PSN: GribbleGrunger
More. four pages! :DFC Intelligence's David Cole offers some controversial views as he analyzes the differing online gaming strategies of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft as they battle for supremacy in the next generation console wars. This is must-read material...
DFC Intelligence has spent a great deal of time researching the online game market and making forecasts on not only how this market is likely to grow, but also how it is likely to integrate into the existing video game and interactive entertainment market.
One of the key areas of interest in today's market is how important will online games be for the new console systems coming on the market.
The short glib answer is that online games will probably be a more important feature for console systems over the next several years, but once again the traditional retail model is likely to be the dominant driving factor when it comes to how the new game systems build an installed base.
Over the past six years, all facets of online games have come a long way. However, online games are nowhere close to being the tail that wags the dog that many were predicting.
Many hardware systems
The goal of the three big hardware manufacturers (Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony) is to sell as many hardware systems as possible to build the largest possible installed base. Online games are only effective to the extent that they help accomplish this goal. This is especially true considering the current situation where an online service is expensive to build and maintain and even a full-fledged service like Xbox Live commands a low subscription rate. In other words in the reality of today's marketplace, most online console game services are loss leaders.
We currently know Microsoft's online strategy, but things are a little more hazy when it comes to Nintendo and Sony. In March Sony did reveal some of their online plans and that has led many to argue that Sony is planning to go head-to-head with Microsoft on online games. On the contrary, we think that the sketchy announcements so far seem to indicate that Sony is looking at putting more of the emphasis on the raw horsepower of the PlayStation 3, with a limited emphasis on online games. Obviously many details have yet to be revealed, but so far that is the way it is looking and Sony clearly has some solid tactical and strategic reasons for not investing heavily in online games.
In our view what Sony has announced so far for the PlayStation 3 and online connectivity looks a lot like the PlayStation 2 with an online store and some inexpensive community features added on.
Open Internet
Once again, with the PlayStation 3, Sony is emphasizing the open Internet idea. In our view this translates into: "we are not spending a lot on online services, but we will let others build it if they want to." Clearly this is not what Sony is actually saying, but like the PlayStation 2 the main point is that online game play is free right out of the box. If third-parties desire to build their own services and charge for them then they are welcome to do so.
Sony is spending a great deal of money to build the basic system that makes the PlayStation 3 the raw horsepower leader. Right now they probably don't need the added expense and headache of a full-fledged online service, especially if there is no evidence it will get them to their goal of selling more hardware systems.
We should emphasize that this is just our view and many will argue that the Sony PlayStation 3 Network Platform (the working name) will offer a more robust solution than Xbox Live. Online games were fairly prominently featured in Phil Harrison's recent GDC keynote. This has led many to speculate that Sony has finally become a convert to the online world. Harrison talked about such concepts as episodic content and games starting to have the social currency of TV shows like Lost and 24. It is the idea of a shift from a disc-based world to a network-based service business. This all sounds very cutting-edge, but it also gave us a strong sense of déjà vu. At GDC 2006 we started to wonder if we were back at GDC 2000.
http://www.gametab.com/news/526386/
E-mpirial Plenipotentiary
They completely shut N out of the discussion altogether in that 4 page article. It was talked about a ittle in the intro as though it would get equal ink but that was basicaly it. The final page had a 2 line paragraph labeled "Nintendo's Offering" and proceeded to talk about EA.
Congrats to Sony and MS on their online plans but that just pissed me off.
The current US government is the type of government the founding fathers fought against and warned us about.
America, the Dr. will free you now.
PSN: GribbleGrunger
i only quickly scanned through it. just postedit because i thought others would find it interesting. i agree with you though, Nintendo are being overlooked by Microsoft, and ignored by Sony and as a consequence reporting tends to lean towards Sony and MS. this could be a good time for NintendoOriginally Posted by Viper
E-mpirial Plenipotentiary
In regards to just Sony and MS, it actually was a good read but in terms of Next Gen Online gaming, well they only told 2/3's of the story.
The current US government is the type of government the founding fathers fought against and warned us about.
America, the Dr. will free you now.
Veteran Citizen
But isnt that always how it is? Sadly, yep.
About this tho, I was already excited about the Rev's online cababilities and hearing that Sony will have a similar game plan(as in free) pisses me off. i mean honestly, i really didnt want to buy a PS2($) but the games forced me. And i really dont want to buy a PS3(a lot of $) but it looks like im being forced again. Fuck you Sony and your ability to get my money.
Im not a baby, Ima MAN, Ima an ANCHORMAN
Dude, relax...jebus. We don't even know the price of the Ps3 yet, so how the heck do you know if its gonna dent your wallet as much as what Nintendo has to offer.
PSN: iNdieKid
F@H: 54162
NO. 21, We'll Never Forget You
Veteran Citizen
Yea we dont however there are a few underlying points that you didnt pick up on.
A) i only plan on buying 1 consel per gen and even tho i didnt say it directly, i guess i did a little, it can be easily inferred, and even if the PS3 were 50 dollars, thats still 50 more that i didnt plan on spending originally
B)Sadly the PS3 wont be $50 and it will undoubtably be more then Rev and the PS2 that i bought, so if i symbolized the PS2 as $ then even if the PS3 comes out cheaper then expected(the interesting $500 figure that i have seen tossed around), it will still be a lot more $
C)I am relaxed, very relaxed even, its just that Sony has done the same thing to me that it did last gen, its forcing me to buy something i had originally not planned on buying. Take that anyway you want, makes no difference, however at its most basic its a compliment to Sony, they know what the people want and, most importantly of all, they are good about giving the people it.
D)...i dont have one, just felt like wasting space
The Eternal One
I think it's time to buy some Sony stock, but I think it's a delema if I own sony stock. And I buy sony products then I'm buying and selling to myself at the same time....
The Videogame Innovation began in 1966 with Ralph Baer, not with Nintendo.
http://www.ralphbaer.com/inventions.htm
E-mpirial Plenipotentiary
It's not Sony stock you want but IBM. Building the CPU's for all consoles? How do you go wrong?I think it's time to buy some Sony stock, but I think it's a delema if I own sony stock. And I buy sony products then I'm buying and selling to myself at the same time....
The current US government is the type of government the founding fathers fought against and warned us about.
America, the Dr. will free you now.
How do you figure? people may be willing to pay for an excellent service. You get what you pay for an in this instance sure it's free but somethig has to give, if it's anything like PS2 online I'll pass. for example if it's like EA where the buck is passed to the publisher to handell the online then like EA has show YOU WILL GET SHIT PERFORMANCE Xbox live VS EA's Network. And EA is not some crappy little studio either
Look at the console charts MS has as many / a hell lot more games than Nintendo to play and to play online no less. They don't have as many games? wTF? Their games are not nearly as popular? once again go look at the sales charts.
http://www.aussie-nintendo.com/full....from=&ucat=18&
Trust me everyone is dying to play Halo 3 online as well MS won't have any probs
E-mpirial Plenipotentiary
Sorry Freeman, but Ozland is to Nintendo what Japan is to MS. Think more globaly.
The current US government is the type of government the founding fathers fought against and warned us about.
America, the Dr. will free you now.
PSINext forever
Well, IBM's semiconductor division has been a pretty small part of their business traditionally, and has in the past couple of years actually been plagued with losses. Now, that might change with these consoles, but we'll just have to see.
If one is to limit themselves to purchasing stock in company's that sell things they can 'see' and 'feel,' I'd definitely give the edge to Sony then for consideration. IBM is more or less a service company since the 90s.
Respect to all those who debate their positions using facts and reason rather than rumor and passion.
my other points are still valid, Z was talking about popularity of games / franchises I was simply pointing out the MS has many games that appeal and are just as popular. The US is the same well defined and highly know franchises appear on the MS box. I think the point i'm trying to make is that MS has the games now alot of them. Still you have to admit impressive nothing has ever dominated the charts like that in AUST.
E-mpirial Plenipotentiary
Sony has been losing value for years though despite having the incredible success of PS and PS2. A successful PS3 doesn't guarantee them a stock value turnaround.
Since when has service vs tangibility made a difference in stock value?
IBM - 83.45 +0.39 (0.47%)
Sony - 47.47 +0.23 (0.49%)
Just curious
Nintendo - 144.0067 No change
The current US government is the type of government the founding fathers fought against and warned us about.
America, the Dr. will free you now.
PSINext forever
I'm not saying Sony *is* a good buy because of the Playstation brand, I'm saying IBM *isn't* based on their semiconductor wins alone.
On the side though, I think Sony is set to recover in the long-term. Their earnings are going to turn around this year, and the fact that they made a profit for last year when they were supposed to make a loss speaks to their resurgent strength in the TV space among others.
Respect to all those who debate their positions using facts and reason rather than rumor and passion.
The Eternal One
Well seeing those stock prices I would go with Sony,
1. Because you're always better off buying low and hopefully selling high.
2. Sony is definitely gonna be taking back a bigger share to TV market which in turn will make the shares rise.
3. Blu-Ray/PS3.
LOL sorry for going off topic guys...
now back to our regular scheduled program
The Videogame Innovation began in 1966 with Ralph Baer, not with Nintendo.
http://www.ralphbaer.com/inventions.htm
1) I haven't looked at Sonys shares but you don't know how long it will be before (if ever Sonys share price will rise again) and what the growth rate is? and what about inflation my friend?
2)definitely? like 100% for certain? NO you can't make a claim like that. If anything other manufactures like LG and Samsung will undercut Sonys overpriced TV's. Just becasuse Sony sells more TV's does not mean that their share price will rise either. Dividend payouts, market outlooks and most importantly profit and loss statements will affect this.
3)I have no doubt that Blue Ray is a great format (excluding price for the time being) but that does not mean it's 100% going to win / be sucessful its the Sony can do no wrong mentality that everyone seems to have what does UMD, BetaMax and MiniDisk have in common?
Also sorry to get of topic X2 just wanted to clear that up
Back to online content distribution
PSINext forever
Ok just wanted to address this - and keep in mind I am *not* telling anyone to buy Sony shares; this is for purposes of discussion, not financial advice - but Sony has recently surpassed all of the companies you mentioned in the LCD TV market, surging at theend of 2005 to take the crown. In fact I think there's a thread around here with that info somewhere, but if you doubt me you can either Google it or I can find it for you.
As for the share price, it will rise. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not the day after, but rise it will. Sony is set to improve it's margins in it's consumer electronics division and has recently undertaken a round of serious cost cutting.
In fact the share price has been rising steadily over the past year, off of the recent 52-week high of ~$52 but not too far off at a healthy ~$48.
Compare to a year ago at $38, or their five-year low of ~$24. I think you'll agree the trend has been decidedly positive.
In fact I read comments such as these:
if ever Sonys share price will rise again
...and I wonder if you even bother looking at a chart or share price before posting on the subject.
Respect to all those who debate their positions using facts and reason rather than rumor and passion.
Citizen
WHere can u by sony stocks from..? i cant find the on the FTSE.
PSINext forever
I don't know if they're on the FTSE still or not; I understand London volume was fairly low. Their symbol is SNE in the US, or JP:6758 in Japan.
Respect to all those who debate their positions using facts and reason rather than rumor and passion.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks