When Will Sony Cease Being a Hardware Manufacturer?

[GhostDog]

So the PS4 is coming and everything but when do you think will be the end of Sony as a hardware manufacturer? I'm thinking after the PS5. Sony came into hardware manufacturing with the PS1 and build a huge following worldwide that transferred over to the PS2 and added to the Playstation's brand and popularity. The PS3 has not matched the numbers of its predecessor but seems to be doing well sales wise. Who knows how well the PS4 will do but I have a feeling it will not be as popular as the previous systems since gaming on other platforms such as PC and portables are increasing in popularity. I don't think Sony's momentum will last too much longer. The PS5 would be a fitting ending. What are your thoughts?

[danawhitaker]

So the PS4 is coming and everything but when do you think will be the end of Sony as a hardware manufacturer? I'm thinking after the PS5. Sony came into hardware manufacturing with the PS1 and build a huge following worldwide that transferred over to the PS2 and added to the Playstation's brand and popularity. The PS3 has not matched the numbers of its predecessor but seems to be doing well sales wise. Who knows how well the PS4 will do but I have a feeling it will not be as popular as the previous systems since gaming on other platforms such as PC and portables are increasing in popularity. I don't think Sony's momentum will last too much longer. The PS5 would be a fitting ending. What are your thoughts?

PCs and portable (I'm reading that as smartphones/tablets) will never replace consoles for me, but I may be in the minority.

[GhostDog]

PCs and portable (I'm reading that as smartphones/tablets) will never replace consoles for me, but I may be in the minority.

Me neither but I can't deny the popularity of handhelds whether it's by Nintendo or the smartphones/tablets. I fail to see the popularity of Apple products but they are selling. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple entered the gaming world if they haven't already with their Apple phones and whatnot. I really don't follow Apple. Sony seems to be struggling with the Vita and there's no telling if that will transfer over to their future products. Perhaps this is a sign that Sony is losing ground in the gaming market. After all the PS1 and PS2 were more successful than PS3 from what I understand.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I believe "cease" is the word you were looking for.

You can edit posts, including headlines.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

You mean "cease." I say it'll happen around the time of the PS10. The PS3 tripped out of the gate by being overpriced at launch, but now it's the 5th best selling console of all time. Support for the Sony brand is very high worldwide, and it seems like the PS4 is going to be in good shape (Nintendo's WiiU isn't selling like the Wii yet, plus the last generation of consoles is the longest in history). If Sony started suffering from chronic mismanagement, they may see their brand decline, but it would take a while. After all, it took about 10 years of bad decisions for Sega to destroy itself.

[GhostDog]

I believe "cease" is the word you were looking for.

You can edit posts, including headlines.

Yes, thank you.

[danawhitaker]

Me neither but I can't deny the popularity of handhelds whether it's by Nintendo or the smartphones/tablets. I fail to see the popularity of Apple products but they are selling. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple entered the gaming world if they haven't already with their Apple phones and whatnot. I really don't follow Apple. Sony seems to be struggling with the Vita and there's no telling if that will transfer over to their future products. Perhaps this is a sign that Sony is losing ground in the gaming market. After all the PS1 and PS2 were more successful than PS3 from what I understand.

I'm someone that bought a PS1 and PS2, but has never bought a PS3. At first, the problem was price. I couldn't justify the cost at launch. Then, as time went on, I couldn't justify the still-high cost. Now we're into year seven, and new ones STILL sell for almost $300. I can't justify that for a six year old end-of-life console. When I bought my original Playstation in 1999, I paid $100. And I didn't mind the launch price of the PS2. I didn't even mind the $400 price point of the Xbox 360 and the $350 Wii U. But I will not pay $300 for an end of life system. And I wasn't willing to pay in upwards of $500-600 for a new one. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for other people not buying them. But that's mine. And you're right, from sales figures it seems the PS1 and PS2 both did considerably better.

[GhostDog]

You mean "cease." I say it'll happen around the time of the PS10. The PS3 tripped out of the gate by being overpriced at launch, but now it's the 5th best selling console of all time. Support for the Sony brand is very high worldwide, and it seems like the PS4 is going to be in good shape (Nintendo's WiiU isn't selling like the Wii yet, plus the last generation of consoles is the longest in history). If Sony started suffering from chronic mismanagement, they may see their brand decline, but it would take a while. After all, it took about 10 years of bad decisions for Sega to destroy itself.

So you think they'll still be making consoles for 25-30 or so years? The Sony brand is strong in gaming right now but who knows how long that will last. Just look at Sony as an electronics company. They used to be on top but other companies are now taking the lead. I'd personally go for a Panasonic HD TV over a Sony. Also, can you imagine if Samsung or Apple entered the console market?

[Berserker]

I don't see much reason to think they'd stop completely in the near or even distant future. Even if graphics and processing power going into the cloud were to become the normal way of doing things, they'd still want to produce some kind of console, even if it's mostly an empty husk with no real capability beyond outputting audio/video signals and handling controller input. They'd also want to make the controllers themselves and other things like that. In a gaming landscape dominated by OnLive-like platforms, the real power will rest in the peripherals.

[Bojay1997]

So you think they'll still be making consoles for 25-30 or so years? The Sony brand is strong in gaming right now but who knows how long that will last. Just look at Sony as an electronics company. They used to be on top but other companies are now taking the lead. I'd personally go for a Panasonic HD TV over a Sony. Also, can you imagine if Samsung or Apple entered the console market?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Simply put, Sony as a corporation is in significant distress right now. There are murmurs that they may be willing to put their television and film studio operations up for sale and unless they engage in some very significant cost cutting and line shedding in consumer and home electronics, there is a chance they could enter bankruptcy protection in the very near future. In fact, I recall reading a few stories in Business Week among other magazines about how badly much of Sony (with the exception of gaming and a few other divisions) is operating right now with few innovative products on the horizon to turn things around. Having said all that, the Japanese government has already signaled that they will bail Sony out using billions of tax payer dollars/Yen and I suspect that even if much of the rest of Sony goes away, the Playstation brand will survive even if it's under the ownership of an entirely different manufacturer like Samsung or Panasonic, both of which have had gaming divisions previously.

[sloan]

I'm someone that bought a PS1 and PS2, but has never bought a PS3. At first, the problem was price. I couldn't justify the cost at launch. Then, as time went on, I couldn't justify the still-high cost. Now we're into year seven, and new ones STILL sell for almost $300. I can't justify that for a six year old end-of-life console. When I bought my original Playstation in 1999, I paid $100. And I didn't mind the launch price of the PS2. I didn't even mind the $400 price point of the Xbox 360 and the $350 Wii U. But I will not pay $300 for an end of life system. And I wasn't willing to pay in upwards of $500-600 for a new one. I'm not sure what the reasoning is for other people not buying them. But that's mine. And you're right, from sales figures it seems the PS1 and PS2 both did considerably better.

This is my situation as well. PS3 has always been an overpriced system, and remains so. I may own one if I ever find one cheap enough at Salvation Army or a yard sale. If PS4 is priced similarly, then I don't see how it will sell well. Unless Sony gets some intelligence about how to price systems, I predict the end within 5 years.

[Bojay1997]

This is my situation as well. PS3 has always been an overpriced system, and remains so. I may own one if I ever find one cheap enough at Salvation Army or a yard sale. If PS4 is priced similarly, then I don't see how it will sell well. Unless Sony gets some intelligence about how to price systems, I predict the end within 5 years.

Not to be overly critical, but you're never going to be Sony or any other leading electronics manufacturer's target market. There are budget electronics manufacturers like Vizio or Westinghouse and others, but their model is based on moving massive quantities of product that aren't particularly powerful or durable that have to be replaced every three years and they could never survive in the console world because as consoles become more and more complex, it becomes harder to build them cheaply, even 5+ years after launch. Blu Ray drives, memory, hard drives, processors and all the other components can only have their cost reduced so much over time. The whole concept of the modern console is something that has similar capabilities to a fairly decent PC and that's always going to cost some significant money. Gamers aren't going to buy an underpowered box simply because it's cheap. That defeats the entire purpose of buying a new console.

Having said all that, you could have bought a $200 PS3 brand new last Christmas and the Christmas before that with at least a couple of games. If that wasn't cheap enough for you, there is literally no chance Sony or Microsoft or anyone else can ever make any kind of profit from a customer like you so it's a silly argument to claim if they don't cater to customers like you they are doomed to failure.

[danawhitaker]

Having said all that, you could have bought a $200 PS3 brand new last Christmas and the Christmas before that with at least a couple of games. If that wasn't cheap enough for you, there is literally no chance Sony or Microsoft or anyone else can ever make any kind of profit from a customer like you so it's a silly argument to claim if they don't cater to customers like you they are doomed to failure.

Yes, I know they had some bundles last Christmas. But here were my choices a) Buy my daughter a Wii U, and make her incredibly happy or b) Buy myself a PS3. I think most any parent on here who's faced with this dilemma will tell you which decision they'd make.

For those of us adults who live in the real world, with budgets, and kids, who have to choose between things, and not just give into our ids (and I do mean id, as in id, ego, and superego) and buy everything we want when we want it, cost is a real, valid concern. If Sony doesn't care about having us as customers, then fine. They won't. Maybe that's why the PS3 didn't sell as well. And if they're happy with the numbers for the PS3, then they can continue to ignore that demographic. If they aren't happy, they can look at other options. Cost was a factor for me with the PSP, and it will remain a factor for me with the Vita as well. I balk at $250+ for a handheld system.

For what it's worth, I don't need my console to be basically a second computer and entertainment hub. I don't want it to be a second computer. I want it to play games. If I want another PC, I'll build one. Again, this may be another area I'm alone - maybe that's something the majority of gamers want. But I wonder how much of the budget could be shaved up if they stopped spending time worrying about how to dominate my living room and instead worried about how to dominate games. Throw some of that junk out, and minimize the cost. And before the arguments of "This is the way the industry is going" or something to that effect, just because the industry is trying to push that direction doesn't mean it's a good one, and it doesn't mean customers can't voice their dissatisfaction over a decision. Ultimately, the market will decide whether it's a good decision or not.

[Bojay1997]

Yes, I know they had some bundles last Christmas. But here were my choices a) Buy my daughter a Wii U, and make her incredibly happy or b) Buy myself a PS3. I think most any parent on here who's faced with this dilemma will tell you which decision they'd make.

For those of us adults who live in the real world, with budgets, and kids, who have to choose between things, and not just give into our ids (and I do mean id, as in id, ego, and superego) and buy everything we want when we want it, cost is a real, valid concern. If Sony doesn't care about having us as customers, then fine. They won't. Maybe that's why the PS3 didn't sell as well. And if they're happy with the numbers for the PS3, then they can continue to ignore that demographic. If they aren't happy, they can look at other options. Cost was a factor for me with the PSP, and it will remain a factor for me with the Vita as well. I balk at $250+ for a handheld system.

For what it's worth, I don't need my console to be basically a second computer and entertainment hub. I don't want it to be a second computer. I want it to play games. If I want another PC, I'll build one. Again, this may be another area I'm alone - maybe that's something the majority of gamers want. But I wonder how much of the budget could be shaved up if they stopped spending time worrying about how to dominate my living room and instead worried about how to dominate games. Throw some of that junk out, and minimize the cost. And before the arguments of "This is the way the industry is going" or something to that effect, just because the industry is trying to push that direction doesn't mean it's a good one, and it doesn't mean customers can't voice their dissatisfaction over a decision. Ultimately, the market will decide whether it's a good decision or not.

Great and as a parent myself, I completely understand that. At the same time, you just spent $350 for a console and that doesn't even include games (well besides Nintendoland) and accessories that push that price tag up over time. It's also a console that's not particularly cutting edge even if it is likely to have some neat kid-oriented games in the coming months and years. You also invested in a console that is currently selling pretty poorly, being outsold by both the Xbox 360 and the PS3, both of which are 6-7 years old at this point.

The fact remains that the PS3 has been $200 with extra games for two years in a row and currently you can buy one with some games for $250 as a bundle new on Amazon.com. Many brick and mortar retailers also sell it for less than the $300 MSRP or throw in a gift card every few weeks. As such, it can be purchased for less than MSRP with some minimal effort.

Removing the non-gaming functions of the PS3 and the PS4 would do very little to shave anything off the price. The functions are almost all software based and companies like Netflix and others generally absorb the costs of making the devices compatible in exchange for access to those potential customers. The cost of user interface engineering and design are literally pennies on each unit sold.

If you want something you can just play games on the PS3 definitely qualifies. Just don't connect it to the Internet and you're good to go. Or, just use the Internet functionality for playing games online and for no other reason. There are also plenty of older consoles with massive game libraries out there including the PS2. There are also smartphones, tablets and PCs, one or more of which you probably already own. In a few more years, I'm sure the PS3 will drop to $150 or even $100 new. If that's really all the value it has to you, that's when you should buy it.

Complaining that the PS3 is too expensive is absurd unless you mean at launch which I will agree with. In the past few years it has been neck and neck with the 360 in price and is a bargain compared to many other consumer electronics devices, many of which lack its capabilities. I personally think both the 360 and the PS3 are bargains compared to the entertainment they provide. Obviously, factors like disposable income and priorities factor in, but if $200 - $300 is really gonna break the bank for you, it's time to stop gaming completely for a while and find a way to improve your economic situation.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

This thread is a perfect example of why gamers are the worst enemy of the games industry.

If we have not always been, we have become in this modern gaming era the most un-fucking-satisfiable, entitled, unreasonable, hypocritical group of consumers that I've ever witnessed in action.

We demand among so many other things - annualized innovations, substantial leaps in technology, all of our personal favorite software installments, etc while simultaneously deriding almost every decision that every company makes to try to meet those demands - and in extreme cases we rally our numbers to punish companies who can't cater to the radical minutia and outlier desires of the wants and needs of our community.

Sometimes I worry that it's going to be the gamers that kill this industry acting purely in waves of spite.

And don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate of fair market practices and championing companies that go out of their way to provide consumers with great products and services ... but, seriously, the transparency that exists now, what Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and even the new kids on the block, Steam, Apple and Google have created, are maintaining and working to build for the future is FAR REMOVED from past eras where everything was blind guesswork on the part of the consumer.

We are collectively, simultaneously so fortunate and so jaded.

I would hate to be an industry exec right now ... I get the sense that they know that the default reaction to pretty much everything is hard-stop negativity fostered by an internet culture where "angry = cool".

It sucks so much. I hope that the industry rolls on in spite of all of this.

[danawhitaker]

Great and as a parent myself, I completely understand that. At the same time, you just spent $350 for a console and that doesn't even include games (well besides Nintendoland) and accessories that push that price tag up over time. It's also a console that's not particularly cutting edge even if it is likely to have some neat kid-oriented games in the coming months and years. You also invested in a console that is currently selling pretty poorly, being outsold by both the Xbox 360 and the PS3, both of which are 6-7 years old at this point.

And I can see some of your point. I don't think the Wii U was a "bargain" by any stretch of the imagination. If it came down to it, yeah, the PS3 would probably be a better "bargain" - although certain extra costs would still apply. The bundled games I saw, unlike Nintendo Land, were not things that my seven year old would have been remotely interested in playing. That still applies, I just looked at the bundles at Best Buy and Gamestop and Amazon. So that would have meant shelling out money for more games anyway, and then shelling out another $45-50 for a second controller so I could play with her. So I'd end up paying for more accessories anyway, and would be taking a huge risk that she wouldn't like any of the games I bought because they'd be complete unknowns - while I know for a fact that she likes Mario.

Maybe it's a wrong impression, but I've always felt like the Playstation consoles are just geared more toward adults, or, if not adults, the teen+ market. When I was picking my daughter up from school before the holidays, everyone I was talking to with kids in her age range already had a Wii, and were going to be getting a Wii U (or were at least considering one). People in our family with kids did the same. Is the PS3 generally as kid-friendly, and I just missed something? Is the PS4 going to end up being more kid-friendly than the PS3? There's nothing wrong with not wanting to be, but again, you do somewhat limit your demographic. I know some people who decide they only want to own one console, and they have kids. Do the math. PS3 isn't going to likely be their choice. I'm sure the argument would be, "They're not Sony's demographic" and that's fine, but again, the more you narrow your demographic, the more you limit your potential sales.

[kupomogli]

Yes, I know they had some bundles last Christmas. But here were my choices a) Buy my daughter a Wii U, and make her incredibly happy or b) Buy myself a PS3. I think most any parent on here who's faced with this dilemma will tell you which decision they'd make.

For those of us adults who live in the real world, with budgets, and kids, who have to choose between things, and not just give into our ids (and I do mean id, as in id, ego, and superego) and buy everything we want when we want it, cost is a real, valid concern. If Sony doesn't care about having us as customers, then fine. They won't. Maybe that's why the PS3 didn't sell as well. And if they're happy with the numbers for the PS3, then they can continue to ignore that demographic. If they aren't happy, they can look at other options. Cost was a factor for me with the PSP, and it will remain a factor for me with the Vita as well. I balk at $250+ for a handheld system.

What a line of bullshit. Your daughter can be very happy whether you purchase her a Wii U or a PS4. Obviously it's catering to the people with the money to buy the console first and foremost, but as much family friendly software as Sony pushed last gen, you really don't think Little Big Planet 3 will be released on the PS4? Sony announced three first party titles. Obviously since they didn't announce more means they must not have more titles to announce.

Not only that, but you do realize the 3DS was once $250 as well. People can purchase whatever they want, it's their money, but your post is clearly bashing the brand.

And apparently those of us on this board don't have lives, don't have families, don't have bills. It's a wonder how many of us purchase not only one, but multiple consoles released each gen. I'm not saying you don't know how to spend your money, but from my friends and other people I know, the average person is very wasteful with how they spend their money. You might not realize it, but video games are the cheapest form of entertainment, even if you were to get every game you were interested in day one. It may look more expensive because you're paying all that cash out at once, but what's more expensive; the average person who eats out at fast food or restaurants atleast once sometimes twice a day or a video game console that costs $500 and one $60 game each month? The video game console and game per month would average less than $70 a month for five years while the amount of money people would save by cooking food at home for your family and not eating out at every chance would save hundreds.

[Bojay1997]

This thread is a perfect example of why gamers are the worst enemy of the games industry.

If we have not always been, we have become in this modern gaming era the most un-fucking-satisfiable, entitled, unreasonable, hypocritical group of consumers that I've ever witnessed in action.

We demand among so many other things - annualized innovations, substantial leaps in technology, all of our personal favorite software installments, etc while simultaneously deriding almost every decision that every company makes to try to meet those demands - and in extreme cases we rally our numbers to punish companies who can't cater to the radical minutia and outlier desires of the wants and needs of our community.

Sometimes I worry that it's going to be the gamers that kill this industry acting purely in waves of spite.

And don't get me wrong, I'm an advocate of fair market practices and championing companies that go out of their way to provide consumers with great products and services ... but, seriously, the transparency that exists now, what Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and even the new kids on the block, Steam, Apple and Google have created, are maintaining and working to build for the future is FAR REMOVED from past eras where everything was blind guesswork on the part of the consumer.

We are collectively, simultaneously so fortunate and so jaded.

I would hate to be an industry exec right now ... I get the sense that they know that the default reaction to pretty much everything is hard-stop negativity fostered by an internet culture where "angry = cool".

It sucks so much. I hope that the industry rolls on in spite of all of this.

I disagree. The culture of social media and instantaneous customer feedback has provided the video game industry with invaluable information that probably has saved many companies from making some potentially company-ending mistakes. It also has allowed for low-cost awareness of products that according to many metrics are more effective than the multi-million dollar ad campaigns and product roll-outs the big manufacturers have traditionally done for new consoles or games. I actually was a "journalist" in the 1990s before the whole social media movement became mainstream and I can tell you that rather than getting good feedback from customers and potential customers, companies relied on journalists, many of whom saw games as any other generic media type and professional analysts to make critical decisions. That why you had blunders like the Sega Saturn being released with little or no retailer support in place and few launch games or the Virtual Boy, a product consumers never asked for or wanted. Those things would very likely never happen today as consumers are happy to express their opinions for free in easily accessible forums and media platforms the second a product is even rumored.

The reality is that publishers and manufacturers are savvy. There are entire companies they employ devoted to culling data from social media and forums or running disguised forums for these companies seeking consumer feedback. Sites like Digital Press and other niche sites aren't even on their radar. Consumer feedback also isn't necessarily the major driver of business decisions even if it is helpful.

I don't feel sorry for the video game industry any more than I feel sorry for Apple or Google or any other successful company that makes it money by pushing minor innovations to cater to niche customers out every few months all the while generating record profits. As long as there is an Internet, people will always share their opinions freely and companies can use that information to both their benefit and their peril.

[Bojay1997]

What a line of bullshit. Your daughter can be very happy whether you purchase her a Wii U or a PS4. Obviously it's catering to the people with the money to buy the console first and foremost, but as much family friendly software as Sony pushed last gen, you really don't think Little Big Planet 3 will be released on the PS4? Sony announced three first party titles. Obviously since they didn't announce more means they must not have more titles to announce.

Not only that, but you do realize the 3DS was once $250 as well. People can purchase whatever they want, it's their money, but your post is clearly bashing the brand.

And apparently those of us on this board don't have lives, don't have families, don't have bills. It's a wonder how many of us purchase not only one, but multiple consoles released each gen. I'm not saying you don't know how to spend your money, but from my friends and other people I know, the average person is very wasteful with how they spend their money. You might not realize it, but video games are the cheapest form of entertainment, even if you were to get every game you were interested in day one. It may look more expensive because you're paying all that cash out at once, but what's more expensive; the average person who eats out at fast food or restaurants atleast once sometimes twice a day or a video game console that costs $500 and one $60 game each month? The video game console and game per month would average less than $70 a month for five years while the amount of money people would save by cooking food at home for your family and not eating out at every chance would save hundreds.

I strongly disagree with this. My kids have zero interest in the PS3 just like they never cared about the PS2 despite the fact that we have both and massive libraries of games for both. They grew up loving Nintendo handhelds and consoles (despite the fact that I was never a huge Nintendo fan growing up). Little Big Planet is not automatically appealing to kids just because it has cute characters. My kids tried LBP 2 when we first got it at launch and felt it required too much effort to design your own games. The Playstation and the Xbox are clearly aimed at more mature gamers. Yes, there are some kids games on both systems and they are great, but not every kid likes them. Nintendo has always targeted kids and families and they are simply brilliant at appealing to that audience. I personally don't share the Nintendo love most of the time, but like most parents, I want my kids to be happy.

Gaming is not an inexpensive hobby by any stretch. Games are $60 MSRP for the most part and that doesn't include DLC, controllers, PSN+ or XBL, etc...Cooking at home can be super expensive as well. I shop for our family groceries several times a week and my wife and I make a good living, but you're kidding yourself if you think someone making middle class wages can simply not go out to eat a few times a week and make enough money to own all the consoles and games that are being released. Between a mortgage, car payments, school expenses, clothing, all the extra-curricular activities kids enjoy and every other entertainment and living expense out there, gaming is in no way a cheap hobby even if it is a relatively good value for the money.

[Gamevet]

Maybe it's a wrong impression, but I've always felt like the Playstation consoles are just geared more toward adults, or, if not adults, the teen+ market. When I was picking my daughter up from school before the holidays, everyone I was talking to with kids in her age range already had a Wii, and were going to be getting a Wii U (or were at least considering one). People in our family with kids did the same. Is the PS3 generally as kid-friendly, and I just missed something? Is the PS4 going to end up being more kid-friendly than the PS3? There's nothing wrong with not wanting to be, but again, you do somewhat limit your demographic. I know some people who decide they only want to own one console, and they have kids. Do the math. PS3 isn't going to likely be their choice. I'm sure the argument would be, "They're not Sony's demographic" and that's fine, but again, the more you narrow your demographic, the more you limit your potential sales.

That's why the original Playstation and the PS2 sold so well. Sony helped shed the image of videogames being for kids and advertised the console with television spots for NFL Gameday, Madden and Gran Turismo. Grand Theft Auto 3 helped Sony's PS2 push aside the threat of the original Xbox and Halo.

If you look at the numbers, Sony and MS have split over 140 million units sold. That's pretty close to the overall sales numbers of the PS2, the greatest selling home console of all-time. Sony hasn't exactly lost sales because of price, they just lost/shared sales in their demographic to the Xbox 360.