Sony has lost over $3 on PS3....

Shicks18

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/sony-has-lost-over-3-billion-on-the-ps3/1223467

bobman1235

3 dollars ain't bad...

Shicks18

haha meant $3 BILLION!

Demiurge

"Sony fanboys should take heart, however...."

lol, gotta love the lingo making it into articles like that.

jon s

well, microsoft is losing $1 billion on the X-Box 360 RROD warranty alone... and you know that the X-Box 360s are also sold at a loss to compete with the Sony PS3.

the only one smiling to the bank is Nintendo...

Shicks18

yea, Nintendo has been around the block when it comes to making a profitable console

MightyHalo

article doesn't say though, how much Sony makes in software/accesorie sales

jakelm

MightyHalo wrote: »

article doesn't say though, how much Sony makes in software/accesorie sales

Not as much as Microsoft:p

JohnLocke88

Shicks18 wrote: »

yea, Nintendo has been around the block when it comes to making a profitable console

Well, it's easy to make a profit when you essentially rebundle a GameCube with "slightly" better graphics and processing power and add in some stick waving abilities, all for "only" $250.

PhantomOG

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

Well, it's easy to make a profit when you essentially rebundle a GameCube with "slightly" better graphics and processing power and add in some stick waving abilities, all for "only" $250.

You sound as if Nintendo has somehow duped everyone that bought one. Way before any of the current consoles came out, it was clear that Nintendo was not going for technological leadership. Just because M$ and Sony want to blow billions to be able to claim that leadership does not mean Nintendo has to.

It really seems odd to me that people feel offended if someone else has fun on a system they feel is not technologically the best. Who gives a damn? There was a time when the most important thing about a game was whether it was fun or not -- not whether it was 720p or 1080p. I miss those days.

BTW: I do not own a Wii. I do own a PS3. And a lowly Gamecube.

Demiurge

You know, there are people out there who want BOTH, right? XBox 360 and PS3 offer both. It's not just pretty graphics. It's gameplay, and both visual and auditory beauty.

Nintendo offers rather childish games that are for the most part only fun with a group of friends. -- and not just a little fun -- lots of fun. No doubt about it. It's also good for getting a little exercise while still playing video games. Beyond that he's right, it's just a repackaged GameCube with a motion sensor. Nintendo has definitely screwed themselves out of a lot of money.

I own all 3 consoles.

SolidSqual

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

Well, it's easy to make a profit when you essentially rebundle a GameCube with "slightly" better graphics and processing power and add in some stick waving abilities, all for "only" $250.

Comment of the week.

jakelm

JohnLocke88 wrote: »

Well, it's easy to make a profit when you essentially rebundle a GameCube with "slightly" better graphics and processing power and add in some stick waving abilities, all for "only" $250.

But isnt this basicly what they (Nin, Sony, Micro ) all did?

Graphics, processor, new controls?

People spend alot more on a new computer with less upgrades./

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote: »

You know, there are people out there who want BOTH, right? XBox 360 and PS3 offer both. It's not just pretty graphics. It's gameplay, and both visual and auditory beauty.

I'm not saying the 360/PS3 are not fun. I'm just wondering why some people seem to be angry with or look down upon someone who prefers the Wii simply because of the tech specs of the system. His comment came off sounding very bitter towards Nintendo and I just don't get that. If you don't like a particular system, don't buy it and get on with your life.

tommyboy

You would think after playing nintendo games for about 20 years now that I would get sick of them. Every other console I have had end up collecting dust in the closet very quickly(xbox being the only exception). it seems like everytime I try to get off nintendo, that mario/zelda/metroid trio keeps pulling me back for more. Damn you nintendo!

Imperitor

PhantomOG wrote: »

I'm not saying the 360/PS3 are not fun. I'm just wondering why some people seem to be angry with or look down upon someone who prefers the Wii simply because of the tech specs of the system. His comment came off sounding very bitter towards Nintendo and I just don't get that. If you don't like a particular system, don't buy it and get on with your life.

I don't think its the teck specs that bring the wii down in the minds of 360/PS3 fans. I think there is a lack of good games for wii. Or at least a lack of games that a more adult gamer would enjoy. That's why they hate it.

Demiurge

Imperitor wrote: »

I don't think its the teck specs that bring the wii down in the minds of 360/PS3 fans. I think there is a lack of good games for wii. Or at least a lack of games that a more adult gamer would enjoy. That's why they hate it.

It's not hate, because Wii is awesome when I have a bunch of people over. It's a good time, a complete party console. Most of the games do suck when it comes to playing games alone. Nintendo just missed out by not upping the graphics and offering a wider array of games. The PS3 and 360 are all around by far the better of the 3 consoles.

mantis

You know if Microsoft and Sony are losing money on there consoles, it's there own fault.

The xbox360 is built like ****. Microsoft has been doing **** work for years. Look at Windows. Shame as both windows and 360 have the ability to be great and worth spending good money on. If you think back all the way to the 70's when Atari came out, that game system was 179.99. Why does all these years later a game system which can do more then just play games have to cost under 600.00?

The xbox360 if it was built just alittle bit better, had everything built in instead of needing outboard stuff they could sell it for 600 to 800 bucks and it would be worth it. Same with Sony, they could sell there ps3 for 600.00 or more no problem. I think the ps3 is worth up to 1200.00 or maybe even alittle more. Think about what it can do then compare to to any game console ever made. think about game consoles from the past and how much they cost.

There is alot to be said about quality. I will pay my hard earned money for a quality product.

BeRad

The PS3 put a blu-ray player into a lot of gaming households. Sony may be loosing money on the PS3 right now but they are loosing less and less (2/3's of it was first year, 1/3'd of it the second). The PS3 helped them win the format war so they will be making their money elsewhere. Plus with the PS3 designed around the idea of it being a 10 year console, and the rumors spreading about adding a wii-mote style controller to tap into Nintendo's success, they will probably end up with a nice profit in the end.

kuntasensei

jon s wrote: »

well, microsoft is losing $1 billion on the X-Box 360 RROD warranty alone... and you know that the X-Box 360s are also sold at a loss to compete with the Sony PS3.

the only one smiling to the bank is Nintendo...

Despite the $1 billion cost of the RROD debacle (which actually doesn't really cost them that much - it's just claimed that way for the division's tax statement, giving them an instant tax writeoff for that quarter while the actual expense of repairs is spread out over years), the Xbox 360 has been profitable for quite some time now. The Xbox 360 was only sold at a loss for about its first year of production.

Sadly, because of their dependance on Blu-Ray, the PS3's estimated cost reduction schedule doesn't put them on track for being profitable on the hardware until 2010, and any price cuts that the competition makes means they have to react, putting them further behind schedule. Blu-Ray winning the format war, however, means they may recoup some losses that way... but it won't be enough to offset the cost of the hardware. The only problem Sony faces in that arena is the growing trend of electronic distribution, which may cut into physical media formats like Blu-Ray. Microsoft's marketplace has already shown the potential for downloaded movies, which is why everyone believes Sony will introduce this functionality for PS3 in the future. They just about have to if they're going to leverage the possibility of Blu-Ray not being the juggernaut they think it will be.

Microsoft's rumored $50 price cut near E3 puts them in a good position to hamstring Sony's profitability. Also, it's apparent that Microsoft may be looking for hardware partners to create third-party hardware with 360 functionality, meaning further cost reduction and profitability.

You know who wins in the end, fanboy arguments aside? GAMERS. Now that Microsoft has ironed out their hardware issues and are getting down to that magic $250 price point, the reality is that many households can be dual-console for a mix of casual gaming (Wii) and hardcore (360/PS3).

Personally, I can't own a PS3 because my hands + Dual Shock = pain. It's why I never owned a PS2, and I'm pissed that they didn't put more thought into a better controller for this generation. Fortunately, the 360 controller is comfortable as hell to me (and the online play is better), so that's what I'm gaming on. But honestly, I'd probably be more of a fanboy for Microsoft if I weren't on my TENTH (not a typo - 10, ten, the number after 9 and before 11) 360 since launch.

dorokusai

This really isn't uncommon in electronics retail. You'll find the same model in telecommunications. The money is made elsewhere.

cheddar

kuntasensei wrote: »

The only problem Sony faces in that arena is the growing trend of electronic distribution, which may cut into physical media formats like Blu-Ray. Microsoft's marketplace has already shown the potential for downloaded movies, which is why everyone believes Sony will introduce this functionality for PS3 in the future.

It seems a lot of people think that disk based HD movies will have a short shelf life because of downloading. But with the current infrastructure, we're not too far from users either hitting a usage cap or paying like $1 per gigabyte for their movie download. And that's with only 5% of users being heavy downloaders right now. Downloading may be the future, but it's a future that depends on Cable and Phone companies being quick to upgrade infrastructure and doing away with pricey surcharges. Something they aren't really known for.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25190402/

The top 5 percent of AT&T's DSL customers use 46 percent of the total bandwidth, Coe said. Overall bandwidth use on the network is surging, doubling every year and a half.

...Most cable companies have official or secret caps on the amount of data they allow subscribers to download every month. Time Warner Cable started a trial earlier this month in Beaumont, Texas, under which it will charge subscribers who go over their monthly bandwidth cap $1 per gigabyte.

Cable companies are at the forefront of usage-based pricing because neighbors share capacity on the local cable lines, and bandwidth hogs can slow down traffic for others.

...those who download movies or TV, particularly in high definition, can hit the caps imposed by cable companies.

Download caps could put a crimp in the plans of services like Apple Inc.'s iTunes that use the Internet to deliver video.

djlogix

jakelm wrote: »

Not as much as Microsoft:p

I don't think Microsoft's financial decision (although unseen) for market penetration and to get their foot in the door was a pain or a huge loss. Look at where they are now today compared with when they first entered.

Developer support alone concretes their existence.

As far as Sony losing 3 billion, there have been reports before consisting of a number around 4.1. I wouldn't put it past, Sony really fcked themselves in the videogame market concerning their trojan horse. Which has yet to be seen if it'll pay off.

JohnLocke88

My god, I love how my comment has spurned some into thinking I "look" down upon them for owning a Wii. I was merely commenting on how Nintendo did not "push the envelope" when it came to hardware advances in the Wii. I'm not saying that it sucks because of this, but merely that it is much easier to mass produce, and cheaply produce, technology that has had time to be rehashed and perfected. The PS3, and even Xbox 360 are quiet a bit more advanced (I don't think anyone could argue with this) and are therefore, not easily mass produced and as such don't have such great economies of scale. (Learning curve anyone?)

I think it's funny how people (no matter what console they own) develop crusader like attitudes regarding their consoles. I actually owned a Wii for a while, decided it was not for me and decided instead to simply keep my PS3 (as I wanted a Blu-Ray player and a next gen console).

To the few that seemed to get all huffy over my comment, I say with the utmost sincerity, "calm the frick down."

JohnLocke88

PhantomOG wrote: »

I'm not saying the 360/PS3 are not fun. I'm just wondering why some people seem to be angry with or look down upon someone who prefers the Wii simply because of the tech specs of the system. His comment came off sounding very bitter towards Nintendo and I just don't get that. If you don't like a particular system, don't buy it and get on with your life.

All I have to say to this is el oh el.