Reports of Sony's imminent demise were greatly exaggerated . . .

[ChadTower]

That also points out how far the rest of their product lines have fallen from the days when Sony was high end average joe level product.

[Grasshopper]

That also points out how far the rest of their product lines have fallen from the days when Sony was high end average joe level product.

They probably recognise how dangerous it is to have all their eggs in one basket. Hence the need to establish Blu Ray.

[shmokes]

Sony is one of the biggest movie studios on the planet.  Sony is one of the biggest music studios on the planet.  Sony is one of the biggest consumer electronics manufacturers on the planet, making everything from DVD players to alarm clocks to robot dogs to cell phones.  They're in everything from banking to real estate.  I would hardly say they've got all there eggs in one basket.  They merely jeopardized and severely injured their golden egg in order to add another egg to the basket.  Dumb.

[Grasshopper]

.....  I would hardly say they've got all there eggs in one basket. .....

Well I was going by your observation that over half of Sony's profits come from the Playstation, which actually surprised me a great deal. I didn't realise quite how dependant on the Playstation they were.

[Zero_Hour]

.....  I would hardly say they've got all there eggs in one basket. .....

Well I was going by your observation that over half of Sony's profits come from the Playstation, which actually surprised me a great deal. I didn't realise quite how dependant on the Playstation they were.

I believe that the PS profit ratio was in regards to the Sony Electronics specifically, not the corporation as a whole, though admittedly, Sony Electronics accounts for the bulk of the Conglomerates total profits.

Apparently, Flat panel TV's are more than compensating for the slow adoption of PS3.
Recent Earnings report here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/25/technology/sony.php

[DaveMMR]

It's definitely a very high risk strategy and also shows a lack of respect for gamers (which Sony deserves to be punished for) but it's too early to say whether it's dopey.

If Sony is able to establish Blu Ray as the de facto next gen DVD standard then the long term rewards for the company will be incalculable. I'm guessing that damage to the Playstation brand is a price they are willing to pay in order to achieve that aim. Of course they'd like both the PS3 and Blu Ray to be a success but I'm guessing that Blu Ray is a far higher priority.

However, there is still the possibility they could lose on both fronts in which case their decision to include Blu Ray with the PS3 could indeed end up seeming pretty dumb with the benefit of hindsight.

In order for this gambit to pay off, Sony has to depend on: (a) people who want a Blu-Ray Player AND a next-gen console  (b) people who wanted the cheapest Blu-Ray player at the time of the PS3's release [no longer a factor] (c) gamers willing to pay any price for the newest console, despite lack of releases. 

Sony's doing decent on the Blu-Ray front (though they lost Paramount and Dreamworks -  two companies that also backed DIVX in '97 incidentally), but it's still not pushing the Playstation 3s.  Considering a Blu-Ray player can be had cheaper (and not all home theater enthusiasts are looking to play video games anyhow) that a PS3 nowadays, it's safe to say their gamble did not pay off the way they hoped at all. 

[shmokes]

Yeah . . . I don't remember whether the profit pie chart I saw (it was in my business management text book) was for the whole Sony Corp, or just Sony Electronics. 

At any rate, I agree that BluRay was a bad move.  Really bad.  It may have helped them establish BluRay, but that's not going to be nearly as profitable as originally hoped because all players will be dual-format a year from now.  Scratch that -- all players besides Sony-branded players will be dual format.  Sony won't face reality and build dual-format players for at least two or three more years, ensuring that their players bomb in the market place.  Hopefully they assumed during the planning stages that the prices for things like the blue laser diodes would come down more than they had by the time of launch, but by the time of launch it was just too late to scale things back to DVD.  Had they released it with regular DVD the market would look a whole lot different right now, IMO.

[Zero_Hour]

Jury is still out on the format wars, but score one for Sony -  Warner just announced that it will be dropping HD-DVD support to go solely with Blu-Ray sometime in '08.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/04/warner-goes-blu-ray-exclusive/



The whole should Sony have gone with DVD or Blu-Ray argument is its own beast, but should Blu-Ray prevail as the dominate Hi-Def Disc format, then those PS3's might look just a bit more attractive to buyers on the fence.

[shmokes]

And considering hardware sales numbers, it's probably fair to say that if BluRay wins it will be because of its inclusion in PS3.  I still think it was a bad business move either way, but . . .

[AtomSmasher]

And considering hardware sales numbers, it's probably fair to say that if BluRay wins it will be because of its inclusion in PS3.  I still think it was a bad business move either way, but . . .

Thats funny because it's probably also fair to say that if the PS3 loses it will be because of the inclusion of bluray.

[ChadTower]

Well I was going by your observation that over half of Sony's profits come from the Playstation, which actually surprised me a great deal. I didn't realise quite how dependant on the Playstation they were.

I was too.  Hard to say "half their profits come from one product" and "they're in everything from your ass to your mouth" in the same thread.  Either they're in everything and not making money on much of it or half their profits aren't coming from the Playstation brand.

[shmokes]

Since when did "half" and "all" mean exactly the same thing?

[Cakemeister]

My first DVD player was a PS2, and my first high-def DVD player will likely be a PS3. I don't see what people are complaining about the PS2 being a bad DVD player, it seemed fine to me.

All my TV sets are currently CRT models, so I don't currently plan on getting a high-def TV until one breaks. The one I watch in the bedroom is a 19" with screw terminal connections, circa 1980-something. My son has a 360 Elite so he is ready for a high-def TV if his current TV ever breaks. He's got an advanced connection on his, what they call "coax". I promised him a high-def TV if he would get As and Bs for his semester grades. I don't think I'll be paying on that one anytime soon.

[ChadTower]

Since when did "half" and "all" mean exactly the same thing?

Statistically, if they are in, say, 1500 products... and 1 of those products produces half of their profit... then none of those other products can even be remotely close to half unless all of the rest are near or below zero profit.  That's just basic math.

[Grasshopper]

Since when did "half" and "all" mean exactly the same thing?

Statistically, if they are in, say, 1500 products... and 1 of those products produces half of their profit... then none of those other products can even be remotely close to half unless all of the rest are near or below zero profit.  That's just basic math.

Indeed. The phrase “all your eggs in one basket” is not meant literally. It’s just an analogy and therefore doesn’t have to be that precise. I’m pretty sure that Sony doesn’t actually own any eggs (except maybe in the company canteen) or a basket to put them in.

The point I was trying to make is that, if shmokes’ statistic is correct, then Sony haven’t properly spread their risk. It’s a bad way to run a business especially a large multinational business. To borrow a phrase from the financial world, they don’t have a properly balanced portfolio.

That being said, I think it’s unlikely the PS3 will fail in the long run but if it does then Sony could potentially be in a lot of trouble.

[ChadTower]

Indeed. The phrase “all your eggs in one basket” is not meant literally. It’s just an analogy and therefore doesn’t have to be that precise.

It only becomes an issue when one takes the opposite stance in his very next post... which is what happened.  You can make one point, or the other, but if you try to make both it fails on principle.

[patrickl]

Since when did "half" and "all" mean exactly the same thing?

Statistically, if they are in, say, 1500 products... and 1 of those products produces half of their profit... then none of those other products can even be remotely close to half unless all of the rest are near or below zero profit.  That's just basic math.

It's more like they are in 3 markets (electronics, gaming and entertainment) where one market is more profitable than the other 2.

[shmokes]

I didn't say they had all there eggs in one basket and then turn around and take the opposite stance.  I said that one division of the company made up half their profit and it was stupid to expose that division to so much risk.  Then somebody else said that the problem is that they put all their eggs into one basket, to which I basically responded that the "all your eggs in one basket" idiom is probably not a very accurate way to describe Sony's business because they do not, in fact, have all their figurative eggs in one basket.  Obviously.  By my own description, they have half their eggs in one basket.  I.e., if the Playstation unit dies entirely, Sony will remain a viable, profitable company -- just not as profitable as it is today.  By contrast, for example, Nintendo would probably cease to exist if it's videogame division died. 

It simply isn't proper to use the "all your eggs in one basket" saying unless you are are betting the farm on one thing -- unless you put your entire retirement portfolio in Enron stock, etc.  If only half a person's portfolio is in Enron's stock, and the rest is spread out over dozens of companies and hedge funds, you simply wouldn't describe that person as putting all his eggs in one basket.  You might call him foolish for putting so many eggs in one basket, I suppose, but . . .


Anyway, that's actually not why I'm here.  I just thought I'd point out that Sony is already breaking even on hardware one year after release.  Costs $400 to manufacture, retails for $400.  So will we have a $200 PS3 next Christmas, or will Sony only drop it to $300 but make a tidy profit on hardware?  Plenty to get excited for if you don't want a PS3, though.  Just think what a $250 PS3 will do to the prices of the 360 and Wii!

[DaveMMR]

Anyway, that's actually not why I'm here.  I just thought I'd point out that Sony is already breaking even on hardware one year after release.  Costs $400 to manufacture, retails for $400.  So will we have a $200 PS3 next Christmas, or will Sony only drop it to $300 but make a tidy profit on hardware?  Plenty to get excited for if you don't want a PS3, though.  Just think what a $250 PS3 will do to the prices of the 360 and Wii!

I doubt you'll see it at $200 anytime soon.  I think $300 or $250 is that magic point where they'll start picking up some momentum. 

Also, I hate, hate, hate that they're jettisoning their backwards compatibility.  I have a PS2, but I also have limited space and plugs.  I could store/sell the Gamecube now thanks to the Wii and I could put the XBox to rest once I get a 360.  But now I have to hang onto a PS2 (which I keep flipping in all orientations because of that little laser tracking problem) while I have a PS3?   Not a big deal to some, but it doesn't sit well with me at all.   It's a luxury I've grown accustomed to by now.

[shmokes]

Agreed.  One of the primary reasons I wanted a PS3 over  360 is that I never owned a PS2, so I would be able to catch up on the few must-haves that I missed. 

On the other hand, since they're now doing it entirely in software, I doubt there will be any models being sold a year from now without at least basic backwards compatibility, even if not 100%.

[Samstag]

Agreed.  One of the primary reasons I wanted a PS3 over  360 is that I never owned a PS2, so I would be able to catch up on the few must-haves that I missed. 

On the other hand, since they're now doing it entirely in software, I doubt there will be any models being sold a year from now without at least basic backwards compatibility, even if not 100%.

They've already dropped software PS2 compatability in the 40 gig models.  I can't imagine any reason for doing this other than making an artificial difference in models.  The 40 does have hardware PS1 compatability.

[patrickl]

The 40GB version is a new design of the hardware. It lacks the hardware needed for PS2 support. First they took out the PS2 CPU and did that in software emulation. Now they also took out the PS2 graphics chip and there is no PS2 emulation possible anymore.

I'm pretty sure there is no full software PS2 emulation (well there is on the PC, but not on a PS3). There was always some hardware involved.

PS1 emulation was entirely done in software all the time so it still works.

[DaveMMR]

Actually, only the initial 20 and 60GB PS3s were hardware emulation, but then they started doing software emulation with the 80GB which, many have reported, was hit or miss.  The cheap, 40GB model drops it entirely.  There's a whole convoluted chart and timeline over at Wikipedia.  Buying a PS3 is almost like buying a car now.

[patrickl]

The 20GB and 60GB units have a EE+GS chip combining both the CPU and GPU of the PS2 and thus allowing full hardware emulation. The software emulation in the 80GB model only concerns the Emotion Engine (CPU). It still use the PS2's Graphics Synthesizer (GPU) for PS2 emulation.
You can call that software PS2 emulation, but there still is an important hardware component involved. This component has been removed from the 40GB model. Hence the "software" emulation is no longer possible on the 40GB model.

To be honest they could write full software emulation, but Sony claims they would need to write an emulator for every game. Making this a very expensive undertaking. So Sony decided to simply drop the whole backwards compatibility.

I'm not sure why the American version of the PS3 wiki pages don't mention this distinction, but if you don't believe me just google around a bit. Here is one example:
40GB PS3 missing key components for PS2 emulation

:edit:  The Wiki page on the PS3 does contain a reference (47) to this information: Sony Could Run BC On 40GB PS3s. They Just Don't Want To

[shmokes]

Why the ---fudgesicle--- would they need to write a separate emulator for each game?  That's absurd.  Let me put it this way, PS2 is less powerful than the Xbox in almost every way.  PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.  Xbox 360 manages to emulate the majority of Xbox games, entirely in software, very well.  Now . . . let's see if we can't draw a reasonable conclusion about the possibility of emulating PS2 games in software on the PS3 based on what we know

[ChadTower]

The main difference is that Microsoft has an infinite amount of monkeys with an infinite amount of typewriters writing in languages dominated by Microsoft and typewriters designed by Microsoft...

...Sony doesn't.

[Cakemeister]

I'm guessing the whole "separate emulators" story is just a smoke screen designed to conceal the fact that they still want to sell PS2s.

If Macrosoft was still selling the original XBox I would bet that the emulation on the 360 would be a lot less complete than it is.

[versapak]

PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.

Ummm...

No it isn't.

Other than that though, I agree with you. 

[shardian]

PS3 is more powerful than the Xbox 360 in almost every way.

Ummm...

No it isn't.

Other than that though, I agree with you. 

You're gonna have to back that up. From what I have read, the PS3 is more powerful and has a greater potential, but is a different technology that is much harder for developers to use and take advantage of.

Powerful and superior are not interchangeable words if that was your stumbling block.

[ChadTower]

Hey look, you just reproduced the Saturn/PS1 debate.

Which machine was ultimately more successful that time?

[shmokes]

On the other hand, the Xbox was both more powerful, and easier to develop for than the PS2 and which of those two systems was the greater success?

Point is, I'm not arguing which is the better system.  I simply said that the PS3 is the technically superior system.  But even if it's not, my point was simply that the PS2 could obviously be emulated by the PS3 using a 100% software emulator if the Xbox can be emulated in software by the Xbox 360.  The Xbox is a typical Intel x86 processor, afterall, while the architecture of the Xbox 360 is entirely unrelated (IBM . . . powerpc, maybe . . . not sure).

[shardian]

Both the XBOX and 360 are pc based. The PS3 jumped to "cell technology", and it may be true that software emulation isn't directly compatible.

[shmokes]

360 isn't PC based.  It's a totally different architecture.

[patrickl]

On the other hand, the Xbox was both more powerful, and easier to develop for than the PS2 and which of those two systems was the greater success?

Point is, I'm not arguing which is the better system.  I simply said that the PS3 is the technically superior system.  But even if it's not, my point was simply that the PS2 could obviously be emulated by the PS3 using a 100% software emulator if the Xbox can be emulated in software by the Xbox 360.  The Xbox is a typical Intel x86 processor, afterall, while the architecture of the Xbox 360 is entirely unrelated (IBM . . . powerpc, maybe . . . not sure).

Shmokes, you are missing the point here though. Sony doesn't say that the PS3 cannot emulate the PS2 in software. They only say that they are unwilling to spend the amount of money that Microsoft spends on it. Microsoft makes the top selling titles compatible by individually setting up emulation for these games.

List of Xbox games compatible with Xbox 360

According to Microsoft, each game needs an emulation profile to run. These profiles can be downloaded through the Xbox Live service or from Xbox.com and burned on CD or DVD recordable media. They are also routinely distributed as part of the content on the Official Xbox Magazine monthly discs. The profiles are downloaded as a single bundle, and hence only need to be applied once per update (if doing so offline), or are automatically downloaded the first time a backwards-compatible game is inserted.

[shmokes]

Sure . . . just like many games in MAME don't work until someone fixes the sound or whatever.  I understand that the 360 isn't 100% backwards compatible, but it's also not as though MS has to write a new emulator for each game.  They wrote exactly one emulator.  Just by flipping the switch to "on" (figuratively speaking) they probably had tons of games running, many at 100%.  Then they went through and found games that weren't running at 100% and if they were popular, the emulator was tweaked so that it would run those games.  This is, of course, a gross simplification of the process, but you understand what I mean.

Oh . . . and I should point out that I was unaware that the 80 GB version still had a PS2 hardware component inside helping with emulation duties before you posted about it in this or another thread.  I suppose that probably does foreclose the possibility of backwards compatibility ever showing up on the 40GB PS3 or any others built around that hardware.  Technically possible, of course, just like it's done on 360, but realistically, the demand for the feature is probably not all that great.

[versapak]

You're gonna have to back that up. From what I have read, the PS3 is more powerful and has a greater potential, but is a different technology that is much harder for developers to use and take advantage of.

Powerful and superior are not interchangeable words if that was your stumbling block.

I have no stumbling block.


You can go do the research yourself, and find that most tech spec comparisons show the two consoles being pretty darn close, with each having advantages in different areas.


Even if the PS3 were to be calculated more powerful overall, it most certainly is not more powerful in almost every way.

 

[patrickl]

Well IIRC Sony claimed it's too expensive to do it the MS way. Maybe it would be cheaper to actually leave the graphics processor in.

BTW Xbox 360 only supports a few hundred Xbox games. For the PS2 there where over 5000 games.

By now there are plenty of PS3 games coming out so they probably guess they don't really need backwards compatibility anymore. So why spend a lot of money on it. They will probably even make money when people are forced to by PS3 games.

[versapak]

Well IIRC Sony claimed it's too expensive to do it the MS way. Maybe it would be cheaper to actually leave the graphics processor in.

BTW Xbox 360 only supports a few hundred Xbox games. For the PS2 there where over 5000 games.

By now there are plenty of PS3 games coming out so they probably guess they don't really need backwards compatibility anymore. So why spend a lot of money on it. They will probably even make money when people are forced to by PS3 games.

I love backward compatibility, and I want it there in case I ever have the urge to play one of my old games, but realistically...


It is extremely rare that I ever pull one of those old games out. I liked to think of backward compatibility as a selling point for me, but I can admit that it is a feature not much used, and wouldn't really be missed. We all went with generation after generation of no backward compatibility and we were all fine.

With the Wii it is a little different, since the Wii games themselves are not really much more (if any at all at this point) powerful than the backward compatible gamecube games.

Though it is something that I like the idea of, I can certainly see why it is not something worth spending a lot of money on, and it is an area I am willing to sacrifice to bring the costs of these new systems down.

[tommy]

I guess they figured just about everyone in the free world already has a PS2 and there is no need to really add it to the PS3. Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty. If you buy a expensive console you want to take advantage of the new games made for it, not old games.

They also want you to buy a PS2 since they are still making games for it.

[ChadTower]

Hardly anyone really spends time playing last gen games on a new system, and if they do it's only for a small percentage of time as a novelty.

I do.  I play GC games on my Wii as much as I do Wii games.