Support NeoGAF

[spwolf]

Because, again, by virtue of Google's platform strategy they're much better off developing "Gaming for Android" or whatever themselves because they don't have a revenue stream to cut a partner in on or a way to force any new revenue partners into the Android Marketplace equation.

Once again, their platform strategy is not that at all. Partnering with Playstation brand gives them huge leverage and gaming expertise, something that they dont have.

If anything Google has shown so far that they dont care about their app store, it is their weakest link. Sales of games are reported to be 10x less than iphones due to their weird policies and badly designed app.

And dont confuse google buying one casual game developer as proof of them being able to compete in the area - how many dev studios Sony has?

Imagine Sony giving push to PSP Android and how many quality games would land there, together with indy stuff that iphone already has. Google cant do that, let alone Samsung or LG.

And google knows what their revenue is - advertising. And thats why they are doing everything they do. Ads on web, Tv's, phones, thats their business.

Dont get confused here, Sony employs 8.5x more people than Google. 7000 of those work in gaming division.

 

[Raistlin]

here here

 

[painful fart]

I'd be happy to get one if the graphics are equal to Xbox. At this day and age PSX graphics is simply unacceptable.

Yeah this device may not be aimed at the hardcore market with your high standard.

But it may sell decently if they can keep the price down. It may also not be aimed so much at the American market because it´s the weakest market of the PSP as well as the smartphone market of the US has such ridiculous subscription rates because the crappy networks can´t support more subscribers.

 

[Fredescu]

Sales of games are reported to be 10x less than iphones due to their weird policies and badly designed app.

What are those?

 

[iamaustrian]

reminds me of

 

[gofreak]

Google takes no cut from the Marketplace. That's why it's hard to cut in a partner here -- rather than being able to chop their own profits, Google would have to take money directly away from publishers or the cell networks in order to find revenue for Sony here.

I apologise, I thought Google was taking a cut somewhere in that 30%, or that it was somewhat ambiguous as to how that 30% was divvied up, at least.

Overall there's a few possibilities then, including:

1) Find wiggle room in the transaction fee and cut Sony in

2) Make this new platform separate, with its own additional cut for Sony (not good for developers :\)

3) Sony gives up claim to any cut outside their own material

1 would be the neatest solution, probably. 3 would be neat too, but awfully drastic, and hard to imagine. 2 is less neat and carries more challenges in terms of competition between platforms and so on.

I know what you're thinking about 1. However, it's handy that from the developers' point of view, the transaction fee is decoupled from the carrier fee, so there is scope for Google to negotiate carrier fees transparently and pocket the savings. And I think the issue of carrier's share is probably a matter of fairly frequent negotiation. As Android gathers momentum it's unlikely shares would be negotiated upward. If there was a new Android/Playstation platform and area of the market it could also be an opportunity to negotiate a new carrier share for content on that specific area of the market...there is a reasonably sound basis for that, the basis that the average selling price in this part of the market would be higher than what carriers saw previously. It's pretty standard when it comes to middleman transaction share for share to decrease as value increases, so Google/Sony might have a strong argument here.

Then, that Google is not interested in a share of transaction fees would only make things easier rather than representing an incompatibility. The balance of the difference between transaction fee and carrier share for this part of the market could be Sony's alone.

I'm playing advocate here...I'm just not sure this sort of route is a fundamentally impossible one due to the business models of each company or whatever.

It would also be a kind of bad idea for Google (for the same reasons that trying to redouble a PSP2 as an amazing media player and hardcore game machine would be for Sony) because it would involve trying to tackle Apple and Nintendo at the same time.

They're already all competing on one level or another and the level of competition is likely to only increase as they keep stepping on each others toes. Nintendo competes with Sony, and increasingly competes with Apple for 'casual interest' games. Sony competes with Nintendo and DEFINITELY has been competing with Apple for the affection of that gadget-savvy demographic PSP initially attracted.

Google + Sony one one device/platform vs Apple + Nintendo spread across multiple devices/platforms isn't a scenario the former should necessarily cower from.

Yes, you do have to be careful that the user understands the power of what they have in their hand - in a convergence device - vs dedicated machines. They they understand it's good for all. But I think there is a credible vehicle for communicating that to users now, in a way there wasn't before. The 'smartphone' in the mold of the iPhone, as the computer phone is gaining traction as a credible, comprehensive, go-to device.

Well, the amount of future content generated by the PSP itself is fundamentally limited at this point. One way or another, the time left in the system's lifespan now is not very long. And if the regular PSP is dead, it doesn't particularly make sense to make "PSP" software for a phone instead of just "regular" software.

The time left in the platform's lifespan would be extended indefinitely by a move like this.

 

[Bit-Bit]

Please god let this phone be true.

 

[jonnybryce]

I don't know, there's a lot of strong opinions in this thread.

Google will become heavily involved in development of apps or hardware if the players are big enough or they see value there. It's not unreasonable to see them working closely with Google to get gaming right - be it the best ways to handle data over wireless networks for the games or the smartest way to make these types of games on Android.

If Sony says "Hey, we're thinking of bringing Playstation to Android" you better believe Google is going to jump up and offer their help knowing how popular iPhone gaming is, that Windows 7 Phones are basically Xboys and that Android gaming has never taken off.

People see Android gaming as a joke and developers aren't really flocking there. The easiest solution is saying "YES!" when Sony approaches them and tells them their plan and asks if it can get some major backing from them like the Droid or Incredible did on Google.com, in promotional material or with their partners. If Google and Sony hold a conference to announce this it's a bigger deal than Sony doing it alone (in either case being a PSP phone or a platform.)

I do not think it will be an app all Android phones can buy and run games from and I highly doubt powerful HTC phones will be able to play Sony games although I love the idea. There's no doubt in my mind that this will not become baked into the core Android OS as that's not what the rumor says anyway. I think there will be a Playstation phone that Google is assisting Sony in creating the same way Sony will work with devs or Google works with Motorola and that Google will put some attention on it like they did with the Droid.

 

[charlequin]

I apologise, I thought Google was taking a cut somewhere in that 30%, or that it was somewhat ambiguous as to how that 30% was divvied up, at least.

Nope! They actually put out a big PR trumpeting the fact that they get no percentage from the sale of software on the Marketplace.

If they did take a cut there, most of my objections would fall away. It'd be easy to at least imagine a deal where Sony provides the software and gets a cut of Google's cut of each game released that uses the infrastructure.

However, it's handy that from the developers' point of view, the transaction fee is decoupled from the carrier fee, so there is scope for Google to negotiate carrier fees transparently and pocket the savings.

Hmmm. Conceivable. And given that the marketplace currently kind of sucks (saleswise) I can at least imagine a negotiation that takes the form "we want to drop your % in order to implement a new program that should quintuple (or whatever) platform sales, thereby giving you much more revenue overall."

I'm playing advocate here...I'm just not sure this sort of route is a fundamentally impossible one due to the business models of each company or whatever.

Well, I think it's worth discussing, just discussing with full acknowledgement of the challenges. It's not an easy neede to thread in this case so I don't think statements that might be reasonable elsewhere (like "omg X and Y should totally team up!") are necessarily reasonable here without a lot of footwork to establish their viability. But certainly if there's an improbable approach that somehow actually works, it's one of those things that could turn out to be weird-but-true and make sense in retrospect.

They're already all competing on one level or another and the level of competition is likely to only increase as they keep stepping on each others toes.

I agree, but market positioning is a huge part of this. Nintendo appears to be very aware of the degree to which Apple poses a threat to their business and they've adopted a very clear strategy for dealing with it: entrenching themselves in their core competency (machines that play games) and avoiding feature overlap in order to keep all competition on the indirect level of "competing for gadget-loving buyer dollars" instead of the direct level of "competing for a single specific feature slot."

The reason I say moving into high-priced games would be a bad idea for Google is that it's not a market with better presumptive levels of success at all -- very much the opposite. Look at it this way: right now Google has demonstrated a very strong ability to maneuver against Apple in many areas thanks to their overall choice of strategy. After adding a partner to handle the nitty-gritty of building a strong gaming platform, it's conceivable that they can apply their own top-level strategic positioning to make a reasonable go at iOS in that area.

Now compare and contrast with high-price boutique gaming. This is an area that's dramatically harder and more expensive to get into than casual app-size gaming but which isn't any more profitable; it's an area that attracts a smaller default audience; it's an area that puts the phones into more direct competition with the 3DS; and it's an area in which Sony (the potential partner we're evaluating here) has explicitly failed to put up great results in, both in a minor sense on the PSP as a whole (didn't compete at the same level as the DS, software sales fell off a cliff) and then rather dramatically on a small scale with the PSP Go fiasco.

With that kind of background, trying to position for high-scale games makes little sense. It'd require throwing far money at the problem, just to buy into a more competitive and challenging market.

The time left in the platform's lifespan would be extended indefinitely by a move like this.

In what sense? Best case scenario here is that the phone takes off but the regular PSP and retail game releases wither and fall off -- in which case the phone's potential has been artificially limited to maintain compatibility with a platform that's moribund anyway. Better to actually target the new platform that has a chance of newfound success.

 

[lockload]

Sony Ericsson need android much more than google needs Sony Ericsson

Over 200,000 andriod devices per day are being activated at present, psp like device sales barely do that in a month, really get real

The games market is miniscule compare to the smartphone uses

Sony Ericsson have to bring out an android phone or they will simply be left behind

 

[JWong]

Sony Ericsson need android much more than google needs Sony Ericsson

Over 200,000 andriod devices per day are being activated at present, psp like device sales barely do that in a month, really get real

The games market is miniscule compare to the smartphone uses

Sony Ericsson have to bring out an android phone or they will simply be left behind

Er.... they did? Like three of them?

 

[Paznos]

Er.... they did? Like three of them?

I don't think bringing out phones with Android 1.6 and a skin that no one really likes counts, especially when there are other phones out there that are comparable or better in the same price point.

 

[Lazy8s]

Even after all of these years, technological advance still hasn't produced enough process shrinks to prevent the PSP's graphics architecture from being an awkward block of ugly engineering were it to be included for backward compatibility in a system with SGX XT.

It actually might still consume almost as much space as some modern phone GPUs.

 

[JWong]

I don't think bringing out phones with Android 1.6 and a skin that no one really likes counts, especially when there are other phones out there that are comparable or better in the same price point.

Sony Ericsson has a significant part of Android market share with the X10 alone, so much so that they recorded a profit in recent quarters.

I don't see what's the problem.

 

[Lazy8s]

Android's a good platform, as long as the manufacturer makes the right hardware choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4p5JI0-gQ&sns=em

 

[Truespeed]

Before we get overly negative, could we talk about how credible this rumour is?

Engadget seem pretty comfortable running this, but can a Snapdragon processor run PSP games? I mean, there's no way it's close to being fast enough to emulate right? So the games would need to be 're-programmed'?

So if - and this is a big if - this is true, it means that it would be a whole new platform for Android-based phones, not simpy a PSP phone right?

If Josh Topolsky believes it then it's real. Also, it's never going to run existing PSP games nor was it ever intended to.

 

[Truespeed]

People see Android gaming as a joke and developers aren't really flocking there.

Let me guess, these people are all iPhone owners? This argument is so 2009. Android has plenty of high quality games.

 

[zoku88]

Sony Ericsson has a significant part of Android market share with the X10 alone, so much so that they recorded a profit in recent quarters.

I don't see what's the problem.

I'm pretty sure the Motorola (maybe by itself) and HTC have the majority of the android market share. Then samsung, then someone else. I think SE probably has a pretty small chunk of android market share. Recording a profit doesn't mean that have a significant part of market share.

 

[Corto]

I'm pretty sure the Motorola (maybe by itself) and HTC have the majority of the android market share. Then samsung, then someone else. I think SE probably has a pretty small chunk of android market share. Recording a profit doesn't mean that have a significant part of market share.

Maybe in the USA, not so much in Europe.

 

[avaya]

I'm pretty sure the Motorola (maybe by itself) and HTC have the majority of the android market share. Then samsung, then someone else. I think SE probably has a pretty small chunk of android market share. Recording a profit doesn't mean that have a significant part of market share.

No one is interested in Motorola garbage in Europe. Same with the HTC but not to the same extent. SE is running of name alone at the moment in Europe and they have done as much as possible to screw it up recently. If they get it right SE and Samsung will dominate European Android market.

 

[Knight77]

No one is interested in Motorola garbage in Europe. Same with the HTC but not to the same extent. SE is running of name alone at the moment in Europe and they have done as much as possible to screw it up recently. If they get it right SE and Samsung will dominate European Android market.

Honestly HTC is growing a lot here in Europe...

 

[avaya]

Honestly HTC is growing a lot here in Europe...

Temporary. Waiting. Waiting for SE and Nokia to get their shit together. Nokia WILL come to Android. Bet on it.

 

[zoku88]

Maybe in the USA, not so much in Europe.

I'm talking about worldwide. I'm pretty sure that Android and iOS are both the most popular in the US anyway.

 

[Corto]

I'm talking about worldwide. I'm pretty sure that Android and iOS are both the most popular in the US anyway.

Worldwide motorola is irrelevant, that was the purpose of my post.

http://gigaom.com/2010/05/17/droid-does-not-help-motorola-offset-market-share-loss/

But in the subset of smartphones things are a little brighter, just a little:

http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1421013

 

[zoku88]

What did I say? Among phones? No. among smartphones? No. I said among android phones.

None of your links even address what I said.

 

[Corto]

What did I say? Among phones? No. among smartphones? No. I said among android phones.

None of your links even address what I said.

Yes, I can't seem to find data that addresses the market share in the sub-sub-set of android phones by manufacturer. But infering from the smartphones data, worldwide, one can safely say that Motorola is irrelevant.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Right before the Nexus One launched, Android 2.0/2.0.1 was at like 40% of the pie, and that was just the Droid/Milestone. HTC is probably first, but Motorola is definitely a close second in the Android pie.

 

[Corto]

Right before the Nexus One launched, Android 2.0/2.0.1 was at like 40% of the pie, and that was just the Droid/Milestone. HTC is probably first, but Motorola is definitely a close second in the Android pie.

I just found this article concerning USA marketshare:

http://mashable.com/2010/04/27/admob-stats-march-2010/

It uses the questionable method of measuring web traffic by platform and manufacturer, but it was the only one that showed a breakdown by brand in the USA.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

If Josh Topolsky believes it then it's real. Also, it's never going to run existing PSP games nor was it ever intended to.

Then why does it exist? Android already plays games, what do they need Sony involvement for?

I think it has to be designed to leverage Sony's online catalogue or it's utterly pointless.

 

[tino]

I carry a Droid and a iPhone 3GS every day (don't ask). There really isn't any game on Android. There is Age of Conquest, a board game. That's pretty much it.

 

[ThatObviousUser]

Temporary. Waiting. Waiting for SE and Nokia to get their shit together. Nokia WILL come to Android. Bet on it.

:lol

Yeah, in maybe four years. Probably a lot later. :lol

 

[zoku88]

Yes, I can't seem to find data that addresses the market share in the sub-sub-set of android phones by manufacturer. But infering from the smartphones data, worldwide, one can safely say that Motorola is irrelevant.

Except, we're talking about just android handsets, and we already KNOW that the motorola has some of the most popular ones. (in fact, in the US, which I believe constitutes most of the android sales, I believe, the motorola droid is still the most popular one. And the HTC devices don't seem to be far behind.) Thus, we can at least guess, that neither of those two are irrelevant as far as ANDROID market share goes.

 

[AndyD]

Then why does it exist? Android already plays games, what do they need Sony involvement for?

I think it has to be designed to leverage Sony's online catalogue or it's utterly pointless.

He said existing PSP games. If this becomes PSP 2, then future PSP games will be made for this or with it in mind as in DD only and on the hardware this has.

I dont imagine an Android device like this would have a UMD slot.

 

[zoku88]

Then why does it exist? Android already plays games, what do they need Sony involvement for?

I think it has to be designed to leverage Sony's online catalogue or it's utterly pointless.

Standards, I guess. Yea, every phone can play any game on the market, but how well? You don't know. By setting a minimum control method and minimum hardware, you at least have some standard expected amount of playability.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Temporary. Waiting. Waiting for SE and Nokia to get their shit together. Nokia WILL come to Android. Bet on it.

I agree with Motorola, but disagree with HTC. They are continuing to make a very, very strong high-end focused brand. Few years ago some none of my friends knew what HTC is. Today? A different story. Nokia is currently looking like VW for me. Shitty and overpriced, with people buying it because they mistakenly associate it with tradition and quality.

 

[Eccocid]

Once again, their platform strategy is not that at all. Partnering with Playstation brand gives them huge leverage and gaming expertise, something that they dont have.

If anything Google has shown so far that they dont care about their app store, it is their weakest link. Sales of games are reported to be 10x less than iphones due to their weird policies and badly designed app.

And dont confuse google buying one casual game developer as proof of them being able to compete in the area - how many dev studios Sony has?

Imagine Sony giving push to PSP Android and how many quality games would land there, together with indy stuff that iphone already has. Google cant do that, let alone Samsung or LG.

And google knows what their revenue is - advertising. And thats why they are doing everything they do. Ads on web, Tv's, phones, thats their business.

Dont get confused here, Sony employs 8.5x more people than Google. 7000 of those work in gaming division.

would work if SONY was really good at marketing and distributing games ... :/

 

[Yoboman]

Honestly, this is the direction Sony needs to go in for PSP2. They need a gaming machine and phone/app system that is ahead of the curve aesthetically and power horse. Sony should put everything they can into it, the way Apple does for Iphone.

 

[Yoboman]

would work if SONY was really good at marketing and distributing games ... :/

They are?

 

[gofreak]

With that kind of background, trying to position for high-scale games makes little sense. It'd require throwing far money at the problem, just to buy into a more competitive and challenging market.

I think this is where they let Sony handle things. It's not much skin off Google's nose if the market, given the upfront choice of higher end 'premium' gaming and lower-end cheap gaming on the same platform flocks to the latter. In the meantime, for those users interested in both - the existing smartphone context and a higher end gaming context - it makes Google's platform a no-brainer choice. Sony, for its part, will hope that embedded in a context such as Android, accessible to the finger tips of people it never had access to before, people will try Playstation content, and will take to it. I do think there are people out there who would never buy a dedicated Playstation (or Nintendo, for that matter) device, or who would be reluctant to, but who wouldn't say no if their content happened to be on their all-in-one. It would be a way to consume that content inconspicuously. The question for Sony is how much opportunity might be there, and for Google, how much of an existing market they can attract to Android (i.e. from the existing handheld gaming market), and what benefit this platform would be in the context of their existing market as a value-add...the currently invisible market who would never buy a gaming handheld but who would value its content on a smartphone.

In what sense? Best case scenario here is that the phone takes off but the regular PSP and retail game releases wither and fall off -- in which case the phone's potential has been artificially limited to maintain compatibility with a platform that's moribund anyway. Better to actually target the new platform that has a chance of newfound success.

I don't think that's the best case scenario. Best case scenario is that the content, the platform, finds great success in this context, consumption of content for the platform grows, causing enlivened support of it as a going concern. This is assuming, now, that 'the platform' was PSP compatible, or encompassed the PSP. If it was a new route to PSP for the consumer, via this 'new' platform.

Which it may not be...

If Josh Topolsky believes it then it's real. Also, it's never going to run existing PSP games nor was it ever intended to.

...if it's not, and if there's really no specific hardware requirement beyond 'ordinary android' requirements, that would suggest an even more radical departure for Sony. If there's no 'new' Playstation-specific requirements of the hardware, that'd essentially mean they were simply embracing an open platform as theirs, bringing their brand to it, but not owning it in the total way they are used to. Even for me, that seems way out there...I know Sony's new favourite word of late has been 'open', but it would be very radical change to their business.

edit - one thing I think runs against this rumour is the timing. It was only a few months ago Google TV was announced, and the broader strategic alliance was announced with it, and while its possible Sony and Google have been talking for a much longer time prior to that, if they weren't, a few months seems a really short time to whip up an agreement about a marrying Playstation to Android (in the official, Google-endorsed, core platform sense as opposed to the one-off Sony-specific hybrid device sense). When GoogleTV was launched, Eric Schmidt and Howard Stringer were asked about Playstation, and they kind of just laughed and Stringer said 'one device at a time'. I took him to be saying that almost to Schmidt rather than the reporter, suggesting nothing like this was on the table then.

 

[yurinka]

I'm pretty sure the Motorola (maybe by itself) and HTC have the majority of the android market share. Then samsung, then someone else. I think SE probably has a pretty small chunk of android market share. Recording a profit doesn't mean that have a significant part of market share.

See table 1 and table 2 here:
http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1421013
Consider SE and others support like 3 or 4 different OS, and that Symbian is included in mainly low-end handsets.

Android has been this quarter (and will be in the future) the biggest smartphone-only OS market share. Not iPhone OS (I'm talking about OS market share, not about profit coming from gaming market). And it will be even more if supported by Sony with PSP Phone + PSP2 + PS3 non-game apps + other future non SE gadgets.

But Android has some problems for gaming:

- First, it needs a bigger installbase (maybe in a year will be ok)
- Then, its "Appstore" & business model, it has to be improved to be profitable for the developers. Here you don't have a single HW like in console or iPhone, here you have to make the game work in severall HW with huge performance differences, like in normal mobile phone games. Something ok for mobile phone games devs, but not for console devs.

I work as a developer in a game company who has been Top 5 company in mobile phones, iPhone and Facebook. But we only did some tests in Android, instead of focusing on it because it had a broken business model for us.

Who knows, I think it can work for game developers and get good support if:

-It includes a PSN store, separated from Android store, for PS Phone exclusive non standard Android games (that wouldn't be included in non PS Phone Android devices).
-PS Phone is compatible 100% with PSP and/or PS One and/or Minis games so you get more market share for your games and a big library for PS Phone since day 1.
-PS Phone turns to be not just a single handset but a brand as usual in mobile phones, and they release tons of handsets with little HW variations of it (it's like SKUs in consoles, but in mobile phones they change the name of the handset and the external appearance even inside they're almost the same).
-It includes friends system, social networks connectivity features, trophies, etc to viral spread your games like Facebook games do. It actually can be done, but would be better to have an OS integrated standard system.

 

[charlequin]

I think this is where they let Sony handle things.

Again I doubt here the utility of teaming up with a team whose most recent (and entire, if you count handhelds and consoles separately) experience within the market in question is one of failing to create a compelling or sustainable platform.

I don't think that's the best case scenario. Best case scenario is that the content, the platform, finds great success in this context, consumption of content for the platform grows, causing enlivened support of it as a going concern.

This is not a very realistic situation. :lol

Even for me, that seems way out there...I know Sony's new favourite word of late has been 'open', but it would be very radical change to their business.

I certainly agree, although since their fetish for proprietary systems has been one of Sony's weak points over the years so I'd certainly be happier to see them move in a more open direction.

 

[gofreak]

Again I doubt here the utility of teaming up with a team whose most recent (and entire, if you count handhelds and consoles separately) experience within the market in question is one of failing to create a compelling or sustainable platform.

You diminish them far too much and too easily. It doesn't matter that they weren't the market leader here. For their first crack at the dedicated handheld market they took a pretty significant share, both in terms of hardware and total software sales.

If you were to evaluate Sony as a potential partner, they would bring to Google experience and relationships that would take Google an awful lot of time and money to build from scratch. Sony has, I would say, pretty excellent relationships with developers and publishers. On PSP, despite it not being the market leader, they attracted a fair bit of exclusive content from high profile devs, and even in now its apparently waning days, it continues to attract a pretty surprising level of new support from (in particular it seems) Japanese developers. They know how to muster support and what things to say and what buttons to push in order to secure that support, even when they're not #1 and even in the face of very aggressive competition. They also have a track record, an established brand, a legacy set of content and IP, and a significant internal content development capability.

If I was a Google, and I was trying to build a comprehensive games platform that might run the gamut from 'social games' through to the kind of games Sony's traditionally been familiar with, I struggle to see how Sony as a partner would be a remotely unattractive option in terms of what they bring to the table (whatever about harmonising their world view and business perspectives/models etc.)

This is not a very realistic situation. :lol

It's a best case...I like my best cases to be optimistic

It's very difficult to make a prediction about what impact something like that would have in the absence of detail. That's one other thing about this - there's so many possible ways this could manifest itself at a lower level, in the nuts and bolts of how this arrangement would work. Without knowing them, it's hard to guess about impact. I would say though that if this arrangement increased the number of devices capable of consuming PSP content, it's unlikely to negatively impact on that platform's lifespan...if there's no relationship to PSP, obviously that's a very different story.

I certainly agree, although since their fetish for proprietary systems has been one of Sony's weak points over the years so I'd certainly be happier to see them move in a more open direction.

Me too, which might explain why I'm keen for the chances of something like this to materialise... it is hard to predict what they'll do though.

 

[Agent X]

You diminish them far too much and too easily. It doesn't matter that they weren't the market leader here. For their first crack at the dedicated handheld market they took a pretty significant share, both in terms of hardware and total software sales.

If you were to evaluate Sony as a potential partner, they would bring to Google experience and relationships that would take Google an awful lot of time and money to build from scratch. Sony has, I would say, pretty excellent relationships with developers and publishers. On PSP, despite it not being the market leader, they attracted a fair bit of exclusive content from high profile devs, and even in now its apparently waning days, it continues to attract a pretty surprising level of new support from (in particular it seems) Japanese developers. They know how to muster support and what things to say and what buttons to push in order to secure that support, even when they're not #1 and even in the face of very aggressive competition. They also have a track record, an established brand, a legacy set of content and IP, and a significant internal content development capability.

If I was a Google, and I was trying to build a comprehensive games platform that might run the gamut from 'social games' through to the kind of games Sony's traditionally been familiar with, I struggle to see how Sony as a partner would be a remotely unattractive option in terms of what they bring to the table (whatever about harmonising their world view and business perspectives/models etc.)

I agree with what you wrote here. Even if Sony is not the industry leader at the moment, they've still got a good amount of market share and support. The PlayStation brand still carries a lot of weight with game developers and consumers alike. They would be a valuable partner for a company like Google, who is (relatively speaking) much weaker on gaming, and especially for "hardcore" gaming. It's evident from some of Google's recent moves and acquisitions that they want to expand their position in the gaming space, and Sony can offer things that Google (and their partners and acquisitions) cannot easily achieve on their own at this time.

 

[Jokeropia]

If they're aiming for older, more tech-savvy hardcore, more male - aka the PSP demographic

Sony's own market research has shown again and again that the demographic they appeal to the most is young teenage boys. These are the words of John Koller himself: "The PSP, from a handheld perspective, it's more of a 13-17 year old [demographic], multi-ethnic, a bit lower-income as well."

You diminish them far too much and too easily. It doesn't matter that they weren't the market leader here. For their first crack at the dedicated handheld market they took a pretty significant share, both in terms of hardware and total software sales.

1/3 of the hardware and 1/4 of the software. It's not that significant in a market with only two players and notably less than industry expectations and their own stated targets. I also think they wouldn't get as much benefit of the doubt (from publishers, retailers, pundits etc.) with a successor as they got with PSP when it was expected to steamroll Nintendo like the PS1 did.

 

[Agent X]

1/3 of the hardware and 1/4 of the software. It's not that significant in a market with only two players and notably less than industry expectations and their own stated targets. I also think they wouldn't get as much benefit of the doubt (from publishers, retailers, pundits etc.) with a successor as they got with PSP when it was expected to steamroll Nintendo like the PS1 did.

OK, so it seems like you're saying that they (Google) would be better off partnering with Nintendo instead. Fair enough, but maybe this isn't something Nintendo's seeking. If you were in Google's shoes, and a Nintendo partnership was off the table, then who else would you partner with that could be more beneficial to your gaming ventures?

 

[Jokeropia]

I don't know if they need to team up with anyone, as I don't really know what their plans are. (That is, what they're hoping to achieve in this market.)

 

[gofreak]

Sony's own market research has shown again and again that the demographic they appeal to the most is young teenage boys. These are the words of John Koller himself: "The PSP, from a handheld perspective, it's more of a 13-17 year old [demographic], multi-ethnic, a bit lower-income as well."

I guess maybe my post should say PSP target demographic. Sony didn't initially target younger with PSP, but a slightly younger demographic, the teenage demographic, is where they ended up tending toward in more recent years.

I think at the very least we can say there is a bigger chunk of the PSP market that crossovers with smartphone users or aspirants than in the DS market. I saw an editorial recently by a Screen Digest analyst who pointed at crossover in the PSP's 18-35 demographic with smartphones as being a particular point of concern, so I'm guessing that segment of the PSP market isn't insubstantial. I'd say even the teen market, particularly perhaps male teen, is vulnerable too though, even if not so immediately as 18-35s.

1/3 of the hardware and 1/4 of the software. It's not that significant in a market with only two players and notably less than industry expectations and their own stated targets.

The latter is, again, irrelevant in this context. Their share represented a a pretty good slice of the market. In absolute terms, it's not that insignificant either. It was, up until the last year or so anyway, charting similar user reach as iPhone (comparing the first 4 years of each). Their share of the 'core' mobile gaming market - difficult though that may be to quantify - was, I would hazard to guess, probably higher than their overall share too, and that's the arena where smartphones lack credibility currently, not so much among so-called casual gamers (where the PSP's competitor was very strong).

All of which is somewhat besides the point about skillset, experience, relationships, brand, content etc. Let me put it this way...assuming Google's goal was to foster a platform that was more comprehensive in its coverage of gaming than their competitors, would Sony be able to help? I think the answer is very simply yes. Is Sony the best option? Well, I can think of only one other company that would be better placed to help, and they probably aren't an option...

 

[charlequin]

If you were to evaluate Sony as a potential partner, they would bring to Google experience and relationships that would take Google an awful lot of time and money to build from scratch.

Here I'm responding to your idea of partnering with Sony specifically to bring expensive, large-scale gaming to phones, though.

I don't disagree that Sony is the best (they're certainly the only) option amongst the large gaming companies if Google wants to enter into a strategic partnership. What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that there's anything remotely worthwhile about the idea of trying to outcompete Apple by teaming with Sony to sell $40 games on a phone. Everything about that idea is throwing good money after bad: it's directly transplanting the failed business model from the biggest disaster ever at SCE (the PSP Go) to an even more competitive market, and trying to double down on the "bigger, better" strategy that led to defeats in both the handheld and console markets.

Any alliance of this sort that actually played to the demonstrated strengths of the platform and the companies involved would look like Sony leveraging their experience to develop an underlying network and hardware infrastructure, and to class up the level of developers available and willing to work on $1-10 games for the platform. In other words, it would be about taking the strengths of Android (like the greater ability to release different hardware and the greater marketshare) and leveraging those to outshine Apple's offering in basically the same market, not trying to force an unsuccessful business model into a place where it fits even less well.

 

[gofreak]

Here I'm responding to your idea of partnering with Sony specifically to bring expensive, large-scale gaming to phones, though.

I don't disagree that Sony is the best (they're certainly the only) option amongst the large gaming companies if Google wants to enter into a strategic partnership. What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that there's anything remotely worthwhile about the idea of trying to outcompete Apple by teaming with Sony to sell $40 games on a phone. Everything about that idea is throwing good money after bad: it's directly transplanting the failed business model from the biggest disaster ever at SCE (the PSP Go) to an even more competitive market, and trying to double down on the "bigger, better" strategy that led to defeats in both the handheld and console markets.

Any alliance of this sort that actually played to the demonstrated strengths of the platform and the companies involved would look like Sony leveraging their experience to develop an underlying network and hardware infrastructure, and to class up the level of developers available and willing to work on $1-10 games for the platform. In other words, it would be about taking the strengths of Android (like the greater ability to release different hardware and the greater marketshare) and leveraging those to outshine Apple's offering in basically the same market, not trying to force an unsuccessful business model into a place where it fits even less well.

You tie the Go too tightly to 'that business model', I think.

Go failed, not because the business model of selling premium games over the air is unsound (IMO), but because it was simply a undesirable offering on a number of fronts. What advantages and niceties it had (the form factor, I suppose, although even then there was a compromise on screen size), simply didn't compensate for the increased price, and most substantially, for the compromises on content access it carried. Perception around the latter simply killed it.

So Go was ill judged. But again, I don't think it was because the business model of selling premium games over the network failed. If there's a market for premium portable games - and it seems there is - their success via network distribution on desirable network orientated devices shouldn't be unreasonable.

Also, I'm not suggesting Google embrace Sony simply for their premium games, for that category. I suggest it may be a desirable differentiator in a broader context. But by no means the extent of their games strategy vs Apple. Both Sony and Google are also interested in the cheaper end of the market, both want in on that. They may do better working together on that vs Apple than either would alone.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

Again I doubt here the utility of teaming up with a team whose most recent (and entire, if you count handhelds and consoles separately) experience within the market in question is one of failing to create a compelling or sustainable platform.

The thing's sold millions WW and has been huge in Asia recently. It's a very successful platform overall. It just looks less so in the shadow of the DS which has been possibly the most successful gaming device ever. But the PSP is the only handheld that's ever even been able to hang in there against Nintendo, everything else has faded in a year or two.