+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Thread: Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC (/showthread.php?tid=6710)
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - A Black Falcon - 6th February 2014
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-06/sony-forecasts-annual-loss-as-hirai-turnaround-stalls-on-tvs.html
Couldn't happen to a more deserving company!
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Great Rumbler - 7th February 2014
The PS1 and PS2 are two of the greatest consoles of all time. The PS3 is pretty good, too, especially in the later years when it kept getting exclusives, the Wii died totally, and the Xbox360 decided that it only needed Kinect games.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Dark Jaguar - 7th February 2014
The PS4 is also doing more to cater to gamers than the XBox One is. The PSVita is also an amazing piece of hardware that no one will ever buy. Shame, because I'm stuck with yet another portable used almost exclusively to play Lumines.
What's the problem with Sony?
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Great Rumbler - 10th February 2014
Dark Jaguar Wrote:What's the problem with Sony?
It's a bloated mega-corp that is struggling to adjust to changes in the industries it used to dominate.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - A Black Falcon - 10th February 2014
The PS1 and PS2 may have a lot of great games, but I'll always kind of hate Sony, so I'd never call them some of the greatest consoles of all time...
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Sacred Jellybean - 11th February 2014
Damn it Falcon, as the resident video game historian you're supposed to be objective. We go to you for this kind of thing.
PS1&2 are two of the greatest consoles, this is accepted fact. If you want to assert otherwise you'll have to whip out all sorts of metrics and bar graphs and shit.
Really though, they were great.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Weltall - 11th February 2014
I hate all of them for continuing to perpetuate the proprietary console model, which has resulted in gamers being fucked repeatedly for almost 40 years.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Sacred Jellybean - 12th February 2014
Different consoles means that each company can design their product differently based on target demographics. More than one console has given game developers themselves flexibility when one company becomes tyrannical (Nintendo). All other concepts of economics apply too, driving competition etc.
Gamers are better off. In my eyes, it's more of an issue since the introduction of a third console. It sucks to have to buy all three, but just one of them should be enough for valuable entertainment video game product food stuffs.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Dark Jaguar - 12th February 2014
Issues like that can be solved with an open standard. No one would argue that there should be 3 or 4 competing "internets", because an open standard allows all the same innovation and pressure for the standard to grow. The actual computer hardware of the system isn't any barrier to innovating games, they're all pretty much identical at this point, except for specs (some have more RAM). As it stands, any company that wants to go "multiconsole" needs to code and test for 2 or 3 different systems, plus the PC version (and perhaps even mobile versions).
If the industry got together they could come up with a standardized console (similar to the open wifi protocols). Every 6 or so years, they would revise and update the standard, including requirements for backwards compatibility. There would always be room for innovative controllers, and because the standard would be "open", the console itself would also need to be "open". Part of the standard could define protocols for online game networks, so that they would all need to be able to "talk" to each other without issue and without bias, just like the telephony networks and internet standards currently do. Now THAT would be competition, with a system that has the potential to go to a number of competing online stores all at once, and no matter which console you bought, no matter which
There is nothing preventing this except industry inertia. Everyone is too afraid of losing out if they changed the status quo. Nintendo could have a lot to gain. Even if no one bought their particular variation of their console, they might not even need to worry about that so much and let OTHER companies take that "loss leader" hit, (I think at this point Nintendo's basically now forced to sell hardware at a loss if they are to keep up), while THEY focus on selling their unique controllers. As someone having a console that would play their newest games would be a given (since that standard would be the "only game in town", aside from a PC), they could instead focus all their energies on developing controllers for the system (that's been their focus for years anyway), and selling those AS THOUGH they were a new platform (instead of the Wii U, which was Nintendo selling the average consumer a console AS THOUGH it was just a new controller). They would line store shelves with the new controllers, right next to the stands full of the systems they worked with. The controller's where all the innovation happens anyway, so even losing control of how the hardware is specced won't hurt Nintendo's ability to innovate at all. Heck, they could pack in a game to sell those controllers.
Meanwhile, the console itself would have access to Nintendo's store. Along with an open standard console, it would have an open standard marketplace. It would just have one "market" program, but that program would have access to all manner of games, just by clicking on any "registered" companies that take someone's fancy.
I just saved consoles. Where's my golden parachute?
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Weltall - 12th February 2014
Sacred Jellybean Wrote:Different consoles means that each company can design their product differently based on target demographics. More than one console has given game developers themselves flexibility when one company becomes tyrannical (Nintendo). All other concepts of economics apply too, driving competition etc.
Gamers are better off. In my eyes, it's more of an issue since the introduction of a third console. It sucks to have to buy all three, but just one of them should be enough for valuable entertainment video game product food stuffs.
Playstation and Xbox pretty much target the same demographic.
The problem with this is that not everybody conforms to demographics. I like to play games that are within a lot of different demographics. It is stupid that I have to buy three different consoles in order to be able to play everything I want to play.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - A Black Falcon - 20th February 2014
Monopolies are almost never a good thing! And if it's not a monopoly, you are going to have hardware differences, as you see on the PC -- same basic hardware, but huge differences between models based on how much you want to pay and what you want from a computer. But for consoles, what do you want, basically a modern, successful 3DO concept? That failed for a reason. No, competition is a good thing, as is choice.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Weltall - 21st February 2014
In the sense that there is one basic standard that gets upgraded every couple of years? That's basically what we have now, except there are three competing standards and the differences between them are entirely arbitrary. And the gamer with wide tastes is the one who gets screwed.
I see no reason why a 3D0 type of model wouldn't work. The reason it didn't work for 3D0 was because 3D0 was garbage and had garbage games and was a tiny competitor going up against established industry giants, two of whom were at their peaks, without any real focus or plan. It wasn't because there were two different companies manufacturing a compatible product.
I'm thinking of it sort of like Blu Ray players; they all play all BR movies, and any basic model can do the essential things you need a video player to do. Some models do more and better things, like Netflix and wireless connectivity and other things, but they all still have that basic functionality. There is still competition--more than there is in video game consoles--but it all takes place within a single, unified standard, letting customers make the choice between different models of the same product rather than three different products that do (or, could do) exactly the same thing. You don't need your console to have online features? Don't need movie-playing? Just want to play games old-school? Why not have those things be features? You could spend more money on a higher-end model that does all these extra things. If none of those are of any value to you, you could get a lower-end model that just does games. Especially in this day and age, most people probably don't want that, but the option would be available for you, if you wanted. Could you imagine having that kind of choice in the environment we have today? Also, you'd see lower prices in both consoles (because of that internal competition) and games (no more royalties to the manufacturers or money wasted porting a game to multiple formats).
To be perfectly frank, I can't see anything wrong with the idea, although the triple monopoly would never go for it.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Dark Jaguar - 21st February 2014
That's basically the very idea I'm suggesting Weltall, so I agree, with one exception.
The problem with Blurays is that Sony owns them, lock stock and barrel. My suggestion isn't for a Bluray style "standard" but a truly OPEN standard, like the Wifi standard or the IP standard or the HTTP standard or the telephony standard or the broadcasting standards or the electrical grid standards or the metric standard or... and I could go on like this...
Anyway, my point is that the standard would need to be open to anyone but defined by a large gathering of companies, competitors namely, with a mutual interest in making the standard work.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - A Black Falcon - 21st February 2014
Weltall Wrote:I see no reason why a 3D0 type of model wouldn't work. The reason it didn't work for 3D0 was because 3D0 was garbage and had garbage games and was a tiny competitor going up against established industry giants, two of whom were at their peaks, without any real focus or plan. It wasn't because there were two different companies manufacturing a compatible product.That's a bit unfair... the 3DO (and it is 3DO, not 3D0, I used to get that wrong too) hardware is actually pretty decent for a system released in late 1993. They had several problems, though: since 3DO didn't make hardware themselves, but just licensed it out, the companies making hardware wanted to make a profit -- so the system was really expensive at first. No normal console-style subsidies there. And if you don't have subsidies, you have higher prices, as you see on the PC. 3DO also was slow to get a great game library, but that comes with sales as well as experience... but I mentioned them because that idea, one standard that they'd license out, was what they were trying to achieve -- and it failed in part because the gaming market doesn't really want one standard. Different people want different things in a game system.
And on that note, how would your idea work? Would Sony, MS, and Nintendo all share in the licensing fee? That'd cut how much each makes, probably! They wouldn't want to do that. And certainly none would have any interest in a PC-style licensing-fee-free model!
Also, by having multiple systems, we have competition, and as I said, it's good for consumers when you have choices and companies competing. Without competition you have stagnation. For instance, everything I've heard about the Madden series since EA got a monopoly on football says that they've let that series badly stagnate. The competition between different hardware manufacturers has been overall good for the industry all along. The key to that are the differing visions of what the best hardware should be. Different people, and different companies, have different thoughts of what the next generation should look like, and what the hardware should be. Even the most similar systems have important differences. If we just had one standard, would there ever have been a breakout hit like the Wii was? I doubt it. Because technology always changes, you can't rely on one standard lasting long-term, unlike, say, something like books. There has been constant change, and that will continue for some time to come, and this is natural and for the best.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:That's basically the very idea I'm suggesting Weltall, so I agree, with one exception.You can't have an open standard on consoles because that would make the licensing model impossible to sustain, and the licensing model is one of the most important keys that makes console gaming different from PC gaming. What you're talking about there is the PC, basically.
The problem with Blurays is that Sony owns them, lock stock and barrel. My suggestion isn't for a Bluray style "standard" but a truly OPEN standard, like the Wifi standard or the IP standard or the HTTP standard or the telephony standard or the broadcasting standards or the electrical grid standards or the metric standard or... and I could go on like this...
Anyway, my point is that the standard would need to be open to anyone but defined by a large gathering of companies, competitors namely, with a mutual interest in making the standard work.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Weltall - 22nd February 2014
A Black Falcon Wrote:That's a bit unfair... the 3DO (and it is 3DO, not 3D0, I used to get that wrong too) hardware is actually pretty decent for a system released in late 1993. They had several problems, though: since 3DO didn't make hardware themselves, but just licensed it out, the companies making hardware wanted to make a profit -- so the system was really expensive at first. No normal console-style subsidies there. And if you don't have subsidies, you have higher prices, as you see on the PC. 3DO also was slow to get a great game library, but that comes with sales as well as experience... but I mentioned them because that idea, one standard that they'd license out, was what they were trying to achieve -- and it failed in part because the gaming market doesn't really want one standard. Different people want different things in a game system.
Well, that's sort of the problem. The consoles don't do anything unique. The differences between them have always been entirely arbitrary, and any of them would be capable of doing anything its competitors can do.
Quote:And on that note, how would your idea work? Would Sony, MS, and Nintendo all share in the licensing fee? That'd cut how much each makes, probably! They wouldn't want to do that. And certainly none would have any interest in a PC-style licensing-fee-free model!
Reality is the unfortunate wall my idea can't scale. :c
Quote:Also, by having multiple systems, we have competition, and as I said, it's good for consumers when you have choices and companies competing. Without competition you have stagnation. For instance, everything I've heard about the Madden series since EA got a monopoly on football says that they've let that series badly stagnate. The competition between different hardware manufacturers has been overall good for the industry all along. The key to that are the differing visions of what the best hardware should be. Different people, and different companies, have different thoughts of what the next generation should look like, and what the hardware should be. Even the most similar systems have important differences. If we just had one standard, would there ever have been a breakout hit like the Wii was? I doubt it. Because technology always changes, you can't rely on one standard lasting long-term, unlike, say, something like books. There has been constant change, and that will continue for some time to come, and this is natural and for the best.
But, I don't think we really have competition that helps consumers, most of whom are oblivious to the subtle differences between consoles and just want to play games. Except, to be able to play any game they want, they have to own three different consoles. Besides which, from my perspective, the industry has been stagnant for a long time. The rampant sequelitis we see in game software is not the result of runaway innovation. And, for what innovation there is, we don't need a triopoly to sustain it. Nintendo's been the only one who has made any effort to actually change how games are played with the Wii and WiiU, but the Wii seems to be treated as something of a passe fad and hardly anyone cares about its descendant. As for the others, the XB1 and the PS4 are definitely not anybody's idea of paradigm-breakers, are they? They're just the 360 and PS3 with some incremental upgrades and a handful of new functions, same as the 360 and PS3 were to the Xbox and PS2, and the PS2 to the PS1.
Quote:You can't have an open standard on consoles because that would make the licensing model impossible to sustain, and the licensing model is one of the most important keys that makes console gaming different from PC gaming. What you're talking about there is the PC, basically.
As a gamer, I don't see a problem with that.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - Dark Jaguar - 22nd February 2014
I think we're talking past each other here.
Sony projects $1.1 billion loss, is going to fire 5000 people, spin off TV & PC - A Black Falcon - 22nd February 2014
Weltall Wrote:Well, that's sort of the problem. The consoles don't do anything unique. The differences between them have always been entirely arbitrary, and any of them would be capable of doing anything its competitors can do.Consoles always do something or other unique that their competitors don't, actually. I can't think of any which are exactly the same. Yeah, the PS3/360 and PS4/XO do seem more similar than past consoles, but even they have their differences.
Quote:Reality is the unfortunate wall my idea can't scale. :cYeah, there'd be less money from hardware sales -- no people would need multiple boxes, so very few people buying systems from multiple console companies, as they do now. Software license revenue may or may not be lower, depending on how the probably impossible to work out system would work, but that could well be lower too, unless they could manage to grow the market a lot. Now, every console generation so far has had more total sales than the last one, but that may or may not hold up this time... it's looking tough, but it's too early to know for sure. But on that note, the competition from tablets, smartphones, and the PC, streaming devices (if any succeed), and Steambox (if that takes off sometime) is getting tougher. I don't know if having only one system would help in that regard, or hurt... could go either way? Maybe it'd be the same there, not sure.
Quote:But, I don't think we really have competition that helps consumers, most of whom are oblivious to the subtle differences between consoles and just want to play games. Except, to be able to play any game they want, they have to own three different consoles.Well, most people just buy one. Sure they miss out on games, but it's not like most anyone buys all the good games they might be interested in on the console they do have anyway!
Quote:Besides which, from my perspective, the industry has been stagnant for a long time. The rampant sequelitis we see in game software is not the result of runaway innovation. And, for what innovation there is, we don't need a triopoly to sustain it. Nintendo's been the only one who has made any effort to actually change how games are played with the Wii and WiiU, but the Wii seems to be treated as something of a passe fad and hardly anyone cares about its descendant.Between Sony and Microsoft, even if the two are similar, though, I think that, as I sai,d having competition does help the industry. If they were both on the same standard, what would be stopping them from just pricing things higher, PC-style? It's not like people would have a choice. I guess that would reduce total sales, but if they could make more money... and considering how much they've raised prices over the past decade, I imagine they'd be even more tempted to do that even more if they didn't have someone else to compete with! Who knows if you'd see as good first party libraries from any of the three companies, either, if they didn't need exclusives to sell their consoles... you'd probably see even safer game libraries, if that is even possible. Nintendo would be hurt worst by that for sure, but it'd probably affect Sony and MS at least somewhat.
But really, the biggest problem with your idea is that consoles are closed systems. One company controls what is released, like with Apple phones and tablets. You cannot have multiple companies sharing one closed system, I just can't see it working! And if you open the system, that's just a PC by another name, and that brings in compatibility issues, massive gluts of bad games (phones have this now, but consoles don't because console companies control what can be released), etc.
On another note, of course, it is true that game variety now is down versus the past, both on PC and consoles. There used to be lots of variety, but that was when game budgets were a lot lower. These days, when one bad bet can take down an entire developer, it's understandable that developers and publishers are acting safer and focusing more on things they know will sell. They want to reduce their chances of going out of business, in a time when so many have gone under...
Quote:As for the others, the XB1 and the PS4 are definitely not anybody's idea of paradigm-breakers, are they? They're just the 360 and PS3 with some incremental upgrades and a handful of new functions, same as the 360 and PS3 were to the Xbox and PS2, and the PS2 to the PS1.That's kind of true, but many systems have been mostly just incremental upgrades -- think of the SNES, for instance. And both do add some new things, even if many of them aren't too useful for games... (all the social media stuff, sharing, etc.)
Quote:As a gamer, I don't see a problem with that.I think the PC model is the better one overall for sure, but it does definitely require a more informed consumer more willing to spend more time choosing hardware and games. Plenty of people don't want to spend that kind of time.