Sony Blows PlayStation 2 Earnings On PlayStation 3

[Andy Chalk]

Sony Blows PlayStation 2 Earnings On PlayStation 3

Here's an interesting bit of trivia to toss out at your next social function: According to industry veteran Dave Perry, PlayStation 3 [http://www.sony.com] than it made selling the PlayStation 2.

Perry, best known as the founder of DFC Intelligence [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiny_Entertainment]. According to those numbers, Sony has blown more cash selling the PlayStation 3 at a loss than it made during the five peak years of PlayStation 2 sales, a figure some estimates put as high as $3 billion.

It's a staggering amount in some respects, but Perry pointed out that it represents a tremendous level of investment in the system that could extend the console's lifespan beyond even that of the still-kicking PlayStation 2. While DFC has predicted the Nintendo [http://www.wii.com] has been able to sell the unit at a profit since it launched, the long-term potential of the PlayStation 3 could prove even more lucrative. If Sony is able to live up to its claims of a ten-year lifespan for the unit, it could very well end up recovering those losses, and maybe even make a few bucks on the thing before it's all over.

Perry didn't quote specific figures for the Red Ring of Death fiasco [http://www.xbox.com]. Making matters worse, the company had already choked down $4 billion on the original Xbox, and even with a war chest the size of Microsoft's, one $4 billion loss after another has to hurt.



Permalink

 

[Jumplion]

I thought we already knew this or was that something else with a similar title?

 

[Echolocating]

Well, the real reason for the PS3 is so that Sony could secure Blu-ray as the dominant media format. Sony is looking beyond 10 years with the PS3, in that regard.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure those graphics will be ancient by 2018

 

[windfish]

Well, the real reason for the PS3 is so that Sony could secure Blu-ray as the dominant media format. Sony is looking beyond 10 years with the PS3, in that regard.

And now that Blu-ray has been established as the Next Big Thing, they'll likely start doing much better, especially in 10 years or so when everybody has really big HD TVs. In other words, when it becomes economically feasible for that to happen. As for now, close to nobody is rich enough (or has mixed up enough priorities) to splurge on a TV that's good enough to even notice the difference between HD and SD.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

Just wait until media comes on memory sticks.

 

[stompy]

Ouch. For both.

 

[puffbro1]

Ouch. For both.

I'll say. That's a shitload of money. Kinda says something about big the games industry is getting, and how big it will get.

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

Well, the real reason for the PS3 is so that Sony could secure Blu-ray as the dominant media format. Sony is looking beyond 10 years with the PS3, in that regard.

And now that Blu-ray has been established as the Next Big Thing, they'll likely start doing much better, especially in 10 years or so when everybody has really big HD TVs. In other words, when it becomes economically feasible for that to happen. As for now, close to nobody is rich enough (or has mixed up enough priorities) to splurge on a TV that's good enough to even notice the difference between HD and SD.

http://www.krunker.com/2008/05/17/consumer-blu-ray-interest-is-lacking/

http://www.abiresearch.com/press/1203-Consumers+Delaying+Blu-ray+Player+Purchases

Two years later, and they may have defeated their enemy, but they're running out of steam to press on.
People just don't care about Blu-Ray.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

You might see more interested in Blu-ray after the big broadcast swapover from analog to digital; if broadcast TV starts looking better than what's on DVD, that might (emphasis, *might*) spark a revival for Sony's HD format.

Honestly, though, given the lack of sales-surge after Toshiba's effort folded, I think that most people are buying HD screens because they're big and bright and not for any improvement in image quality.

-- Steve

 

[Planeswalker817]

Sony lost a crapload of money selling the PS3? Not for nothing, but didn't we already know this?

 

[Jumplion]

Well, the real reason for the PS3 is so that Sony could secure Blu-ray as the dominant media format. Sony is looking beyond 10 years with the PS3, in that regard.

And now that Blu-ray has been established as the Next Big Thing, they'll likely start doing much better, especially in 10 years or so when everybody has really big HD TVs. In other words, when it becomes economically feasible for that to happen. As for now, close to nobody is rich enough (or has mixed up enough priorities) to splurge on a TV that's good enough to even notice the difference between HD and SD.

http://www.krunker.com/2008/05/17/consumer-blu-ray-interest-is-lacking/

http://www.abiresearch.com/press/1203-Consumers+Delaying+Blu-ray+Player+Purchases

Two years later, and they may have defeated their enemy, but they're running out of steam to press on.
People just don't care about Blu-Ray.

Keep in mind the switch to VHS to DVD, I don't think the switch took place in 2 years. People are always reluctant of change but eventually they accept it and try it.

 

[Nazrel]

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure those graphics will be ancient by 2018

Graphics have peaked. Seriously, PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, I can't tell the difference.

 

[Signa]

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure those graphics will be ancient by 2018

Graphics have peaked. Seriously, PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, I can't tell the difference.

There most definatly is a difference, however not enough for the extra $10 price point on every game. The games certainly play the same.

 

[Jumplion]

Keep in mind the switch to VHS to DVD, I don't think the switch took place in 2 years. People are always reluctant of change but eventually they accept it and try it.

There was a much more noticable difference in quality between DVD and VHS. DVD was by the far the superior format and people could easily notice it. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray isn't as easily noticable as was the difference between DVD and VHS. As long as Blu-ray is more expensive and the difference in quality is only slight, it's doubtful that it would replace the old format.

It's the same basic situation, there were plenty of people who were reluctant to switch over to DVD and still tried to stay with VHS because it was more familiar and safe. The worlds evolving and eventually Blu-ray will become as standard as DVDs but certainly not over a 2 year time or even a 5 year time.

Besides, I think this situation is the same as the 360 and PS3 situation right now. 360 is only selling well in North America, and the PS3 is doing well everywhere else. To my knowledge (correct me if i'm wrong) Blu-ray has been doing better pretty much everywhere else.
After all, America's not so great at picking the winners. US took VHS when (I think) Betamax was the better choice, we chose Customary over Metric, we turned Football into Soccer, we took plenty of things that the rest of the world didn't.

 

[shatnershaman]

Besides, I think this situation is the same as the 360 and PS3 situation right now. 360 is only selling well in North America, and the PS3 is doing well everywhere else. To my knowledge (correct me if i'm wrong) Blu-ray has been doing better pretty much everywhere else.
After all, America's not so great at picking the winners. US took VHS when (I think) Betamax was the better choice, we chose Customary over Metric, we turned Football into Soccer, we took plenty of things that the rest of the world didn't.

Blu-ray doing better otherplaces against what?US blu-ray sales? DVD is owning Blu-ray everywhere (95,000 more movies helps) and VHS won though they chose the winner.

 

[Arbre]

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure those graphics will be ancient by 2018

I am still in awe when I look at God of War I & II. The fact that the games lack all those shiny effects on textures, bump this and parallax that and super detail... gives them something.