Sony Still Losing Money on PS3

[Treblaine]

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]

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?

 

[Dudeakoff]

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...

 

[Radelaide]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[awsome117]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.