy a playstation. I would love to see Sony go under.
In response to the previous Anonymous -
Did you even read the whole article? I don't think you did, because you'd realize that he made lots of points beyond the cost of the console. More expensive games, less exclusives, and expensive proprietary DVD formats will make adoption of the system slower. Read the end where he talks about cost of games, accessories, and movies.
In fact, read the whole article. THEN post, and maybe you won't sound like an idiot.
What complete lunacy.
Your arguement is based your assumption that Sony, as a total corporation, will never make any money and will sit around to allow this to happen. In addition, you assume that if all 6 million consoles are sold, those purchasing the units simply leave them under the TV for display purposes! Understand that there is a purpose and corporate strategy for the price of the units being subsidised by Sony, this is not where they make the money (the same can be said for Microsoft and Nintendo), its the games and extras that people buy. The same could have been argued for the PS2.
Your notion that Sony might be taken over by Microsoft, whilst you questions the ethics of the US government in such matters, the Japanese government, and other Japanese institutions, would prefer to bail them out rather than see a Japanese icon be bought out by a foreign investor.
Your arguments are, at best flawed, but mostly incomplete, inaccurate and wildly fanciful. I'd suggest giving up writing such diatribe and read IGN instead.
After putting rootkits on CDs and messing up people's computers, Sony deserves to go belly up.
Selling the PS3 at a loss won't send them down the drain. If that was the case, we know full well that's where MS would have gone with its original xbox and its newest as well.
The goal of selling at a loss is to capture market shares. The more machines you've got on the market, the higher chances you have that any expense made on that market come back to you.
You know, its that easy, if you want to sink sony, don't buy their stuff. period. its gonna be much of a pain in their arse if they get stuck with 6 million units than if they manage to sell 6 million of 'em at even $1.
Sony is strong enough to support a multi-year loss to reclaim their lost 1st place to MS - if they cant - oh well, they can't, so bad so sad, goodbye.
Buying their consoles will *help* them get back on the market, not buying it will sink them even further - its really that simple.
hahaha ElectricSistaHood think they have better business minds than Sony?
Get real
Well, Sony is riddled with quite a few bad choices. MD players, memory sticks and the whole lot. If anything Sony has always wanted consumers to buy their proprietary products. It's that electronic retardation that puts them right where Apple was some 15 years ago.
Coincidentally, I happen to think both Apple and Sony should join forces to battle the evil MS war lords and have a proprietary party all to themselves. Sony needs to learn the Apple lesson's and build using open arch. They have a reputable name, they can still cash in on.
BZZZZTTTT... thankyouforplaying
Look up "Economies of scale" on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
The cost of the console will plummet if the volume skyrockets...
All of you people who say that Microsoft couldn't handle buying Sony didn't read the article closely enough. It suggested that Sony could simply sell only their gaming division, not the movie or consumer electronic divisions.
all i can say, is after how soe screwed star wars galaxies into crap fest 07, they deserve to die in a fire
You bunch of monkeys...
"HDMI cables only cost $15 at Walmart. Yeah, they are $100 at Best Buy for Monster, but if you buy that then you're ripping yourself off."
*HDMI cable will be proprietry at the PS3 end. No Walmart cable could be used.*
"totally makes no sense. they'll stop selling if they it makes them go bankrupt. they're not "stupid". selling console games is as profitable as playing "Deal or No Deal"; you can't lose. also, it speeds up BluRay adoption, and guess who gets loyalty from every BluRay disc sold."
*How can you seriously say it "makes no sense" with grammar like that. I'm not even sure what you're saying.*
"buying more PS3s will indeed put Sony farther into a loss. however, the more consoles they buy the more games are bought. their profit on games far supersede the loose on a console. i'm saying that the more money loose up front on console means the more money they can make in profit"
*You are right, but I think part of the point is exactly how many games could you afford after spending so much on a console. Not only is it a bigger loss than ever before but they will sell less games as well.*
"when dreamcast went under, xbox wasnt even around yet, there were only 2 console manufacturers then."
*Wrong - Nintendo. They were just in-between generations. They were still "in the game" and had to be taken into account as they would be producing a future console (GC)*
"No way Microsoft will buy Sony, for simple reason: culture clash. You mentioned DaimlerChrysler. Do you even know how expensive, both in time and money, it was to integrate the two company? Japanese corporate culture is even more different.
Besides, DaimlerChrysler was a merger of companies in same business field. Microsoft wouldn't know how to run a profitable consumer electronics business, let alone movie studios and such. You don't just buy something that expensive without knowing how to manage it."
*I'm sure they won't but he didn't say they would buy SONY, he said they would buy the console division of Sony. A bit different.*
"Well my friend, seems you should have stick to computers and instead of going toward accounting.
You have no idea what you are talking about. MS loses 200$ a console and they are still alive... Sony still looses money with the PS2 even now... Consoles don't put money in you pocket... loyalty, contract with game makers and game selling does... Stop blogging... you will have more credibility since this is not helping."
*Such an uncalled for rude response deserves one back you twat. Losing money is a given - he already stated that MS are as well. Its the AMOUNT you LOSE and the AMOUNT you GAIN from selling games that makes the difference. Sony WILL LOSE more than MS and I'm guessing that they wont GAIN as much from games when you've spent so much on the bloody console in the first place. Stop replying to blogs...you sound like a dick*
I disagree with many comments in the article. I was just impressed at how many people were either wrong, rude or misunderstood the blogg. Fanboys really should put stuff in perspective (or learn to read and write) first. Just to recap...HE KNOWS YOU LOSE ON CONSOLES AND MAKE MONEY ON THE GAMES!! HE WAS TRYING TO SAY THEY MAY LOSE MORE AND GAIN LESS. Stop saying "MS did it and they are OK" Its not exactly the same.
For all you Sony-boosters trashing this article, please make sure you read it before you post. The author does not say that MS will buy Sony, but rather that MS will buy Sony's game division. That's it. Therefore points about MS not knowing how to run a movie studio are moot, they aren't buying a movie studio nor does the author suggest they should.
Furthermore, to those of you commenting that losing 4 bil is okay because Sony has 9 bil in cash, did you not finish the article? Sony is more than 50% owned by non-Japanese (ie. Americans) who have a much lower tolerance for cash-losing products. He is talking about half of their cash on hand! HALF! That is an enormous gamble to be making in a market that does not guarantee success. Virtually all games will be available for the big 2 consoles, there will be no advantage to playing one on the PS3 as opposed to the 360. So why pay a premium first for the console, and then to get the identical game? 20 dollars more for what, exactly? For nothing, because game developers don't add "platform-specific" features simply because it is too costly. They develop their games and then get them onto the largest number of platforms (console + PC) so that they reach the largest audience possible. Why would you buy Battlefield 2 for the PS3 when you could buy the identical game, with the identical graphics for the 360? In short, you wouldn't. Sony is in trouble.
DD.
Why not just image MS buying as many of the 6 million consoles as they could and burying them in a landfill. Now Sony gets the loss (and dies like Netscape). MS buys them for wholesale (lower cost). Sony loses the money & doesn't get to sell anything else.
That friends and neighbors it the strategy MS can use to finally own the video gaming market with an inferior product. And we all know they have the cash to do it. And I don't think the FTC can do a thing about it.
As mentioned in other comments, see "Economies of Scale" and also ponder the question how did Sony survive the PSOne and PS2, and at which point during the production cycle will the cost of the unit fall below the quoted manufacturing price, or will you argue that all of your 6 million untis will cost Sony the exactly same to produce.
SlashDot suggests the author of this nonsense is an economist.
Not a professional one we hope.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Look up "Economies of scale" on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
The cost of the console will plummet if the volume skyrockets...
Not really. Sony will already be producing them at a very large scale. The problem is that the technology isn't quite there yet to produce them as cheaply.
"With everything being the same, would you pay $10 or $20 more for the same game that you could play on your XBox 360 or Wii?"
I really liked this comment! When games are ported from system to system they are NOT the same game. The play might be the same, but controls and graphics are far diffrent. The "same" game on a PS3 will look alot better than it will on a 360.
You seem to have forgeten all the DRM court cases that they have gotten in, which has cost they roughly about $500 million dollars.
And then theres the high yield low interest loan that tney need to payback in full by March 2007. It was invested into their research department, among other things. Something completely retarded. Seeing how research does not make a profit until the company can cut costs and make a profit on their product.
And finally lets not forget that fees that Sony needs to pay the company they stole the rumble from. Which turns out, gets a nice paycheck since Sony dragged the case for over 4 years.
Finally why really would Microsoft get into the movie/music business. Its illogical for them to do that. Microsoft makes money by building platforms, not by buying failing movie studio's.
Who told the author that Sony says that PS3 games will be atleast $10 more expensive then 360 games?
Please stop posting comments from your imaginary friends.. Post the link to the interview if its true... otherwise... stop spewing crap...
Activision already says their PS3 games will cost 59.99... Apparently they have no problem selling them at the same price as Xbox360 games... Why do you think other production studios will have to?
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/733/733047p1.html There's the link to the activision article... Now STFU
Every Gaming company is paying Immersion that licencing fee for the rumble.. except for Sony. They're still fighting it while Xbox and Nintendo already settled.
My local Babbages manager says that he's been told to expect only 1 PS3 at launch - (Long Island - Suffolk) He expects to raffle it off to a buyer from all those waiting for one. I don't envy anyone wanting one for Xmas! (and good luck!)
The words you wrote (it wasn't an article) are all total garbage. And I don't even like Sony!
I think many of you are missing a key element here: Culture. If you've been to Japan for any significant duration (and I have) you'll know that unlike the USA/Canada, Japan has a strong sense of tradition and history. In addition, the people in Japan don't balk at higer prices the way we do. Its all cooperative there: Everyone charges higher prices with the understanding it supports higher quality of living(and funny enough, it WORKS!). When I was there food was 30% higher than the cost of North America, computers were almost double, and for the same US dollars you get 1/2 the size can of soda but people there bear all this without complaint. Every kid in my village had a PS2 even though the income there was significantly lower than the city dwellers. You get the idea.
A long time high profile company like Sony will most likely do the following: Sell of the components that have more foriegn interest than Japanese, especially since the Japanese Government often frown at foriegn ownership of Japanese property (its illegal to buy property unless you are a citizen there) and companies. This would include large parts (not 100%) of the movie and music division (keep the Japanese division) and computer divisions (but keep its locally profitable Japanese division, including monitors and computers). I believe NEC did something similar: I saw tons of NEC products in Japan (computers, appliances, laptops, TVs and other things) but only a few monitors and CD/DVD drives in North America. Same for Toshiba (I had a Toshiba bicycle believe it or not!). By selling off the foriegn interests and keeping the Japanese (where price is less of an issue) they solve their problems, go back to their roots, and are more likely to get government assistance should they really need it.
The battery incident did the most damage to Sony on a PR/Cultural level because people in Japan are not very forgiving with cutting corners and are often in the habit of demanding public apologies (unlike here where we quickly dismiss corporate "mistakes") when such incidents are made public. The Japanese government has bailed out financially troubled Japanese companies as many as 3 times in the past, but it looks bad to give goverment money to a company who has a public scandle or two in the spotlight. (the second case being the rootkit incident) I suspect there is pressure to reduce or eliminate its foriegn music interests(save the Chinese division) so they can live it down faster.
anyway there is my view on the matter. Numbers are only part of the picture. Some one once said, "respectability is the ultimate currency". In Japan, that is certainly true. Never dismiss cultural beliefs when creating a financial analysis. Oh, in regards to the PS3 story, for reasons I stated above, Sony will probably not want to support PS3 in North America (or as little as it can get away with) but give full support to Japanese purchasers. Why? Because the Japanese are more like to "work harder" to pay the higher price, lower shipping costs, cultural compatibility on support as well as higher cost of providing foriegn support. I think the biggest problem with the PS3 in North America is some Japanese corporate executives only looked at the marketing problem from a Japanese prospective (cultrual differences underestimated again). I'm sure some "shame" was generated by this oversight.
i think u pimp'ed news groups to flaunt ur blog links..
n yes u only managed to mention the losses .. do u have maths to calculate the profits ?? no u don't .. keep playing on Playstation 360 and let us "Work Harder" !!!
from a previous post :
"I really liked this comment! When games are ported from system to system they are NOT the same game. The play might be the same, but controls and graphics are far diffrent. The "same" game on a PS3 will look alot better than it will on a 360."
Ridiculous! How do you know that? The answer is, you don't. The graphics capabilities of both machines are very similar. PS3 can support games made at 1080p, that is the only difference. But which game manufacturers are going to release games at that high a res? NONE! Why would they? Can you honestly tell the difference between 1080p and 720p? Game developers will make their games to support the broadest range of platforms, meaning 720p max. Exactly the same way PC games come out for the broadest range of specs. There is no point making a game only for the ultra high-end, otherwise only a few people capable of playing it will buy it.
There is no game out there which will look significantly better on the PS3 than on the XBOX 360. The technologies are simply too similar. When you are talking about comparing a PS2 game versus an XBOX (non-360) game, you have a point. The XBOX came out much later than the PS2 and thus had a much better graphics subsystem. But the 360 and the PS3 are in the same generation, the PS3 does have better specs but not improved enough to make any noticable difference.
DD.
One thing not mentioned above is that Sony is pushing hard for the Blu-ray format to win over HD-DVD. If a couple of million consoles are sold it will put Blu-ray far in the lead, giving it high probability of success... which means lots of $$$ for Sony.
One thing not mentioned above is that Sony is pushing hard for the Blu-ray format to win over HD-DVD. If a couple of million consoles are sold it will put Blu-ray far in the lead, giving it high probability of success.
this article is really piss poor speculation
Sony and nintendo were the two console makers alive when sega went software only. Microsoft had not yet entered the ring and the market was just fine.
Hmm, I’ve read the article time and time again.
The conclusion ?
ElectricSistaHood and Evermore are the ones that need to learn the lesson !
Time to go read a decent web site me thinks…..
To the graphics post above..
Look at Sega. They were making Virtua Tennis for x360 and ps3. Many people reported that the PS3 version looked noticably better than the Xbox360 version... to the point where it was eery because they could even see the veins underneath the characters skin...
Now. This was no doubt due to the abillity to store larger and more complicated textures and maps..
So there you have it. The space alone is already giving PS3 an edge with graphics. And the 7 cores will no doubt give it an edge with physics...
A console world dominated by Microsoft, not quite what I would like to imagine. Now that Microsoft still has competition they are playing nice. But once that changes we will see the real Microsoft. So much to all the Sony haters, hope you are happy if and when that happens.
Btw, it's not the US government which would object, it would be the Japanese government. So for that reason alone there will never be a Playstation 360. Not to forget japanese developers which will probably take sides once Sony gets into real troubles. I don't think any of them would do 360 games if it weren't for the money Microsoft throws at them.
The PS3 is all about format wars, this is what is at stake. Do you really believe that Sony would stick in a 20USD DVD drive when they can distribute a system with a (Sony backed) BluRay drive. The corporate pressure (not just from Sony) will be to get the units out there with BluRay, and to hell with costs and various delays. They will get over these problems with marketing and spin, which they already are doing.
With 6 Million units being sold do you honestly think that all these buyers will also rush out and buy HD DVD players! They will shift 6 millions units capable of playing BluRay and maybe HD DVD units will have sold half a million players in the same time.
Your assumption is that its just Sony subsidising the PS3, with such big industry names as Hitachi, JVC, LG, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TDK and Thomson with a lot at stake, who knows where the BluRay drives comes from and how much Sony is really taking a hit on these units.
Wow, this article ruffled some fanboy feathers. I bet the extreme sensitivity is a sign of how close people are to seeing this as a possibility (i.e. if it were so outrageous people wouldn't even give it the time of day, but sites like Slashdot and the fanboys are signaling that there may be something here).
Oh and to the person who said
"- That report estimates the Bill of Materials for Blu-ray player to 400$ - that is a standalone player. The Playstation could share components. The cost to add Blu-ray to a Playstation should be less than for a standalone player."
A $400 stand-alone Blue-ray player? That's a joke right? Unreliable blue-ray players cost more than that-let alone one that is needed to power the PS3.
The cost of the console will plummet if the volume skyrockets...
Not really. Sony will already be producing them at a very large scale. The problem is that the technology isn't quite there yet to produce them as cheaply.
You're assuming the COMPONENT COST will remain the same over *THREE YEARS*??
Also, as others have mentioned, they'll be getting some Blu-Ray royalties and I honestly doubt that they won't be able to sell a SINGLE game.
There are very contrived arguments in this article, all to prove an invalid point.
"Not only COULD it happen, but we're going to tell you why it WILL happen."
So it's inevitable?
Puh-leeze, give me a break.
Man, do I regret wasting my time reading it.
there sure are a lot of idiots posting to this blog.
i thought it was an interesting article, and, the general response to it seems to have been 'no way a major corporation could make mistakes!' whatever. major corporations come and go every day, and sony has been on the ropes for a while. i remember suing them a while back for poor customer service with my minidisc player, and winning.
if you people do not want to sound like idiots, instead of criticizing this person for writing an article with a few numbers on it and calling them an idiot, why don't you read professional analyst reports? you know, people who have graduate degrees and do nothing all day but dedicate their lives to studying the stock market, and know a hell of a lot more about this sort of thing than you idiot video game fans?
just because a company makes good video games doesn't mean it has good governance, corporate structure, or financials. remember sega?
Congratulations - this was a pretty well-written, insightful article.
As others have pointed out (albeit not very politely in most cases), there are some issues with your logic, I think - particularly with note to the cost of production (which must certainly diminish some, despite the cost of components) and the issue of game purchases (which may or may not make a difference in Sony's EOY earnings on videogames), but I found your conclusions and the logic behind them quite interesting.
It would be nice if an interesting bit of analysis like this could be looked on objectively and responded to with the same level of thought it was written. But it appears from the comments that many people who can't form complete thoughts of their own, are grammatically-challenged, or are otherwise inclined to badmouth anyone who challenges the wisdom of Sony (a.k.a. Fanboys) can’t reply without sounding like petulant assholes. Sorry for that – thanks for sharing your thoughts with the minority of commenters who aren’t thimble-brained morons.
--
C.S.
For those with 1080p monitors, games that actually implement the higher resolution may be worth a bit of extra money. And if they prove to be the same cost as Xbox titles, I'm definitely picking up the PS3 versions of the games.
I play many 360 games at 1080i, but the interlacing tends to make some games appear too choppy (like Oblivion). I'm not certain the graphics processor on the PS3 will allow much better, though, so I'll have to wait and see.
just checked walmart.com they don't have an HDMI cable for $15 the closest thing is an HDMI to DVI cable for 19.
Check Newegg.com THey have an HDMI cable for 16 bucks from Link Depot
By the way, I can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p--due to upconversion, my 1080p LCD monitor causes the textures to "sparkle" or "swim"(not sure how to describe it best). If you've only got a 720p monitor, 720p content is going to look best on it.
As a game developer, I can tell you that "supporting" the higher resolution is potentially close to a zero-cost operation (depends on whether you decide to produce higher resolution textures, or whether you are simply going to render existing content to a larger frame buffer). Switching between different resolutions should already be enabled due to the need to support HDTV as well as standard televisions. The main problem would be if your GPU did not have enough memory or processing power to handle computing the extra pixels--but different games have different requirements in this regard, so you cannot say that no developer is going to support 1080p.
>>>
Jonah A. Libster said...
I think many of you are missing a key element here: Culture. If you've been to Japan for any significant duration (and I have) you'll know that unlike the USA/Canada, Japan has a strong sense of tradition and history. In addition, the people in Japan don't balk at higer prices the way we do.
<<<
Really? Then how come the Japanese market is getting a hefty reduction in the price of the PS3? Shoot, with your line of thinking, Sony should raise the price of the PS3 for Japan and make some money.
Xbox is updating there firmware this year to handle 1080p, but again, the difference doesn't really matter if the end user doesn't have a high quality display.
Stupid but some one said the same thing when the orignal XBOX came out. Funny they said almost they same thing as this story. Now we have a XBOX 360?!
Search and you might find a link to the old story about XBOX sinking Microsoft. I think it was on the Register.co.uk. I will not waste my time with looking for it. google it if you want.
>>>
Really? Then how come the Japanese market is getting a hefty reduction in the price of the PS3? Shoot, with your line of thinking, Sony should raise the price of the PS3 for Japan and make some money.
<<<
Even if they don't balk at higher prices, the Japanese people can still satisfy their sense of tradition and history by buying the lower-cost Wii (also produced by a Japanese company, Nintendo, remember?)
Why do people keep comparing Sony to Microsoft. Microsoft posted loses with Xbox constantly except when halo 2 was released. Microsoft can afford those losses...they have billions in cash reserves. A direct comparison, saying that Sony can withstand the same thing is ridicoulous.
I found this article painted perhaps crude but very foretelling of the way things might go. For those of you who keep arguing that obviously sony won't sell the ps3 if its going to make them go under...imagine if they didn't!! How much money have they invested in cell and blu-ray?
Basically (and I don't understand how hard this is to comprehend) what the article is saying:
-PS3 costs a lot more than sony is selling it for (including marketing, shipping, etc).
-Sony is facing challenges on all fronts (mp3, tv, movie)and losing market share.
-And Sony has to take care of a battery recall issue.
That's it. Its not discrediting the ps3 (for you ignorant fanboys). Its merely saying that things are setup very badly for Sony.
And yes go ahead and read the financial statements for sony. For those of you who just like to babble, they have pretty graphs too to help you understand.
I hear a lot of talk about how Sony is trying to win 'the HD format war'. In my opinion, there will be NO winner. VHS was a crappy technology that had long outlived its usefulness, and DVDs are vast improvements over VHS tapes. Having a DVD player is downright obvious at this point. But who needs either an HD-DVD or BluRay player? Other than audiophiles with $10,000+ home theatres, do you know anyone who feels that DVDs are in any way inadequate? There seems to be this assumption that one of the two will be crowned king of the movie market and the public will en masse gather behind the new king and stop buying DVDs. See, that's just crap. The only thing HD-DVD or BluRay has over DVD is higher expense, better picture, and more onerous copy-protection. DVD over VHS has chapter select, extras, better picture, similar cost and a smaller form factor and even then it took five years before the market had predominantly switched to DVD. So hear me now. Both HD-DVD and BluRay are doomed to obscurity, right alongside laser disc, mini disc, SACD, dvd-audio, and all the rest of the formats that weren't vast improvements over the previous generation.
Five years from now they'll put HD video on something like a minidisc and then that might become popular if readers and writers are cheap enough and the format natively supports both rewriting for data and DRM lockdown for the studio-produced discs. Plays on your 10th generation iPod (with 20 hr life playing hd video) or pop it into your xbox 4ever and play away. But this? This is not a winning product.
Sony is banking a lot on the notion of BluRay winning massive public support and becoming a de-facto standard. But it's simply not feasible. In other words, they're going down. They'll bring in a butcher as the new CEO in a couple years who will pare everything down to their core profit centers. We may or may not see a PS4. Already Sony is shifting gears to a Japan-centric stance in the console war, regrouping to focus on the one market they know they can win. But can they? Nintendo is huge in Japan, and the DS is the clear winner there over the PSP. Sony may make good money with the PSP in Japan, but Nintendo is especially poised to dominate the video game market of Japan right now (and the world as well, to be honest). Half the cost counts for a lot in Japan's lagging economy, not to mention Nintendo's efforts to expand the video game market past the hardcore Famitsu-reading fans. Sony will make good profits and push many units out the door, but in terms of market share they stand to lose in this generation.
The fate of Sony hinges primarily on the Cell processor coming down in price, up in yields, and being used across the brand for the next decade. While they are weak now, if Sony can push through the rough spot without falling down, and get even one major consumer electronics hit on their hands based on that new tech, then they could well see the land of rising profits once again. The PS3 may or may not be profitable in the US market-- at this point it's a crap shoot.
Sounds like an MS shill. Sorry, Sony won't die, just like it didn't die when it took on Nintendo and Dreamcast.
<<<
Xbox is updating there firmware this year to handle 1080p, but again, the difference doesn't really matter if the end user doesn't have a high quality display.
>>>
I think this may be key to any success Sony may have with their PS3 "gamble". As an ownder of a high quality display, I am keenly interested in securing content for it. I no longer play my PS2, as it looks like cr*p on it. I play my 360 games on it at 1080i mode even if they appear to stutter a bit more now and then. I buy Anamorphic DVDs so that they look better on it. And I will buy a PS3 and Blu Ray DVDs so that I can achieve the visual quality, in both games and movies, that I see when playing 1080p Media Player 10 (ironically!) sample videos from my computer (though with more stuttering than I'm happy with).
The price of these high definition monitors is just now coming down to the point where I think consumers will buy them in droves. When they perceive that they just saved more than $1,000 - $2,0000 on their TV, what are they going to do with that savings? Start buying high def content of one form or another--perhaps even a PS3 (since it comes with a "free" Blu Ray player)!
Hello? you mean to say the people @ Sony havent done this math before?
Here's some numbers to look at:
High-definition television: $2,500
Stereo Receiver: $600
Speakers: $1,200
Cables: $400
Installation and Calibration: $1,000
Movie/CD/Game Player: $600
Its not just the ps3 which comes with a price tag...
So here is what matters. For one thing this article is too one sided to be accurtate. Second, sure XBox 360 and PS3 may have similar hardware and capabilities, but whose architecture is better. PS3, given the extra time may able to do alot more that the XBOX 360. How about integration of their new Eye Toy with future guys. This could revolutionize the gaming industry if it is good. Kind of like the Nintendo's new joystick which can be used to like a golf club or bat. What's Xbox 360 have.
The main problem is the game companies. I was interested in the XBOX 360 until I reailzed the games released for it did not have much better graphics than the ones released for the XBOX. They added to the resolution but the detail was not there. Madden is a great example.
Therefore, PS3 may have superior architecture that can out perfrom with less lag in the online game arena with better graphics. Any Socom players out there know what I am talking about. I guess we will just have to wait and see what they come out with. Some may know that Nintendo had the best architecture out of PS2 and XBOX but was limited by the hardware of its time. The other consoles could out perfrom Nintendo only because they were built with new technology.
The real question to ask is if game developers are going to spend the money to develop games that will use the high end specs the PS3 will have. I am guessing the market will be there, otherwise who would pay so much for a great system when they have old technology to play it on.
Last, please get your cables right. Reading the specs on PS3 defined the video cables as this. They still keep their private technology called AV which can have the other end be composite, component or whatever. The AV to RCA composite was what came with the PS2. As for HDMI, this will be a seperate connection which is the latest standard for audio video equipment. This means you can buy anywhere. Both ends are HDMI. And PS3 will not make money off of it because you can buy it from anywhere. They are just using the latest technology along with their proprietary connection. The only downside is Copy-protected Blu-ray video discs can only output at 1080p using an HDMI cable that is compatible with the HDCP standard. This sucks for any users with old HD TVs with only component in for video.
If you are still reading this, I am glad but stop waisting your time and just wait to see how PS3 performs when it comes out. Most likely they will have better games as usual, take the martket for Blu-ray because I really don't want to shell out money for XBOX 360 and an additional $1000 fro HD-DVD player when I can just buy a PS3 for $700.
It saddens me to say this, but this is one of the most moronic articles I've ever read.
Of course Sony are taking a loss on their console. So is M$.
The real cashmoney's in the GAMES.
As for M$ buying Sony :rofl:
Go do your homework kthxta
BluRay will be the death of Sony. Times have changed, but anyone remember VHS vs. BetaMax?
Proprietary technology FTL
Before I get into this, just let me re-iterate what was said earlier in that this article is mostly based on opinion. The author picked pieces of facts out and twisted them to fit his/her own biased mindset.
Anyway, a quick lesson in economics. I am going to assume that the author was right with 1.8 billion loss in the first three years. If this is true, then Sony's educated professional accounting staff know it as well. However, the company chose to move forward with the project anyway.
Why would they do this? Return on Investment. Now, things are much more complicated than how I am going to explain, but the following is the most basic example of why they would accept such a loss. A common rule in economics says that a company should undertake a project if the Rate of Return of that project exceeds that of the industry average, given the same amount of risk. Therefore, if the industry average RoR is 7% for this type of project, then Sony should invest in a PS3 only if they expect to get a RoR higher than 7%.
The reason they would choose a project that meets these criteria is apparent when you assume that if they expect turn earn less than the average, say 6%, then they'd be better off just investing their cash in some other project that is making the 7%.
The 1.8 Billion is not a sunk cost, it is an investment. Sony's experts must have estimated that the investment would yeild a return higher than the industry average. If they get a 15% return (assumed average return based on risk), that means in a 6 year span (assumption of lifespan of PS3 generation) they expect to earn:
1.8B * (1.15^6) = 4.16 Billion.
(All numbers above are COMPLETELY assumed just to illustrate the point of Return on Investment)
Sony is not throwing money away. They are investing in themselves in the hopes that their project will yeild a higher than average Rate of Return. All we can really do as consumers is question the assumptions of their expected Return on Investment. The author of this article challenged these assumptions with opinion, not fact. Facts will not be available for many years to come.
In the meantime, do not believe that buying a PS3 is hurtfull to Sony.
Someone mentioned above that PS3 games are worth the extra 10 bucks or so, but they aren't. Developers will develop for the lowest denominator. In this case 360 or Wii. The games will look "3