You wouldn't make this argument about Disney, they're based on IP too, but Mario is more well known than Mickey Mouse.
That's a horrible analogy. Disney has IP across very different markets AND has physical assets (resort properties, amusement parks), television stations, and on and on.
Quote:
Sure, you can say that Sony has more hard assets and participates in more markets, but that actually ends up working against them in the valuation calculation.
Stock valuation is often based on nothing more than the irrational desire of people to own a stock, despite the underlying fundamentals.
Now, Nintendo is doing well, so there are good fundamentals, but many stocks have reached stratospheric prices in the past (think Google, and many innumerable others) and surpassed far more stable blue-chip companies in market capitalization, only to stumble later.
Quote:
Rather, it's the fact that Nintendo is stupidly profitable with fewer hard assets that makes it so very valuable in terms of market cap.
Their specialization is a strength and a potential weakness. If one of their core products (handheld gaming device, home gaming device) struggles, they suffer company-wide.
Blessing and a curse.
Quote:
Truth is, intellectual property based companies can be simply more profitable in general than hard-asset based companies.
True.
Quote:
Wasn't too long ago that Sony's gaming division profits were literally keeping the company afloat. That's one major reason why they gambled such huge figures on the PS3, they didn't want to even imagine not continuing to be the dominant market figure.
True.
Quote:
Nintendo might actually be willing to sell a console at cost (or loss even) and put some cutting edge kit in there
I doubt it, but I'd love to be wrong on that one. I love my DS Lites (x4) and DSi (x1), and will buy a DSi XL as well. Despite that, in my view they're just quite conservative in their hardware choices. They're not taking substantial risks. No, I do NOT consider the Wii much of a risk, either at launch or now, nor do I see the DSi XL as much of a risk, either.
Edit: And don't tell me that DSiWare is a risk. Sony is taking the risk on that front, with the PSPGo. The DSi digital offerings have been pathetic pieces of mini-games, for the most part. Nor is the Virtual Console a risk. Selling ROMs is pure profit, and money-grubbing at that. Nor are friend codes a risk...they're a hedge against it.
You have to give me the conceptual risk of a complete paradigm break embodied by the Wiimote, though. That's what people are talking about. If that had failed, the console as a whole fails. Nothing Sony put forth matched that level of risk where the whole enterprise collapses if one feature doesn't fly. Sony even killed their own redesigned controller after a pittance of outrage, despite knowing people who tried it liked it better than the dual-shock craptacular controller. Similarly, there was no chance of people rejecting Bluray in a way that would mean the PS3 itself failed as a whole.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
Hehe, umm, not sure how, you're supporting my point, it seems. You found an obscure link that suggests the word proprietary is ok to use in this context, not exactingly compelling. By your definition, practically every part of every console is proprietary, but your definition is not the common one, and I think you know that. When a company says it developed a game with a proprietary engine, they don't mean 'it's owned by some people somewhere', they mean it's owned by them. I think you thought it was owned by Sony, because they were the biggest proponents of it, common mistake, it seems, but when looking into it couldn't find more than what you linked, and are now back-pedaling. Calling the Memory Stick a proprietary format is fair, and commonly accepted, as well as the formats used for game discs in each console, and their online systems, for instance. But the vast majority of the world do not call DVDs a proprietary format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan
I don't blame them a bit, since they've made out very well over it, but their product is not innovative.
Hehe, umm, not sure how, you're supporting my point, it seems. You found an obscure link that suggests the word proprietary is ok to use in this context, not exactingly compelling.
You don't know when to cut your losses, do you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMan
Perhaps if you say it enough, BR will become proprietary (kinda doubt it, but facts don't seem to stop you).
In fact, there are multiple different proprietary technologies involved in Blu-ray, including the disc coating.
You are the only person who doesn't seem to understand the term 'proprietary.'
Quote:
By your definition, practically every part of every console is proprietary,
Does it never end with you? Do you realize why publishers pay a licensing fee on their software releases for consoles? Consoles are proprietary platforms; closed, proprietary platforms.
Do you realize why MS dropped the Xbox like a hot potato? One reason is related to the tech inside, which was proprietary (licensed) and they didn't own it.
Stop before you remove any doubt of your ignorance. :shakes head:
Quote:
When a company says it developed a game with a proprietary engine, they don't mean 'it's owned by some people somewhere', they mean it's owned by them.
NO, it does not. It means it is either owned by them, or licensed from elsewhere. Get your shit straight.
Quote:
I think you thought it was owned by Sony,
It's a consortium, you boob. Sony is one member.
Quote:
But the vast majority of the world do not call DVDs a proprietary format.
Do you know why the original Xbox did not come with out-of-the-box DVD capabilities, and you had to buy a remote with an adapter? Licensing fees for the proprietary DVD format. MS didn't want to pay it for each and every Xbox, so they sold it separately, which was cheap but a good fiscal decision.
It's not proprietary in the sense that it's owned by a single company, but is proprietary in the sense that it's owned by a conglomerate. Sony doesn't own Bluray, that we know for sure. Rather they're part of a coalition of companies that put together a group which collectively owns the standard. DVD was the same way.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
In that scenario, the PS3 would be the lottery ticket (untested BR-drive in the face of HD-DVD competition, cutting edge hardware, high cost of manufacture + high price point for consumers), and the Wii would be the gold (low cost of manufacture, older streamlined hardware, profitable price point from day one).
I was just responding to a weird scenario, I don't think the lottery ticket/gold comparison works for either of these companies. But again, it seems continually that you guys think risk is all about how much money you put in, compared to how things worked out. Your assumption is that they knew how much everything was going to cost them when they decided what the PS3 would be, and I seriously doubt that was the case (most wouldn't describe someone as 'taking a risk' just because they were ignorant of the dangers/future). I'd imagine that a year or two before release they'd have a very good idea, but that'd be way after the decisions had been made. As I've said, it seems clear to me the basic strategy of the PS3 was do what made the PS2 work, and I do not think BR was a big risk, it's competition didn't have the industry backing, which seemed clear pretty early on.
All three of them risked their time, reputations, and their future on these consoles, as they often do. Nintendo, however, did it by dramatically rethinking the player's experience, and how to appeal to people, rather than just updating last gen's designs. There was no recent historical roadmap telling Nintendo what the obvious path was. MS and Sony's extra sacks of cash do not automatically eliminate all other risks just because they're fat sacks of cash, if that's what you guys wanna think, then knock yourselves out. I'm sure Coke spends over a billion dollars a year marketing their product, but few would call marketing Coke a risky proposition because of that (well, rabid Coke enthusiasts, maybe ).
It's not proprietary in the sense that it's owned by a single company, but is proprietary in the sense that it's owned by a conglomerate.
If it's a sole proprietorship, one would state so. If it's a shared proprietorship, one would state so. Proprietary technologies often have complicated licensing arrangements within and among consortiums and corporations.
Blu-ray is a proprietary technology controlled by a consortium, with several proprietary technologies on the actual discs themselves (the coating is proprietary, for example).
It's not a difficult term, unless you're stupid or stubborn...or both.
You are the only person who doesn't seem to understand the term 'proprietary.'
Is that right? So, by your definition, what precisely is NOT proprietary in these systems? Cause it seems when you use the term proprietary, we should just filter it out, because it means anything currently owned, or licensed from, anyone.
Again, most would not say the PS2 launched with a proprietary video format, you are in fact the first person I've seen say that. Most know there is a context involved, and the word proprietary is related to the relationship between the product and the format. Your definition is anything that requires any technology that is not public domain is defined as proprietary in any context. Sorry, no sale, you can throw whatever juvenile insults makes you feel warm inside, but I do not live in your world where that language usage is common, and don't choose to.
Sony had a reasonable expectation that they'd experience the same or better returns they were getting with the PS2, and their entire PS3 strategy was designed to blow away all remaining competition and make it impossible for anyone to compete with them. Pure hubris. Of course, 'hubris' is Kutaragi's middle name. Sony's bean counters did all the calculations. They were sure they would win. Bluray would seal the deal, just as DVD had with the PS2. Or so they thought. Frankly it's hilarious how badly that blew up in their face. One of the great business blunders of the century.
One factor few take into account is that it is precisely because Sony has so many other areas of manufacturing and income sources that Sony can just as easily drop out of game production as drop in. If Sony leaves the console business they can still continue to operate as a company. If their next console bombs too, that may be game over for them. Sony isn't exactly the top notch manufacturer it used to be. PS3 nearly sank the company. Another bomb like that and their management may simply walk away. They have no loyalty to the industry. May as well cut their games division free and let it float as an independent. Then they'd be playing in Nintendo's world. Gotta give props to Nintendo, the only one not using profits from other divisions not related to gaming to stay alive in the marketplace. There's a lot to admire about Nintendo from a purely business perspective.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
Your definition is anything that requires any technology that is not public domain is defined as proprietary in any context.
Fool. When you pay a licensing fee, it's proprietary technology. As I already stated, the original Xbox didn't include DVD out of the box to save on that licensing fee. You had to buy the remote and adapter separately, because of the fee MS wanted to avoid.
Paying a licensing fee? You're using someone else's proprietary technology.
Receiving a licensing fee? Someone else is using your proprietary technology.
Quote:
I do not live in your world where that language usage is common, and don't choose to.
Then carry on an "uncommon" conversation with yourself. A stupid one. Anyone with any sense can see you are clueless on the merits.
Didn't the PS3 DVD functionality require the purchase of a remote also, which included the $20 fee to the DVD forum? Either that or Sony paid the $20 fee as part of the price of each PS2. Either way, people were paying the fee.
And, Johan, I wish you'd cut people some slack when you argue with them. You really just discredit yourself by ad hominem attacks, even if you're right on the merits.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
And, Johan, I wish you'd cut people some slack when you argue with them. You really just discredit yourself by ad hominem attacks, even if you're right on the merits.
I have NO patience for stubborn stupid trolls who refuse to recognize reality.
None.
He's wrong, and should shut up or admit it. Either one.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
Didn't the PS3 DVD functionality require the purchase of a remote also, which included the $20 fee to the DVD forum? Either that or Sony paid the $20 fee as part of the price of each PS2. Either way, people were paying the fee.
There was no DVD remote for the PS3 that I had (60 gig). It still comes with DVD-upscaling and Blu-ray support right outta the box, unless something has changed with the newer models.
Considering the lower price tag of the Slim, the risky gamble (or "hubris" as you call it) of loading the PS3 with cutting-edge features seems to be finally paying off after 3 years on the market.
Compare Sony's situation (growing towards a realistically viable '10-year-lifespan' with growing consumer demand) with Nintendo's (Wii has received a negative reputation from the 'hardcore' crowd, sales are declining, and the President is taking the blame in public statements). Nintendo pretty much has to rush on a new console if they don't want to lose any more ground to MS/Sony, whereas the 360/PS3 have probably half a decade left in their lifespans at least.
For instance, if I say 'your baby has a massive head' (which is considered rude by some, BTW), most people wouldn't argue or assume I mean compared to an average sized adult head, or an elephant head, etc., they know that in context the word massive is related to baby head sizes.
Again, I think you do get it. When describing the differences between the PS3 and PS2, you chose 'proprietary HD format', now, the HD had clear meaning and significance, but now you're suggesting that you meant nothing by saying proprietary. That you knew proprietary did not signify a difference, and you were just listing one of the many known attributes of all gaming consoles (why not say 'containing plastic'). No, you are just trying to pull words out of context, so that there is some way you can be technically right. If you think you're right, or that that even means alot, then think it, and move on, I just do not believe you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeeCakes
Compare Sony's situation (growing towards a realistically viable '10-year-lifespan' with growing consumer demand) with Nintendo's (Wii has received a negative reputation from the 'hardcore' crowd, sales are declining, and the President is taking the blame in public statements). Nintendo pretty much has to rush on a new console if they don't want to lose any more ground to MS/Sony, whereas the 360/PS3 have probably half a decade left in their lifespans at least.
Umm, you might wanna take a look at those numbers again. You seem to be looking at the bright side for Sony since their price cut, and completely ignoring all of last month since Nintendo's price cut. Neither company came close to Wii sales last month, and the Wii's weekly sales seem to be going up, instead of down, since the price cut. I'd agree that Sony's future is looking brighter, but you'd definitely wanna leave the Wii out of your arguments.
Without a doubt, Nintendo has the possibility of destroying Sony's comeback if they get an HD Wii out within, say, 1.5 years. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony passes the Wii next year in monthly sales, but unless they get a real jump on them, it could get ugly for Sony if HD-Wii comes in 2010/11 and the Wii still has a heavy lead. Cause then you have a bunch of new purchases and gifted Wiis, it's definitely the DS-Lite strategy, IMO.
So, I see you did not answer the 'what is NOT proprietary' question, not surprisingly.
Got those "can't read/comprehend worth a shit" glasses on again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan
Paying a licensing fee? You're using someone else's proprietary technology.
Receiving a licensing fee? Someone else is using your proprietary technology.
Now, if you want a list of every single component in a particular console, detailing which ones are licensed by the manufacturer (with fees paid to the holder of the rights to that proprietary technology), which components are proprietary technology whose rights are held by the manufacturer (therefore no fees necessary, despite being proprietary technology), and which ones are off-the-shelf components requiring no licensing fees, then I suggest you contact the particular manufacturer.
Of course, that would necessitate a basic ability to absorb information, process and comprehend that information, and then modify your thinking to correspond to reality. You don't display any of these qualities.
Quote:
For instance, if I say 'your baby has a massive head' (which is considered rude by some, BTW), most people wouldn't argue or assume I mean compared to an average sized adult head, or an elephant head, etc., they know that in context the word massive is related to baby head sizes.
LOL! WTF?
Quote:
Again, I think you do get it.
One of us does. I'll leave it to others to determine which one.
Memories:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMan
Perhaps if you say it enough, BR will become proprietary (kinda doubt it, but facts don't seem to stop you).
In fact, there are multiple different proprietary technologies involved in Blu-ray, including the disc coating.
You are the only person who doesn't seem to understand the term 'proprietary.'
Quote:
But the vast majority of the world do not call DVDs a proprietary format.
Do you know why the original Xbox did not come with out-of-the-box DVD capabilities, and you had to buy a remote with an adapter? Licensing fees for the proprietary DVD format. MS didn't want to pay it for each and every Xbox, so they sold it separately, which was cheap but a good fiscal decision.
DVD is a proprietary technology.
Blu-ray is a proprietary technology.
Now, if you want a list of every single component in a particular console, detailing which ones are licensed by the manufacturer (with fees paid to the holder of the rights to that proprietary technology), which components are proprietary technology whose rights are held by the manufacturer (therefore no fees necessary, despite being proprietary technology), and which ones are off-the-shelf components requiring no licensing fees, then I suggest you contact the particular manufacturer.
Umm, dude, you haven't listed one! Your definition of proprietary is entirely inclusive for every tech feature I can think of, and seemingly, you too. Just like the word 'massive' would technically apply to all physical objects, since they technically have mass, if context didn't matter, and meaningful statements weren't desired.
Notice how much more of a percentage leap the PS3 price cut shows than the Wii price cut. Also notice the sustained increase in PS3 sales, up from a pathetic 74K units to a steady ~200K every month.
I highly doubt the Wii will ever be able to match Sony's PS3 revenue again (they'd need to outsell the PS3 almost 3:1 for that to happen, btw). Aside from the price-cut + holiday sales bump, there's nothing remarkable about the Wii's sales so far. Without the games, nobody's going to be buying what the Wii's trying to sell much longer as the PS3 continues to outperform it in every aspect, including market value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMan
Without a doubt, Nintendo has the possibility of destroying Sony's comeback if they get an HD Wii out within, say, 1.5 years. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony passes the Wii next year in monthly sales, but unless they get a real jump on them, it could get ugly for Sony if HD-Wii comes in 2010/11 and the Wii still has a heavy lead. Cause then you have a bunch of new purchases and gifted Wiis, it's definitely the DS-Lite strategy, IMO.
Also..not sure why people bother arguing with teecakes... I sincerely believe now that he is a bot built by Sony and unleashed on small community sites.
).
