Yipes!

Not even I"M enough of a fanboy to think this is likely. Unless PS3 is a complete and utter failure, which I don't think is very likely, there will indeed be a PS4.

maybe Sony realizes that they need better software to back up their hardware? I mean I hate Sony for some of things they do, but what the hell is up with everyone jumping the gun saying that Sony is Doomed. From what i remember didn't a bunch of analysts and journalists say that Nintendo was going the way of Sega a few years ago?

But yeah hopefully This helps the software side of the PS3 and the PSP, it would be nice to play some games other then a FPS that isn't even that amazing.

Sony is a much, much worse software company than hardware company. I can't imagine anyone thinking focusing on software would be a good business move for them. Wow.

Hey, I submitted the Financial Times news. Some credit, please. :p

By the way, "name recognition"? Atari and Sega both wave "hello"! "Name recognition" makes it EASIER to become software only, not harder.

Sony loves its proprietary BS, they'll never not have another system.

However, right now they see EXACTLY what they did wrong. They see Nintendo focus more on launch availability and fun gaming without having gobs of processing power. Plus developers love it.

Microsoft focused on having good, powerful, SENSIBLE hardware. They focused on developers - good tools, good install base, they did everything right.

Sony did what they did for the PS2 but made it even worse. Even harder hardware to code for, even more limited availability, and even more costly to develop on. Krazy Ken just got too cocky

Just an analyst looking to make a name for himself.

As mentioned, the PS division is too enormous a chunk of Sony's income to be given up on. Even if the PS3 crashes and burns we'll see a PS4.

I'm more willing to believe the Financial Times than gamer sites. Keep in mind, the PS3 was intended to sell the Blu-Ray format. Their PS3 shipping went from 2M to 400K to 200K in the US. They've lost 3rd party exclusives and delayed 1st party. They don't have the luxury of taking losses that Microsoft does with the Xbox 360 (can you say Vista?). The fact is, Sony is bleeding money, their stock is plummeting, and the non-launch of the PS3 -- which has still FOUR MONTHS before the European launch, which means they'll have to cut into whatever production they were doing for the US and Japan -- reminds me of Coleco and the ADAM, and the only thing that saved Coleco from outright dissolution was the Cabbage Patch Kid, and the PSP ain't no Cabbage Patch Kid in terms of sales.

As much as Sony has done a pretty piss poor job with the PS3, I would really hate to see them leave the game. Competition is a great thing, and less of it would mean more crappy games.

I actually agree with him. Given how far advanced Microsoft is in the "entertainment" system software area for the 360 it stands to reason that the next xbox will be a masterpiece of multimedia integration.

It will interface with Vista in ways that Sony cannot hope to replicate. It will offer online services that Sony can only dream about.

Not only will Microsoft do all of this but they will do it even further ahead any development Sony might theoretically attempt.

In all likelihood, they will just bow out of that fight alltogether.

The other problem is that there's way too much overlap between the PS3 and the 360. Nintendo benefits from having a nice cheap system with a system-selling gimmick, and very little overlap with the 360/PS3.

The hardware aspect of the company is no more a profit-maker for Sony than it was for Sega. You have to remember, this isn't a privately owned company. As a public company, if sentiment that the hardware business is bad for Sony permeates the business conciousness, their stocks will continue to drop forcing them to get out.

If the PS3 doesn't show a profit in an abbreviated timeframe, I wouldn't be surprised if this analyst is right. If software companies need to sell 500,000 units to make a profit on their next-gen games ... consider how long it will be before they can expect a profit on the PS3 -- so, they're going to be less likely to make games. The rumblings are becoming pretty evident.

God save The Playstation brand!

Big name exclusives...wasn't there a rumor that MGS4 was not going to be an exclusive?

#8

Only if they don't lose a boatload of money on the PS3

I think it's a little early to make any predictions concerning what Sony is going to do next. The PS3 obviously isn't even widely available yet. We won't see the first wave of big software titles until next year. Let's see what everyone is saying about Sony after FFXIII, MGS4, White Knight Story, and the like are released.

The problem is that most people are too shortsighted to see the larger picture and they have no perspective.

They see the problems with the PS3 launch and all of a sudden it THE END OF SONY.. FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN.. this is the North American way of seeing things.. how much profit can you make NOW! or the next quarter.. rather than long term vision.

This is mostly a cultural issue; NA people want results NOW NOW NOW! This is the problem with the domestic automakers when they concentrated on milking their SUV cash cow rather then putting money into more mundane tasks like quality control.

Look at it from the perspective of a Sony shareholder. That is, am I getting a good investment on Sony?

Key thing for shareholder to look at is not market share but whether PS3 is the best use of Sony's resources. They'll need a high attach rate to recoup costs and for Blu-Ray to take off. At best, this will take some time to happen. At worst, they don't and the PS3 is a net loss to Sony.

So as a shareholder, why should I keep investing in Sony when Nintendo makes a profit right out of the gate and Microsoft is already well on its way towards getting there? That's a lot of pressure to drop the PS4, or at the very least, shift to a different business model.

Sorry but this is bullshit (so no wonder it turns up at joystiq, the folks over here are really acting like a shit magnet since about a year, lol).
Just because an attention seeking whore like that analyst write something doesnt mean anything about it is valid.
Also if I ever read another topic title beginning with "Analyst: ...." I throw up.

For more on that topic:
http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=70606

nothing but silly guesses,


remember when it was, nintendo won't make another...

silly analyst

don't take this as anything more than a random thought

Didn't nintendo re-arrange after the gamecube? There will be a ps4, look at how bad the gamecube placed, and there was still a Wii. Sony isn't going out without a fight, even if they have to purchase Nintendo to keep their business running.

This doesn't mean that the Playstation will go the way of the Dodo. It just means that he believes there will not be another unit developed to replace the PS3. I'm certain with the current installed base, and the fact that the PS2 is almost pure profit by now, that the Playstation line will continue, but there may not be a PS4. Ken and company had already stated that they expected the PS3 to have a 10 year life span, so there's no real need for them to consider a new unit for several years anyway.

On the other hand, MS has already mentioned they are already working on the next Xbox and are looking at creating their own processor to help lower cost per unit production.

Remember that the PS3 is not the only struggling hardware Sony has. The PSP has not been selling well in comparison to the DS. The UMD format has completely failed for anything other than software (no surprise). And there have been reports on GamesIndustry.biz that developers are taking a wait and see approach with the PSP...if they don't see improving sales or Sony do something about the poor sales...Many developers are ready to pull development projects for the device. That would be the nail in the coffin for the PSP.

And then there's Blu-Ray...the 360 seems to be 3 steps ahead of the PS3 at every turn. Those silly enough to hold out a year for the PS3 are now realizing that next gen gaming began long ago when MS released the 360. And unlike the PS3 and Blu-Ray...the 360 HD-DVD add on drive is a big hit and = HD-DVD sales...which is yet to be seen if Gamers purchasing PS3 will actually purchase Blu-Ray movies.

Sony is indeed in trouble...far worse than most people think. The PSP is on the brink of failure and the PS3 and Blu-Ray may be going the same route.

Nintendo is going to canabalize Sony in Japan this year and the 360 and Wii won't give Sony a break in North America...as for Europe...Sony has yet to show up.

>, it's not NA; it's the market. And unfortunately, the market doesn't reward really long-term investments. As a shareholder, I can jump in or out of an investment at any time. So, if Sony's strategy will result in a profit 5 years from now, I'll invest in it 4 years from now just when the price is likely to take off and in the meantime, invest in something that's making short-term profit (e.g. Nintendo).

However, this loss of cash can create a lot of problems for Sony. Simply put, their employees need to be paid now, not four to five years later.

About the update, of course SCEA is gonna say its short sighted. You want all the shareholders to bail out now if this is indeed the plan?

I do think sony is going to shift their focus from hardware to software, but not abandon the hardware division. This will ultimately be good for Sony to do, and if sony has to carry the PS3 (like nintendo did for the N64), they will either become one of the best software makers (like nintendo did) or playstation will sink.

"However, right now they see EXACTLY what they did wrong. They see Nintendo focus more on launch availability and fun gaming ...

Microsoft focused on having good, powerful, SENSIBLE hardware. They focused on developers - good tools, good install base, they did everything right.

Sony did what they did for the PS2 but made it even worse. Even harder hardware to code for, even more limited availability, and even more costly to develop on."

I couldn't agree with you more Saneless. Very nice post.

It comes down to content. Who makes content? Developers. The reason the Xbox 360 is loved by developers is because it was created by software developers. The 360 is the hardware developers would choose to put into a console. The tools provided are tools developers would want to use.

Sony recognizes that the industry is ultimately driven by the actual games, and great games sell consoles. Great games are made by happy developers and Microsoft knows how to make developers happy (Windows anyone?). Sony is just following suit. The hardware focus has lead to the price, the delay, the production issues, the hardware issues, shoddy online setup and unhappy developers.

The console industry is a lot like the OS industry, people don't buy it because of the technical superiority, they buy it because they can easily use it and good software. This is why Microsoft is doing so well in the industry.

There could be a different strategy, when it comes to thinking about PS4, Sony is in this for the long haul with PS3. The possibility of a PS4 showing up in the next couple of years may not take place until Sony has used the PS3 to its fullest potential.

Just what PS3 is capable of, only time will tell, for now it is definitely a rocky start.

Andrew F, you're right that it is the market.. but, i think (and should have put it this way originally) that NA are more likely to be only interested in short term goals. Its an institution problem: senior management and the reward/compensation structure operate on short term success; to appease the shareholders who want return on their investment NOW NOW NOW!

"Only if they don't lose a boatload of money on the PS3"

Worse, only if 3rd party developers don't lose a boatload. For example, Capcom needs 500000 units to be sold to turn a profit. The PS3 hasn't even released that many *machines*, and roughly (working from memory), 30000-40000 copies. Now, compare that to the just under 2M (from memory, again) copies of Dead Rising sold.

Plus, Capcom announced it was financially unfeasible to have exclusives (Tsujimoto explained the next-gen strategy by stating, "In order to curtail development costs, we intend to implement a multi-platform strategy, marketing a single title for a number of different types of game consoles, thereby expanding sales and optimizing our profits.")

Sony is in real trouble. It all started when they decided to force gamers to purchase a Blu-Ray drive. Microsoft made it optional. Always, always, always make expensive features OPTIONAL.

This is pretty believable. If the PS3 is a success, there is no reason for a PS4, EVER. That was the point of the Cell, BluRay and a upgradeable HD, and giving away an $800+ machine for $599, right? I dont see a PS4...what could they do? add better graphics? put those two HDMI ports on it like they promised? Would a PS4 be worth it to gamers or to Sony?

If the PS3 is a failure, Sony really will have to rethink everything. All their money and technology is riding on the "success" of the PS3. They have no money whatsoever. If they fail to at least break even, they might as well pack up their entire company. They wont have any more money to invest in a PS4 or anything else for that matter. Failure isnt an option. (and by failure i mean they dont break even from their PS3...they dont have to "win" the so-called "console war", they need to turn a profit....same as microsoft does this time around).

Lonely attention seeking analyst: "PS3 is the last playstation"
Random internet dude who never had sex and lives with his parents: "I told you so, Sony is teh doomed".
[After reading this thread I really understand the mechanics of these forums anymore, lol.]

YEAH, it was a rumor thats being kept alive by guys like you - LOL

I think the speculation over the PS4 is a purely financial one. If you look at Sony, they currently have 18 billion dollars of debt right now. They shutdown and consolidated underperforming but respected divisions, although they still have some divisions that are not doing spectacular. Earlier this year they borrowed almost 700 million.

The Playstations division, which has carried them for years, is almost required to always be succesful, for the company has a whole to be successful and carry the other divisions. Their TV business seems to be rebounding and their camera division has usually done well. The movie business has it's ups and downs, and their audio division seems to have lost its luster. Recalls have hurt the company, which include laptops batteries supplied to most computer manufacturers and camera recalls.

So it doesn't help that both the PS3 and Blu-Ray have been swiming in bad press since their introductions.

Because of the investment costs into both these newer technologies, it's going to take Sony years to recover, assuming they're both successful.

In the meantime, what is going to carry Sony? The PS2? Actually, the PS2, in the short term, might be the saving grace for Sony, assuming sales continue to be brisk.

Totally agree with his opinion. Sony is losing money on each console sold, and it's not selling as well as the 360 or Wii. I think they focused on the wrong thing, and didn't make the darn thing very user-friendly. I hope their won't be a Playstation 4, or at least one as bad as the PS3

"Eurogamer has a follow up story in which SCEA's Dave Karraker calls Sakurai's statement "short-sighted."

I'm sure SCEA would say that. They have a press release calling Katuragi's keynote speech at the TGS "stirring" and "exciting", too. What are they SUPPOSED to say?

"Lonely attention seeking analyst: "PS3 is the last playstation"

Let's examine the Logical Fallacy here. It's either:

Ad hominem abusive (The argument attacks a position by appealing to the despicable qualities, moral turpitude, and over-all lowness and meanness of the people who hold the position. Example: "I can't believe that anyone really listens to what the American Rifle Association has to say. After all, they're just a bunch of ignorant yokels.")

OR:

Appeal to Ridicule (The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form: X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim). Therefore claim C is false. Example: "Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!")

"Key thing for shareholder to look at is not market share but whether PS3 is the best use of Sony's resources."

No, the key thing for shareholders to look at is the future direction of the company. Shareholders couldn't care less what's going on at this particular moment. Only fanboys care about that. Console launch issues, therefore, are pretty meaningless. Shareholders care only about this particular moment as it relates to where Sony could be 5-10 years from now. (That's what P/E ratios are all about - you never buy a stock for the company's current earnings, you are buying based on the expectation of future earnings.)

And I don't see how putting a software guy in charge of SCEA means anything. And I mean *anything*. These are management positions; it's not like Kaz is going to be in there designing the GPU. They could have promoted somebody who had no experience with either hardware *or* software but was simply a good manager and it would have been exactly the same thing. Kaz's one big advantage is that he's fluent in English.

There will be a PS4. Hey, you know what? There will even be a PS3! In a year, you're all going to forget these launch issues ever even happened - just as most of you seem to have forgotten the Xbox 360 launch issues by now. At every launch, there are all sorts of weird and crazy prognostications before things settle down and we all start playing games again and forget about trying to be amateur analysts.

"Because of the investment costs into both these newer technologies, it's going to take Sony years to recover, assuming they're both successful."

Heres the difference between Nintendo's strategy and Sony and to a lesser extent MS'.

Nintendo took their exisitng technology (GC) and upgraded it slightly; adding more RAM and WiFI, etc. This is a safe short term move, it easy to get it to market, and they can package and market it smartly. Bascially, it has zero short term risks and so the investors are happy and the media can play on its success. Everyone is happy at the moment.

Now, long term, what is the viabiliy of an upgraded GC in the market 3-5 years from now? It will be competing with 4th gen. PS3 and 360 games and HDTV penetration will be even higher. What happens when the media hype wears off.. and it will wear off. What happens when the novelty of using the wiimote as a controller wears off or people realise its not better than using an analog stick?

These issues are easy to brush aside for now. Wii is FUN!.. who care about 3 years from now, right?

Essentially, Nintendo has traded off short term success (no risk) for long term uncertainty. Which plays into the hands of fanboys perfectly. As i previously mentioned, people are very shortsighted.. esp. those who follow the industry hourly on blogs.

I'll believe sony is doomed when not even final fantasy can save the system.........

Halo3 may be the xbox360 system seller but nobody and I mean nobody can say halo is a bigger brand/system seller than the final fantasy series.

If Final Fantasy XIII does not sell PS3 or worse/good goes on the xbox360 sony is offically done.I said this before and i'll say this again no console in history other than atrai has won without a final fantasy game (side games and spin offs dont count).......

Robert816:

I really hope the PS3 doesn't have a 10 year life span, if that were the case with the N64 and PSone, we would still be playing those now...boring.

>,

The other thing I just realized is that the current head of Sony proper is an American (or british, I can't remember. Same outlook on profit though).

Here's a thought:

This is really the first generation of video game systems that can have easily upgraded firmware. Sony could, theoretically, add functionality to the system over time without having to upgrade the hardware (with the exception of the odd dongle or add-on). Voila! The traditional five-year life-span for systems is blown to smithereens.

Maybe Sony doesn't actually have to focus on hardware to be successful in the medium-term. Conceivably, they may be able to squeeze several more years out of the system, thus squeaking out additional profit instead of taking a loss on their next system.

I remember all of this kind of chatter during the Dreamcast days. Look how that turned out. :(

Long live the Dreamcast!!

Damn it! And here I am already on line for my PS4.

" Totally agree with his opinion. Sony is losing money on each console sold, and it's not selling as well as the 360 or Wii. "

Worse, 3rd party developers are backing off the machine. Why? Pure economics. See Capcom: they need 500,000 copies of a game to be sold to turn a profit.

3rd party developers are either ending exlcusives (see: Grand Theft Auto 4), delaying development (see: Oblivion), or outright dumping (see: Bioshock). Worse, Sony itself is doing this (see: Gran Turismo).

For the price of production of PS3 machines, for the scarcity of machines, and for the lack of the crutch the PS2 had (cheap DVD player), no software = kaput.

What are they going to do? Stop production of the PS3 and announce they're going to work on the PS4? Release a PS3 Lite next year?

Sony has a lot of problems, and it also has a lot of loyal customers. I see them having no problem in selling the first 2 million units or so here in the states and probably the same in Japan. However, in order to capture the non-hardcore gamer, Sony will definitely needs to reduce pricing, probably around the $400 mark for the 60 GB system. Sony also needs to get the production costs of the PS3 down.

Once these two things occur, Sony's 1st and 2nd Party IPs will definitely get the console back in the black. They need to figure out a way to sell the PS3 to 20-30 million people, and at its current price point, I don't see that happening. If they can't turn this around in the next year, the could take big losses in their gaming division, and if stock holders start selling-off, you could see a shift from them in the gaming arena.

(years ago) Nintendo is doomed. [but they still made a profit, just little or no growth]

(now) Sony Playstation is doomed. [but they are making losses, negative growth]

Difference, profits for one, losses for the other.

Sony in general just needs to stick with what they make best: Cameras, Televisions, and crappy movies.

Otherwise, they can't make trustworthy software (rootkit!) or quality hardware (extremely proprietary Vaios, Xplod audio that lasts about 10 minutes, batteries that explode, PS2s with DRE etc.)

If there isn't a PS4, I wouldn't shed a tear. I would rather Sega come back into the hardware business and replace them. At least they didn't make gaming so drab.

I really think that things are being taken far too literally here. Sony is still wrestling with getting the PS3 out to the world. Furthermore...what is it's product lifespan? 5yrs?

The next generation console is not even a glimmer in any body's eye yet. How long will it take for game developers to out strip the performance of the ps3? How long before HD's 1080P standard is obsolete?

I think that there are many external factors that can effect when and why Sony will make a new unit. With all the problems and delays of this one, they should sit back and focus efforts on this console first.

http:www.parmaonlinesales.com