Non portable Vita, WTF? Vita Console what?

[SignOfZeta]

nah, netflix is in control of that stuff, from what i understand; tracks via your IP or something.
vita and psp games are both region free, i think.

don't really see a problem w/ importing, but it WOULD be a pain to have to go to that trouble.

What trouble? You put your credit card into the computer and the mailman brings it to you, same as a US version.

[TheClash603]

nah, netflix is in control of that stuff, from what i understand; tracks via your IP or something.
vita and psp games are both region free, i think.

don't really see a problem w/ importing, but it WOULD be a pain to have to go to that trouble.

What trouble? You put your credit card into the computer and the mailman brings it to you, same as a US version.

Someone else should be the guinea pig and report on how well this works.  If it is really this easy, I will be all over importing.

things like access to my current content on PSN concern me.

[SignOfZeta]

I don't see any reason why it would behave differently than a regular Vita, and thousands of people play imports on that, including myself.

Basically, if you are playing cards there is no difference in region for the hardware.

With all the PSN stuff, including promo codes that give you rainbow colored M16s and shit, they are region locked. Switching between regions requires that you have an additional memory card and when you want to switch stores you have to change memory cards and do a system reset. It's a pain, much worse than PS3, but not a big deal.

[munchiaz]

I had an issue using netflix on my Japanese PS3. It only worked when you had to use the dvd before the app came out. Once i updated to the app it stopped working due to different region

[SignOfZeta]

What region was your PSN account in?

[Nazi NecroPhile]

Yeah...last year. With a very mature 360 and most of their losses from development and advertising written off in previous years. Looking at the entire history of the XBox brand I'm pretty sure they are still in the hole. They spent over $2B in advertising alone on the original Xbox in the first year.

It's true that they're "in the hole" over all when comparing expenditures to revenue, but that foolishly ignores the value of the brand they've built, game franchises, and studios created/purchased (i.e. - if you spend $200,000 on a house, would you say you "lost" $200,000?).  But anyways, your point was that nobody can make money on console games nowadays and that's just not true; MS has turned a profit for six years running, even with the boat anchors of zune, windows phone, and surface.

2013 - $848m
2012 - $364m
2011 - $1324m
2010 - $679m
2009 - $169m
2008 - $426m
2007 - ($1892m)
2006 - ($1262m)
2005 - ($391m)
2004 - ($1215m)
2003 - ($924m)
2002 - ($874m)
2001 - (~$900m) *

* - The links for 2001's annual reports don't work, but the overall numbers for 2001's revenues and expenditures shown in 2002's report are similar to those in 2003 and 2002, so it's probably a safe bet that that year's loss in in the same neighborhood.

[Arkhan Asylum]

What trouble? You put your credit card into the computer and the mailman brings it to you, same as a US version.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130624173725AA3Wpil

[TheClash603]

Interesting NecroPhile, but Zeta made a good point earlier with the sale of Sony's HQ.

In a former job I worked as a financial analyst and the net income line of a financial statement is essentially worthless.  That number can be manipulated in a ton of ways.

You need to open up the 10k and take a look at the statement of cash flow, that is much more truth than any income statement or balance sheet will ever show.

[SignOfZeta]

Yeah...last year. With a very mature 360 and most of their losses from development and advertising written off in previous years. Looking at the entire history of the XBox brand I'm pretty sure they are still in the hole. They spent over $2B in advertising alone on the original Xbox in the first year.

It's true that they're "in the hole" over all when comparing expenditures to revenue, but that foolishly ignores the value of the brand they've built, game franchises, and studios created/purchased (i.e. - if you spend $200,000 on a house, would you say you "lost" $200,000?).  But anyways, your point was that nobody can make money on console games nowadays and that's just not true; MS has turned a profit for six years running, even with the boat anchors of zune, windows phone, and surface.

2013 - $848m
2012 - $364m
2011 - $1324m
2010 - $679m
2009 - $169m
2008 - $426m
2007 - ($1892m)
2006 - ($1262m)
2005 - ($391m)
2004 - ($1215m)
2003 - ($924m)
2002 - ($874m)
2001 - (~$900m) *

* - The links for 2001's annual reports don't work, but the overall numbers for 2001's revenues and expenditures shown in 2002's report are similar to those in 2003 and 2002, so it's probably a safe bet that that year's loss in in the same neighborhood.

I don't get it. Are you saying those numbers are actually not totally horrible? I wouldn't invest my money in anything that did that poorly. After more than a DECADE in the business they are still BILLIONS in the hole. If this is success, what does failure look like? Nobody even had a clue it was possible to lose this much money in the games industry until MS showed us how it's done!

If Xbox was its own company it would have gone straight the fuck out of business before the 360 was released. Sega lost half a billion for a couple of years and it basically destroyed the company. MS loses this much in a quarter and somehow they are doing well?

Meanwhile Nintendo makes $100M profit of one Pokemon game and somehow they are failing or "in trouble" or whatever.

The whole thing makes no sense.

[munchiaz]

What region was your PSN account in?

My PSN account was US region

[Nazi NecroPhile]

I don't get it. Are you saying those numbers are actually not totally horrible?

I'm saying 6+ year old numbers are irrelevant to whether or not anyone can make money selling games today.  MS has consistently made money for six years now (and Nintendo's been doing it forever minus one bad year), so selling hardware/software can be profitable.

I wouldn't invest my money in anything that did that poorly. After more than a DECADE in the business they are still BILLIONS in the hole.

For the sake of argument, let's say the numbers are reversed: they've lost $4 billion over the last six years but are still $3 billion in the black.  Would you invest in a company that's losing money hand over fist because they were once profitable and aren't broke yet?  Of course not.

If Xbox was its own company it would have gone straight the fuck out of business before the 360 was released. Sega lost half a billion for a couple of years and it basically destroyed the company. MS loses this much in a quarter and somehow they are doing well?

I'd say they were in deep shit if this were 2007, but it's 2013 and no intelligent person would say hundreds of millions in yearly profits is 'doing poorly'.

[SignOfZeta]

Your thinking is shallow.

That money they lost years back is still lost. MS isn't Amazon or whoever, they had those billions in actual cash reserves. They could have invested it someplace where it at least maintained its value. They could have invested it back into Windows and maybe that revenue stream wouldn't be drying up right now. You're way too obsessed with the 360 era, and just because a loss from one year isn't on the books anymore doesn't mean it never happened. Those are billions of real dollars they lost back then, real money that will never come back. Money they can't spend now. If they didn't have it in cash, if it was actual debt, they'd still be paying interest on it. Still paying off a $500M Taco Bell campaign from 2002.

MS is worth less now that it would have been if they just never gotten into the games business. They shifting their focus from highly profitable stuff to stuff that can only lose money for them.

Also, profit from the first two years of the XBone is impossible and MS is promising the biggest launch of all time...on a system that loses money...so...translation: the biggest launch day loss in history and losts more big numbers in parenthesis. Big ones.

Also, you're kinda straw man-ing me right now. I didn't say profit in games was impossible. Nintendo does quite well. What I'm saying is that I don't see why anyone would actually enter the game business as a top tier rival right now. Like, Sega for example. If Sega decided to make a Dreamcast 2 it would destroy the company. Period. It doesn't matter how popular it would be because to compete today you are required to develops a highly customized machine and basically give it to the customer at a $200+ loss. Then you hope they buy enought $60 games before the system gets cracked to pay for itself. It's a big business revenue-wise, but there is very very little money to go around.

[DragonmasterDan]

I'd say they were in deep shit if this were 2007, but it's 2013 and no intelligent person would say hundreds of millions in yearly profits is 'doing poorly'.

They've made a successful business out of it, but the initial investment of twenty-ish billion dollars lost on the original generation Xbox, acquisitions and other things relating to that still has not been returned on the Xbox brand alone. In that sense, Zeta is right. They're worse off than if they never entered the game business. Now whether or not if they were to sell the entire business they have now to another company based on the "brand value" they've created and break even or even make a profit is an entirely different matter and would largely be dependent on if they sold that business in pieces or found a motivated enough buyer.
 
Added in edit: One other key component here is Microsoft very much wanted to be in the set top box business believing game consoles and web based applications to be a legitimate threat to their at the time Windows monopoly. Whether or not the Xbox was of any benefit to them in this regard or not is hard to determine.

[Nando]

So....

has anyone read any reviews about Vita TV from the other side of the pond?

[Nazi NecroPhile]

That money they lost years back is still lost.....MS is worth less now that it would have been if they just never gotten into the games business.  They shifting their focus from highly profitable stuff to stuff that can only lose money for them.

Maybe so - I've made no argument either way.  The fact is that it is profitable for them right now and I don't have access to your crystal ball to tell me that it'll never be profitable enough to pay off the start up costs.  But I suppose we all know that only the almighty Nintendo can be profitable!!!

Also, you're kinda straw man-ing me right now. I didn't say profit in games was impossible.

Then what does this mean: "the division they [Sony] lose money on the least is the games division, and there is basically zero money, negative money, really, in top-tier hardware development and 1st party-ness"?  If it's possible for MS and Nintendo to be profitable, why not Sony?

[SignOfZeta]

But it ISN"T profitable right now. Profits from this year are only possible because of all the shit they've built up with massive losses. The years where they lost $2B were the years they were developing the 360. You can't just...have...a console, you have to make it, market it, etc, and those costs are higher than any money they are brining in. The XB didn't pay for itself during its era. The 360 didn't either. The new one...well...I doubt it. I'm pretty sure they are just trying to Cold War Sony into bankruptcy...which is some sort of strategy, but will the market be worth owning once they have it? I mean, why would you want a significant market share in a market where there is no profit? I've said this before, but GM was number one in car sales world wide when they went bankrupt...the biggest bankruptcy in history.

If I take out credit cards everywhere I can, max them, have brain surgery with no health coverage, and then go get a 15 hour a week at 7-11 to get a $87 paycheck I can't say "Look! I'm in the black! $87! I'll still have $25 after I put gas in my car!". That's basically what you are saying works...it doesn't work in anything but the shortest of terms. Its golden parachute thinking, completely unsustainable.

The old model was spend $200M developing a new version of Windows, sell hundreds of millions of copies of it on $1 CDs with MSRPs of $60-300. This leads to MAJOR profit.

The new model is spend ten times that much on hardware and sell it at a %200 loss. HUGE loss.

Sony's problems are different. MS is losing money on the games business hand over fist, Sony on the other hand is making money on games (kinda) but losing money on almost everything else. Also: they are VERY recalcitrant to do anything logical and STILL can't develop an actual business strategy. After all that stuff I said about how the Vita could be the Apple TV Sony needs to keep the PS brand in people's minds all day...they just went ahead and announced this new set top box...that only works on Sony TVs...a market they are a distant 3rd in, slipping every day, and have lost money in 7 quarters in a row.

MS could cut the games division free and be the next IBM (in theory). Sony is just a fucking mess. They are losing share everywhere from their main business. Kids today don't even know what a Walkman is and all the TVs most people are buying are from Korea. Sony, if anything, needs to spin the games division off so that the rest of the company can go bankrupt without killing the entire thing. Its the opposite situation of MS.

[geise]

[munchiaz]

LMAO

[Nando]

Review of the system

http://kotaku.com/checking-out-the-ps-vita-tv-1346565564

"In retrospect, I find myself wishing that Sony had released the Vita TV first, before they released the PS Vita. Handling the Vita TV makes me appreciate just how much potential the PS Vita has. If you're on the fence about getting a PS Vita, try handling a Vita TV and it'll make your mind for you."

[Nazi NecroPhile]

I mean, why would you want a significant market share in a market where there is no profit?

This sums up your entire argument, no matter what evidence is given to the contrary.  Straw man indeed.

If I take out credit cards everywhere I can, max them, have brain surgery with no health coverage, and then go get a 15 hour a week at 7-11 to get a $87 paycheck I can't say "Look! I'm in the black! $87! I'll still have $25 after I put gas in my car!". That's basically what you are saying works...it doesn't work in anything but the shortest of terms. Its golden parachute thinking, completely unsustainable.

That's gotta be your most inept analogy yet, and that's saying something. 

Contrary to your short-bus math, the 360 has been profitable during its time; admittedly not enough to completely offset losses incurred during the xbox's reign, but at least it hasn't lost money hand over fist (as the xbox did) and has even made enough to offset xbone development costs thus far.  The xbone might make enough to cover all previous losses, or it might be a sales flop, have a rrod fiasco, or bankrupt MS with invasion of privacy lawsuits when Kinect gains sentience and starts taking pics of people in their underwear and posting them on the internet.  Unlike you, I'm open to possibilities and not filled with certain doom.

Review of the system.

I don't get why he thinks this should've been out before the Vita itself; the only thing a console-only Vita would have going for it over a PS3 is cost.  What would be the point?

Though I have no real interest in getting a PS4 and want one mainly for games like Ys, it's good to know the PS4 streaming worked well.  Even if lots of 'em are sold to peeps with no intentions of playing Vita games, the increased installed base should help lure devs and you know at least some of those buyers will eventually find a few Vita games that interest them.

[ParanoiaDragon]

Falcom is working on PS4 games, so, you never know.  We might get some big Ys titles for PS4 for all we know.  That right there would sell me on a PS4!

[SignOfZeta]

Falcom games are not a reason to buy a new system, IMO. As much as I like Falcon their stuff usually looks about 2 generations old.

[Bloody Wolf]

i got me a pre order for YS for Vita....first game that actually interested me and i don't even have a Vita.. hahahah!

Falcom games are not a reason to buy a new system, IMO. As much as I like Falcon their stuff usually looks about 2 generations old.

[Nando]

So how many games does a gaming system need to have in order to make it a worth while investment?

*rhetorical question of course.  There are now about 5 or so Vita games that peak my attention. The system is becoming more attractive.

[jlued686]

I'll probably get a Vita sometime early next year. Hell, Persona 4 Golden was almost enough to make me bite. But once Ys hits, it's going to be harder for me to resist. Plus, I've got a launch PS4 on order, and the Vita's going to be a nice companion.

Also: it's piqued. ;)

[Nando]

I'll probably get a Vita sometime early next year. Hell, Persona 4 Golden was almost enough to make me bite. But once Ys hits, it's going to be harder for me to resist. Plus, I've got a launch PS4 on order, and the Vita's going to be a nice companion.

Also: it's piqued. ;)

I stand corrected.  Persona 4 is high on my list!