Should Sony exit hardware?

[Dreddz]

Article

Interesting read. I actually agree with a lot of points they bring up. There are a lot of benefits for gamers if Sony decied to drop hardware and turned exclusively into a software company.

As much as I love the PS3 its only the games on it that I really care about. Most of which happen to be first party titles from Sony. If Sony dropped out of the console race there is no reason as to why they couldn't still provide quality games. Even if they are on Xbox instead of Playstation. If you take a look at the number of diverse IP's Sony has and the number of in-house developers they have there is no reason as to why they couldn't become the biggest publisher in the industry. Bigger than Capcom, Activision, Konami or even EA.

As for the reasons why this would be a good thing for us gamers, let me explain. Firstly Sony wouldn't have to worry about the money they lose off the PS3 hardware. They would start making a profit and this money would only help them release even more titles than they normally do (which is already a lot). Secondly we would become closer to the "one console" future that everybody talks about. With less consoles on the market there would be more games on each platform. Having both Microsoft's titles and Sony's titles on one platform would make a gamers life a lot less difficult.

I can see it happening. Not this generation but possibly the next. Sony's strategy this generation obviously hasn't worked and in a worse case scenario I could see them turning into Nintendo and making a system based solely around motion control, which could threaten the quality of their IP's. The only question is if Sony could swallow their pride and bow down to Microsoft and Nintendo.

[Psychotic]

This article is a good read.

I don't think Sony and Microsoft are even competing with Nintendo anymore. I think the Wii is of its own genre of console, rather like handhelds are. If Sony drop, then it's just Microsoft in the "serious" console division - assuming Nintendo don't switch back, and they really have no reason to - and while it'd be nice to be able to have more games availiable, a Microsoft monopoly isn't a great thing for consumers at all.

If Sony stay in, though, I'm not entirely sure if they can beat Microsoft in the next generation. The thing that holds the 360 back at the moment is everybody is terrified of its reliability problems. I mean, I can say "RROD" and you all know what I mean by it. You can bet your bottom dollar that the next Xbox will have its reliability greatly improved in order to avoid another PR disaster. If they smurf up again (although for the record, my 360 is 18 months old and has had no problems whatsoever, touch wood) then they're all but finished in the generation after next, and they know it. I think without the RROD, the PS3 would be all but dead in the water, and so if I am correct and the next Xbox isn't as error-prone, yeah, the PS4 (or whatever) is going to have its work cut out to reclaim the #1 spot. It'll be exciting to see what they do to get back on top.

[Shoeberto]

I don't know what happened but sometime well after the launch of the PS2, Sony's game hardware division went absolutely insane with some of the worst business decisions a big-name company could make. The initial price point of the PS3, getting rid of rumble for phoned-in motion controls, all the money they've pointlessly put into Home (it would've been just as effective to have it be a website), and most recently the PSP Go! and its ridiculous launch price... I don't know what they hell they're thinking, honestly.

Sony is incredibly capable of making good hardware. I just bought a PS3 and I really do think it's a wonderful system. They just make some seriously horrible business decisions, which I think largely are made due to hubris from the successes of the PS1 and PS2. If they want to survive as a hardware maker, though, they need to tone it down. Instead of toting the MOST FASTEST PROCESSOR EVER!!! they should go with an affordable architecture that's easy to develop for. Don't make things that consumers will pay for but never use (Home. Home. Home. HOME.).

I don't really want to see Sony exit the hardware realm, but if they can't reflect on the bad decisions they've made and try to continuously improve themselves then I could see it happening.

(but also remember: Sega had a lot more failures leading up to them leaving the market, and didn't have the potential funding from huge consumer electronics sales to keep them going when the Dreamcast fell short of sales expectations)

[Depression Moon]

Like Psychotic said if there was no PS3 then I would have to be paying for online and have frustrations with the hardware and that I can't play my PS1 and PS2 games on it. Also if I had an Xbox I couldn't play most of those old games on the 360.

[Skyblade]

(but also remember: Sega had a lot more failures leading up to them leaving the market, and didn't have the potential funding from huge consumer electronics sales to keep them going when the Dreamcast fell short of sales expectations)

I always thought that Sega's failure came from a lack of support for their systems rather than any flaw in the systems themselves. Ever system after the Genesis, be it the Sega CD, 32x, or the Dreamcast, got 5 decent games and then nothing.

[Dreddz]

a Microsoft monopoly isn't a great thing for consumers at all.

Not necessarily. Microsoft are smart business men and if they were the only console manufactorer offering products for hardcore gamers then i'm sure they wouldn't cock it up. People assume that Microsoft would leap at the oppotunity to charge ridiculous amounts of money for their console and its services but I very much doubt that. They could go that route and still manage to draw a heck of a lot of consumers, or they could keep things affordably and draw twice that amount. Microsoft aren't stupid.

I think without the RROD, the PS3 would be all but dead in the water

I very much doubt that. The PS2 didn't seem to suffer from the hardware issues it had. The RROD is still only known throughout the gaming community. The Moms walking into games stores and buying 360's for their sons have no idea what the RROD is, they just see the price tag's. The reason why the PS3 sells is because of the brand and its games. People obviously recognise the PS3 as a strong gaming platform and choose to buy it. Simple as.

all the money they've pointlessly put into Home (it would've been just as effective to have it be a website)

Home wasn't a pointless venture for Sony. They actually make profit of the service, I reckon by the end of this generation Home would have generated a tidy sum of cash for Sony, more than enough to cover the costs of developing Home.

I always thought that Sega's failure came from a lack of support for their systems rather than any flaw in the systems themselves. Ever system after the Genesis, be it the Sega CD, 32x, or the Dreamcast, got 5 decent games and then nothing.

Woah woah woah, the Dreamcast had way more than 5 decent games. Even the Sega CD wasn't half bad. The 32X was trash though. The reason for Sega screwing up so badly was because they launched systems at inapropreate times. The Dreamcast doesn't even fit into a console generation. It was apparant after a year into the Dreamcasts cycle that much more powerful systems were on the way with features like DVD playback which was just starting to get big at the time. Plus Sega over manufactored the Dreamcast so they had warehouses full of unsold Dreamcasts. They had to pull the plug or go bankrupt. Their publisher support wasn't the problem, even though EA didn't support the platform they had great support from Capcom.

[Depression Moon]

People assume that Microsoft would leap at the oppotunity to charge ridiculous amounts of money for their console and its services but I very much doubt that. They could go that route and still manage to draw a heck of a lot of consumers, or they could keep things affordably and draw twice that amount. Microsoft aren't stupid.

Not leap at the opportunity that would be stupid, but it would be less severe if they did it over a period of time. That's how they get you. Treat them good for a few years while slowly raising prices and people slowly start to complain about it until it gets high and they can really make money from it and they would be dependent on them because they would be basically the only hardocre console for them. People would complain but they wouldn't make the effort to do something about it as we can see with a lot of products these days.

[XxSephirothxX]

(but also remember: Sega had a lot more failures leading up to them leaving the market, and didn't have the potential funding from huge consumer electronics sales to keep them going when the Dreamcast fell short of sales expectations)

I always thought that Sega's failure came from a lack of support for their systems rather than any flaw in the systems themselves. Ever system after the Genesis, be it the Sega CD, 32x, or the Dreamcast, got 5 decent games and then nothing.

The Dreamcast may have the highest quality:suck ratio in gaming. For the number of games that were released on the platform, an incredible number of them are great. But before that, the Saturn was notoriously difficult to program for and launched at a steep price. As for the 32X and Sega CD...I'd say those were doomed ventures from the start, but the software support was definitely not there.

Also if I had an Xbox I couldn't play most of those old games on the 360.

If by "most" you mean "a few," you're right.

[Wolf Kanno]

I'm not sure I'd care to see Sony go. The rivalry and competition allow for more daring projects and technology to be developed, but I do agree with the article that Sony really screwed up big this generation. I still view the PS3 like I did the X-Box last generation as a powerful machine that uses a fraction of its capabilities. It totes alot of specs but I feel I've yet to see any game that truly shows how the PS3 is different from the 360. Even when comparing the same games, I feel the difference isn't great enough to make a big deal of but then again, I've never been one for top notch audio and visuals. The 360 also tends to make up for its shortcomings with DLC exclusives.

Sony built a costly machine that was not easy to program for compared to its competitors, added a huge price tag, utilized a past marketing campaign without a proper understanding of the consumers, and their biggest mistake was lack of apathy for their fans and consumers who felt they were expecting too much. Throw in Microsoft undermining their exclusives and its easy to see why the PS3 has been lagging behind. The only thing that's been saving it from abysmal sales is Japan's hatred of the 360, the early Wii shortages, and now the RROD. Sony is starting to play catch up and I feel if they stay modest and start working their own 1st and 2nd party developers to churn out some great hits, they might be able to come out of this console generation better than predicted. Even the PSP is starting to do better thanks mostly to Squenix and Capcom for their continued support.

I feel the next console generation will be really interesting. I'm betting Sony will approach it like Microsoft and build a relatively "safe" model while Nintendo may continue to go down a more casual road. Only Microsoft's plans seem up in the air to me.

As for becoming a third party developer, I can't see that being too good for Sony. It has talented second party support but who knows if they might choose to strike out on their own. Outside of Team Ico and the GoW team, I can't think of too many outstanding first party series/titles that Sony could make bank on. Besides, Sega's quality seemed to dimisnish once they went third party. Sonic Titles are hit ot miss and even then they only seem to be loved by the hardcore fans. I feel Virtua Fighter is about the only successful franchise they have now. Granted, I love Sega but it seems like after that first year as a third party publisher they haven't been able to live up to expectations. I feel Sony would falter even more.

As for the Dreamcast, three things are attributed to its death:

1) Sega was already in bad finacnial standing before the system came out. They were supporting several platforms over several different continents and apparently CEO's were making some bad decisions. Especially on marketing systems in the West. The Sega Saturn is damn fine system but it just never really took here. Not to mention that Sega of Japan and Sega of America don't get along...

2) Sony's PR campaign for the PS2. Sony spent tons of money telling people to wait and hoild out for the system that was to usher in the new era. Sega just didn't have the disposably income like MS did when Sony tried this plan on the 360.

3) The Dreamcast lost Japan because the PS2 took off. Not because people thought the PS2 was superiro from all the hype but mostly because the PS2 was the cheapest DVD player on the market. Considering the major difference in quality and practicality DVDs had over VHS, it was an alluring incentive to buy one. Once again, I feel Sony was hoping for a redo with the Blu-Ray but I feel most people don't see as much of an appeal, Blu-Ray really caters more towards tech people who want the highest quality; rather than the everyday guy who probably doesn't know what the HD even stands for.

[Slothy]

getting rid of rumble for phoned-in motion controls

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I would debate the phoned in motion control. If only because the PS3's motion control is the same as the Wii without the pointer feature. Frankly I think both were phoned in though, so I suppose I don't really disagree after all.

Anyway, like I said I agree with Hsu. Sony has learned a lot of hard lessons this gen, not only from there struggling, but from Nintendo's success. The one thing I hope is that when they inevitably go with something that's cheaper and easier to develop for next gen, I still want to see some real improvement in the hardware power, not a half assed excuse to release a new console like the Wii.

As for whether they should leave the hardware market, I don't think so. The day less competition becomes good for the consumer is the day I prance about naked in the woods chanting to the old gods for a good harvest.

I always thought that Sega's failure came from a lack of support for their systems rather than any flaw in the systems themselves. Ever system after the Genesis, be it the Sega CD, 32x, or the Dreamcast, got 5 decent games and then nothing.

Their problem was as much lack of consumer support as developer support in a lot of cases. The Sega CD and 32X were add-ons released during a time when the Wii hadn't made them cool, and people saw no real point to buying something that let them play some slightly improved Genesis games (from a technology perspective), even if one of them was pretty good. The Saturn was just a huge miscalculation since they bet the farm on another 2D console when everyone was going 3D. And the Dreamcast was a marketing failure as much as anything else. They didn't push it like they should have in North America, and had to drop it despite selling half as much as the Gamecube in only two years.

[Bolivar]

This article is an example of the misleading, unfounded anti-PS3 internet bandwagon, most notably due to its high level of uninformed statements. First of all, the notion that the PS3 has struggled in sales this generation is possibly the greatest fallacy of this games-industry news phenomenon. 1) The PS3 has sold better than the XBox 360 in a similar month-for-month-after-launch time series, the only way you could say it's performed bad is if "Wiping the Floor with Microsoft" is your only measuring standard. 2) The PS3 division has been profitable since the beginning of 2008 3) Even if it wasn't, Sony is a large, diverse corporation that could take last place in all upcoming console generations and still stay in the race. Microsoft lost $7 billion on XBox up until last year, that gives you an idea of the nature of diversified corporations in the console business.

Specific Issues:

Profitability - Again, not only is the ps3 sector profitable, but most recent reports of manufacturing analysts suggest that Sony is breaking even, give or take around $10. The writer of the article clearly did not do any research into this matter, and even if the facts supported his/her claim, profitability is not an issue for companies like Sony or Microsoft, as opposed to Nintendo or Sega. To begin with, it's meaningless speculation devoid of an entire host of economic principles, to suggest that profitability is a big factor for whether or not a large company like Sony stays in a highly concentrated industry like video game consoles.

Prospects as a Software Publisher - this argument is ignorant of the fact that 1) a large contributor to the quality of Sony's titles are that they are trying to sell a system and are willing to go 10 extra miles to do so. Combine that with the fact that 2) they are focusing all of their efforts on getting the most out of one specific hardware unit, a factor that largely differentiates first and third party exclusives. Finally, 3) Sony simply has the best machine out. These 3 factors, all dependent on Sony having a console, are the largest reasons to why they have such an impressive reputation as a publisher. All of their landmark PS3 exclusives take advantage of 1) Cell Processor for large calculations 2) Blu Ray for storage of game components that could not be practically cut into discs, and 3) Hard Drive Installs for quicker load times, and easier flow of large data. None of these three features are available on any other console, PC has a hard time replicating it albeit multiple large install discs and game discs. All imaginings of Sony being strictly software being "a good thing" go right out the window with a simple analysis of the situatio.?

Dropped Support from 3rd Parties - It hurts the authors credibility when the author himself/herself admits that this is something that would never materialize. The Activision Boss' claim is hardly anything that could happen; again, the 360 was doing worse than the PS3 this time last year but that doesn't impact a publisher's success on it. Even if it did, this would be great news for PS3 owners, as it would allow EA to replace Guitar Hero and Call of Duty with Rock Band and Battlefield, with no competition, and even roll out special editions that take advantage of Blu Ray like they've already been doing.

iPhone - this is another irrelevant point as sony is already making the same strides as apple with all digital psp, not to mention all they've accomplished with the playstation store and already having digital games on it this year. it has the same prospects for developers with smaller content likewise coming.

I think further information on this subject should see David Jaffe's video blog on why he still supports Sony after all of the years. He states that no matter how you slice it, Sony gave the green light to the guys at Team Ico and Media Molecule when no one else would to create the kind of games they wanted. They brought a system that could support the vision for Little Big Planet recently, as they did with Squaresoft and their vision for the future of Final Fantasy in 1997. Putting out the most expensive machine this generation came as a result of putting out the most advanced console this generation. The parts it took to make it cost maybe 25% more than they were selling it to you, yet people still complained.

Furthermore, it saddens me to see gamers complain about them making it harder to develop for. It has long been put to bed that the PS3 is not a difficult system to develop for - rather, they selected a new kind of architecture for developers to be acquainted with, and that has allowed them to create unprecedented experiences like Uncharted, Killzone 2, and Metal Gear Solid 4. MAG and Uncharted 2 look to continue that tradition at the end of this year just like God of War III and Gran Turismo 5 look to at the beginning of next year. It's the console with the greatest lifespan - you can't argue that only the PS3 is seeing its library continually improve in technical and design quality by leaps and bounds.

The greater problem that this article is indicative of how industry/sales/business discussion has infiltrated and entrenched itself in gaming journalism. We never glued ourselves about monthly NPD's or used which console had sold more units as a legitimate point in discussion during the Sega/SNES or Playstation/N64 era. This new gaming industry sensationalism is diluting and ruining gaming discussion - furthermore it ruins itself with just how ignorant gaming journalists are of basic economic and financial concepts outside of what they hear on CNN/MSNBC.

[Dreddz]

While you are right about a lot of things Bolivar I still think your wrong about the profit Sony are making. They are taking a massive hit on every console they make, if they weren't then we would know about it. I'd like to see the sources you get some of your info from, cause I find it hard to believe that Sony are making $10 profit on every console sold.

Ultimately I think Sony have made the best hardware and have the best games this generation but I'd rather see them turn into a publisher next gen instead of going down Microsofts and Nintendo's alley and only be interested in profit. That means cheap hardware, unnessesary charges and less games. Sony are a business and I know they would rather take that route then stick with what they are doing now.

[Rocket Edge]

Personally, I'd hate to see Sony leave the console market. I feel almost attached to the console after only buying the PS1 & 2 in previous generations. Even miniscule things like the handheld controller I'll miss. However, I think the chances of this happening are very low. Sony are a proud gaming developer, and even if the PS3 went down pan I can see them giving the 8th generation another crack. Also, the financial backing in it's company is overwhelming, unlike say Sega when they brought an end to their hardware days.

People assume that Microsoft would leap at the oppotunity to charge ridiculous amounts of money for their console and its services but I very much doubt that.

Whether or not Microsoft is the biggest or smallest company in the world, competition is vital for the gaming market. Prices would eventually go higher if there was no other hardcore console out there. I have no way to prove that, but it just strikes me as a very obvious thing to happen if Sony did drop out. Lastly, I think ingenuity in gaming would be effected badly. I think that's more definite than than even a price rise were it to happen.

[NeoCracker]

I want Sony to stay a console.

They easily have the most powerful system, and Blu-Ray is far superior. If this generation does in fact last 10 years, I am fairly posotive Sony will win out over Microsoft.

Don't get me wrong, I do like my 360, but any 360 game could be put on the PS3 without loosing anything, the same cannot be said teh other way around however.

Of course I hear FPS controls are superior for the 360 Controller, though given I don't really play them, I won't comment.

Sony just needs to stop with stupid decisions. Like the damned Motion control. The only times I hear it was used effectively was for little side things, and never as an important aspect of gameplay. Whevever it was, I hear nothing but horror stories.

Granted, it was used effectively in Infamaos for controling the giant beam of lighting, though using the tilt sensor for that didn't really add anything just using the Analog wouldn't have.

And as said before, the different consoles create competition, inventive games and Ideas. So I don't want to see either go, and would like all three systems to evolve, as well as their games.

[Dreddz]

Lastly, I think ingenuity in gaming would be effected badly.

If there was only one true hardcore console on the market then there would be a lot more competetion between developers as they fight for sales. While I doubt we would see Sony or Microsoft doing anything radical with the hardware, the developers would try harder for their games to stick out.

Sony just needs to stop with stupid decisions. Like the damned Motion control. The only times I hear it was used effectively was for little side things, and never as an important aspect of gameplay. Whevever it was, I hear nothing but horror stories.

You should play Flower. Probably the only game to actually benefit from the motion control. That game wouldn't have had such an affect on me if it used analog sticks.