• 19Aug 09

  The PS3 Slim (and Sony's future) from a business perspective

  There's been lots of talk about lack of backwards compatibility on the new PS3 Slim. I would like to look at the reasons for the lack of BC and the future of Sony Corporation from a business-related perspective, as well as why I believe Sony is in an enviable position right now in the current gen console "war."

  The costs to install the Emotion Engine in every PS3 has been stated up and down for the past 2 years as the reason for not putting PS2 BC in the 20 and 60 gig's succeeding models. But there's also the factor that at the time, PS2 sales were realistically propping up Sony's video game division, as they were still profitable, and they were still selling (and in some months outselling the PS3) decently. As long as the PS2 was still selling, it just made business sense to take out the hardware BC. That way, they lost less money on the PS3, and they still profited from PS2 sales.
  
  
  But now that the PS2 market is pretty much dried up, it makes perfect sense that Sony might be looking to reintroduce PS2 emulation. That way, those who came onto the PS2 late in its lifecycle, and are looking to enter the current gen sometime soon have a really viable option to go with the PS3 instead of the Xbox 360, because the price dropped, and there are rumours of the forthcoming BC.
  
  
  masterpinky's blog and one of its comments echoed what I've been saying all along. Sony took massive losses on the PS3 in order to place Blu-Ray as the current standard, from which they receive a royalty on each disc/player sale. As I've been saying all along, short-term losses will be more than negated by long-term gains, especially now that the PS3 Slim is intended to have Bravia Link functionality. That will probably put a shot in the arm of Sony's rapidly declining share of the LCD market.
  
  
  Samsung just overtook Sony this year as the #1 electronics manufacturer in the world. Sony pulled out of the plasma and DLP market a few years ago, and put half of their eggs in the LCD basket, which they soon found usurped by Samsung. The other half of their eggs are in the OLED basket, which is not even viable at retail at this point ($2000 for a 13" screen??).
  
  
  Realistically, if this price drop and redesign does not pull Sony out of their current doldrums (and not just on the console front...I'm talking as an entire company), they might be in some serious trouble. Sony's computer entertainment arm (really, their console division) was recently folded into another arm of the company, consisting of their GPS and computer hardware (Vaio) divisions. I'm guessing this was to offset some of the red ink (at least on paper) that its console division was accumulating. Meaning, in future quarters, they could cop out to the losses by stating that because its console division was not a stand-alone entity anymore, that they would not be able to publish numbers specifically based on its console division.

  But I'm staying positive that the PS3 will dominate in the latter half of this gen. Seems to me that the 360's targeted install base has already plateaued. Yeah, 360s will continue to sell, but some of those sales are just going to be people rebuying after they got the RRoD (either with their own money or by using any retailer's replacement program...if anyone in this day and age buys a 360 without a replacement plan, they need to have their head examined...sad as THAT is). And as evidenced by Nintendo's last quarterly numbers (sales down 40%, income down 60% as compared to the same quarter a year ago), it appears all the "casual" gamers that Nintendo attracted with the Wii are finally getting tired of its novelty, and are ready to move onto something else.

  That leaves a huge advantage and opportunity for Sony to move a lot of PS3s. They've not even come close to saturating the market, as it seems both Microsoft and Nintendo have. With HDTV sales continuing to climb every year, and with Blu-Ray sales and releases coinciding with those HDTV increases, a sub-$300 Blu-Ray player (at one point, it was considered to be the best Blu-Ray player on the market...it probably still is. Its only downside is it has no dedicated analogue audio outputs for those without a higher-end home theater receiver that can decode via HDMI...but even that's slowly becoming a lower-priced standard) that plays games and can act as a media hub seems to me to be a no-brainer purchase.

  I personally own a Wii, a 360, and 2 PS3s. My Wii never gets turned on. My 360 is basically my Rock Band/Guitar Hero-playing device, which means it rarely gets turned on anymore. My PS3 is on from the time I get home from work until the time I go to bed. It is my exclusive internet browser, my movie player, and my music player. Granted, I'm atypical in my use of the PS3, but I think once the average person realizes the capabilities of the system, and what you get for what you are paying, the PS3 will end up being the "winner" this console generation, and with it, just might save not only Sony as a company, but taking into account the types of games Sony is putting their money behind (ie-a LOT of quirky, esoteric, and non-mainstream stuff), it just might save gaming as a whole from being considered a young person's waste of time and into a legitimate media that can be used to convey mature (as in, "intelligent and emotional") content. Hell, with Flower and the forthcoming releases of Heavy Rain and The Last Guardian, the PS3 might just be home to the first generally agreed-upon videogame "art." But that's a discussion for a completely different blog.

  • Posted Aug 19, 2009 4:33 pm GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 12Mar 09

  Look how far we've come

  Remember Mortal Kombat? Remember 1992, and the Genesis vs SNES versions? Remember the ensuing controversy and senate hearings? And the later subversion (in guise of appeasement) of adding "friendships" to the next game? Well, dear readers, it appears we may well have another ****storm brewing with the release of MadWorld on the perceived "family friendly" Wii.
  
  
  Funny thing is, society and what is considered acceptable in our media has changed drastically in the intervening 17 years (has it really been that long??), but society's insistence on "protecting the impressionable children" remains intact. As an example, in 1992, according to the website TV by the numbers, which cites Nielsen data, the top ten included shows such as Cheers, Full House, Home Improvement, and Murder, She Wrote. Seems to me as if most, if not all, of the television programs in the top 20 were mostly innocuous, with minimal to no violent content, and minimal to no overt sexual content or innuendo.
  
  Contrast this against the present day. CSI, in its various iterations, is consistently one of the highest-rated programs on broadcast television. Which, due to the nature of the show, revolves around grisly crime scenes. Then there are shows such as Desperate Housewives, which blatantly flaunt and encourage irresponsible sexual behaviour. And I'm not even going to touch the subject matter of shows like Law and Order: SVU, which seems made to titillate with every episode revolving around some sort of sexual atrocity (rape, incest, pedophilia, etc), and perhaps fosters in its viewers revenge fantasies, or a sense of anger, or questioning as to why these acts are occuring with such perceived regularity in this country. Well, probably not the latter, actually. More than anything, I think, these types of shows (the procedurals) are meant, again, to titillate their viewers. Meaning, cheap thrills. Remember when the film Se7en came out, and how extreme it was perceived as being? Hell, those same type of storylines are now regular fare on primetime television.
  
  
  So, it becomes apparent by comparing the (arguably) most popular form of entertainment in America in the two time periods in question, that times, they have a' changed. So why, now seeing that American society seems to have been desensitized to violent content, has the response to violent video games not budged an inch?
  
  
  Part of it, of course, is the continued perception that video games are kids' stuff. As much as Nintendo and its ardent supporters claim that its consoles are not "kiddy," that is exactly how the mainstream public sees them. With the Wii especially being promoted (not necessarily directly by Nintendo itself) as a safe bastion for families, I'm waiting with baited breath to see exactly how the inevitable outcry over MadWorld will pan out. Maybe this impending stormcloud will be much ado about nothing. Maybe now that entire families are playing the Wii (even together...imagine that!), the anxiety in trying to understand what children are playing and having discussions with them in terms of what is appropriate and what isn't may be lessened, as a video game console may no longer seem to have such an unapproachable mystique about it. In 1992, many parents, not having grown up on video games, may have been daunted by trying to understand their childrens' hobby. But many parents today grew up in a video game era, and so that apprehension is most probably lessened. In a perfect world, today's parents might sit down with their children and discuss the games they are playing. Something tells me, that perfect world is just that, not reality.
  
  
  The question, then, still remains, why are violent video games such a lightning pole for controversy, when the entire culture and what is deemed as acceptable in society is as far from 1992 as 1992 was from 1962? Is it because they are interactive, instead of passive, and are therefore "murder simulators"? Probably. Is it because television and film, as mediums, have been ingrained in the culture for as long as they have, so that the subtle shifts in tonality in content have almost fully been overlooked, and rarely questioned? Probably. And that video games, still being a newer form of creative expression, and not completely understood by the mass population, are in some senses foreign (read: scary)? Most definitely. It seems to have been a major tenant of American society through its history that the best way to avoid coming to grips with anything that is not able to be understood is to fear it or outright ban it.
  
  
  I don't have an answer to this question. What I've written is not a definitive statement of purpose, or even a theory that I can prove or disprove through enough questioning. I'm posting this in hopes that it will garner some discussion on why, as a society, we've progressed (or maybe regressed) so far, and yet still seem to be in the same stagnant mindframe when it comes to video games. I'm torn as to whether or not MadWorld possibly becoming controversial is a good thing or a bad thing. It might be bad if it results in repression and censorship in the future. But it might be good for the industry as a whole if the possible controversy generates sales, and publishers are more willing to give a greenlight to risky ventures like this one, especially for the vast wasteland that is the Wii.
  
  
  I never liked Mortal Kombat on its release. Even as a young adult, I thought it was gratuitous with no other purpose than to shock parents and titillate young minds. But I feel differently about MadWorld. Yeah, the T and A, the gore, and the profanity might seem gratuitous, but there also seems to be an underlying message to the game if one digs deep enough.
  
  
  I'll close with a few lines from a brilliant song by Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy called, "Television, Drug of the Nation" that is just as apropos to gaming in general, and perhaps MadWorld in particular.
  
  Television, visible reflector, or the director?
  Does it imitate us or do we imitate it?
  • Posted Mar 12, 2009 8:07 pm GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 19May 08

  I'm respecting Sony more and more each day

  I just saw some information on a soon-to-be-released downloadable game for the PS3 called Linger In-Shadow, and, I'm sorry. This just further cements in my mind that Sony is going for a completely different thing with their Playstation Store offerings than what Microsoft is doing with XBLA. I'll grant you, I'm glad I have both systems, because both offer downloadable games that are right up my alley (Rez, E4, Ikaruga, Lumines Live, Space Giraffe, etc, on XBLA; Everyday Shooter, Pixel Junk Monsters, flOw, Echochrome, etc, from the Playstation Store). But Sony, for some reason, seems to be making a conscious effort to consistently release games (or, in a lot of cases, "non-games") that seem to skew FAR to the left of the mainstream gamer. Everyone always praises Nintendo for "innovation," whatever that is. But I'm thinking that before too long, Sony will have to be praised for the same, but in this case, the quotation marks I've placed around the word "innovation" can safely be removed, as it seems they truly ARE innovating.
  
  Sure, the Wii pulled non gamers and "casual" gamers into the fold, but with Sony's downloadable offerings, they seem deadset on releasing as many games as they can that truly challenge one's concept of exactly what a game is, and what it's capable of doing. Sure, the Wii implemented "innovative" control, but to the effect of every publisher and its brother releasing heap after heap of shovelware, just because they knew/know that naive gamers would eat it up. Excepting perhaps Lair, and its "innovative" use of the Sixaxis controller, Sony seems, with its downloadable offerings, to use its exclusive peripherals as something more than a gimmick. See flOw and the Loco Roco remake for examples of using the Sixaxis effectively, and Eye of Judgment and the numerous "interactive art" offerings doing the same for the Playstation Eye. Contrast this with the type and quality of the games that incorporated or required the EyeToy last gen on the PS2.
  
  I guess I just find it interesting that, Sony obviously has a desire to make money, and to do this, they need to sell more consoles (well, that's assuming every console sold is still not a loss for them...I've not read up on the profitability of the console lately), which, in turn, SHOULD earn them more money on their licensing rights (this is, of course, where the REAL money comes from), assuming everyone is not just buying them as a top-rated Blu-Ray player (well, Sony makes money on Blu-Ray sales, too, but attach rate is still the most important factor). Yet, by positioning their console as bleeding-edge, and then populating it with SO MANY esoteric games, what type of message is this sending?
  
  To boil it down, to me, it's the message that if you want to play prettied-up versions of last gen's games, buy a 360. If you want to play games that inherently revolve around a gimmick (but are too naive to see it as such), buy a Wii. But if you want a TRULY next-gen experience (inclusive of input mechanics, gameplay, social interaction (Home), and user-generated content (LittleBigPlanet)), the PS3 IS the system to own.
  
  
  
  I was on the phone with one of the Sony tech support guys once, and I told him that he probably didn't really care, but I felt compelled to tell him how I despised the PS1 (I was always a Nintendo fan), how I disliked the PS2 (and only bought it late in its lifecycle, mainly to play the Nippon Ichi games, and RPGM), and how I once again despised the PS3 before and upon initial release. Then I bought the system, and immediately fell in love with it, relegating my 360 to being a machine that allowed me to play Rock Band on occasion. He laughed, and told me that I had embraced the dark side.
  
  The dark side indeed. If the PS3 is indicative of the future of the gaming industry, let me forever be enveloped in shadows.

  This is taken from a recent post of mine at www.pavilionboards.com.

  • Posted May 19, 2008 11:52 pm GMT
  • Category: Games
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet

See Previous Blog Posts »