Support NeoGAF

[TDLink]

I'm watching their actions as well as hearing their talk. Their behavior at E3 where the Vita was barely mentioned in the presser, along with their refusal to do a price drop when everyone predicted it, and their talk surrounding their future titles as well their "in line with expectations" paints a clear picture: it's a slow start and they're not worried that it is one. If they were truly worried we'd be seeing a presser almost entirely focused on it, a price drop, and statements promising aggressive expansion.

You are right, it does paint a clear picture, but it isn't the one you saw. The picture is clearly "Fuck, what do we do with Vita". They are absolutely worried and most people -did- expect their E3 press conference to instill faith in future Vita software, but it didn't. They have either already given up on the system (I hope not) or are keeping a strong public demeanor while they figure out a Plan B with the system.

 

[grimshawish]

I'm watching their actions as well as hearing their talk. Their behavior at E3 where the Vita was barely mentioned in the presser, along with their refusal to do a price drop when everyone predicted it, and their talk surrounding their future titles as well their "in line with expectations" paints a clear picture: it's a slow start and they're not worried that it is one. If they were truly worried we'd be seeing a presser almost entirely focused on it, a price drop, and statements promising aggressive expansion.

They can't afford a price drop. The hardware is too expensive and their already selling at a loss. A good few people were saying this was why there'd be no price drop. Well before E3.

Vita not being mentioned is NOT a good thing...and how can they promise 'aggressive expansion'? You don't just click your fingers.

Vita got plenty of talking up to the press as Sony try and keep the negative 'Vita fail' PR down. They didn't talk about a lot on Vita...cause theres nothing to say...they said all they had.

 

[Father_Brain]

Their behavior at E3 where the Vita was barely mentioned in the presser, along with their refusal to do a price drop when everyone predicted it, and their talk surrounding their future titles as well their "in line with expectations" paints a clear picture: it's a slow start and they're not worried that it is one.

Well, that's one interpretation.

The more cynical one would be that admitting that Vita is selling poorly would raise the question of what SCE is doing about it, and that they don't have a good answer.

 

[EatinOlives]

You are right, it does paint a clear picture, but it isn't the one you saw. The picture is clearly "Fuck, what do we do with Vita". They are absolutely worried and most people -did- expect their E3 press conference to instill faith in future Vita software, but it didn't. They have either already given up on the system (I hope not) or are keeping a strong public demeanor while they figure out a Plan B with the system.

I certainly haven't seen a "fuck, what do we do with the Vita" vibe. I would agree with you if their actions and statements conflicted, or provided a murky picture between one another. A hefty price drop and a "WE'RE DOING JUST FINE" statement, for instance, would certainly give plenty of support to the "what do we do?!?" theory.

Agree to disagree, as it seems, more than anything, to be a glass-half-full, glass-half-empty interpretation.

I think you are purposely being dense here or just trolling.

"U A TROLL" posts are always the cream of the crop in GAF.

 

[KillerTravis]

Well, for comparison, Iwata publicly acknowledged that 3DS was performing below expectations just a month after the Western launches. Sony isn't quite ready to do the candor thing, apparently.

Eh, Iwata is way too honest for his own good.

 

[iammeiam]

I certainly haven't seen a "fuck, what do we do with the Vita" vibe. Agree to disagree, as it seems to be a glass-half-full, glass-half-empty interpretation.

What I'm not understanding about the half-full interpretation is... how does this ultimately become successful for Sony?

Let's assume their initial expectations involved the Vita doing a massive belly-flop hardware-wise post release, being largely ignored at E3, and having a relatively anemic lineup of exclusives going forward.

Why would they do this? What happens that ticks the Vita over from selling a tiny amount to being PSP-level-successful? Why launch, knowing you'll be low waiting for this mystery event, potentially damaging third-party interest in your platform, instead of delaying launch until closer to whatever forms this turning point?

 

[Truth101]

.

I certainly haven't seen a "fuck, what do we do with the Vita" vibe. Agree to disagree, as it seems to be a glass-half-full, glass-half-empty interpretation.



"U A TROLL" posts are always the cream of the crop in GAF.

Because barely mentioning a console at its first E3 on the market only makes sense in a couple of scenarios.

1.) Already a ton of stuff announced for it. The future is looking good.
2.) We haven't announced much of anything, but we really don't have much to announce.

Clearly Sony is in scenario number 2. The sale figures are not hot and the software isn't there. The future isn't looking too bright, ball is in your court Sony.

Oh yeah neither of these scenarios particularly lean to the idea we expected the Vita to be selling horribly its first year on the market. Like you would suggest.

It's all according to the plan.

 

[TDLink]

I certainly haven't seen a "fuck, what do we do with the Vita" vibe. I would agree with you if their actions and statements conflicted, or provided a murky picture between one another. A hefty price drop and a "WE'RE DOING JUST FINE" statement, for instance, would certainly give plenty of support to the "what do we do?!?" theory.

Agree to disagree, as it seems, more than anything, to be a glass-half-full, glass-half-empty interpretation.

If they actually announced a price drop they would be admitting there was a problem, yes, but they also would be signaling that they are taking steps to fix the problem, just like what happened with the 3DS. They are never going to publicly admit they are having a massive problem. Maybe in the future, in hindsight. Not now though when it is a current issue. Just because they have been saying "no really we are happy with vita" doesn't mean they are. Companies lie to consumers all the time. Bad PR is toxic. This isn't an agree to disagree type of debate.

 

[shinra-bansho]

What I'm not understanding about the half-full interpretation is... how does this ultimately become successful for Sony?

Let's assume their initial expectations involved the Vita doing a massive belly-flop hardware-wise post release, being largely ignored at E3, and having a relatively anemic lineup of exclusives going forward.

Why would they do this? What happens that ticks the Vita over from selling a tiny amount to being PSP-level-successful? Why launch, knowing you'll be low waiting for this mystery event, potentially damaging third-party interest in your platform, instead of delaying launch until closer to whatever forms this turning point?

Presumably they didn't want to give too much of a gap to the 3DS.

If you are selling HW for a loss though, perhaps ironically, you probably don't want it to sell too well. Unless software and accessory sales are definitely making up that loss in the same initial period.

In the long term early adopters will probably recoup losses incurred on the initial HW sale through SW royalties and accessories; but in the short term that's not happening.

I don't think it's necessarily "going to plan" but I think they're content to let it flounder until it's more advantageous.

 

[EatinOlives]

What I'm not understanding about the half-full interpretation is... how does this ultimately become successful for Sony?

Let's assume their initial expectations involved the Vita doing a massive belly-flop hardware-wise post release, being largely ignored at E3, and having a relatively anemic lineup of exclusives going forward.

Why would they do this? What happens that ticks the Vita over from selling a tiny amount to being PSP-level-successful? Why launch, knowing you'll be low waiting for this mystery event, potentially damaging third-party interest in your platform, instead of delaying launch until closer to whatever forms this turning point?

The PS3's performance should give you a pretty good idea, considering it started as what was widely considered a "flop" and has since turned it around to be a pretty healthy platform. To me it seems like Sony was planning that type of cycle of with the Vita as well, given what they launched with (a relatively healthy lineup that wasn't amazing, but also not nearly as barren as that of the 3DS's, enough to last several months), and their current behavior toward the system. Your interpretation is that their inaction is a weakness. My interpretation is that their inaction means it's going according to their plan. And it's a plan of a slow-burn start with a healthy performance as sales and games pick up several years from now.

I know that this kind of interpretation flies in the face of many a GAF member, given internet gaming forums having the propensity to quickly paint products in exclusively a "smash hit" or "belly flop" category. In my opinion I think that by now Sony obviously can't expect 3DS levels of sales, nor should they try to chase that market. Their actions, to me, speak very clearly that they're trying to carve out a niche, hunker down in it, and focus on building a good platform over several years. I'm of the belief that if they were truly in trouble we'd be seeing a much less lax attitude to toward the platform right now.

If they actually announced a price drop they would be admitting there was a problem, yes, but they also would be signaling that they are taking steps to fix the problem, just like what happened with the 3DS. They are never going to publicly admit they are having a massive problem. Maybe in the future, in hindsight. Not now though when it is a current issue. Just because they have been saying "no really we are happy with vita" doesn't mean they are. Companies lie to consumers all the time. Bad PR is toxic. This isn't an agree to disagree type of debate.

Again, I'm not only taking what they're saying at face value (because I know the job of PR is to spin it like a DJ), I'm also looking at their actions. I'm not expecting a "we fucked up" statement in case they were doing badly, but their statements and actions, to me, doesn't at all paint a picture that they're doing poorly.

This isn't an agree to disagree type of debate.

Oh, but it is. I'm sure you want to solidify how right you are, but there's definitely room for both interpretations.

 

[J-Rzez]

Really? I'd say GAF is a step down from N4G in its commenters' Sony love.

Lol no. There are many people here hoping to see them go under. Some full on, many thinly veiled. The odd thing is this is a gaming site. If MS goes the track they've been following, and that the Xbox is just a decoy to get established as a living room hub rather than a game console, and with ninty's abandonment of "core" gamers, Sony is the only one who has the majority of their focus on gaming and core gamers. But Sony put down Sega, came in and dominated ninty, and originally trounced MS first effort. So its like the "I liked them before they became popular band" stuff.

Anyone who hopes for Sony to disappear are not gamers and don't realize the negative impact, and possible death of console gaming it would have.

 

[Truth101]

The PS3's performance should give you a pretty good idea, considering it started as what was widely considered a "flop" and has since turned it around to be a pretty healthy platform. To me it seems like Sony was planning that type of cycle of with the Vita as well, given what they launched with (a relatively healthy lineup that wasn't amazing, but also not nearly as barren as that of the 3DS's, enough to last several months), and their current behavior toward the system. Your interpretation is that their inaction is a weakness. My interpretation is that their inaction means it's going according to their plan. And it's a plan of a slow-burn start with a healthy performance as sales and games pick up several years from now.

I know that this kind of interpretation flies in the face of many a GAF member, given internet gaming forums having the propensity to quickly paint products in exclusively a "smash hit" or "belly flop" category. In my opinion I think that by now Sony obviously can't expect 3DS levels of sales, nor should they try to chase that market. Their actions, to me, speak very clearly that they're trying to carve out a niche, hunker down in it, and focus on building a good platform over several years. I'm of the belief that if they were truly in trouble we'd be seeing a much less lax attitude to toward the platform right now.

There is a difference between mildy successful and being a flop, the Vita is a flop.

Your logic falls apart when we consider the fact that Sony has given us their expectations for the Vita this year, and it is not performing inline with those expectations. It isn't doing what Sony expects yet you are saying Sony expects it to perform like it is?

Also the PS3 struggled for years. You think Sony expected to piss away all the profits they made from the PS2? Sure it has become mildly successful but I guarantee you that Sony expected it to perform much better initially.


Edit:

Though I guess if Sony's long-term plan is to go out of business your statement is valid.

 

[KillerTravis]

Lol no. There are many people here hoping to see them go under. Some full on, many thinly veiled. The odd thing is this is a gaming site. If MS goes the track they've been following, and that the Xbox is just a decoy to get established as a living room hub rather than a game console, and with ninty's abandonment of "core" gamers, Sony is the only one who has the majority of their focus on gaming and core gamers. But Sony put down Sega, came in and dominated ninty, and originally trounced MS first effort. So its like the "I liked them before they became popular band" stuff.

Anyone who hopes for Sony to disappear are not gamers and don't realize the negative impact, and possible death of console gaming it would have.

Console gaming existed before Playstation.

 

[Father_Brain]

To slightly revise a post I made a few weeks back about the "a slow burn will be just fine" thing:

Here's what Iwata said last July in explaining the 3DS price cut:

Another reason is, we thought that eliminating the concerns of future hardware expansion early on would make a great difference to how retailers and software publishers will allocate their energies. The retailers worldwide decide the allocations of store shelves and which products to focus on for the year-end sales season by looking at the results of the summer sales. Software publishers are currently reviewing which development teams will work on which projects, and the results of which shall be launched next year and beyond. Removing their concerns on the sales of Nintendo 3DS hardware will be very critical for us to be able to enrich the applicable software in the years to come. In fact, immediately after our announcement yesterday, Nintendo employees started to receive feedback from retailers and software publishers around the world, and this feedback is, in general, rather positive.

Three possibilities here:

a) Iwata was exaggerating, and the 3DS price cut wasn't actually as urgent as he made it sound at the time.
b) Iwata was accurately describing retailers and third parties' concerns, but Vita is somehow immune to those same pressures despite selling even worse than 3DS was at its low point last year.
c) Vita actually is facing those same pressures, but Sony's ability (if not willingness) to respond to them is much more limited than Nintendo's was.

I'm going with C for now, in case you can't guess.

 

[sTeLioSco]

There is a difference between mildy successful and being a flop, the Vita is a flop.

Your logic falls apart when we consider the fact that Sony has given us their expectations for the Vita this year, and it is not performing inline with those expectations. It isn't doing what Sony expects yet you are saying Sony expects it to perform like it is?

Also the PS3 struggled for years. You think Sony expected to piss away all the profits they made from the PS2? Sure it has become mildly successful but I guarantee you that Sony expected it to perform much better initially.


Edit:

Though I guess if Sony's long-term plan is to go out of business your statement is valid.

how is the vita a flop?
not even a year in the market and it sells each unit for profit along with proprietary memory cards....

sony has vita games and didn't show at the e3 presser because they didn't feel pressured to do so.if they wanted they could easily do it,the games were on the floor and covered by most gaming sites.

 

[iammeiam]

The PS3's performance should give you a pretty good idea, considering it started as what was widely considered a "flop" and has since turned it around to be a pretty healthy platform. To me it seems like Sony was planning that type of cycle of with the Vita as well, given what they launched with (a relatively healthy lineup that wasn't amazing, but also not nearly as barren as that of the 3DS's, enough to last several months), and their current behavior toward the system. Your interpretation is that their inaction is a weakness. My interpretation is that their inaction means it's going according to their plan. And it's a plan of a slow-burn start with a healthy performance as sales and games pick up several years from now.

Emulating the PS3 would be pretty terrible for Sony--they performed an impressive recovery, and are probably very pleased at how they turned it around, but the end result of the PS3 era is almost certainly going to be an overall financial loss. The PS3 situation was never planned, it was the result of them having to scramble to make up for some mistakes.

I also have a hard time reconciling them planning a year or two of the current sales level with the amount of hardware they've publicly stated they plan to move this year. Their projected sales for this year indicate an entirely different planned level of success from what they're displaying now.

 

[Truth101]

To slightly revise a post I made a few weeks back about the "a slow burn will be just fine" thing:

Here's what Iwata said last July in explaining the 3DS price cut:



Three possibilities here:

a) Iwata was exaggerating, and the 3DS price cut wasn't actually as urgent as he made it sound at the time.
b) Iwata was accurately describing retailers and third parties' concerns, but Vita is somehow immune to those same pressures despite selling even worse than 3DS was at its low point last year.
c) Vita actually is facing those same pressures, but Sony's ability (if not willingness) to respond to them is much more limited than Nintendo's was.

I'm going with C for now, in case you can't guess.

I'm gonna go with C also, though seems like a few people are going to get in bed with B.

 

[TDLink]

Again, I'm not only taking what they're saying at face value (because I know the job of PR is to spin it like a DJ), I'm also looking at their actions. I'm not expecting a "we fucked up" statement in case they were doing badly, but their statements and actions, to me, doesn't at all paint a picture that they're doing poorly.

Oh, but it is. I'm sure you want to solidify how right you are, but there's definitely room for both interpretations.

What action? Not showing anything at E3 is in-action and the only reason they would do that is if they are indeed pleased with the current situation the Vita is in. The Vita factually isn't in a good situation due to its low amount of software and unit sales. So you're saying they are entirely pleased with a system that doesn't sell well and lacks software?

Also, this isn't really about it being a pissing match between me and you or anything like that. You are like the only one actually taking this stance. Look at the other posters in this topic too, just on this page even, not just me.

 

[shinra-bansho]

There is a difference between mildy successful and being a flop, the Vita is a flop.

Your logic falls apart when we consider the fact that Sony has given us their expectations for the Vita this year, and it is not performing inline with those expectations. It isn't doing what Sony expects yet you are saying Sony expects it to perform like it is?

Also the PS3 struggled for years. You think Sony expected to piss away all the profits they made from the PS2? Sure it has become mildly successful but I guarantee you that Sony expected it to perform much better initially.

The PS3 is an example of how poorly Sony's business decisions were with at the time.

They probably neither expected to eat away at the profits of the PS2, nor expected initial sales to be so low. Except the nature of the PS3's COGS would make that impossible - if the HW had sold well at launch then they would have eaten even greater losses.

 

[Erethian]

how is the vita a flop?
not even a year in the market and it sells each unit for profit along with proprietary memory cards....

sony has vita games and didn't show at the e3 presser because they didn't feel pressured to do so.if they wanted they could easily do it,the games were on the floor and covered by most gaming sites.

Is this a joke post?

 

[bigtroyjon]

There is another option:
D)The decision makers at Sony think that the PS3 ports and AC/COD stuff currently announced will on their own cause Vita baseline sales to double or triple.

 

[Father_Brain]

The PS3's performance should give you a pretty good idea, considering it started as what was widely considered a "flop" and has since turned it around to be a pretty healthy platform. To me it seems like Sony was planning that type of cycle of with the Vita as well, given what they launched with (a relatively healthy lineup that wasn't amazing, but also not nearly as barren as that of the 3DS's, enough to last several months), and their current behavior toward the system. Your interpretation is that their inaction is a weakness. My interpretation is that their inaction means it's going according to their plan. And it's a plan of a slow-burn start with a healthy performance as sales and games pick up several years from now.

The key problem with this analogy is that PS3's turnaround was only really possible because it launched with massive third-party investment up front, including both multiplatform titles and a number of huge Japanese (at the time) exclusives. Had it launched at $600 with available/announced third-party support comparable to what Vita has now, it likely would have driven Sony out of the console business entirely.

 

[Erethian]

There is another option:
D)The decision makers at Sony think that the PS3 ports and AC/COD stuff currently announced will on their own cause Vita baseline sales to double or triple.

Personally I'm starting to subscribe to the idea that not everyone in Sony/SCE management wanted the Vita.

Like it wouldn't surprise me if the US and European arms wanted to see more of a focus on the mobile space.

 

[Yopis]

The PS3's performance should give you a pretty good idea, considering it started as what was widely considered a "flop" and has since turned it around to be a pretty healthy platform. To me it seems like Sony was planning that type of cycle of with the Vita as well, given what they launched with (a relatively healthy lineup that wasn't amazing, but also not nearly as barren as that of the 3DS's, enough to last several months), and their current behavior toward the system. Your interpretation is that their inaction is a weakness. My interpretation is that their inaction means it's going according to their plan. And it's a plan of a slow-burn start with a healthy performance as sales and games pick up several years from now.

I know that this kind of interpretation flies in the face of many a GAF member, given internet gaming forums having the propensity to quickly paint products in exclusively a "smash hit" or "belly flop" category. In my opinion I think that by now Sony obviously can't expect 3DS levels of sales, nor should they try to chase that market. Their actions, to me, speak very clearly that they're trying to carve out a niche, hunker down in it, and focus on building a good platform over several years. I'm of the belief that if they were truly in trouble we'd be seeing a much less lax attitude to toward the platform right now.




Again, I'm not only taking what they're saying at face value (because I know the job of PR is to spin it like a DJ), I'm also looking at their actions. I'm not expecting a "we fucked up" statement in case they were doing badly, but their statements and actions, to me, doesn't at all paint a picture that they're doing poorly.



Oh, but it is. I'm sure you want to solidify how right you are, but there's definitely room for both interpretations.

Agree fully. PS3 started badly no games and they built it up. Vita is great hardware and when games come and price drops it will be fine. PS3 was a flop at 599 but at 299 is the gamers choice. Funny what price does.

 

[EatinOlives]

Emulating the PS3 would be pretty terrible for Sony--they performed an impressive recovery, and are probably very pleased at how they turned it around, but the end result of the PS3 era is almost certainly going to be an overall financial loss. The PS3 situation was never planned, it was the result of them having to scramble to make up for some mistakes.

I also have a hard time reconciling them planning a year or two of the current sales level with the amount of hardware they've publicly stated they plan to move this year. Their projected sales for this year indicate an entirely different planned level of success from what they're displaying now.

I'm obviously not saying they're planning to emulate the PS3 step by step, including the initial lukewarm launch and the subsequent gigantic loss in market share. I'm saying they're planning to emulate the slow-burn performance that the PS3 eventually had. If they're planning for it this time, instead of it being "hoisted" upon them like it was on the PS3, Sony probably thinks that they can work with it better.

The key problem with this analogy is that PS3's turnaround was only really possible because it launched with massive third-party investment up front, including both multiplatform titles and a number of huge Japanese (at the time) exclusives. Had it launched at $600 with available/announced third-party support comparable to what Vita has now, it likely would have driven Sony out of the console business entirely.

Third party isn't going to make or break the handheld. I'm not sure why you think it's the single most important facet.

Sony has a very high volume of first and second party developers. Given their pitch to developers that "this is just like developing for the consoles", I think there's a good chance we'll be seeing an outward push from Sony's own internal and 2nd party studios into making games for the Vita to build up the platform. 3rd parties not being on board today does not mean that they never will be, or that it automatically means the handheld will die.

What action? Not showing anything at E3 is in-action and the only reason they would do that is if they are indeed pleased with the current situation the Vita is in. The Vita factually isn't in a good situation due to its low amount of software and unit sales. So you're saying they are entirely pleased with a system that doesn't sell well and lacks software?

Also, this isn't really about it being a pissing match between me and you or anything like that. You are like the only one actually taking this stance. Look at the other posters in this topic too, just on this page even, not just me.

You're operating under the assumption that their sales are "low". "Low" is a relative word that means different things for different companies. No doubt you're comparing the Vita sales with those of the 3DS, but the sales of one does not necessarily imply the performance of the other. Toyota completely outdoes Rolls Royce in terms of sales, but that does not even come close to meaning that Rolls Royce's sales are "low". It's all in relation as to what their respective companies expect. And from what I'm seeing, the Vita is performing as per the expectations of Sony.

Also, this isn't really about it being a pissing match between me and you or anything like that. You are like the only one actually taking this stance. Look at the other posters in this topic too, just on this page even, not just me.

Apologies, it certainly sounded that way since you declared there was no "disagreeing to disagree", as if you were bent on "proving me wrong" or something like that

 

[Truth101]

I'm obviously not saying they're planning to emulate the PS3 step by step, including the initial lukewarm launch and the subsequent gigantic loss in market share. I'm saying they're planning to emulate the slow-burn performance that the PS3 eventually had. If they're planning for it this time, instead of it being "hoisted" upon them like it was on the PS3, Sony probably thinks that they can work with it better.



Third party isn't going to make or break the handheld. I'm not sure why you think it's the single most important facet.

Sony has a very high volume of first and second party developers. Given their pitch to developers that "this is just like developing for the consoles", I think there's a good chance we'll be seeing an outward push from Sony's own internal and 2nd party studios into making games for the Vita to build up the platform. 3rd parties not being on board today does not mean that they never will be, or that it automatically means the handheld will die.

It absolutely will.

The Vita s no Wii and Sony is no Nintendo.

 

[Somnid]

Third party isn't going to make or break the handheld. I'm not sure why you think it's the single most important facet.

Sony has a very high volume of first and second party developers. Given their pitch to developers that "this is just like developing for the consoles", I think there's a good chance we'll be seeing an outward push from Sony's own internal and 2nd party studios into making games for the Vita to build up the platform. 3rd parties not being on board today does not mean that they never will be, or that it automatically means the handheld will die.

The problem is Sony still isn't putting its best teams on portables. They did very little to build up PSP, they were just lucky Capcom put Monster Hunter on it and spawned a good RPG base. It didn't do nearly as well in the West mainly because once GTA didn't quite push sales it was abandoned altogether. In any case Western third parties aren't coming back, not as long as tablets and phones are hot shit and that's true for 3DS as well.

 

[chris0701]

how is the vita a flop?
not even a year in the market and it sells each unit for profit along with proprietary memory cards....

sony has vita games and didn't show at the e3 presser because they didn't feel pressured to do so.if they wanted they could easily do it,the games were on the floor and covered by most gaming sites.

PSV profitable is a 3yr plan, not they sell them with profit now.

 

[grimshawish]

Lets say that Sony maybe really do think Vita is a success and is meeting their expectations.

This is not necessarily a good thing...

 

[bigtroyjon]

You're operating under the assumption that their sales are "low". "Low" is a relative word that means different things for different companies. No doubt you're comparing the Vita sales with those of the 3DS, but the sales of one does not necessarily imply the performance of the other. Toyota completely outdoes Rolls Royce in terms of sales, but that does not even come close to meaning that Rolls Royce's sales are "low". It's all in relation as to what their respective companies expect. And from what I'm seeing, the Vita is performing as per the expectations of Sony.

You keep talking about Sony's expectations as if they are some well kept secret that we don't know. We know what they are, they have forecast 10 million Vita sales for the fiscal year.

It's not even going to sell 1 million in the first quarter, so no, it's not performing as per the expectations of Sony.

 

[EatinOlives]

The problem is Sony still isn't putting its best teams on portables. They did very little to build up PSP, they were just lucky Capcom put Monster Hunter on it and spawned a good RPG base. It didn't do nearly as well in the West mainly because once GTA didn't quite push sales it was abandoned altogether. In any case Western third parties aren't coming back, not as long as tablets and phones are hot shit and that's true for 3DS as well.

All their internal studios seem to be occupied with current projects. If years go by and none of them seem to be taking on a Vita game I'll gladly admit my prediction is wrong.

Lets say that Sony maybe really do think Vita is a success and is meeting their expectations.

This is not necessarily a good thing...

Again, me saying it's not a failure does not automatically mean I'm saying it's a success. Plenty of businesses are not expected to turn a profit from day one, and in fact many don't. That doesn't make them failures, and the fact that they're not failures doesn't make them successful either.

It absolutely will.

The Vita s no Wii and Sony is no Nintendo.

I'm not saying Sony'll be fine propping up the Vita by themselves through its lifetime. I'm saying they can pick up the slack and get things started on their own, without third parties pushing them along.

You keep talking about Sony's expectations as if they are some well kept secret that we don't know. We know what they are, they have forecast 10 million Vita sales for the fiscal year.

It's not even going to sell 1 million in the first quarter, so no, it's not performing as per the expectations of Sony.

IIRC the current hardware sales are higher than 1 million now.

I highly doubt they pulled the 10 million figure out of nowhere, they obviously have a reason for it, which we don't know about. Personally, I think that's an overly optimistic number, but I don't sit at their meetings and I have no way of reasonably assuming they have no chance of coming close to that.

 

[funkystudent]

wait this is just for SCE?

Jesus fuck....

 

[x3sphere]

PSV profitable is a 3yr plan, not they sell them with profit now.

Sony isn't selling Vita hardware at a loss either, as far as I know. Pretty sure they're breaking even on it, maybe even making a small profit.

The 3yr plan is probably to recoup what they spent on R&D and marketing.

 

[bigtroyjon]

IIRC the current hardware sales are higher than 1 million now.

I highly doubt they pulled the 10 million figure out of nowhere, they obviously have a reason for it, which we don't know about. Personally, I think that's an overly optimistic number, but I don't sit at their meetings and I have no way of reasonably assuming they have no chance of coming close to that.

The current total sales are irrelevant, talking about their forecast for the current fiscal year. Obviously the reason they came up with the forecast is that they thought it would sell better than it has, hence why we know it's performed lower than their expectations despite whatever PR bullshit statements you seem to be hanging your entire argument on.

 

[chris0701]

Sony isn't selling Vita hardware at a loss either, as far as I know. Pretty sure they're breaking even on it, maybe even making a small profit.

The 3yr plan is probably to recoup what they spent on R&D and marketing.

For PSV itself excludes memory card, it would be more likely they sell it with small loss, of course, far less than PS3 launch.

 

[jman2050]

Oh, so we're going with the revisionist history "The PS3 WASN'T a complete and total financial disaster by Sony that almost completed torpedoed the clout its gaming division previously had" line of reasoning again? Well, I guess some people gotta grasp at straws

IIRC the current hardware sales are higher than 1 million now.

February and March don't count in fiscal year projections. In April and May the Vita sold a grand total of ~130K in the US, likely a similar amount in Europe, and about 70Kish in Japan. So in pure sales alone, they're about 3% up to their forecast through two months. And I wager sales are going to be worse in the west in June.

I highly doubt they pulled the 10 million figure out of nowhere, they obviously have a reason for it, which we don't know about.

They probably do have a reason. Just not a very good one.

Personally, I think that's an overly optimistic number, but I don't sit at their meetings and I have no way of reasonably assuming they have no chance of coming close to that.

We do have a way. We have sales data.

 

[BigDug13]

I personally think Sony shot themselves deep in the foot by not having UMD backward compatability in this system. Handhelds are different than consoles. You can have an entertainment center full of game consoles but on the go, you really just bring a single unit. Do you want a single unit with not many games and plays none of your PSP UMD collection?

I'm not talking about the fact that you can rebuy PSP games online because that's a bullshit replacement to those who already spent upwards of $30-$40 per PSP UMD game.

And the fact that unfortunately for Sony, a large percentage of PSP owners have it modded/hacked/jailbroken which makes that handheld way more valuable to have in your pocket than a Vita. You can get a huge memory card and have a copy of all your games as well as previous generation games on the go, while the Vita breaks the bank getting a decent sized memory card just to put a few games on it.

(Also, if you wanted to keep a proprietary memory card, they should have stuck to the Pro Duo so people could upgrade their hardware and keep the memory.)

 

[east of eastside]

Lol no. There are many people here hoping to see them go under. Some full on, many thinly veiled. The odd thing is this is a gaming site. If MS goes the track they've been following, and that the Xbox is just a decoy to get established as a living room hub rather than a game console, and with ninty's abandonment of "core" gamers, Sony is the only one who has the majority of their focus on gaming and core gamers. But Sony put down Sega, came in and dominated ninty, and originally trounced MS first effort. So its like the "I liked them before they became popular band" stuff.

Anyone who hopes for Sony to disappear are not gamers and don't realize the negative impact, and possible death of console gaming it would have.

I was a Sega fan and then later a Sony/PS2 fan, the reason I lost love for Sony is because PS3 has been an utter disappointment (hardware/software) to me. It has nothing to do with popularity. Sony itself has suffered a major loss of brand relevance and lack of innovation across the board in all its key markets losing out to major players like Samsung, Apple, and Microsoft.

As a true gamer I'm excited by the prospects of console industry decline and consolidation in terms of creating an industry with a smaller, more dedicated, niche core in contrast to the mainstream dudebro gamer and AAA Hollywood gaming dominance that exists now, which Sony is guilty of co-sponsoring.

To me it's similar to a Nintendo fan that looked to the prospects of Wii/DS casual popularity decline as an opportunity for Nintendo to be more dedicated to the core, which it has done so.

I was a big fan of last gen Sony and not of this gen's one. The console oligopoly that has dominated gaming for the last 12 years will eventually come to an end. That is certain, though most people in these topics take the view that it will never change, as if some how inevitable change is not a rule.

It's interesting to look at the case of Sega hardware which had a 20 year run from SG-1000 to DC and wonder whether Sony is coming to the end of its 20 year or so run as well.

 

[TDLink]

As a true gamer I'm excited by the prospects of console industry decline and consolidation in terms of creating an industry with a smaller, more dedicated, niche core in contrast to the mainstream dudebro gamer and AAA Hollywood gaming dominance that exists now, which Sony is guilty of sponsoring.

I cannot possibly believe this statement was made. At all. What?! "True gamer" is a laughable label to call oneself. Moreover, anyone that cares even an iota about the gaming industry can't possibly seriously want any of the hardware manufacturers to actually fail. Gaming has grown in audience because it had to in order to stay alive as an industry. It is never going back to being aimed entirely at a niche. Actually wanting that doesn't just stifle creativity it also limits the scope games that are made towards niches can have. Those "dudebro" and "AAA Hollywood" games help to fund less mainstream projects. You may not like them but you're going to have to deal with them existing. Their existence is part of why the gaming industry continues to go on.

 

[east of eastside]

I cannot possibly believe this statement was made. At all. What?! "True gamer" is a laughable label to call oneself. Moreover, anyone that cares even an iota about the gaming industry can't possibly seriously want any of the hardware manufacturers to actually fail. Gaming has grown in audience because it had to in order to stay alive as an industry. It is never going back to being aimed entirely at a niche. Actually wanting that doesn't just stifle creativity it also limits the scope games that are made towards niches can have. Those "dudebro" and "AAA Hollywood" games help to fund less mainstream projects. You may not like them but you're going to have to deal with them existing. Their existence is part of why the gaming industry continues to go on.

I don't care about the industry.. I was happiest when the gaming industry was a small niche driven by enthusiasts with games that were based on rich gameplay and innovation rather than production values and presentation, and big name, big budget, mass marketed franchises with online multiplayer to make up for a crap single player experience as they are now. AAA Hollywood gaming will eventually kill itself as costs rise and stagnation, saturation, and franchise domination destroy it leaving a purer gaming behind. The industry is already on a major decline course (speaking to the console and traditional portable industry), next gen is going to be fun.

oh, and what's laughable about "true gamer"? That's some one who is actually into gameplay and the gaming experience, rather than some nerd living vicariously through the game industry and what XYZ game marketer shoots out at the masses.

 

[J-Rzez]

Console gaming existed before Playstation.

Right, when they focused on games, and what core gamers expected out of hardware. Now you have one company releasing hardware that may or may not be more powerful than 6+ year old hardware, and another seemingly focused on casual alternative control gaming, social apps, and TV services.

Things are not the same as they once were. I game primarily on PC these days, but I appreciate that Sony is still focused on core for the most part these days. They have the first-party studios bringing great stuff and pushing the hardware. They'll get my money again for that reason. MS may get my money after a year if the hardware doesn't end up as bad or worse than the shoddiest hardware ever released on console gamers, and they have some real exclusive game. Ninty has been dead to me for a decade, and it's not changing with WiiU, they're after a different user these days.

 

[Mxrz]

Console gaming existed before Playstation.

Life existed before penicillin, too. Doesn't mean it was a happy place for everyone.

I don't care about the industry.. I was happiest when the gaming industry was a small niche driven by enthusiasts with games that were based on rich gameplay and innovation rather than production values and presentation, and online multiplayer to make up for a crap single player experience as they are now. AAA Hollywood gaming will eventually kill itself as costs rise and stagnation, saturation, and franchise domination destroy it leaving a purer gaming behind. The industry is already on a major decline course (speaking to the console and traditional portable industry), next gen is going to be fun.

Good grief. The gaming industry will never be entirely made up of "niche driven by enthusiasts." Outside of a brief period in like the mid 70s maybe, it never was. The rest of that reads like "I hate COD, so no one should get to play it!" Nevermind that Indie/Startups are now more popular and more successful than they've ever been before. Everything is AAA & Hollywood, games suck!, etc.

 

[RukusProvider]

The current total sales are irrelevant, talking about their forecast for the current fiscal year. Obviously the reason they came up with the forecast is that they thought it would sell better than it has, hence why we know it's performed lower than their expectations despite whatever PR bullshit statements you seem to be hanging your entire argument on.

I'm curious to see how the market handles a revised (lowered) forecast.

 

[EatinOlives]

The current total sales are irrelevant, talking about their forecast for the current fiscal year. Obviously the reason they came up with the forecast is that they thought it would sell better than it has, hence why we know it's performed lower than their expectations despite whatever PR bullshit statements you seem to be hanging your entire argument on.

We'll know for sure if/when they mention a change, and they would have to mention a change to investors if they know full well they'll fall way short on that.

And like I said plenty of times before, that's not at all the only thing I'm basing my argument on.

Oh, so we're going with the revisionist history "The PS3 WASN'T a complete and total financial disaster by Sony that almost completed torpedoed the clout its gaming division previously had" line of reasoning again? Well, I guess some people gotta grasp at straws

That's cute. Hyperbole makes GAF go round.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The current total sales are irrelevant, talking about their forecast for the current fiscal year. Obviously the reason they came up with the forecast is that they thought it would sell better than it has, hence why we know it's performed lower than their expectations despite whatever PR bullshit statements you seem to be hanging your entire argument on.

I thought PS Vita wasn't included in FY11, for whatever reason, ergo the cumulative sales thus far are presumably relevant. That doesn't mean they'll meet their over-optimistic forecast though.

The forecast was announced in May, so they would have known how it was selling already. They're either being deliberately oblivious or think they can do something to boost sales at some point.

 

[bigtroyjon]

We'll know for sure if/when they mention a change, and they would have to mention a change to investors if they know full well they'll fall way short on that.

No, they wouldn't have to mention a change. Exact same situation with Nintendo and the 3DS last year. Sales numbers told us that they had no shot at hitting their 16 million number and yet they still didn't revise the forecast until after the 3Q. Even had people like yourself talking about how they were selling to expectation because they would have revised the forecast if they weren't going to hit it. The appeal to authority argument is bunk, especially when that authority has no reason to tell you the truth.

I thought PS Vita wasn't included in FY11, for whatever reason, ergo the cumulative sales thus far are presumably relevant. That doesn't mean they'll meet their over-optimistic forecast though.

The forecast was announced in May, so they would have known how it was selling already. They're either being deliberately oblivious or think they can do something to boost sales at some point.

It's a FY year forecast. Numbers from last FY are not relevant.

 

[shinra-bansho]

It's a FY year forecast. Numbers from last FY are not relevant.

Where would launch shipments be recorded/reported then - they'd just disappear into the ether?

It seemed implied that launch shipments would be included in reporting for FY12.

 

[StevieP]

That's cute. Hyperbole makes GAF go round.

It's not cute. The PS3 was a disaster by every possible metric there is.
That they've turned the ship around from a complete clusterf is commendable on Sony's part and speaks to the high quality software that exists on the platform. But call a spade a spade.

 

[KillerTravis]

Life existed before penicillin, too. Doesn't mean it was a happy place for everyone.

Yeah, but you said console gaming may be gone if Sony exits the industry and I'm not really seeing that, considering as how Nintendo depends on gaming to survive and Microsoft is making a lot of money with their services.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Microsoft will be in last place next gen, third console curse.

That only applies to console makers with two previous successes then they release a new system. The 360 is MS's first success in the market.

Console gaming existed before Playstation.

And it will after.