Slashdot Log In
Buy a PlayStation 3 and Sink Sony
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Sep 25, 2006 09:00 AM
from the there-be-sharks-in-them-there-seas dept.
from the there-be-sharks-in-them-there-seas dept.
sonnyweathers writes "There has never been a more perilous time for Sony than 2006. But if you think you can save the company by buying PlayStation 3 consoles, you're wrong. Analyst Evermore believes that selling 6 million PS3 consoles will make Sony a ripe target for takeover — perhaps even by Microsoft."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
they are sony minions I tell you! (Score:5, Funny)
"DON'T buy our console!"
Re:they are sony minions I tell you! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:they are sony minions I tell you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:they are sony minions I tell you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, on the other hand, MiniDisc was actually successful in Japan... so something has to be said about Sony's mindshare there.
Re:they are sony minions I tell you! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:they are sony minions I tell you! (Score:5, Funny)
Ignoring the fact that, you know, the systems are made in Mexico.
What would Microsoft do with all that content? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What would Microsoft do with all that content? (Score:5, Interesting)
To say that I am
Imagine how awful things would be if MS owned a bunch of "traditional" content (besides software.. which has grown up with "piracy" and the market understands how to deal with it..and the providers have grown up figuring out how to stay alive inspite of it)
When one umbrella organization owns content and technology, the interests of one are going to suffer due to the other. Sony makes this plainly evident. I suspect that the content people at Sony are furious that the technology people haven't invented a remote "extort-money" button for the latest Sony-Style line of kitchen radios.. and the consumer electronics people are livid that they keep getting memos suggesting that they invent a TV that plays ONLY Sony Pictures movies from the content arm.
When I talk about stuff like the broadcast flag, etc at work, I can still posture the argument that it's not clear that we make money by playing well with that thing vs ignoring it or taking a more consumer friendly approach. If suddenly "we" benefited from crap like the broadcast flag, those arguments would be DOA.
(Just like slashdot - there is not a singular hive-mind mentality inside Microsoft, and it should be clear that not everyone is 100% thrilled with everything that gets MS's name attributed to it. I can only imagine that there are good engineers at Sony as well that are upset with what has happened to their company.. )
Re:What would Microsoft do with all that content? (Score:5, Funny)
Please come to my office at ONCE.
Bring a chair.
Steve.
Re:What would Microsoft do with all that content? (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, my only 1:1 "interaction" with Ballmer was when he held the door for me at the entrance to the health-club most MSFT guys go to in Redmond. He had forgotten his health-club id card that morning. His money more or less built the whole place so I smirked as he explained who he was to the person working the card scanner. "Ballmer.. B-A-L-L-M-E-R..".
I can attest that when asked who he was, he did not shout "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!"
Re:What would Microsoft do with all that content? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What would Microsoft do with all that content? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not talking about being a martyr. I understand needing to pay the bills. I am saying, however, that your credentials work against your rhetorical stance. You benefit from MS's DRM practices. You might not like them, but you are reaping the rewards.
Isn't this comparable to saying, "Well, you live in the United States, so your position against the current government is essentially invalid where it counts." ?Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Save Sony?" (Score:5, Interesting)
What do I have to do if I happen to like watching the company most actively pushing DRM on us flounder and collapse? How can I personally help to hasten that demise? Work a little harder? Be a little less greedy?
Actually, that's a strategy that could possibly save Sony -- abandon DRM loudly and publicly, and tout themselves as the Kings of Unrestricted Media. A big campaign of "We trust you to not steal our stuff, but Microsoft and Apple think you're thieves."
Hey, if they're going down the toilet anyway, try a little innovation! Work a little smarter, not harder.
Re:"Save Sony?" (Score:5, Informative)
"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."
It was the article's author that summed it up as "Want a PS3? Work a little harder!"
Re:"Save Sony?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sony is too big, and has an vested interest in too many areas. Thus they cannot serve only the consumer in any of their divisions. As long as we see movies with the word "Sony" in the opening credits, we can be certain that Sony hardware will embrace DRM to the fullest extent possible.
If Sony could have their way, the only media and hardware channel between the movies they produce and the consumer would be Betamax®, oops, I mean Memory Stick®, oops, I mean UMD®, oops I mean Blue-ray®. And if someone is reading this 5 years from now, insert whatever DRM infected crap they're currently pushing at the end of that sentence.
Dan East
Re:"Save Sony?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying sony hasn't been stupid about other things, even in addition to the one's you metioned, (Mindisk, 8mm, rootkits, etc) but WTF do you people have against betamax?
Re:"Save Sony?" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not an issue of cold facts, it's one of perception. Keep in mind that at this time Sony was widely loved for having produced the Walkman, which was 1979's version of the iPod. I'm not saying Sony went out to deliberately screw the people who adopted Betamax. Far from it, it's obvious that they wanted Betamax to dominate the market. But it didn't, and people felt like they had wasted a huge amount of money trusting their beloved Sony (feel free to adjust a $1000 price tag for a VCR for 25 years of inflation.) When they spent that money, they didn't know it was a gamble or that there was a chance they'd "lose" -- this was Sony!
Now, compound that disappointment with the rest of the restrictions and proprietary media that Sony's shoveled out the doors or supported ever since they entered the production side of the entertainment industry. ATRAC, the copy bit in DAT tapes, Macrovision, Memory Sticks, CSS, HDCP, (and the rootkit fiasco) and you can't help but notice a pattern of general contempt for their customers evolving over the years.
So if a pissed-off grumpy old guy wants to whine about getting burned by Betamax, let him. He's got tons of evidence on his side, even if the facts are slim.
(A lot of people who paid thousands of dollars for non-HDCP HDMI televisions a few years ago are about to enter that same ripped-off state, so look for a fresh crop of bitter young technophiles to adopt a similar attitude towards the makers of their plasma TVs.)
Re:"Save Sony?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about what you just said. "abandon DRM loudly and publicly." Go outside your home or office right now and run up to 10 people and ask them if they know what DRM means. Help them out even, let them know DRM stands for Digital RIghts Management but tell them nothing more. You'll be lucky to find one person who can tell you what DRM means. So how exactl would your suggestion help Sony again? And why is Apple so successful despite its use of DRM with iTunes?
Knuth said it (Score:4, Insightful)
No, people does not know what DRM means, but what they do know is that they cant copy their music freely from their iPod as they could with the tape recorder. They also know they cant backup that game/app DVD as they could do 10 years ago, or that movie DVD as they could with their VHS movie.
What happens is that they do not relate those annoyances they have everyday with technology with the Bad(tm) DRM. They just think it is "more difficult". Back in the times of the VHS you just inserted the original and the blank and presseed REC+PLAY and voila.
It is your task as "computer expert" to let them know that it is not a consequence of advanced tech that it is more difficult or impossible to do that but it is a consequence of the restrictions that these corporations are adding to their content (wheter that is or not legal is another story)
Even better... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They get there money from games.
A PS3 is a cheap co
Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
Dan East
Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of a generic fast-food restaurant. Imagine they have a "value menu" with the Stinkburger Deluxe for only $0.99, but it costs $2.99 to produce. Drinks, however are $2.50 and cost about $0.15 to produce. Similarly fries are $0.99 but cost only $0.10 to produce. The restaurant will go out of business if every customer enters, purchases one Stinkburger Deluxe, and leaves. But most people aren't satisfied just downing a Stinkburger, they want fries and a drink too. That's the idea here; it's called the "razor and blades business model [wikipedia.org]."
So if no one buys a PS3, Sony obviously won't produce six million. If people buy them and buy NO games, NO blu-ray discs, and NO accessories (extra controllers, etc.) then Sony will be in quite a bit of trouble.
Re:Strange (Score:4, Interesting)
Then, they're just a charity for people who need computer parts. What would stop this?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Q: What are game producers going to think?
A: That either people don't -like- the games or that they are all being stolen. I seriously doubt they'll t
Re:Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
If Gamera the giant firebreathing space turtle lands on their offices, they'll bit in quite a bit of trouble too, and that's about as likely to happen.
Who the hell is going to buy a 600$ piece of electronic equipment out of spite with no intention of using it?
BREAKING NEWS (Score:5, Funny)
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday September 25, @10:00PM
from the could-things-get-any-worse dept.
An anonymous reader writes
Sony is going to have a lot of trouble withstanding an attack from Gamera, as not only does he possess great destructive power, but he is also a friend to all children.
Re:Strange (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Sony doesn't make the consoles as the order comes in. Sure, they won't make 6 million right away if nobody is buying them, but they still have to have enough on hand for the initial launch to fill demand. So if they make two million consoles and manage to get half of those onto store shelves before stores realize that nobody wants them, then Sony is out $600*1M + $100*1M = 700M. If they make 6 million and they sell out, they are out $100*6M = 600M, and even that is assuming that there are really 6 million people out there who are willing to spend $600 on a console and nothing else just to spite Sony. Sorry, don't think so.
2) Does anybody actually know that Sony is selling these consoles at a loss, or is this all just wild speculation? So far as I know, the only company that has ever sold a console at a loss was Microsoft, and they explicitly were not interested in making money on the console, but rather spending a boatload of money to make their way into a new market. The razor blades analogy is so bad for this market for a variety of reasons, but the most obvious one is that razor blades are consumed. You can't buy a razor and just one blade, because the blade will wear out and you have to either buy a new one or you're left with a worthless plastic stump. Console games are not consumed- you can buy just one, and it will last you the lifetime of the console. I know a couple of people who bought a PS2 just for the GTA games. If Sony had been selling that console at a loss, they would have never made their money back from three games, when one or two of them were purchased as "Greatest Hits" for $20. All of the estimates that I remember seeing for the "per console" cost to Sony of the PS3 included sunk costs such as the cost to develop the BluRay drives, which is misleading because Sony has already spent that money, whether they sell 1 PS3 or 100 million.
Anyway, I think Sony really blew it on this generation. They are too expensive to compete with Nintendo, and they are a year later on the market than the XBOX. Unless they have some really good exclusive games, (which it's been a long time since they have had) they are in for a world of hurt pretty soon.
The Console Makers Hate Me (Score:3, Interesting)
My last console of purchase was a Gamecube. The number of retail games I purchased for it totals two: Super Smash Brothers and Windwaker. I hope Nintendo made money on that console because I doubt they made much on the games I purchased for it -- though I could be wrong.
So how many games would I have to buy to make a PS3 profitable? Well if they lose $300 per console and let's be generous and assume they make $50 profit on each game, then I'd have to buy six games -- which there is no way in hell I'm going to do because each game is going to be $60. If I'm to drop $500-$600 on the console (which I'm probably not going to), I'm not dropping another $300+ on games.
Now, if Sony makes big royalties on their Blu-Ray DVDs and the sales of the PS3 increase sales of that, they may be OK. It's hard to say but I think that the adoption of their Blu-Ray standard is crucial to their survival -- the PS3 being expensive because of it is just making the stakes all that much higher. And they've put themselves in that position so they have no one to blame but themselves. Quite the gamble. 'Will it pay off?' relies on too many factors for me to even ponder
Re:The Console Makers Hate Me (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft theory tenuous at best (Score:3, Insightful)
"And who could be the potential buyer?
Microsoft.
That's right. I said it. Just think about it."
Okay. I've thought about it. And it doesn't make very much sense. Neither does the rest of the article -- but at least they tried to support their main thesis.
Meh (Score:4, Interesting)
First, TFA suggests that MS could take over Sony's video game arm, not the whole company. Second, it pretty much assumes that MS would want it. Why exactly would MS need/want it? If Sony goes that in the hole over the PS3, meaning not only did they lose a ton of cash on the loss per sale, but also didn't make hardly anything in third-party licensing deals (something TFA seems to forget is the largest revenue driver for consoles these days), that would mean that the Wii60 combination dominated the market - all this after the PS3 sold 6 million units (see the faulty logic yet?). Both Sony and MS lost tons on sales of consoles with the Xbox and PS2, but more than made it up with first-party games, third-party licensing, and the like.
Stranger things have happened, but I don't see it. Microsoft itself is a prime takeover target with almost zero debt and huge cash reserves, but it's too big for an LBO (at least we think it is).
selling razorblades is nothing new (Score:4, Insightful)
There was the same talk about buying XBoxes just to "stick it to the man." Everyone who thinks they can hurt a company by vigorously buying their products, even if they were sold at a loss on the razorblade model, is deluding themselves.
First, they will crow that they're selling tons of units, which will look good to their management and drive forward their strategies, whether or not games are being sold at the same rate. Second, the base units just get cheaper to manufacture over their product lifetime, so at some point, you're thinking you are still shafting them while they take profits to the bank. Third, as I've said before, once you're talking about millions of customers, any possible "hurt" done by a few thousand boycotters or complainers is something a megacorporation can simply shrug off and ignore.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If we run with the idea of Bill Gates or MS (If they can ever really be seperated) wanting to buy Sony (I know it's not very realistic) they could use the idea contained h
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Kutaragi just doesn't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I know that if I want to purchase consumer goods that I need to work to earn money to be able to afford them. I have no problem with this, the problem I have is that Kutaragi's attitude is one of "The price is not our problem, the price is your problem, do something about it."
If you own a business, and your product is rejected by the market fot being too expensive, then you either deal with the lost sales or change your pricing structure. If you cannot do the former because it would hurt your bottom line, and you cannot do the latter because your have designed a product with a very high materials cost, then it's your problem, not that of your potential customers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This part of the quote really turns the rest of the quote around for me. The idea that
Economics 101 (Score:4, Insightful)
If we can find out who is making all the decisions it probably wont be hard to convince him that they aren't selling because they need to manufacture more units, maybe add a root kit to every box and recall the old ones.
Japan would block a takeover and bailout Sony (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of Sony's troubles lie in its poor management. Sony could own the MP3 market if it hadn't been as concerned with content protection or proprietary formats. If Sony had made a deal with Toshiba with high definition format DVDs, Sony would be almost guaranteed to make moderate (billions) profits off of the new format. Sharing a positive number (profits) is better than having a negative number (losses) all to yourself. With a new format decided on, the adoption rate of high definition discs would be much quicker. Sony felt that it could win the format war easily by putting the Blu Ray drive in the PS3. I feel that Microsoft launched the Xbox 360 in 2005 because they knew that Sony would be in a poor position with the Blu Ray drive.
If Microsoft could take over Sony, they should. Microsoft doesn't really have anywhere to expand in software, they need to find new products if they want to have growth. Consumer electronics would be a very good area to get into for Microsoft. It is a low profit industry, but Microsoft would be in a position to sell services and software on the products. Many of Sony's failing products could be attractive to various Microsoft strategies. Think Sony with better management, it is really hard to get worse management.
This situation will most likely happen if the Wii is the dominant console this generation. If the PS3 doesn't do well, Sony will be in a position ripe for acquistion. If the Xbox 360 doesn't do well even though they had a year head start, Microsoft will either drop out of the console market or buy Sony and combine the Xbox and PS3 brands. If the Wii is the dominant console, then the anti-trust people will look more favourably on the merger of two failed brands.
Not MS But... (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps not (Score:4, Insightful)
1. The Wii is launching with more games than the PS3, and in greater numbers
2. Therefore, developers who develop games for the Wii or the PS2/360 will have greater sales than PS3 sales, simply by available units.
3. If a publishing company wants to make more money, make a PS2/Wii/360 game first.
I've even heard some publishers moving to shift their games to the Wii just because the PS3 will be launching in such low numbers. Eventually this will change, but if you're looking at your angry stockholders wondering why "Murder Death Kill 2000" sold only 100,000 copies on the PS3 while the Wii version of "Shoot Him In The Head III" sold 300,000 copies.
If the PS3, however, sells 6 million units within six months, you bet those same developers will want to be heading to the big lake since they expect bigger fish there. Personally, I'm holding off on the PS3 until about 2008/2009 (depending on certain game launches), and I'm actually considering getting a 360 next year with Mr. Tax Return or some such (once they get "Shenmue 2" and "Panzer Dragoon Orta" backwards compatibility up).
I'm getting a Wii this Christmas, if for no other reason than a) it looks sweet, and b) My Lovely Wife (MLW), Mrs. Non-gamer herself who got hooked on "Brain Age" is curious to try out that "Cute tennis game you showed me".
Just because any chance I get to have MLW jumping around the TV set in a cute little tennis outfit is a good day for me
Horrible article (Score:3, Interesting)
First, lets take the blue-ray drive. Lets assume for a moment, that the article correctly reports the price at between 200 and 300 dollars. So you're telling me the that between half or more of the cost is in the drive itself, to say nothing of the components that make up the system. I think Sony is run by baboons most of the time as well, but come on. Maybe at a full costs level, being sold to OEMs the blue-ray drive costs that much, but lets be real here for a second, they're not paying that much to have them.
Going further into the article, it suggest that Sony will force you to buy a bundle, big surprise there. Every console during launch has basically forced you to buy some bundle. And lets be honest for a second. What good is a console without atleast 1 game. Show me one early adopter that bought anything, just to have it sit on the shelf and collect dust. Of course you're going to buy a game, possibly two. As long as I can pick the game, I don't really think thats a problem. Now, on that same note, don't force me to buy an extra controller or any other 'accessories' especially since now the low-end model will offer HDMI port. Personally, I think thats a plus. Yes it will drive up the core costs just a touch, but lets be honest again, chances are that if I bought one today, I'd still end up buying the propietary component cables. This way I can buy the HDMI cable from a vendor of choice, and probably at a non-inflated price. I'll be standing just outside of BestBuy offering HDMI cables at half the cost of Monster on release day. Digital is digital.
Is the price of the PS3 high, yes it is. Do I still want one, yes I do. Will I buy it, probably not - but maybe. Does it cost more than the xbox 360, not necessarily. I can buy the 'base' console for the same price as the 'premium' 360. Plus I get BlueRay without any additional costs. The only advantage I can immediately see the 360 currently having is the modability. Give the PS3 1 year and I'm sure we'll see the same results.
I could go on, but to be honest I don't have the time or the energy to further crap on this article. I think someone had a word quota to fill, and this was there attempt at getting it done with.
Electricsistahood.com? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
1. Simply sell their console to themselves at the typical loss.
2. Then sell them on ebay for the price people are actually willing to pay.
3.
4. Profit!!!!!
Please use the appropriate 'numbered list appending ellipsis and Profi
Bad guess (Score:3, Interesting)