PS4 "Isn't Allowed" to be Another Failure, Says Sony Exec

[Arawn]

I don't get it. I honestly just don't get it. Game developers putting insane amounts of funds into games, but are shocked when they don't turn a profit. Like many others I'm shocked at the wastefulness. Games have looked more beautiful than they were before now, but the content has started to sour. The little replay value I've seen in games has come from multiplayer modes. But then the next game comes out and interest is lost as people move to the next one. I've always rented games to prevent buying one I won't enjoy. Basing my purchase off screenshots and 2 minute videos isn't my style. The low sales are blamed on the used game market, but it's not the main factor. People can't afford the $60 games with all the increase in prices.

Now that's about the games side of the equation, why are the consoles hurting? This part is even more puzzling. People buying a console is similar to buying a car (a little less costly mind you). First Microsoft now Sony saying their systems were a failure. Mind you the Vita didn't sell well, but PS3 did (and it still does). As for MS why does it seem like Xbox is going under? Maybe both groups are connecting their game sales (games they've published) as an indicator of the system's success? Not sure what. Still no one wants either/any of the systems to fail. When they compete; we, the consumers, benefit. More innovation and risks are needed, but seems everyone wants to play it safe. And what they do spend more money on isn't productive or beneficial.

 

[deadish]

Honestly, the best thing they can do is make it easy for third-party companies to develop/publish games for it. Isn't that how the PS2 got to be so insanely popular and successful?

Actually the PS2 was kind of a pain in the ass to develop for, certainly compared to something like the Xbox because the architecture was kind of odd. Maybe not as hard to develop for as the PS3 was though.

But when the PS2 came out game development was in a much different place. They were coming off of the PSX which was basically the most successful home console at the time (and is still the second most successful console, and just to put things into perspective, outsold the most popular consoles of previous generations by 40 million or more units. It literally crushed the competition in terms of install base), Japanese developers were still king and wouldn't touch the Xbox with a ten foot pole while Nintendo lost a lot of third party support with the N64 for some very good reasons, and weren't able to win it back with the Gamecube, in no small part due to Sony's willingness to let pretty much anyone do anything on the Playstation systems. Pre-built game engines weren't a thing yet, game development tools were usually developed in house as often as they were licensed from another company. And if all of that weren't enough the PS2 was completely backwards compatible and had access to what was probably the largest game library in history from day one.

All of that kind of added up to a console which was tricky to develop for, but no worse than developers were used to already (probably beat coding games in assembler at least), a console which got a lot of support since it was the obvious purchase for people who bought Playstations and was less restrictive to developers, and it also had all of the sequels to some of the biggest hits of the previous generation and represented the time when 3D games on consoles really hit their stride and had kind of figured out what 3D was all about.

TLDR: The game industry was a much, much different place 13 years ago.

Woah. Woah. PS3 > PS2 when it comes to ease of development.

The PS2 was a nightmare. It was so freaking weird. The PS3 is "modern" by comparison.

The PS4 is more or less a PC. Can't really fault Sony for not catering to ease of development anymore.

 

[Arawn]

What Microsoft shill wrote this article? How is a console better in every single aspect "much more moderate"? Is it simply because it refrains from introducing features that suck so hard for the customer that the features have to be removed before the console is even launched?

Jesus Christ, Escapist. If you're strapped for cash, there's a lot of things you can do to earn some other than accepting M$ bribes, and they may even allow you to keep your journalistic integrity.

I really don't think it's MS making them say this. If you recall MS said something very similar recently.

I called this shit years ago.

This is why people who say "Nintendo needs to die so that only Sony and MS are around!" are morons. Because it was inevitable that if Sony and MS performed poorly for extended periods (or at least, "poorly" in the eyes of shareholders) that they'd consider cutting out of the console market altogether.

Now Sony's finally coming out and admitting precisely what I expected was the case: that if the PS4 doesn't exceed expectations, it's likely to be their last console. And I imagine the same is true for the Xbone, since MS has already "lost" two gens in a row....and in a company used to winning, that's unacceptable.

When you set high expectations for anything you're more than likely to be disappointed. Profits may be good, but high profits are better. Are things so bad that these companies feel their products aren't doing well? I'm curious if it's truly bad sales or just comparison to other departments with less investment values.

 

[spartandude]

What Microsoft shill wrote this article? How is a console better in every single aspect "much more moderate"? Is it simply because it refrains from introducing features that suck so hard for the customer that the features have to be removed before the console is even launched?

Jesus Christ, Escapist. If you're strapped for cash, there's a lot of things you can do to earn some other than accepting M$ bribes, and they may even allow you to keep your journalistic integrity.

I...what?

Seriously what? Its an article about something that Sony said... what does Microsoft have to do with this?

 

[Toadfish1]

I called this shit years ago.

This is why people who say "Nintendo needs to die so that only Sony and MS are around!" are morons. Because it was inevitable that if Sony and MS performed poorly for extended periods (or at least, "poorly" in the eyes of shareholders) that they'd consider cutting out of the console market altogether.

Now Sony's finally coming out and admitting precisely what I expected was the case: that if the PS4 doesn't exceed expectations, it's likely to be their last console. And I imagine the same is true for the Xbone, since MS has already "lost" two gens in a row....and in a company used to winning, that's unacceptable.

Ignoring the fact that Nintendo would be in the exact same situation if the Wii hadn't, by complete fluke, become a massive fad, by what metric did Microsoft lose the 7th gen? They sold 80 million consoles and 819 million games, and have one of the most successful accessories in gaming history.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

The PS3 certainly had a slow start, but a failure? too bad we don't have access to what happens in the background to have a clearer idea of what they mean.

Given the absolutely insane success of the PS2 I can actually understand why they were expecting more. The early years of this gen allegedly cost them a lot of money.

I don't know how much and, from what I know, they did make a profit eventually. I just feel that maybe the shareholders were pretty damn unhappy with that "eventually."

 

[Dragonbums]

The PS3, did just as bad as any other regular console does at launch.

However, the parts that were made to build it, and the sheer amount of money they invested in it- when the PS3 struggled in it's initial years, it nearly sunk the company.

With a grand total loss of $5 billion dollars, they had to resort to selling both of their US headquarters just to make a dent in that deficit.

To consumers, it was a pretty great console.

By a business standpoint however, that console was a wildfire that nearly destroyed all of their savings.

Yeah, the PS4 better do very well when it comes out. Because while it may do as expected on release which may or may not do bad at all, the rest of the Sony company are more than likely non too happy with their entertainment sector at all the money they blew, and want to see some nice, solid, black numbers.

 

[Dragonbums]

What Microsoft shill wrote this article? How is a console better in every single aspect "much more moderate"? Is it simply because it refrains from introducing features that suck so hard for the customer that the features have to be removed before the console is even launched?

Jesus Christ, Escapist. If you're strapped for cash, there's a lot of things you can do to earn some other than accepting M$ bribes, and they may even allow you to keep your journalistic integrity.

Where was something like that stated in the article?


I don't think you understand how horrible the initial years of the PS3 was to Sony. $5 billion dollars in loss is nothing to laugh at. Having to sell both US headquarters is nothing to smirk about.

There was a time where people honestly believed that Sony would crash because of how much money got wiped by the poor initial sales of the PS3.

Sony, like Microsoft, are not just a pure videogame company. They have a movie, television, music, and (diminishing) hardware sector. For all intents and purposes their entertainment sector put a huge blow on the company with the ridiculous amount of money they spent on the PS3. Sony's entertainment department are under immense pressure from the rest of the company to greatly ammend what happened with the first few years of the PS3. If they don't see solid blacks, then Sony's entertainment division better have a good excuse for that.

Microsoft has been posting losses on the Xbox line since inception.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Xbox One fails (and it honestly seems someone in there is setting the thing up to fail.) Microsoft will pull the plug on their gaming division and call it a day.
There was even an article on here stating such.
There are no corporate shills here on the Escapist.
Not only that, they simply got this article from another source. ala the bottom of the article.

I would be more inclined to believe they were paid if they were the first and only ones to post news like this.

 

[Toadfish1]

Ignoring the fact that Nintendo would be in the exact same situation if the Wii hadn't, by complete fluke, become a massive fad, by what metric did Microsoft lose the 7th gen? They sold 80 million consoles and 819 million games, and have one of the most successful accessories in gaming history.

You didn't read what I said, did you?

Let's try again, this time with critical emphasis on the part you missed:

This is why people who say "Nintendo needs to die so that only Sony and MS are around!" are morons. Because it was inevitable that if Sony and MS performed poorly for extended periods (or at least, "poorly" in the eyes of shareholders) that they'd consider cutting out of the console market altogether.

The actual success of the console is irrelevant. MS and Sony are run by their shareholders, and what we see as success is not what the shareholders see as success. It's as simple as that.

Microsoft didn't end up in first place in either of their previous iterations. They're very much used to dominating every market they enter into, so being beaten by their competitors twice in a row will create a negative perception in the eyes of shareholders, who already don't see the value in their involvement in consoles to begin with. That combined with pressure in their primary market from other competitors (Mac and the like) will lead to people wanting them to push off the entertainment branch (which is losing them money) and focus on their core products. Sony's in the same boat, losing ground in consumer electronics to Samsung and other competition.

Actual success doesn't matter. What matters to Sony and MS are the opinions of the company's shareholders.

Nintendo, by comparison, is a company fully invested in video games. They'll keep making gaming consoles until they fall over and die. Whereas for Sony and MS, it's simply a matter of one bad board room meeting. This is something that so few gamers seem to understand, but they need to understand it, because it's the corporate reality we face. If this gen goes poorly (and all indications suggest that it probably will), we're very likely looking at the next big crash, and we'll probably lose one or more consoles in the process. Maybe even all of them. Nintendo is in the best shape because of the Wii and 3DS, but there's no guarantee they'll survive, either. They're just the most likely to survive of the "Big Three" right now.

And can we stop pretending the Wii was successful because of a "fluke"? It was brilliant marketing that got the Wii its massive sales lead. To suggest that it was a "fluke" implies that the person making said suggestion is extremely arrogant with regards to what "real" gaming is. >_>

"Winning" or "losing" might matter to Microsofts shareholders if they happen to be made up exclusively of Ricky Bobby from Taladega Nights. However, investors care about profit, and only care about who is winning to the extent that it gives them profit. The Xbox brand gives Microsoft a billion dollars annually, and has since 2007, so I think they're pretty satisfied with it. Who the hell is gonna look at a profit of a billion dollars from a division, then just say "we didn't outsell the other consoles. THIS MONEY SMELLS LIKE FAILURE!".

A division will be kept open as long as it is profitable. The XBox has been very, very profitable. The Ps4 will likely be very, very profitable. And when Nintendo isn't profitable, they will be shut down by bankruptcy. Investors don't give a shit about the console wars, they care about profit.

 

[Dragonbums]

Ignoring the fact that Nintendo would be in the exact same situation if the Wii hadn't, by complete fluke, become a massive fad, by what metric did Microsoft lose the 7th gen? They sold 80 million consoles and 819 million games, and have one of the most successful accessories in gaming history.

You didn't read what I said, did you?

Let's try again, this time with critical emphasis on the part you missed:

This is why people who say "Nintendo needs to die so that only Sony and MS are around!" are morons. Because it was inevitable that if Sony and MS performed poorly for extended periods (or at least, "poorly" in the eyes of shareholders) that they'd consider cutting out of the console market altogether.

The actual success of the console is irrelevant. MS and Sony are run by their shareholders, and what we see as success is not what the shareholders see as success. It's as simple as that.

Microsoft didn't end up in first place in either of their previous iterations. They're very much used to dominating every market they enter into, so being beaten by their competitors twice in a row will create a negative perception in the eyes of shareholders, who already don't see the value in their involvement in consoles to begin with. That combined with pressure in their primary market from other competitors (Mac and the like) will lead to people wanting them to push off the entertainment branch (which is losing them money) and focus on their core products. Sony's in the same boat, losing ground in consumer electronics to Samsung and other competition.

Actual success doesn't matter. What matters to Sony and MS are the opinions of the company's shareholders.

Nintendo, by comparison, is a company fully invested in video games. They'll keep making gaming consoles until they fall over and die. Whereas for Sony and MS, it's simply a matter of one bad board room meeting. This is something that so few gamers seem to understand, but they need to understand it, because it's the corporate reality we face. If this gen goes poorly (and all indications suggest that it probably will), we're very likely looking at the next big crash, and we'll probably lose one or more consoles in the process. Maybe even all of them. Nintendo is in the best shape because of the Wii and 3DS, but there's no guarantee they'll survive, either. They're just the most likely to survive of the "Big Three" right now.

And can we stop pretending the Wii was successful because of a "fluke"? It was brilliant marketing that got the Wii its massive sales lead. To suggest that it was a "fluke" implies that the person making said suggestion is extremely arrogant with regards to what "real" gaming is. >_>

"Winning" or "losing" might matter to Microsofts shareholders if they happen to be made up exclusively of Ricky Bobby from Taladega Nights. However, investors care about profit, and only care about who is winning to the extent that it gives them profit. The Xbox brand gives Microsoft a billion dollars annually, and has since 2007, so I think they're pretty satisfied with it. Who the hell is gonna look at a profit of a billion dollars from a division, then just say "we didn't outsell the other consoles. THIS MONEY SMELLS LIKE FAILURE!".

A division will be kept open as long as it is profitable. The XBox has been very, very profitable. The Ps4 will likely be very, very profitable. And when Nintendo isn't profitable, they will be shut down by bankruptcy. Investors don't give a shit about the console wars, they care about profit.

One billion dollar profit means nothing to Microsoft, when they have lost 3 billion dollars on the Xbox division since it's inception. Honestly, investors of the Xbox were never really interested in the console to begin with, and are now looking to the Xbox One as an excuse to finally shut down what they see as a tumor on the company that hasn't gotten to the lethal stage yet.

 

[infinity_turtles]

"Winning" or "losing" might matter to Microsofts shareholders if they happen to be made up exclusively of Ricky Bobby from Taladega Nights. However, investors care about profit, and only care about who is winning to the extent that it gives them profit. The Xbox brand gives Microsoft a billion dollars annually, and has since 2007, so I think they're pretty satisfied with it. Who the hell is gonna look at a profit of a billion dollars from a division, then just say "we didn't outsell the other consoles. THIS MONEY SMELLS LIKE FAILURE!".

A division will be kept open as long as it is profitable. The XBox has been very, very profitable. The Ps4 will likely be very, very profitable. And when Nintendo isn't profitable, they will be shut down by bankruptcy. Investors don't give a shit about the console wars, they care about profit.

I'm not sure you understand businesses. They cut profitable divisions all the time. It's about opportunity cost. From their perspective that much money should be making them a larger profit if directed elsewhere, so they pull support of that division to focus somewhere they wouldn't be able to as long as those resources are tied up with, in this case, the Xbox. Just being profitable isn't enough to investors. You have be optimally profitable.

 

[Caiphus]

Not to be too much of a smarmy prat, but if the PS3 was a failure how is that Vita doing?

 

[Saltyk]

The PS2 is the best selling console ever according to VGChartz. It sold 157.68 million units worldwide. By comparison, the PS3 comes in at 8th with 79.1 million units sold worldwide. And the original Playstation is fourth at 104.25 million. PSP is seventh, having sold 79.77 million units. The Vita is twenty-first having moved a sparse 5.69 million.

For those who are curious, the 360 is ninth having sold 78.41 million units (over half in the North America). And the Wii is fifth having moved 100.18 million units.

Source: VGChartz Platform sales [http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/]

Looking at that information, you can understand why they would consider it a failure. The PS3 was far below it's predecessors in sales figures and was much more expensive to produce. That's not something to take lightly.

Those figures also shed a ton of light on Microsoft's thinking with Xbox One. Only three consoles on that list beat the 360 in North America sales.

At the end of the day, I'm not worried. Everything has been pretty positive for the PS4 so far. And from what I've heard preorders for it are strong. I guess we'll know for sure in two months time.

 

[Dragonbums]

Not to be too much of a smarmy prat, but if the PS3 was a failure how is that Vita doing?

It's death knell will come on October 12. The executor is said to look like a Y shaped bird with long black claws and fearsome blue eyes.

 

[Caiphus]

It's death knell will come on October 12. The executor is said to look like a Y shaped bird with long black claws and fearsome blue eyes.

Aaaw noooo. I've put my eggs in the wrong basket.

Get the vita, they said. Two touchscreens are better than one, they said.

Well, fuck.

 

[not_you]

I just don't understand how game devs can spend millions of dollars on A SINGLE GAME and expect a profit because they "appealed to the widest audience"

I mean, to me, that's the main issue here...
Devs aren't making the games they want to play, they're making the games they THINK people want, by trying to give them everything in a single package... And that's where the problem lies...

Because it's the best idea I can think of at the moment... I point to Dark Souls 2..
From Software are trying to make DS2 into "the next skyrim" trying to widen the audience for their games... Pumping lots more money into the franchise hoping that it can win over fans from other genres...

And it just won't work... Because fans of the souls's series don't want skyrim, and TES fans don't want a souls game...
(Y'know, would probably be better to point at the Jimquisition episode)

Then again, some indie devs are doing amazingly well... Overkill Software said Payday 2 was in profit BEFORE launch day...
But since that was claimed a success will that mean everyone else will try to make a money stealing crime game?
No?

Because that's not what the "wider audience" wants...

THAT'S why the games industry will fail... Because the big time devs don't understand how to not overspend

 

[Tradjus]

Video game executives, always good for a laugh.
They're some of the most deluded and sometimes flat out insane people I've ever known.

 

[Strazdas]

So the only truly profitable division of SONY is going to be cut out because... its not profitable enough to hold the rest of the company together? what is this backward way of thinking. i realized that some nonprofitabel divisions are useful because they in fact take some of the loses away from stationary costs, but why cut down the profitable one?

Ignoring the fact that Nintendo would be in the exact same situation if the Wii hadn't, by complete fluke, become a massive fad, by what metric did Microsoft lose the 7th gen?

probably by the fact that they sold least console boxes of the three. granted i dont think it is the most reliable metric but its one thats most used.

And when the console industry inevitably fails (maybe not this generation) due to the insane expectations of these corporations, what's gonna happen to video game industry? My opinion: Renaissance.

Ascension to PCs?

The Xbox brand gives Microsoft a billion dollars annually, and has since 2007, so I think they're pretty satisfied with it. Who the hell is gonna look at a profit of a billion dollars from a division, then just say "we didn't outsell the other consoles. THIS MONEY SMELLS LIKE FAILURE!".

A division will be kept open as long as it is profitable. The XBox has been very, very profitable. The Ps4 will likely be very, very profitable. And when Nintendo isn't profitable, they will be shut down by bankruptcy. Investors don't give a shit about the console wars, they care about profit.

Except the fact that the net profit of Xbox project (as in whole Xbox division) has been a loss for its whole life and only if they have exact same sucess that 360 has in couple last years (not since 2007) they will be into the plus only after 3 years. 2 years ago anyone would have told you xbox is a failure as far as profitability is concerned. it managed to psuh though a bit lately which gives some people hope.