Sony no longer concerned with marketshare???

[Nameless]

Interesting comments from Sony's David Reeves:

By some accounts the PlayStation 3 controller was given tilt sensors only recently, with reports suggesting that some developers found out about the controller's new feature only two weeks before the Electronic Entertainment Expo, where it made its debut in May. But Sony has hit out at this and talk that it ripped off Nintendo, saying that the changes have been coming for much longer than that. "We've had a positive reaction to the controller and obviously some people have asked if it's a last minute thing," Sony's European boss, David Reeves, told trade paper MCV. "It's not - it's been planned for around two and a half years."

"If you have a device that includes 50 or 55 patents, you can't reveal it, as someone will try to file a patent to stop it. We have already had some positive feedback on it from publishers."

The caterwauling between Sony and Nintendo will probably go back and forth for a while still, but it misses Sony's prime goal for the next generation.

"The name of the game is not market share, it's how fast we can grow the industry - our ambition is to grow 15 per cent a year on hardware and software if we can," Reeves told MCV.

"We want to try and double digital entertainment in the next five to six years. Whether we have 40, 50, or 60 per cent market share is not that important."
Benign as Reeves' comments may seem, some will write them off as pre-emptive damage control, to temper the expected loss of market share Sony is going to suffer in the next generation.

Sony's most direct rival, Microsoft, has already had its Xbox 360 on sale for more than half a year, and the company is confident that it'll have a 10 million unit lead by the time the PlayStation 3 launches in November.


Source:
http://games.kikizo.com/news/200606/010.asp

[Nameless]

I think some folks may misunderstand Reeve's statements...
Sony's goal is to compete directly with the media center PC and keep current videogaming market share. If the plan works correctly Sony could still push 100 million PS3s and lose overall market share if the industry grows as a whole...

[Applefiend]

Sony have a triple strategy for survival, Playstation, HD TV, Blu Ray. Everything must be in line for them to survive, so if they only get 50% of the market this time, so be it.

[Zer0-Sum]

65% markey sahre is my prediction for PS3, but I guess time will tell. Games like Gran Turismo, MGS4, and FFXIII will get people to pay. It will be interesting to see what people say in five years from now. I wtill say that PS3 will sell like crack to crackheads and so will the Wii. 360 sales will drop in the next eyar. Call me out on it if I am wrong in the next year, but I dont think I am.

[jaxmkii]

65% markey sahre is my prediction for PS3, but I guess time will tell. Games like Gran Turismo, MGS4, and FFXIII will get people to pay. It will be interesting to see what people say in five years from now. I wtill say that PS3 will sell like crack to crackheads and so will the Wii. 360 sales will drop in the next eyar. Call me out on it if I am wrong in the next year, but I dont think I am. i think your right.

PS3 and Wii will be the bigger players

360s lack of any new tech at all be it a lack of nextgen media or new intresting controler (both Wii and PS3 are rocking new inputs) makes it apper so last gen. not to mention if you look at ALL the HDvids from gamesopt for 360 and PS3 you will notice asides from a hand full of games like GOW. the PS3 over all looks better and if you look closly you will also notice theres alot more going on in the PS3 games (physics) thats the biggie PS3s grafix will be alittle to alot stronger but just like last gen that subtle unexplainable felling that PS2 had over everone else will be alot stonger.

MS would like to think that this "war" will be bettwen them and sony and Nitty will be the second console. i think ther wrong. they will be the second console that will be keep around for that hand full of good games

[The_One]

It's not that they no longer care about market share, it's about the fact that if they make the industry double as a whole, a dip in their individual market share will still yield an increase in profit.

E.g.:
Lets say SCE owns 60% of a 100-person market.
Now, lets say in 4 years down the road, that market doubled to 200 person, and even if SCE's market share dips to 40%, they still gained profit because 20 more people actually bought their console despite a 20% drop in market share.

[jaxmkii]

its better for them and us.^^^

more money means in the industry means more money for resurch

bigger better faster sexier

[The_One]

its better for them and us.^^^

more money means in the industry means more money for resurch

bigger better faster sexier I don't know if growing the gaming market is going to lead to sexier industry... afterall, we know there are plenty of dull guys that'll stay in here even if SCE owned 80% of the market share (*ahem* Major Nelson) :lol:.

[Domination]

Sony have a triple strategy for survival, Playstation, HD TV, Blu Ray. Everything must be in line for them to survive, so if they only get 50% of the market this time, so be it.

From what's been seen so far, this pairs nothing to what the PS2 was, and it's what Ken was trying to convey before. Sony has packed a lot more into the console this time. It seems Sony is really working to their strengths this time.

[Infernal]

Everyone does realize theres 2 threads discussing this exact same interview...

[gljvd]

You can't grow your market while at the same time loosing market share.

If they grow the market 15% that is great. But what features will do that ?

Next gen optical format ? Well the ps2 had that .

Internet gaming ? The xbox and xbox 360 have that


Not to mention that even if they grow the market 15% themselves they can still loose 20-30% market share .

[Domination]

You can't grow your market while at the same time loosing market share.

If they grow the market 15% that is great. But what features will do that ?

Next gen optical format ? Well the ps2 had that .

Internet gaming ? The xbox and xbox 360 have that


Not to mention that even if they grow the market 15% themselves they can still loose 20-30% market share .

C'mon man... You are so looking at the picture from a single, narrow perspective. When is there ever any justice?

Of cource the market can be grown in the very same way it was grown when Sony implemented a DVD player into the PS2. The goal is to pull it off, which time will only tell.

The 360 supports a few things that the PS3 supports, but it also lack a few of them as well, and must I remind you that it has nothing to do with HDTV or Blu Ray, although that, too, could also play a part since the format does support more backers. But like I said, time will tell. Te overall, point is Sony is trying to penetrate a larger market.

[Sephiroth_VII]

You can't grow your market while at the same time loosing market share.

Not to mention that even if they grow the market 15% themselves they can still loose 20-30% market share .
Uhm, is it me, or are you contradicting yourself?

[Viper]

I think what he's alluding to is if you are losing market share, how are you the one that is increasing the market?

For their to be another 100 gamers in that previous analogy, those New gamers must be playing one of the 3 consoles and if one console is losing market share, it means the others are the one(s) that expanded it.

However they can lose market share and still gain more actuall revenue and profit by being a part of an expanded market but if they lose market share and the industry expands then obviously they weren't the ones that expanded it.

[Z]

Reeves is the CEO of Sony Europe. when I read his comments I thought he was talking about Sony as a whole and not only console specific.

talking about Sony as a whole, I want the different divisions to open up more to each other. they should really exploite their different media arms to boost each others performance. we are beginning to see glimps of that with their latest products.

[Domination]

I think what he's alluding to is if you are losing market share, how are you the one that is increasing the market?

For their to be another 100 gamers in that previous analogy, those New gamers must be playing one of the 3 consoles and if one console is losing market share, it means the others are the one(s) that expanded it.

However they can lose market share and still gain more actuall revenue and profit by being a part of an expanded market but if they lose market share and the industry expands then obviously they weren't the ones that expanded it.

Not exactly. You are still looking at it from a console perspective. Picture this for a second: the PlayStation division is the most profitable division in Sony. By Microsoft and Nintendo steadily taking a chunk of the market for themselves each time they stay and compete, Sony has to constantly price match just about any and everything the others do in order to sell enough consoles. If Sony continues on this way - especially head to head with a company like Microsoft, the PlayStation division will eventually become less profitable. So by them expanding the market in an area where they (Sony) have a very strong grip at, consumers could purchase their console for THAT reason as well as Sony related products holding the same purpose once the price is right. So, in Reeves words, "Whether we have 40, 50, or 60 per cent market share is not that important." it doesn't really matter because by Sony accumlation profit off such an advantage in both the games division and outside of it, it'll be the same as the games division selling 100 or 200 PlayStation consoles anyway but without the amount of pressure from the others, therefore meaning a comfortable, yet competitive lifecycle and product.

It is why Ken said that he will make it to where people are going to want the console. I still say they have to do something for the average consumer, but I can understand the reason for the direction.

[Viper]

Dom, I think you missed my point. If the market base has grown in size but you've lost market share, you're not the one that made the market grow is what I'm getting at.

As I noted, true they very well could lose share and still make more profit.

[venomv]

You can make the market grow, but lose market share, but that would mean someone else is making the market grow more.

[Domination]

Dom, I think you missed my point. If the market base has grown in size but you've lost market share, you're not the one that made the market grow is what I'm getting at.

As I noted, true they very well could lose share and still make more profit.

Ah! Ok, that makes sense.