PlayStation 3: Not About Quantity, About Profitability

The Xbox 360 price drop rumors flow like water and it’s all but officially been announced at this point. What about PlayStation 3 and their price? No.

Nobuyuki Oneda, the Sony’s chief financial officer said, “our plan is not to reduce the price. Our strategy is not to sell more quantity for PS3 but to concentrate on profitability.” (gamespot) This makes complete sense coming from their chief financial officer, as their motivation is to make money, not lose it.

The question remains, how will they actually make money if they’re no longer in the race for competitive market prices? Considering game licensing must Net them some amount of profit Sony’s idea seems to be the exact opposite of their original PlayStation method: saturate the market and sell them all games.

So far we’ve seen very few “need to have” games for the PlayStation 3 console while Xbox 360 continues to build a substantial library and Wii continues to break sales records for apparently no reason. When a game publisher has to decide on a platform to launch a new game, why would they choose the one that doesn’t care to be competitively priced in the market? The one that doesn’t care about quantity of sales?

Sony intends to reverse the entire razor blade philosophy where one sells a cheap razor and charges users for the blades over and over again. Their take on this concept is to sell really expensive razors and put out small half-quality blades. Is that a good market strategy at this point?

0 thoughts on “PlayStation 3: Not About Quantity, About Profitability”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Episode 378: Hilary 2015Episode 378: Hilary 2015

This week has a very special guest, former IGN editor and current Dog and Thimble podcast host Hilary Goldstein, as he teams up with Paul to razz Jonah incessantly, as well as add a certain amount of NSFW spice to this week’s proceedings.

The news items include:

  • Rock Band DLC hints at a comeback
  • Sony appears to have ‘abandoned’ its trademark for The Last Guardian
  • Final Fantasy 15: Episode Duscae demo detailed
  • Nvidia’s big March 3rd event – is it a gaming phone?
  • After raising $114,000 on Kickstarter, dev goes silent
  • BioWare co-founder Greg Zeschuk has come back from retirement

All this and Listener Feedback.

2008: The Year of Sequels? Too Much Risk?2008: The Year of Sequels? Too Much Risk?

While compiling a list of games to respond to a user question on the TD Gaming Podcast, I’ve noticed something about this years gaming lineup: their mainly all sequels! Are there any new franchises taking a risk in the market or just more of the same? Some are not really “sequels” but spin-offs of the same franchise.

A few examples of some October time frame titles: Fable 2, Far Cry 2, Gears of War 2, Rock Band 2, C&C: Red Alert 3, Saints Row 2, Rayman Raving Rabbids 3, Tekken 6, Call of Duty 5, Guitar Hero World Tour, Tom Clancy End of War, Sing Star Vol 2 and others.

There are a few original titles: Afrika for the PlayStation 3, Little Big Planet (PS3) and Huxley (360 and PC). Most of the original franchise creations seem to be PlayStation 3 related, probably because the console needs some major hits to spur more sales.

Is the market so competitive and risky that new franchises are becoming a rare breed? Last year we saw Assassin’s Creed and before that Viva Pinata and Gears of War exclusive on the Xbox 360. Consider Viva Pinata a “slight” failure in terms of excitement and Gears of War a success, that’s 50/50 in terms of risk vs. reward.

(more…)

Robbie Bach says: There Will Be Multiple VictorsRobbie Bach says: There Will Be Multiple Victors

It’s amazing to think we’re in our third year of “next generation” console bliss. Three years have passed since the first Xbox 360 shipped, for good or bad, and it’s time to start thinking about the future.

Or is it?

Bobbie Bach, Microsoft Entertainment and Devices president, seems to believe this generation of consoles will expand out further than the typical four-year release cycle. Perhaps because the console developers have invested so much money in defeating each other in the market and making their console “number one” in the eyes of their investors.

Bach does not believe we’re cresting on the current generation, that is for certain, and we’ve yet to hear any hype over a new next-generation console from Microsoft. They were the first to market so, theoretically, they should be the first in the next-generation as well, right?

Their move to be number one was really a strategic attack which has paid out well, leading them above the past domination of Sony and Nintendo before it. However, they are holding strong with the Xbox 360 and there might be cause to sit tight and let this generation playout before bringing in another piece of hardware.

Bach stated that he believes consoles today are competing at different levels than ten years ago. There isn’t one clear winner, there isn’t one dominating console. There will be victors in different areas of the industry; casual consoles, top game sellers, best graphics and others. It’s not about sheer “units sold” it’s more about being profitable and building a community around your hardware, see Xbox Live as a great example.

Next generation will be full of fantastic new features, ways to connect and crazy hardware specifications, no doubt, but… for many of us, it will take years before we forget the pain and suffering we paid shipping our dead Xbox 360’s back to Microsoft for repairs. Would you be willing to buy into their next generation as their first customer?

(Thanks, 1up)