Sony Still Losing Money on PS3

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Sony Still Losing Money on PS3


Sony is making a loss on all PlayStation 3 consoles it sells, according to a market research firm.

In a recent report from market research and consulting firm iSuppli, Sony is still losing nearly $40 on each PS3 it sells. According to the report, Sony has managed to reduce manufacturing costs to just $336.27, but the $100 dollar reduction in price means that the company is still taking a $37.27 hit on each one.

"Since the introduction of the PlayStation 3 in late 2006, Sony has subsidized the price of every console sold, a deficit the company has made up for with game sales and royalties," said Andrew Rassweiler, director and principle analyst for iSuppli.

"However, with each new revision of the game console hardware, Sony has aggressively designed out costs to reach the hardware and manufacturing breakeven point as quickly as possible ... in light of these factors, the PlayStation 3 probably is already at or near the tipping point for profitability."

This time last year, Sony was making a nearly $50 loss on the PS3, and according to iSuppli, material costs are likely to reduce significantly in 2010.

Source: IGN [http://uk.ps3.ign.com/articles/105/1054736p1.html]


Permalink
 

VitusPrime

New member
Sep 26, 2008
438
0
0
Surely one would cut there losses by now and bin the ps?
Then other consoles can get some of there good games ^^
Well we learn with great power comes a big price tag...
 

DeadlyYellow

New member
Jun 18, 2008
5,141
0
0
Well thats... dedication I guess. I wonder if Microsoft ever continually lost money on their 360.
 

Iron Mal

New member
Jun 4, 2008
2,749
0
0
Let this be a lesson, just because your toy is the shiniest it doesn't mean that it's the best (it's still pretty damn shiney though).
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Iron Mal said:
Let this be a lesson, just because your toy is the shiniest it doesn't mean that it's the best (it's still pretty damn shiney though).
Yeah, Even though it is a monolith of destruction, it still, cant pull in the peeps
 

Blimey

New member
Nov 10, 2009
604
0
0
Oh PS3...we had such high hopes for you after the PS2. Alas, our love was not to be. Now you sleep with another, leaving us in the cold. Damn you.

In all seriousness, that is too bad. I will be very impressed if Sony can pull themselves out of this slump. The PS3 isn't a bad console, but was very overpriced when it came out. Now that its down to a reasonable price, most gamers don't care. If it had better exclusive titles then I would be more interested. But its not like the poor performance of the PS3 is the herald of doom for Sony. Remember, they do alot more then game consoles. They have an entire electronics industry built around them, with cameras, TV's, computer monitors, etc. So its not like they are going under or anything. Its just their gaming division that's suffering abit right now.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
It is amusing that everyone is bashing the PS3 and are missing the point.
The PS3 is still being produced despite Sony taking a loss on everyone. Meaning that the PS3 has to be doing well enough in console and game sales to make up the loss.
Would Microsoft continue to put out a console for less than it costs to make it?
 

JWAN

New member
Dec 27, 2008
2,725
0
0
I love it. Maybe its just because I think I know the worst SONY fanboy ever spawned, but its also because my economics background helped me arrive at this conclusion about a year before this article.
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
Iron Mal said:
Let this be a lesson, just because your toy is the shiniest it doesn't mean that it's the best (it's still pretty damn shiney though).
I don't get what you're trying to say? Are you saying the PS3 is a bad console because they're making a loss with each one they sell? Is this another pro 360 rant in disguise?
 

JWAN

New member
Dec 27, 2008
2,725
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Well thats... dedication I guess. I wonder if Microsoft ever continually lost money on their 360.
They lost profits for awhile (they still might be loosing profits yet) But by leaps and bounds the PS3 is the farthest one in the tank.
 

enzilewulf

New member
Jun 19, 2009
2,130
0
0
Well then this war will eventully come down to Microsoft and Nintendo. Maybe the new Final Fantasys will start to help them get out of that unfortunate slump. Honosty though I really do plan on getting a Ps3. Anyways, Nintendo will always appeal to little kids and mario lovers like me (even though I have a 360 wich I love). But this war will mainly come down to Microsoft and Nintendo.
 

Kollega

New member
Jun 5, 2009
5,161
0
0
Oh my. Sony tried to jump higher than their head with PS3. And they succeeded - but they broke both legs in process. PS3 performed in the console race/war/what have you rather poorly up untill recently - but considering that PS2 performed extraordinarily well in last generation, this is a failure. Failure to do just as well, that is.
 

JWAN

New member
Dec 27, 2008
2,725
0
0
Terramax said:
Iron Mal said:
Let this be a lesson, just because your toy is the shiniest it doesn't mean that it's the best (it's still pretty damn shiney though).
I don't get what you're trying to say? Are you saying the PS3 is a bad console because they're making a loss with each one they sell? Is this another pro 360 rant in disguise?
No, that's logic. Just because your system is shiny, and you have a large following of fanboys does not mean you can raise the price to some ridiculous amount and drip in big name titles at a snails pace. Even the fanboys know its a shit deal. (most of them)
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
16,863
837
118
JWAN said:
Terramax said:
Iron Mal said:
Let this be a lesson, just because your toy is the shiniest it doesn't mean that it's the best (it's still pretty damn shiney though).
I don't get what you're trying to say? Are you saying the PS3 is a bad console because they're making a loss with each one they sell? Is this another pro 360 rant in disguise?
No, that's logic. Just because your system is shiny, and you have a large following of fanboys does not mean you can raise the price to some ridiculous amount and drip in big name titles at a snails pace. Even the fanboys know its a shit deal. (most of them)
Are you talking about the Wii?
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
Wait a minute..don't all consoles except the Wii lose money on each console sold? And even the Wii makes only a very small profit? Ive always heard that all consoles lose money on each console sold, and make there entire profit on games. Maybe i'm wrong, but I thought that this was par for the course.
 

BaldursBananaSoap

New member
May 20, 2009
1,573
0
0
Wow PS3 bashing is abundant in this one...

This is probably because Sony doesn't sell you a bare bones console which needs you to go and buy extremely overpriced add-ons and pay for an online service with awful P2P servers, ads and twelve year olds.

At least they've made up for it in software sales.
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
VitusPrime said:
Surely one would cut there losses by now and bin the ps?
Then other consoles can get some of there good games ^^
Well we learn with great power comes a big price tag...
What great power? It's RAM is outdated by 2001 standards, the GPU was mid range in 2004 and the CPU only looks good until you realize it doesn't support multithreading and 5 of the cores are only there to look pretty on the fact sheets so it ends up being a P4 with an inflated ego.
 

Terramax

New member
Jan 11, 2008
3,747
0
0
JWAN said:
No, that's logic. Just because your system is shiny, and you have a large following of fanboys does not mean you can raise the price to some ridiculous amount and drip in big name titles at a snails pace. Even the fanboys know its a shit deal. (most of them)
Well this is news to me. I didn't know the PS3 was so expensive merely because it's 'shiny'. I thought it had something to do with the parts inside the system. I don't claim to know anything though.

Also, I was under the assumption that whilst the console is expensive, the game has a great number of exclusive titles that justifies the price tag in the long run. Some may find this to be unlogical, but I believe it's the same as buying a more expensive car for greater overall comfort and satisfaction.

As for snails pace big names, I for one like to buy the odd game that's going to last me a long period of time as opposed to spending vast amounts of money on a large number of mediocre games, which has been the case on other systems over owned over the years, so I'm guessing this is matter of opinion also.
 

TailsRodrigez

New member
Nov 13, 2009
310
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Well thats... dedication I guess. I wonder if Microsoft ever continually lost money on their 360.
all consoles that i have looked at (minus the wii and gamecube) lose money on console sales and make it up on the games, they usually go lowering the loss per sale
 

DeadlyYellow

New member
Jun 18, 2008
5,141
0
0
JWAN said:
They lost profits for awhile (they still might be loosing profits yet) But by leaps and bounds the PS3 is the farthest one in the tank.
That is disappointing. It seems rather petty for them both to lose money by repeatedly trying to one-up and undercut the other. Just standard business I suppose.

Perhaps in future generations I'll just dump money into a good PC and modify it to also play console games.
 

Irishhoodlum

New member
Jun 21, 2009
227
0
0
You guys realise that almost all of Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony's profits come from their games not selling the consoles, right?
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Pilot Bush said:
it seems sony may go the way of sega...or the PS4 will be much less state-of-the-art
Yeah, becuase Sony don't have a widely diversified and enormous technology empire to subsidize their console arm, not to mention a vested interest in securing the industry standard formats for films and series. Facepalm.
 

Frank_Sinatra_

Digs Giant Robots
Dec 30, 2008
2,306
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Damn.

Playstation bashing rears it's ugly head once more.
It's sad too, I was getting use to it being gone.

I don't think they realize that even though Sony may loose money on consoles, they make up for it with games, accessories, and other paraphernalia.
 

Pendragon9

New member
Apr 26, 2009
1,968
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
Damn.

Playstation bashing rears it's ugly head once more.
I know, right?

Someone get a newspaper for these bashers. We need to knock some sense into the community..... once again.

Irishhoodlum said:
You guys realise that almost all of Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony's profits come from their games not selling the consoles, right?
Nah, for people here to come to that conclusion, they'd have to not be retarded. A bit too much to expect from the average console bashing poster. <<
 

BaldursBananaSoap

New member
May 20, 2009
1,573
0
0
Pendragon9 said:
Casual Shinji said:
Damn.

Playstation bashing rears it's ugly head once more.
I know, right?

Someone get a newspaper for these bashers. We need to knock some sense into the community..... once again.
Sadly it's mostly the idiots from Gamespot and Gametrailers who joined for Yahtzee that are doing it. Just ignore their constant justification of the console mummy bought them and the hard on they have for a white plastic box and take comfort in the fact that they desperatly need to convince you it's the best. Which just shows they're insecure and feel threatened by the PS3, and maybe unhappy of their purchase.
 

silverbullet1989

New member
Jun 7, 2009
391
0
0
BaldursBananaSoap said:
Wow PS3 bashing is abundant in this one...

This is probably because Sony doesn't sell you a bare bones console which needs you to go and buy extremely overpriced add-ons and pay for an online service with awful P2P servers, ads and twelve year olds.

At least they've made up for it in software sales.
so you counter that with 360 bashing?


Surely someone at Sony thought.. Hmm if we stick all the "supposed" top of the range hardware in our console, then we will have to stick a high price tag on it which will ultimately deter people from buying it....

I loved the PS2, I was very anti Xbox but when it came down to it I wasn?t prepared to pay out nearly 200 Great British Pounds more for a PS3 when I could have a perfectly acceptable Xbox 360 which is I paid £150 for and is still running strong nearly 3 years later.

i would like a ps3 very much so, but when there cheap enough i will have one.
 

Beatrix

New member
Jul 1, 2009
388
0
0
It's better for the industry if it survives since then there'd be a competition between the 360 and PS3 (the Wii has found new markets and is owning them, I expect Nintendo is wallpapering their entire buildings with money every week).

Guess it shows that you can't just put top-of-the-line hardware in a plastic case and expect to turn a profit.
 

51gunner

New member
Jun 12, 2008
583
0
0
The whole idea of selling them at a loss is to help push their Blu-Ray format and seize market share. Besides, given they profit off every game sold for a PS3, you realize that unless someone buys the PS3 for only one or two games, it's still a net profit on every PS3 sold.
 

BaldursBananaSoap

New member
May 20, 2009
1,573
0
0
silverbullet1989 said:
BaldursBananaSoap said:
Wow PS3 bashing is abundant in this one...

This is probably because Sony doesn't sell you a bare bones console which needs you to go and buy extremely overpriced add-ons and pay for an online service with awful P2P servers, ads and twelve year olds.

At least they've made up for it in software sales.
so you counter that with 360 bashing?


Surely someone at Sony thought.. Hmm if we stick all the "supposed" top of the range hardware in our console, then we will have to stick a high price tag on it which will ultimately deter people from buying it....

I loved the PS2, I was very anti Xbox but when it came down to it I wasn?t prepared to pay out nearly 200 Great British Pounds more for a PS3 when I could have a perfectly acceptable Xbox 360 which is I paid £150 for and is still running strong nearly 3 years later.

i would like a ps3 very much so, but when there cheap enough i will have one.
Does Microsoft sell you a barebones console which you must spend another £150-200 on to actually make it do what it says it does? Which are also overpriced to fuck (Hint: You can buy a 500gb hard drive for the price they sell you goddamn 20gb hard drive)? Are they also cheap enough to make you pay for an online service littered with ads, full of screaming twelve year olds and laggy player to player servers on most of its exclusives which allow a maximum of twelve players?

Yes
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
lol. And? This sort of thing happens all the time. Didn't 360 lose a ton repairing all those RRoD consoles when the problem arose?
 

MrDarkling

Crumpled Ball of Paper
Oct 11, 2009
554
0
0
360 fanboys have immigrated to this topic like an infection.
'very suprising.....'
 

silverbullet1989

New member
Jun 7, 2009
391
0
0
BaldursBananaSoap said:
silverbullet1989 said:
BaldursBananaSoap said:
Wow PS3 bashing is abundant in this one...

This is probably because Sony doesn't sell you a bare bones console which needs you to go and buy extremely overpriced add-ons and pay for an online service with awful P2P servers, ads and twelve year olds.

At least they've made up for it in software sales.
so you counter that with 360 bashing?


Surely someone at Sony thought.. Hmm if we stick all the "supposed" top of the range hardware in our console, then we will have to stick a high price tag on it which will ultimately deter people from buying it....

I loved the PS2, I was very anti Xbox but when it came down to it I wasn?t prepared to pay out nearly 200 Great British Pounds more for a PS3 when I could have a perfectly acceptable Xbox 360 which is I paid £150 for and is still running strong nearly 3 years later.

i would like a ps3 very much so, but when there cheap enough i will have one.
Does Microsoft sell you a barebones console which you must spend another £150-200 on to actually make it do what it says it does? Which are also overpriced to fuck (Hint: You can buy a 500gb hard drive for the price they sell you goddamn 20gb hard drive)? Are they also cheap enough to make you pay for an online service littered with ads, full of screaming twelve year olds and laggy player to player servers on most of its exclusives which allow a maximum of twelve players?

Yes
lol i think its funny that u have to slag the 360 off to make ya self feel better, seriously your no better then the people bashing the ps3. hmmmm i got a 60gb hdd with mine, a head set, a memory card, 2 controllers... think the only thing ive paid extra for was the online service which i fail to spot these ads that you keep going on about. Yes i dont like having to pay for the online service, but i think i can stretch to £0.67 pence a week for it. I only talk to my friends on it so the screaming twelve year olds dont bother me.... and yes there is lag, as a pc gamer i was use to dedi servers, and i cant stand the p2p service on it. see how i can bash the 360 even tho i own one :O
 

bloob

New member
Feb 10, 2008
95
0
0
Asehujiko said:
VitusPrime said:
Surely one would cut there losses by now and bin the ps?
Then other consoles can get some of there good games ^^
Well we learn with great power comes a big price tag...
What great power? It's RAM is outdated by 2001 standards, the GPU was mid range in 2004 and the CPU only looks good until you realize it doesn't support multithreading and 5 of the cores are only there to look pretty on the fact sheets so it ends up being a P4 with an inflated ego.
If the PS3 is so poor then why is the US air force buying 2200 of them to modernise a super computer? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96596-Air-Force-Orders-2-200-PlayStation-3s
 

farmerboy219

New member
Feb 22, 2009
957
0
0
I don't see how this is a problem, yes they are losing money but doesn't that show how dedicated they are to the consumer, people really shouldn't complain. Also look at it this way, if it botherd sony that much they would have done something about it by now.
 

Rayansaki

New member
May 5, 2009
960
0
0
BaldursBananaSoap said:
silverbullet1989 said:
BaldursBananaSoap said:
Wow PS3 bashing is abundant in this one...

This is probably because Sony doesn't sell you a bare bones console which needs you to go and buy extremely overpriced add-ons and pay for an online service with awful P2P servers, ads and twelve year olds.

At least they've made up for it in software sales.
so you counter that with 360 bashing?


Surely someone at Sony thought.. Hmm if we stick all the "supposed" top of the range hardware in our console, then we will have to stick a high price tag on it which will ultimately deter people from buying it....

I loved the PS2, I was very anti Xbox but when it came down to it I wasn?t prepared to pay out nearly 200 Great British Pounds more for a PS3 when I could have a perfectly acceptable Xbox 360 which is I paid £150 for and is still running strong nearly 3 years later.

i would like a ps3 very much so, but when there cheap enough i will have one.
Does Microsoft sell you a barebones console which you must spend another £150-200 on to actually make it do what it says it does? Which are also overpriced to fuck (Hint: You can buy a 500gb hard drive for the price they sell you goddamn 20gb hard drive)? Are they also cheap enough to make you pay for an online service littered with ads, full of screaming twelve year olds and laggy player to player servers on most of its exclusives which allow a maximum of twelve players?

Yes
Flamewar /win
 

Rusty Bucket

New member
Dec 2, 2008
1,588
0
0
BaldursBananaSoap said:
silverbullet1989 said:
BaldursBananaSoap said:
Wow PS3 bashing is abundant in this one...

This is probably because Sony doesn't sell you a bare bones console which needs you to go and buy extremely overpriced add-ons and pay for an online service with awful P2P servers, ads and twelve year olds.

At least they've made up for it in software sales.
so you counter that with 360 bashing?


Surely someone at Sony thought.. Hmm if we stick all the "supposed" top of the range hardware in our console, then we will have to stick a high price tag on it which will ultimately deter people from buying it....

I loved the PS2, I was very anti Xbox but when it came down to it I wasn?t prepared to pay out nearly 200 Great British Pounds more for a PS3 when I could have a perfectly acceptable Xbox 360 which is I paid £150 for and is still running strong nearly 3 years later.

i would like a ps3 very much so, but when there cheap enough i will have one.
Does Microsoft sell you a barebones console which you must spend another £150-200 on to actually make it do what it says it does? Which are also overpriced to fuck (Hint: You can buy a 500gb hard drive for the price they sell you goddamn 20gb hard drive)? Are they also cheap enough to make you pay for an online service littered with ads, full of screaming twelve year olds and laggy player to player servers on most of its exclusives which allow a maximum of twelve players?

Yes
Do you know why the 360 costs less? It's because it comes with less as standard, everyone knows that when they buy it. It's not barebones, it's an initially cheaper investment that, for me at least, was far more financially viable than the PS3. And no, you don't have to spend another £150 on it. My 60gb HDD and wireless adapter set me back £70 total.

I also haven't played a super laggy exclusive game. If you're lagging, that's your problem buddy. And there isn't a single game I can think of on 360 that has a max of 12 players. 12v12, yes, but there's nothing wrong with that if the game is designed well.

Fucking hypocrite.
 

plastic_window

New member
Jun 29, 2008
1,218
0
0
To be honest, this seems like a marketing ploy rather than marketing research.

If Sony actually lost $40 per PS3 sold, would they actually sell it? Would any sane member of the board of executives of Sony let any product go on sale if it meant that Sony would lose money?

The only possible upside of this is that share's may increase if Sony is seen to be doing something generous - but this would achieve the same results if Sony lied about it.

I'm not trying to say this is a bad thing, I'm just saying I find it hard to believe that any company these days - regardless of how rich and powerful they are - would allow anything they build to lose them such a high amount of money.

Think about that. It's $40 per Ps3 sold. That means they'd lose $40,000,000 if they sold a million units - which they've done. Many times over.

I do not believe it's possible for any company to lose this much money and continue to let it happen.
 

Indecizion

New member
Aug 11, 2009
841
0
0
This makes me sad greatly so, especialy given the great ammount of money that the WII is making, when you compare the quality of games, the WII making soo much and the ps3 going into debt. worries me a little too sony and microsoft might see the crap that nintendo is pumping out to be a great way to make a large profit with little costs :S hope not that could rly devastate the games industry more than it already has.
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
Between the Xbox and 360 and RODD the 360 has only made a profit in last 2 or 3 years and not much of one at that. This is the price paid for doing a console based on media and not based on gaming....
 

NotSoProBenny

New member
Jul 23, 2008
12
0
0
The vasy majority of you are missing the point here. The fact that Sony is still selling their console at a loss is indictive of how much faith they have in the PS3. And I'll tell you something else, nearly every console in any generation sells at a loss to start with. Nobody ever makes their money selling consoles, they make it selling games.
 

smell-of-man

New member
Aug 20, 2009
10
0
0
Ehm, nintendo always sold their consoles at a loss (don't know about the WII though)... they just made it up with software sales.

It's just a commercial tactic
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
smell-of-man said:
Ehm, nintendo always sold their consoles at a loss (don't know about the WII though)... they just made it up with software sales.

It's just a commercial tactic
I believe Nintendo is the only company making a profit on consoles this time around, but don't quote me on that. You are correct that the commercial tactic (which was started by the Gilette corporation) has been in effect since even the Atari days.


The problem is if you don't sell enough razors you won't sell enough blades either.

BaldursBananaSoap said:
Does Microsoft sell you a barebones console which you must spend another £150-200 on to actually make it do what it says it does? Which are also overpriced to fuck (Hint: You can buy a 500gb hard drive for the price they sell you goddamn 20gb hard drive)? Are they also cheap enough to make you pay for an online service littered with ads, full of screaming twelve year olds and laggy player to player servers on most of its exclusives which allow a maximum of twelve players?

Yes
Hm the intellectual dishonesty is abundant in this thread. You act as if they only sell the Arcade version, which they don't. I should really just stop right there because of how big a liar you are, but I'm going to keep going. I pay the rought equivalent of $3.50 a month for online service through Xbox Live, yes, but you know what? It works, I can mute the "12-year-olds", I'm not treated like an idiot by my content provider who tries to pass off a Second Life ripoff as an innovation, and since the pre-included avatar options are sufficient enough, I don't have to pay anything to customize said avatar which makes that a moot point as well. And ads? Really? you're going to complain about ads? Claim that the PSN doesn't have any? Going to be really hard to do that when it's on their flowchart.



Lastly, the players. If you had even bothered to spend 5 seconds on Wikipedia you would have found that a lot of 360 games support 16 players, and in some cases more. No it's not the 128 vs. 128 that MAG purports but that is an exception and not the rule when it comes to the PSN. I am not saying XBL is perfect, but it is quite functional and I get my money's worth.

So in conclusion, you fail fact-checking forever, you lose, good day sir.
 

Desert Tiger

New member
Apr 25, 2009
846
0
0
Honestly. If the PS3 died, there'd only be the Wii and the X-box. I know a lot of you would love that, but the Wii is a niche and that would make the X-box the only "proper" console left.

Let me put this into perspective - with no competition, they could charge whatever they want.

Whatever. They. Want.

"You don't wanna pay $80? That's a shame. You aren't getting a game."
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
I don't care and neither should anyone here. As long as it continues to be well supported and great games keep coming out for it then all the better. And a $37 loss is insignificant as the licensing fee from just Two 3rd party games or just the sale of one 1st party game would cancel that loss out.

As gamers we should actually be happy that Sony is still making a loss on each PS3, it gives them extra incentive to make their money on GAMES and SERVICES like more Downloadable games, movies and so on.

Wii hardware is selling at a profit and look at what has happened to their software line-up... you can tell where Nintendo's priorities are.

With a loss-leading console Sony has SO MUCH incentive to get the owner to love the platform and do everything in their power to keep it well supplied with games and services since that is where they make their money and ultimately that is what we want.

And you know what, I really believe Sony when they say they have a 10 year plan for this console and hell it has only been out since late 2006 (spring 2007 outside USA/Japan) so that is 3 years/2.5 years out of 10! Sony is also popularising their blu-ray player which is good for them too.
 

Haro

New member
May 27, 2009
43
0
0
couple things to point out:

a) ps3 fanboys state that this is like a flame for xbox fanboy "moths." when in fact there are far more rants about the xbox 360 in this thread than the ps3.

b) this doesn't mean the ps3 is bad. I like the ps3. a lot of people do. I don't have one, however, because the price is too high for the benefits the system will give me. This is what the article hits upon.

c) in the nature of profits: this is hardly surprising, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

companies frequently have products that initially don't turn profits. a company like sony or microsoft can easily afford the initial costs of these consoles, as long as they have a plan to make it pay off in the long run.

which leads me, of course, to the example of the dreamcast. is the ps3 falling into the same niche? yes and no. there is a similarity in the situation, but there are huge differences. Sony is not Sega. While the reality of the ps3 is certainly not as rosy as what Sony initially foresaw, the ps3 is not falling out like the dreamcast did, and Sony is not in danger.




so, in conclusion. The PS3 isn't collapsing, Sony can easily shrug off any losses it is still gaining, and the PS3 still has time to turn things around. but I do not think the PS3 is in a great place right now, and I hope PS3 has some ideas for games, because honestly I don't see the appeal, and neither do many other people.
 

SimuLord

Whom Gods Annoy
Aug 20, 2008
10,077
0
0
SikOseph said:
Pilot Bush said:
it seems sony may go the way of sega...or the PS4 will be much less state-of-the-art
Yeah, becuase Sony don't have a widely diversified and enormous technology empire to subsidize their console arm, not to mention a vested interest in securing the industry standard formats for films and series. Facepalm.
If I were a Sony shareholder, I'd be mighty angry about the company "subsidizing" anything. They teach you this in Business 101---any division of a company that is losing money should be sold off or disbanded before the shareholders revolt.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
AceDiamond said:
Lastly, the players. If you had even bothered to spend 5 seconds on Wikipedia you would have found that a lot of 360 games support 16 players, and in some cases more. No it's not the 128 vs. 128 that MAG purports but that is an exception and not the rule when it comes to the PSN. I am not saying XBL is perfect, but it is quite functional and I get my money's worth.

So in conclusion, you fail fact-checking forever, you lose, good day sir.
Well I think the point he was trying to get at is what are you actually paying for with Xbox Live's Gold Membership when there are no dedicated servers and it is almost exclusively P2P matchmaking? You don't have to pay for PSN, Wii nor is it needed for PC online gaming.

You may like to know that many PS3 games support dedicated servers and don't require the player to pay any online fee. A shortlist of PS3 games that use Dedicated Servers for online games:

Warhawk = 32 player online
Resistance FOM = 40 player online
Resistance 2 = 64 player online
SOCOM Confrontation = 32 players
Metal Gear Online = 16 players (but very low lag)
Killzone 2 = 32 players online

It should be noted that those game I have listed that use dedicated servers are the main games I play online multiplayer with PS3. In fact, I have found it very similar to the PC model of online Gaming which I have been raised on... I wish I could say the same for XBL. Free online gaming also makes so much sense for games that have a rather minimal yet significant online component like LittleBigPlanet or Demon's Soul.

I have gotten a 360 recently and though I am loving it overall I'm sorry but I find it hard to accept that Xbox Live is the only online gaming service that I have to pay for yet P2P is the cheapest and the worst way of handling online multiplayer. I mean Halo 3 is CRYING OUT for dedicated servers.

Now I understand Microsoft lost A LOT of money on the Original Xbox (I think a net loss of $4 Billion, was it?) and they have a lot of debts to clear but I am seriously considering if I will even bother buying into XBL Gold after my first 3 Months Free expires. I have PC and PS3 and I have better ways to spend £40 every year.

Ah, what the hell, I probably will end up paying it just for those few games that have co-op but that DOESN'T mean I'm happy about it!

But don't be so dismissive of PS3, you could be missing out on a lot of really great games and it's a great Blu-ray player too. Playstation Home sucks but just like you can mute 12-year-olds on XBL, you don't have to use Home.

D-pad is great for classic games re-released, there are a few game that HUGELY benefit from the the Six-Axis (MOH: Airborne), and if you live in Europe you can get that PlayTV digital TV tuner and install a cheap and large 500GB Hard-drive to turn the PS3 into a PVR (like TiVo or Sky-Plus) which is great as it will record a scheduled program even if the PS3 is turned off when it starts or if you're playing a game... can't do that with a PC.
 

BillyShakes

New member
Oct 29, 2009
474
0
0
I'm not a fan of the PS3. Not to say I like any console on this generation, but the PS3 just falls on my personal bottom rung. I haven't enjoyed many of their new titles, and haven't found a game that captured the feel of a good PS2 game.
Oh, the PS2, how I love thee.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Haro said:
which leads me, of course, to the example of the dreamcast. is the ps3 falling into the same niche? yes and no. there is a similarity in the situation, but there are huge differences. Sony is not Sega. While the reality of the ps3 is certainly not as rosy as what Sony initially foresaw, the ps3 is not falling out like the dreamcast did, and Sony is not in danger.
Why does everyone always bring up Dreamcast when we talk about the Console Wars and try to say "is this the next Dreamcast"? Try to define everything by how it is compared to the Dreamcast?

I'm telling you, Dreamcast is the Vietnam of video gaming.

Just like in politics people say "is conflict X another Vietnam?" every-time things aren't going perfectly, people seem so tempted to define things by huge and unusual failures. It left a lasting impression but is this representative of all scenarios or was it a freak aberration?

The bottom line is Vietnam was Vietnam (the war that is) and Dreamcast was Dreamcast, they are not categories or "niches", they ended up their respective disasters (the former being arguably far more serious) due to very unique circumstances and are not defined by the superficial features.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
plastic_window said:
Think about that. It's $40 per Ps3 sold. That means they'd lose $40,000,000 if they sold a million units - which they've done. Many times over.

Hmm, you make such a big deal over $40 million, how do I put this in perspective...

"A Million Dollars just isn't all that much these days"

Not a big deal for for 40x times that even considering the kind of money we are talking with a company like Sony Computer Entertainment.

Sony gets a $16 cut for EVERY SINGLE Playstation 3 game sold, they get about $25 per every 1st party game sold (retailers, middle men and tax take a HUGE cut before it reaches $60 store price). Sony can easily earn BILLIONS in global games sale revenue per year and are pretty much guaranteed to earn back any loss per console and the console will keep on earning for Sony.

The more Playstation 3 consoles there are out there the more potential customers there are for games to be sold to, not to mention PSN products like video and DLG and the PS3 itself also popularises their blu-ray format which they profit more off the more it is used.
 

Baconmonster723

New member
Mar 4, 2009
324
0
0
SimuLord said:
SikOseph said:
Pilot Bush said:
it seems sony may go the way of sega...or the PS4 will be much less state-of-the-art
Yeah, becuase Sony don't have a widely diversified and enormous technology empire to subsidize their console arm, not to mention a vested interest in securing the industry standard formats for films and series. Facepalm.
If I were a Sony shareholder, I'd be mighty angry about the company "subsidizing" anything. They teach you this in Business 101---any division of a company that is losing money should be sold off or disbanded before the shareholders revolt.
Just to let people know, Sony can't exactly subsidize this arm much longer. The company on a whole lost $2.9 billion dollars last year. Sony as a whole is failing. This isn't a PS3 issue. This is a Sony issue. They better get their act together or they will be in the tank shortly. While Microsoft lost a much smaller sum, $400 million. Sony can't afford to keep paying the losses of a failing arm when they are failing as a whole. Sooner or later if a limb starts to stink you have to realize it and simply cut your losses. I am ok with this. I want one console. I'm tired of fanboys, I'm tired of arguments, I'm tired of "exclusives".
 

Basslover

New member
Dec 10, 2009
11
0
0
smell-of-man said:
Ehm, nintendo always sold their consoles at a loss (don't know about the WII though)... they just made it up with software sales.

It's just a commercial tactic
Do you have any info to prove it, im nto going to say that im old (24) but i have NEVER heard of nintendo losing money on console sold, they always make profit with their consoles, all the way to the nes, super nes, 64, even the gamecube, that's why they could keep their last 2 systems alive with no third party support (outside capcom on the cube).
 

koriantor

New member
Nov 9, 2009
142
0
0
um, this is how all console business works. They sell the console at a loss and make moeny from the games.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
SimuLord said:
SikOseph said:
Pilot Bush said:
it seems sony may go the way of sega...or the PS4 will be much less state-of-the-art
Yeah, becuase Sony don't have a widely diversified and enormous technology empire to subsidize their console arm, not to mention a vested interest in securing the industry standard formats for films and series. Facepalm.
If I were a Sony shareholder, I'd be mighty angry about the company "subsidizing" anything. They teach you this in Business 101---any division of a company that is losing money should be sold off or disbanded before the shareholders revolt.
Good job that Sony's executives did a little more than Business 101, then. Hmmm... no PS3, no Blu-Ray accepted as standard. Market strategy is just a little bit beyond the grasp of those with Business 101, sometimes it even goes beyond stripping a company just for the parts the are immediately profitable.

That's my response to your content. You are no doubt aware though that the original comment is invalid for the reason I have given. Sony can't tank like Sega did because it is a completely different animal. I'm sure you meant to refine the point to 'Sony might pull out of the console race'. My first paragrpah here deals with why I think that unlikely.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
silverbullet1989 said:
but i think i can stretch to £0.67 pence a week for it.
Hey, everything sounds better when you divide it by smaller units of time.

Mr Smith: "Will you buy my useless product for £76.99."

Mr Jones: "no"

Smoth: "I know it sounds like a lot but think about it this way, it will last the rest of your life and assuming you live till your late 80's, and with 365 days per years and 24 hours per...

... so per second you are actually paying a MINUSCULE amount of money and THAT is why you should buy my overpriced product, even though it is crap."

Mr Jones "Can I pay you per week?"

Mr Smith: "No, I want the money up front."

I would actually be happy with paying 0.67 pence per week for XBL but unfortunately that is NOT what is actually happening, you have to buy it in 3 month chunks at the smallest. I wish I could just pay for the odd weekend I want to play it since most of my online gaming will be on PS3 and PC but I have just a few friends on XBL and only like 2 or 3 XB360 games I want to try online.

Micro-transactions to get online maybe... like a 3-day "friday-plus-weekend" pass for £1... I'd accept that even though "per day" I'm paying 3x more than with a year long pass it would be more cost effective. There are pay as you go phones, why not for XBL?

Do it Microsoft... just face it that some people aren't THAT willing to commit to your "service".

Even though it's less of a service, more like paying off a protection racket to access services that should be free, I just want my bribes to be more convenient.
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
AceDiamond said:
I pay the rought equivalent of $3.50 a month for online service through Xbox Live,
Everything sounds much sweeter in small chunks, doesn't it? It's like saying "Pay $300 for Gamefly allowing for 2 games out at once, or just pay 25 cents a day!" (I have Gamefly, great service, though eventually it would cost me $300 is a year)
It's the same exact thing.

It works, I can mute the "12-year-olds",
Why are those "12-year-olds" there in the first place?

I'm not treated like an idiot by my content provider who tries to pass off a Second Life ripoff as an innovation, and since the pre-included avatar options are sufficient enough, I don't have to pay anything to customize said avatar which makes that a moot point as well.
I don't see HOME on any other console, do you? That's "innovation" in my book at least. I fail to see why it being a "rip off" of Second Life really makes it "worse". You don't need to pay anything to customize your avatar in HOME, LIVE, or Miis, only if you want to.

And ads? Really? you're going to complain about ads? Claim that the PSN doesn't have any? Going to be really hard to do that when it's on their flowchart.
Not once did he claim there were no ads on PSN. The difference is that regardless of if you have a free Silver membership or a paid Gold membership, you see advertisements. Due to PSN being free, of course there would be some advertisements (though I don't really recall seeing any besides promoting their own stuff actually)

Lastly, the players. If you had even bothered to spend 5 seconds on Wikipedia you would have found that a lot of 360 games support 16 players, and in some cases more. No it's not the 128 vs. 128 that MAG purports but that is an exception and not the rule when it comes to the PSN. I am not saying XBL is perfect, but it is quite functional and I get my money's worth.
Taken from the list Treblaine gave;
Warhawk = 32 player online
Resistance FOM = 40 player online
Resistance 2 = 64 player online
SOCOM Confrontation = 32 players
Metal Gear Online = 16 players (but very low lag)
Killzone 2 = 32 players online
MAG = 256 players (I've played the Beta multiple times, absolutely no lag, though bugs a plenty)

Compared to (correct me if I'm wrong)
10 on Halo 3
10 on Gears of War 2 (which had to be patched multiply compared to Resistance 2)
Call of Duty 4-MW2 18
And some others that escape me at them moment (I'm not trying to make it seem like there are less games, I just can't recall some others)

So in conclusion, you fail fact-checking forever, you lose, good day sir.
I always seem to see you end your posts this way, why is that?

I just wanted to get into posting again, and what better way than to start a debate with my favorite person to debate against? :D
 

Dudeakoff

New member
Jul 22, 2009
136
0
0
nilcypher said:
a deficit the company has made up for with game sales and royalties,"
Read the article before you start stating that the PS3 is the Dreamcast 2 guys...
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
whycantibelinus said:
Pilot Bush said:
it seems sony may go the way of sega...or the PS4 will be much less state-of-the-art
Agreed. They should have heeded the lesson of the Dreamcast.
ah well there have to be casualties every war and these... are... the console wars!!!!!
 

Radelaide

New member
May 15, 2008
2,503
0
0
Syphonz said:
how is this news?
How isn't it? Sony market their console to hell and back, invest millions in researching the best techniques in gaming (visuals, engines, etc), bring out some of the best games, made massive reductions in manufacturing costs and they're still losing money. It's a lose/win situation. Sony loses and the buyer wins. Soon enough, Sony will come to their senses, axe the PS3 to cut their losses and everyone loses.

Said by a Xbox console owner. NOT a fangirl...
 

FiveSpeedf150

New member
Sep 30, 2009
224
0
0
So, the "Breaking News" is that Sony's PS3 Strategy of "take a hit on the system, make it back on games, etc" still hasn't changed.

Good to know!
 

Jumplion

New member
Mar 10, 2008
7,873
0
0
Radelaide said:
Syphonz said:
how is this news?
How isn't it? Sony market their console to hell and back, invest millions in researching the best techniques in gaming (visuals, engines, etc), bring out some of the best games, made massive reductions in manufacturing costs and they're still losing money. It's a lose/win situation. Sony loses and the buyer wins. Soon enough, Sony will come to their senses, axe the PS3 to cut their losses and everyone loses.

Said by a Xbox console owner. NOT a fangirl...
Sony make money off of the game sales not console sales, so in that respect they are still turning in a profit. It's like that analogy that Sony rep said a while ago, you sell razors but you make the money off of the blades.

If I recall correctly, Microsoft is still losing money on their consoles, but the same principle applies; they make money off of games sales (and LIVE subscriptions to I suppose)
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Xanadu84 said:
Wait a minute..don't all consoles except the Wii lose money on each console sold?
Historically, I think no, not before Microsoft spoiled the market by pricing the original XBox very aggressively and covering the huge losses with profits from other divisions. Another reason why Nintendo didn't want to compete with Microsoft head on, only on features and price.
 

OmegaXIII

New member
Jun 26, 2009
811
0
0
Urgh, i don't know why i was optimistic about this thread not descending into a willy waving contest.

OT: I doubt this is concerning Sony too much, they still have at least a significant market share and as somebody above mentioned will successfully promote Blu-Ray.

Do people honestly care who wins the console 'war'? Last time i checked, Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo's profits don't come back to us, so as long as the games are still coming out does it really matter to Joe Public which company has its nose out in front? I own a PS3, but i'm not going to defend it as a reflex to someone saying they don't like it or another console is better. I am happy with it, and thats all i give a crap about.
 

Vierran

None here.
Oct 11, 2009
276
0
0
Nothing new here, a company losing money on hardware and making it back through software and royalties, it still makes good business sense to do this because after all it is the bottom line you look at.
 

Zac_Dai

New member
Oct 21, 2008
1,092
0
0
plastic_window said:
To be honest, this seems like a marketing ploy rather than marketing research.

If Sony actually lost $40 per PS3 sold, would they actually sell it? Would any sane member of the board of executives of Sony let any product go on sale if it meant that Sony would lose money?

The only possible upside of this is that share's may increase if Sony is seen to be doing something generous - but this would achieve the same results if Sony lied about it.

I'm not trying to say this is a bad thing, I'm just saying I find it hard to believe that any company these days - regardless of how rich and powerful they are - would allow anything they build to lose them such a high amount of money.

Think about that. It's $40 per Ps3 sold. That means they'd lose $40,000,000 if they sold a million units - which they've done. Many times over.

I do not believe it's possible for any company to lose this much money and continue to let it happen.
Console makers rarely ever make profit off the actual consoles. It all comes from accessories and games instead. Even the PS2, the best selling console of all time has just started to turn a profit per unit sold due to component prices coming down low enough.

This article really isn't news, its just fanboy flamebait.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
More Fun To Compute said:
Xanadu84 said:
Wait a minute..don't all consoles except the Wii lose money on each console sold?
Historically, I think no, not before Microsoft spoiled the market by pricing the original XBox very aggressively and covering the huge losses with profits from other divisions. Another reason why Nintendo didn't want to compete with Microsoft head on, only on features and price.
Ah, I see...but still, it seems like its fair to say that with the exception of the Wii (Which is cornering a fairly different market anyways), modern day consoles are priced to lose money on the system, but gain money back elsewhere?

Honestly, it sounds to me like PS3 is far from in trouble. Rather, it was made to squeak by the first few years, and then really come into its own later on in the generation. And what with this generation being so long, sounds to me like Sony has a legitimate business strategy that finally starting to show fruits. Not saying PS3 is better then X Box: If I wanted to do some Fanboyism, Id start ranting about the PC. But it really looks to me like when you even it all out, the 2 consoles just have different strengths and weaknesses.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Xanadu84 said:
Ah, I see...but still, it seems like its fair to say that with the exception of the Wii (Which is cornering a fairly different market anyways), modern day consoles are priced to lose money on the system, but gain money back elsewhere?
They are priced to make money back elsewhere? That's a big assumption, like I could say that some of the mortgage deals banks made before the credit crunch didn't look that good for them but it is safe to say they know what they are doing and will make their money back elsewhere. Those companies are safe investments, honest guvnor! Look at the profits that the XBox division made in it's lifetime and it is clear that they lost a lot of money overall.
 

JaymesFogarty

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,054
0
0
The biggest problem I have with some xbox 360 fanboys is that they state that the reason they don't have a ps3 is because the ps3 is too expensive. To be fair on the PS3, (I've got one so this might be a little too fair) numerous tables I and the internet have devised have practically proven that in the long haul, the PS3 is cheaper. Free wifi, online, bluetooth, blue-ray, cd, dvd, ps1, (maybe ps2 if you have 60gb like me) and compatability with cheap hard drives takes the biscuit over xbox 360's free cd, dvd, and previous xbox titles. (Xbox 360 controllers are cheaper, but since you have to fork out money on batteries or a recharge pack, it's not counting.) I am not stating in any way that xbox is a bad console, I'm simply saying that all this bullshit about ps3's being too expensive is irrelevant.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
oh my god 90% of you people are fucking morons! look I know I promised to keep my tongue in check but this is getting so fucking ridiculous I don't have another word for you all.

Okay first of all Losing money for every console sold so it's a failure? I guess that means the PS2 was a failure when it first came out as well because fuck it an EVERY OTHER FUCKING CONSOLE has always sold as a loss, ours is a business that makes it's money on accessories and games.

Secondly 'Dreamcast 2'? Sega is a company that sold consoles and games and nothing but, with the failure on all fronts from the hardware division they had to switch to software only to remain afloat.

Thirdly, Failure? FAILURE?! I think the sales of the console right now are in the mid-late 20 millions it has definitely been leaping and bounding towards the 360 gleefully, with each of those consoles sold all Blu-Ray movies sold or Games brought or Accessories brought become money for Sony, that's how the fucking business works and I would expect that your asshats suffering from Diarrhea of the mouth wouldn't know that.

Fourthly 'Cheaper'. You want the console to be CHEAPER, oh don't think I missed that I saw your post and you know who you are. Because being $300 and on the same level as the Xbox Elite or whatever the new version is called I don't care, makes it cost to much, why don't you cry home to mommy because you Americans don't know the MEANING of the word 'costs to much' so cry me a river if I think your reason is bullshit!

Lastly I would like to top this all off by pointing out that every console has it's strengths and weaknesses and that your all stupid for bashing on any of them, now if you will excuse me, I have a threesome with my PS3 and 360 and I don't want to keep the poor consoles waiting.

EDIT: Forgot something, people who consider this a death knell for Sony keep this in mind, this is roughly the same amount of money Microsoft lost with the original X-box NOW SHUT UP!
 

awsome117

New member
Jan 27, 2009
937
0
0
Mention any type of a console and the fanboys will fly out to defend bash whatever console it is(or not). I mean, my god people. Bashing the 360, bashing the ps3, and evening bashing the Wii(yes, I did see that, although, I don't know how that fits in here, maybe the whole price thing, and the Wii is still the best selling console[I think anyway, last I checked it was]). Anyway, I still don't get why people(especially people on the escapist, I thought we were better than this) bash them. Each has their strength and weaknesses. I understand if you don't like one, and that's fine. Just, I don't know how to put this, be critical of your opinion in a mature manner?

Anyway, I'll end my rant there, and get back on topic. It happens with all consoles, they make up for it in game sales, and/or extra add-ons. So I wouldn't be to worried on Sonies part.
 

Snowalker

New member
Nov 8, 2008
1,937
0
0
I fail to see how this makes the PS3 a bad console, I understand that it makes Sony a stupid company, but not that the PS3 is a bad console, I can honestly say I've enjoyed my PS3 far more than my 360, just because of the quality in games.
 

Pimppeter2

New member
Dec 31, 2008
16,479
0
0
So I guess that's great for them. Looks like they're approaching even by lets say 2012. (Going at a $10 per year pace)

Looks like a possible price cut in the far future.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
More Fun To Compute said:
Xanadu84 said:
Ah, I see...but still, it seems like its fair to say that with the exception of the Wii (Which is cornering a fairly different market anyways), modern day consoles are priced to lose money on the system, but gain money back elsewhere?
They are priced to make money back elsewhere? That's a big assumption, like I could say that some of the mortgage deals banks made before the credit crunch didn't look that good for them but it is safe to say they know what they are doing and will make their money back elsewhere. Those companies are safe investments, honest guvnor! Look at the profits that the XBox division made in it's lifetime and it is clear that they lost a lot of money overall.
I don't think its a big assumption, seeing how the very existence of video games depends on it. And seeing how losing 50 dollars when you sell a console is likely to be traded for a person deciding to go with that cheaper console, and spend another wad of cash on peripherals, Online in the case of X Box, and then all the games that a person buys (Which DEFINITELY will amount to over 50 dollars) I think taking a loss initially is a pretty wise investment.
 

Gladion

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,470
0
0
My guess is that the main reason the PS3 even was that expensive to begin with was because Sony wanted to prevent Microsoft's HD-DVD beat their Blu-Ray (development of the laser probably cost a bazillion). In that case it has succeeded.
 

SantoUno

New member
Aug 13, 2009
2,583
0
0
Sheesh, everyone isn't bashing the PS3, they are just stating the cold truth, that despite boasting it's technological superiority over the other consoles, this is actually detrimental to Sony themselves. I mean, yes fanboys and such like to boast how the PS3 is supposed to be technologically superior to the 360 and Wii, but they don't realize that that is costing Sony. And we don't know if Sony had the same mindset as the fanboys, but if they did they are sure learning their lesson now.
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
SantoUno said:
Sheesh, everyone isn't bashing the PS3, they are just stating the cold truth, that despite boasting it's technological superiority over the other consoles, this is actually detrimental to Sony themselves. I mean, yes fanboys and such like to boast how the PS3 is supposed to be technologically superior to the 360 and Wii, but they don't realize that that is costing Sony. And we don't know if Sony had the same mindset as the fanboys, but if they did they are sure learning their lesson now.
Except the 360 still sells at a loss as well, and they have to pay the full price of a system every time they replace one with the Warrenty.

And since the fucking business is built around selling your system at a loss and making profit from games this is me telling you to shut up cause you don't know jack shit.
 

Rigs83

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,932
0
0
The African miner who works eighteen hour days to get the raw resources needed for all our electronics loses the most.
 

jimduckie

New member
Mar 4, 2009
1,218
0
0
sony put too much crap in the ps3 ... should of stuck to a gaming console only with online play too ... it didn't need facebook ,photo, etc ... especially the browser ... as for blue ray , meh doesn't impress me ... kinda like betamax tapes (for the young ones ... ask your parents and make a pit stop first and never mention 8 track tapes or vinyl records )
 

Clyde

New member
Aug 12, 2009
216
0
0
If you want to look at how well a company is doing look at its financial statements.
Sony http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=SNE&annual
Microsoft http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=MSFT&annual
Nintendo http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/statemnt.aspx?Symbol=NTDOF

If you're too lazy to look Sony is the only one in an unhealthy position. These reports are based on their operations as a whole not just consoles. Unlike its competitors, Sony's Profit margin(Gross Profit) is thin.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
Xanadu84 said:
I don't think its a big assumption, seeing how the very existence of video games depends on it. And seeing how losing 50 dollars when you sell a console is likely to be traded for a person deciding to go with that cheaper console, and spend another wad of cash on peripherals, Online in the case of X Box, and then all the games that a person buys (Which DEFINITELY will amount to over 50 dollars) I think taking a loss initially is a pretty wise investment.
It's not as wise as making money on the hardware, software and peripherals which is what Nintendo do. How is it more wise to make loss making hardware when it doesn't even guarantee more sales?

Many people know about the "razor and razor blades" business model but the Microsoft business model seemed to be to lose billions of dollars to take over the market. Nintendo reacted smartly to this and it is still to be seen if Sony can handle the same losses. This is more like America vs Russia in cold war spending than Mr Gillette making money from blades but giving away the handle for free.
 

Asehujiko

New member
Feb 25, 2008
2,119
0
0
bloob said:
If the PS3 is so poor then why is the US air force buying 2200 of them to modernise a super computer? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96596-Air-Force-Orders-2-200-PlayStation-3s
Because they didn't got the memo that it's CPU power in paper is vastly inflated compared to it's actual performance. That or somebody threw a pile of cash at them to buy something useless, it's not the first time that that happened.
 

Scrat01

New member
Nov 11, 2009
20
0
0
The thing with the PS3 is, that while each one sold it may be a 40 dollar loss. But, all the exclusives, rights, ect. The PS3 is nothing less than a money maker
 

DTWolfwood

Better than Vash!
Oct 20, 2009
3,716
0
0
a little under $40 is way better than the estimated $200 XD
I'd recommend yall read a book called "The Goal" to find out y Unit cost projections are meaningless in this day an age.

for the 360 fanboys when was your system looked at but the US government to provide a little extra processing power [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96596-Air-Force-Orders-2-200-PlayStation-3s]
 

pha kin su pah

New member
Mar 26, 2008
778
0
0
plastic_window said:
To be honest, this seems like a marketing ploy rather than marketing research.

If Sony actually lost $40 per PS3 sold, would they actually sell it? Would any sane member of the board of executives of Sony let any product go on sale if it meant that Sony would lose money?

The only possible upside of this is that share's may increase if Sony is seen to be doing something generous - but this would achieve the same results if Sony lied about it.

I'm not trying to say this is a bad thing, I'm just saying I find it hard to believe that any company these days - regardless of how rich and powerful they are - would allow anything they build to lose them such a high amount of money.

Think about that. It's $40 per Ps3 sold. That means they'd lose $40,000,000 if they sold a million units - which they've done. Many times over.

I do not believe it's possible for any company to lose this much money and continue to let it happen.
Well not appealing from a logical point of view, its a very viable business plan, i mean they are still selling aren't they? they still intend to right? exactly.
 

Sevre

Old Hands
Apr 6, 2009
4,887
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Well thats... dedication I guess. I wonder if Microsoft ever continually lost money on their 360.
Microsoft don't lose money because their hardware is made in jungles with chisels and monkeys, they only lose money when they have to replace every 360 that RRODs.
 

project23

New member
Nov 12, 2009
39
0
0
Absurd conversation deserves silly response.
My response in LOLCODE [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOLCODE]

HAI
CAN HAS STDIO?
VISIBLE "The Playstation brand is not going away any time soon"
VISIBLE "The Xbox brand is not going away any time soon"
VISIBLE "The Nintendo brand is not going away any time soon"
KTHXBYE
 

Jake the Snake

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,141
0
0
There's a reason, despite all the horrible business decisions sony has made with the PS3, I still give them more credit than Microsoft. Sony, in general, know how to make a good console and games that go with it. Just look at the PS2. It pretty much dominated the last generation of gaming. It not only had a DvD player, but it has had a plathora of memorable games such as Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Final Fantasy and many many others. Sony's not stupid. They just tried to hard with the whole hardware thing. Microsoft makes money by appealing to what the current mass market likes: Downloadable Content, Online Play and Games for the large 20 year old frat boy, i dont care as long i get to shoot something demographic. I think if Sony even put an ounce of more time into the development of the PSN, they'd be able to be propelled out of their slump. Plus, its not like the PS3 doesn't havee good exlcusive titles. I actually had more fun playing Resistance 2 than i ever did playing Halo 3. That and LittleBigPlanet is totally bitching. But in all seriousness, console gaming as whole doesn't really matter much to me. The PC ALWAYS has far superior graphics and much better controls. But if you were gonna get a console, PS3 is probably your safest bet. And those of you who say Nintendo is still in this console race need to get a Reality check. Nintendo has gone to the Dark side. They're also exploiting a new mass market of 5 year olds and Old people and they're never coming back. The only hardcore titles you're ever going to see from them are remakes of their same F***ing franchises about every 4 years. MARIO ZELDA POKEMON METROID. Jesus Christ just die Nintendo, die. ....yeah that is all....
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
project23 said:
Absurd conversation deserves silly response.
My response in LOLCODE [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOLCODE]

HAI
CAN HAS STDIO?
VISIBLE "The Playstation brand is not going away any time soon"
VISIBLE "The Xbox brand is not going away any time soon"
VISIBLE "The Nintendo brand is not going away any time soon"
KTHXBYE
What's all this then?

4c4
< VISIBLE "The Sega brand is not going away any time soon"
---
> VISIBLE "The Xbox brand is not going away any time soon"
 

mikecoulter

New member
Dec 27, 2008
3,386
0
0
I don't see how they can still be making such a loss. I just hope it doesn't stop Sony from making the PS4 as much of an innovative leap.
 

Deofuta

New member
Nov 10, 2009
1,099
0
0
I'm not going to bother to quote, but am I completely wrong in stating that although it costs money, xbox live not only started with, but continues to be overall more stable then the PSN? I am sure I will be corrected if im wrong...
 

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Deofuta said:
I'm not going to bother to quote, but am I completely wrong in stating that although it costs money, xbox live not only started with, but continues to be overall more stable then the PSN? I am sure I will be corrected if im wrong...
See I never got this, having played on both, they are both stable and I have never suffered from lag, and this is as an AUSTRALIAN gamer playing over seas
 

Quoth

New member
Aug 28, 2008
205
0
0
I used to like my 360, until the first one broke in the first week. The second in the first month. The third after 11 months and the last straw was at 15 months. All in all the oldest 360 I owned was 10 months old.

Since the last one was well past the original 1 year warranty I switched to PS3.

A handful of exclusive titles here or there doesn't mean that much to me but knowing my console is unlikely to last past its warranty is a big turn off.

Fanboisms aside it's a shame Sony are losing money on their console and I hope this doesn't turn them off the idea. With the changes to PC gaming recently (MW2), and if all we're left with to choose between MS and Nintendo, then it'll be a sad day for gaming to lose an option in the next generation.
 

Rect Pola

New member
May 19, 2009
349
0
0
Taking a hit is nothing new, but it usually to meet a price the masses will accept. Sony totally ignored the money involved and built too big a system. They took a huge hit to be "reasonable" but it didn't fly with old man marketplace. After a lot balancing cost and price, they're only now at a small lost, typical of the industry.
 

Blobpie

New member
May 20, 2009
591
0
0
Well think about it, sure sony is losing money on each PS3, but if they weren't making some profit they wouldn't have dropped the price to $300 .

It's probably the games that are making up that last few dollars.
 

Jameswd

New member
Dec 13, 2009
17
0
0
I loved that, "i cant wait for playstation to go under" comment. It reminded me of a post a saw a while ago saying with all the repair costs Microsoft will run out of money, people need to learn these types of things don't happen, both companies have more funding that most small countries.....
 

Dys

New member
Sep 10, 2008
2,344
0
0
It doesn't matter if they post a loss for the ps3, it did it's job valiantly (making the blu ray the successor to the DVD, welcome $$$$ for all the movie deals and royalties down the track, god forbid a company invest in future sales). I don't think sony really care, no doubt the costs would've been drasticially cheaper if they were using DVDs like the xbox and nintendo. Sony consoles are no more dying than PC games.
 

Timbydude

Crime-Solving Rank 11 Paladin
Jul 15, 2009
958
0
0
80% of the comments on this thread = *WOOSH*

The prevailing logic seems to be:

The PS3 costs a lot to make. --> It must suck!