Losses at Sony's games division will likely be double its initial forecast for the year, the company has said.
Losses for the financial year ending in March are now expected to be in excess of 100 billion yen (£425 million), compared to an original forecast of 50 billion yen (£212.5 million). As the PS2 and PSP are faring well at the moment, blame lies on the shoulders of the PS3.
The new forecast follows Sony posting a loss of 126 billion yen (£535 million) for its games division in the first half of the year last week. The company said at the time that it hoped to break even or make profit at its games division in the second half of the year. As the company isn't going as high as 126 billion yen its loss forecast for the year, however, it is obviously aiming for profit in the next six months.
Elsewhere at Sony, however, the outlook is a bit more rosy. The company said that the operating profit margin for its electronic business will likely reach five percent in the year to March, compared to a more modest earlier projection of four percent.
Losses for the financial year ending in March are now expected to be in excess of 100 billion yen (£425 million), compared to an original forecast of 50 billion yen (£212.5 million). As the PS2 and PSP are faring well at the moment, blame lies on the shoulders of the PS3.
The new forecast follows Sony posting a loss of 126 billion yen (£535 million) for its games division in the first half of the year last week. The company said at the time that it hoped to break even or make profit at its games division in the second half of the year. As the company isn't going as high as 126 billion yen its loss forecast for the year, however, it is obviously aiming for profit in the next six months.
Elsewhere at Sony, however, the outlook is a bit more rosy. The company said that the operating profit margin for its electronic business will likely reach five percent in the year to March, compared to a more modest earlier projection of four percent.
Companies:
Sony
Read More Like This
Comments
realvictory 29 Oct 2007 21:15
1/7
A lot of people will probably say "serves them right, for having a stupid business plan," which is correct, but on the other hand, it's an ambitious plan, so I have sympathy for them. And good on them for investing a lot more money in games than they're making from it.
What people also forget when constantly bashing Sony is that Microsoft started in exactly this way, albeit less ambitious, with less to lose. Throwing money at a problem until you succeed is one thing, but in this case, it's not so much a problem, but an ideal that Sony has.
And maybe they won't succeed in achieving it (don't forget, the PS3's virtually only just been released), but at least they had a vision (and don't even forget what they achieved up until now with their previous consoles).
Microsoft have achieved success (finally), but what else? What have they actually done that's new, why do they deserve my money?
Now I'm not a Sony fan, I'm a Nintendo/Sega fan, and ultimately, I don't care whether Sony succeed or fail, in itself. But I've seen the games industry develop over the last 20 years, and I actually care about games being good in their own right, I'm not just trying to push games into becoming "cool" so that I'm "cool."
Microsoft deserve credit for what they've achieved - but they still haven't achieved that much. But Sony don't deserve to fail, especially when they have ambitions that will benefit you if they succeed.
What people also forget when constantly bashing Sony is that Microsoft started in exactly this way, albeit less ambitious, with less to lose. Throwing money at a problem until you succeed is one thing, but in this case, it's not so much a problem, but an ideal that Sony has.
And maybe they won't succeed in achieving it (don't forget, the PS3's virtually only just been released), but at least they had a vision (and don't even forget what they achieved up until now with their previous consoles).
Microsoft have achieved success (finally), but what else? What have they actually done that's new, why do they deserve my money?
Now I'm not a Sony fan, I'm a Nintendo/Sega fan, and ultimately, I don't care whether Sony succeed or fail, in itself. But I've seen the games industry develop over the last 20 years, and I actually care about games being good in their own right, I'm not just trying to push games into becoming "cool" so that I'm "cool."
Microsoft deserve credit for what they've achieved - but they still haven't achieved that much. But Sony don't deserve to fail, especially when they have ambitions that will benefit you if they succeed.
PreciousRoi 29 Oct 2007 22:43
2/7
realvictory wrote:
A lot of people will probably say "serves them right, for having a stupid business plan," which is correct, but on the other hand, it's an ambitious plan, so I have sympathy for them. And good on them for investing a lot more money in games than they're making from it.
What people also forget when constantly bashing Sony is that Microsoft started in exactly this way, albeit less ambitious, with less to lose. Throwing money at a problem until you succeed is one thing, but in this case, it's not so much a problem, but an ideal that Sony has.
What people also forget when constantly bashing Sony is that Microsoft started in exactly this way, albeit less ambitious, with less to lose. Throwing money at a problem until you succeed is one thing, but in this case, it's not so much a problem, but an ideal that Sony has.
Wow...nice apologia...guess it also applies to MS and all the fiscal losses Xbox division has posted. But who am I kidding? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING? Sony is posting a loss now, fine, but lets not make them into financial martyrs sacrificing their bottom line for the sake of gamers everywhere. Thats just stupid and asinine.
Will gamers benefit if Sony succeeds in their ambitions? P'raps, p'raps not...I know Sony will be happy, but will we? The fact is Sony is doing the same thing MS has been doing, and for the selfsame reason. They are trading money now for market position later. Their ambition is a dominant market position, their ideal is a Sony dominated home electronics landscape. A 10-year console, not for your benefit, rather so once you buy it, you don't even think about straying from the fold.
realvictory wrote:
And maybe they won't succeed in achieving it (don't forget, the PS3's virtually only just been released), but at least they had a vision (and don't even forget what they achieved up until now with their previous consoles).
And Ninty and MS have no vision? Of the three, Ninty is the only one that doesn't have ass-loads of ulterior motives...and they have a track record of mucking things up royally...when they don't knock the ball out of the park, that is...
realvictory wrote:
Microsoft have achieved success (finally), but what else? What have they actually done that's new, why do they deserve my money?
They still have the only mature online service.
realvictory wrote:
Now I'm not a Sony fan, I'm a Nintendo/Sega fan, and ultimately, I don't care whether Sony succeed or fail, in itself. But I've seen the games industry develop over the last 20 years, and I actually care about games being good in their own right, I'm not just trying to push games into becoming "cool" so that I'm "cool."
duh, what does games being 'cool' (I assume you mean popular, or mainstream) have to do with anything?realvictory wrote:
Microsoft deserve credit for what they've achieved - but they still haven't achieved that much. But Sony don't deserve to fail, especially when they have ambitions that will benefit you if they succeed.
MS has achieved almost everything Sony had achieved in the same relative point in their lifecycles in the console biz. Except MS had a harder row to hoe, since they had to start against Sony in their prime. Saying that MS hasn't achieved that much is total bullshit. MS has done more for ALL gamers than Sony has recently, perhaps at all. Look at the late-to-the-party PSN...if they didn't have LIVE! to learn from and compete with would they even be as far along as they are now? P'raps, p'raps not, I'd say not. So MS pioneered, and still dominates the online console service. MS has also raised cultural awareness of videogames as something more than the sum of their code. With Halo especially...not only has it showed up the movie industry...twice...they have also supported the genesis of a new art form, machinima.
Sony deserves what it gets. I don't think utter failure is in their future, but they're lucky they have all that brand loyalty and Japaneese xenophobia to fall back on, or they'd be in worse shape, and deservedly so.
If you're going to give Sony full altruism credit for the losses incurred with the PS3, then you must exend the same to MS' cumulative losses to date. Personally I don't feel the need to do either, they both spent the money for reasons of their own, and I doubt very much if altruism had much to do with either. Both want to be the dominant force in your living room, both think its worth the money they are spending to achieve this aim. Of the two, I prefer MS...Sony's products lose functionality as features are not supported, then dropped to save money. MS has made mistakes as well...but their products gain functionality, rather than lose it. I have no reason to believe the PS3 won't work out the same way...what will be missing on the PSThree? What current PS3 features will no longer be supported in the next generation of games? Only time will tell...
more comments below our sponsor's message
OMEn 30 Oct 2007 00:15
3/7
ps3 will rise,u'll see
realvictory 30 Oct 2007 13:57
4/7
PreciousRoi wrote:
Wow...nice apologia...guess it also applies to MS and all the fiscal losses Xbox division has posted. But who am I kidding? WHO ARE YOU KIDDING? Sony is posting a loss now, fine, but lets not make them into financial martyrs sacrificing their bottom line for the sake of gamers everywhere. Thats just stupid and asinine.
Anyone who sacrifices money on games gets praise from me. Being loyal to a single company is what is stupid. What I don't get, though, is why someone can't tell me why they like Microsoft so much, apart from Microsoft's online service, and the fact that they own an XBox. Oh, and Halo, which (a) was made before Microsoft bought Bungie, and (b) is not innovative - it has high production values, which is not unique to Microsoft, thanks.
Will gamers benefit if Sony succeeds in their ambitions? P'raps, p'raps not...I know Sony will be happy, but will we? The fact is Sony is doing the same thing MS has been doing, and for the selfsame reason. They are trading money now for market position later. Their ambition is a dominant market position, their ideal is a Sony dominated home electronics landscape. A 10-year console, not for your benefit, rather so once you buy it, you don't even think about straying from the fold.
Um, maybe, but that's business. The way I look at it, on the other hand, is if I have a good reason to buy one rather than the other, I will, and if I have a good reason to buy both, I will.
They still have the only mature online service.
How did I know you would say that. Now give me another thing: a hard drive - big deal. Give me 5 significant things.
duh, what does games being 'cool' (I assume you mean popular, or mainstream) have to do with anything?
I don't do things just because they're popular, I do things because I see value in them.
MS has achieved almost everything Sony had achieved in the same relative point in their lifecycles in the console biz. Except MS had a harder row to hoe, since they had to start against Sony in their prime. Saying that MS hasn't achieved that much is total bullshit. MS has done more for ALL gamers than Sony has recently, perhaps at all. Look at the late-to-the-party PSN...if they didn't have LIVE! to learn from and compete with would they even be as far along as they are now? P'raps, p'raps not, I'd say not. So MS pioneered, and still dominates the online console service. MS has also raised cultural awareness of videogames as something more than the sum of their code. With Halo especially...not only has it showed up the movie industry...twice...they have also supported the genesis of a new art form, machinima.
Live, Live, Live... does that warrant a new console? Microsoft had more money to throw away when they started, and they totally bombed. Luckily they had more money to spend. Plus the original XBox wasn't invented from scratch, it was based on the success of previous consoles, which isn't that hard to follow provided you can afford to bear the risks of getting things wrong every so often.
Sony deserves what it gets. I don't think utter failure is in their future, but they're lucky they have all that brand loyalty and Japaneese xenophobia to fall back on, or they'd be in worse shape, and deservedly so.
In some ways, this is true, but I don't want them to fail yet, basically.
If you're going to give Sony full altruism credit for the losses incurred with the PS3, then you must exend the same to MS' cumulative losses to date. Personally I don't feel the need to do either, they both spent the money for reasons of their own, and I doubt very much if altruism had much to do with either. Both want to be the dominant force in your living room, both think its worth the money they are spending to achieve this aim. Of the two, I prefer MS...Sony's products lose functionality as features are not supported, then dropped to save money. MS has made mistakes as well...but their products gain functionality, rather than lose it. I have no reason to believe the PS3 won't work out the same way...what will be missing on the PSThree? What current PS3 features will no longer be supported in the next generation of games? Only time will tell...
Why do they gain functionality? This is the exact point.
The PS3 began with all the functionality, but people didn't want it, so they removed it - now people compain about the lack of functionality. That is taking a risk, being innovative, having an ideal. The PS3 didn't begin with basic functionality, it began with the functionality that is benefitial, whether it's currently essential or not, whether people currently want it or not. In the same way, games themselves aren't essential, they aren't a business, they are just entertainment.
The Xbox, on the other hand, is generic apart from Live.
Slipstream BRO 30 Oct 2007 15:32
5/7
realvictory wrote:
Microsoft have achieved success (finally), but what else? What have they actually done that's new, why do they deserve my money?
Microsoft deserve credit for what they've achieved - but they still haven't achieved that much. But Sony don't deserve to fail, especially when they have ambitions that will benefit you if they succeed.
Oh so a successful online component means nothing to you? That is a bit closed minded. Not only have they begun the digital distribution and allowed streaming from your pc, but they constantly offer new content to keep the consumer informed and interactive with upcoming products. I don't see Sony, or nintendo making their upcoming products (much less other forms of media) available at the same rate and level of proficiency that Microsoft has.
All the journalists that hate on the xbox hate on it specifically because they are owned by Microsoft. That is quite the shame in my opinion. Microsoft might not always make the best decisions, but their xbox team has almost always listened to it's community and improved upon the requests that they make. I don't think either Sony or Nintendo can really be credited with that achievement (oh pardon the pun).
realvictory 1 Nov 2007 00:09
6/7
Slipstream BRO wrote:
realvictory wrote:
Oh so a successful online component means nothing to you? That is a bit closed minded. Not only have they begun the digital distribution and allowed streaming from your pc, but they constantly offer new content to keep the consumer informed and interactive with upcoming products. I don't see Sony, or nintendo making their upcoming products (much less other forms of media) available at the same rate and level of proficiency that Microsoft has.
All the journalists that hate on the xbox hate on it specifically because they are owned by Microsoft. That is quite the shame in my opinion. Microsoft might not always make the best decisions, but their xbox team has almost always listened to it's community and improved upon the requests that they make. I don't think either Sony or Nintendo can really be credited with that achievement (oh pardon the pun).
Good points, and I agree with that. But, I wouldn't say Live alone is good enough to deserve its own console for, in the same vein as the others - but no one stopped them doing it, and they did it, so fair play to them.
Listening to the community is an excellent thing, which I respect, but at the same time, as the creators of entertainment, I believe it's their responsibility to innovate as well - hence why I think that people give them too much credit where it isn't due. There's only so much you can say about Live, until I get sick of hearing about it, and it puts me off it altogether. Again, that's business.
Still, in terms of Sony - yes, Microsoft achieved (excluding innovation, apart from Live) - but they only did what's been done before. And I won't accept that Microsoft get credit for what Sony (and a bunch of other people) have done before. So don't try to tell me that the World would be much different without the XBox, because apart from Live, it wouldn't. That's not me trying to bash Microsoft, it's an analysis of the game industry as a whole. I'm not ignoring the fact that Microsoft also invested a lot of money into games either, which I do respect.
PreciousRoi 1 Nov 2007 01:11
7/7
You place far too much emphasis on innovation. Far too much. Much of what is lauded as innovation is illusory in nature in any event. The rule seems to be, "first person to make it popular gets credit for inventing it". Thus, Nintendo gets credit for a lot of things they copied from something or someone else. I don't really think that gamers, in general, care about innovation for its own sake, nor should they. They just want enjoyable gameplay. Wether that entails some apparently novel approach, or polishing up some tried and true (some might say tired and old) model is less important than doing it right.
I don't think the importance of online play can be overemphasised. This, more than anything else marks a watershed moment in gaming. I also forgot the other area where MS hs been ahead of the curve, HD. It wasn't until the PS3 that Sony answered, and their clear advantage of sole possession of HDMI was relatively short-lived. MS, Live! and the original Xbox were the driving force for this generation, they defined the questions, and thus far have provided the best answer.
I'm racking my brain trying to think of one area where the PS2 was innovative, but I can't come up with one, aside from gadgety peripherals...
Also, are you pro-rating Sony's investment in games in consideration that it is also an investment in a media war?
I don't think the importance of online play can be overemphasised. This, more than anything else marks a watershed moment in gaming. I also forgot the other area where MS hs been ahead of the curve, HD. It wasn't until the PS3 that Sony answered, and their clear advantage of sole possession of HDMI was relatively short-lived. MS, Live! and the original Xbox were the driving force for this generation, they defined the questions, and thus far have provided the best answer.
I'm racking my brain trying to think of one area where the PS2 was innovative, but I can't come up with one, aside from gadgety peripherals...
Also, are you pro-rating Sony's investment in games in consideration that it is also an investment in a media war?