PS3 Losing More Money Than PS2 Made

[The 1 2 P]

The loses of the PS3(so far) have been more than the PS2 made in all it's "glory" years: http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/ne...rated-at-peak/

Glory years means "peak years" and not "all years". As always, console makers know that new hardware gets put into the marketplace as a loss-leader. So PS3 losing money in it's first two years isn't a surprise to anyone. But what is surprising is how much it's lost so far: 3.3 billion and counting...

[chrisbid]

not a surprise at all, the sony business model only works if they enjoy a majority of market share.

even if the numbers improve for sony, they will not reach the heights of market share the ps1 or ps2 had.

[digitalpress]

I can only hope that none of the hardcore gamers HERE would revel in the losses of a major contributor of videogaming culture.

Example: If you want Sony to fail, then you either want their competitors to win (oh, great... let's give MICROSOFT a bajillion more dollars) or you're hoping their collapse will create some kind of bargain-bin discount on their product (foolish, as Sony isn't going to fire-sale their gaming star and blu-ray poster child). Hoping for Sony's failure doesn't make any sense as a gamer.

What we really want is for NO ONE to establish superiority. We want them to fight tooth and nail for every sale. We want every game to be that hopeful "push to the top" product. We don't want any company to be so far behind that it doesn't matter anymore. We don't want any company to be so far AHEAD that it doesn't matter anymore. In that scenario (the anti-fanboy "let's get the best games we can" scenario) Sony puts out a mega hit. Microsoft follows. Nintendo follows. Sony counters. Microsoft counters. Nintendo counters. Get it?

THINK, gamers.

[Sudo]

It's not really that surprising, when you think about it. The system launched at a price point that was too high for many people, and the costs of developing the Cell and pushing Blu-ray were significant as well. Now that Blu-ray has won the format war, however, there will be more people who buy the system for it like they did with the PS2 initially for its DVD playback.

[Icarus Moonsight]

It's a double edge sword, really. If no BR then the system would have been cheaper at launch. Perhaps selling better. Then you have those that buy it because it's a BR player. Besides, I doubt the HD format war is over. There is much buzz about challengers on the horizon. If BR falls aside to one of them then that scenario may not actually pan out. Sony needs an Ace and if they have one they're not talking about it. And I can hardly fault them for that. If they are silent because they have nothing, then they are in trouble.

[Graham Mitchell]

Can't say I'm too surprised. It's a modern 3DO, really. Only difference is that people are actually starting to BUY this one.

As Joe suggested, I really hope Sony doesn't "fail". Of course, that's probably because I just bought one of these newfangled contraptions. They need to strengthen PSN and, primarily, get more decent exclusive titles. Ports of 360 games just look identical to their counterparts, but a game developed from the ground up to run on the PS3 does show off the system's edge. Maybe after Little Big Planet and a few others hit stores, things will pick up.

Do we have any sales data indicating any improvement in console sales since the release of MGS4? I personally bought a machine just to get that game, and Game Informer lists it as the best-selling game in the US this month. A couple more games like that and maybe they'll recoup their losses.

[chrisbid]

I can only hope that none of the hardcore gamers HERE would revel in the losses of a major contributor of videogaming culture.

Example: If you want Sony to fail, then you either want their competitors to win (oh, great... let's give MICROSOFT a bajillion more dollars) or you're hoping their collapse will create some kind of bargain-bin discount on their product (foolish, as Sony isn't going to fire-sale their gaming star and blu-ray poster child). Hoping for Sony's failure doesn't make any sense as a gamer.

What we really want is for NO ONE to establish superiority. We want them to fight tooth and nail for every sale. We want every game to be that hopeful "push to the top" product. We don't want any company to be so far behind that it doesn't matter anymore. We don't want any company to be so far AHEAD that it doesn't matter anymore. In that scenario (the anti-fanboy "let's get the best games we can" scenario) Sony puts out a mega hit. Microsoft follows. Nintendo follows. Sony counters. Microsoft counters. Nintendo counters. Get it?

THINK, gamers.

i dont want sony to fail, but i do not want $600 consoles with $60 games to be the norm either.

i want the business model to fail, not the company

[Gentlegamer]

I think gamers want to see Sony humbled, not fail. A humbled game company has been shown to "innovate" and bring greater value/entertainment later, such as Nintendo.

[Fuyukaze]

Though not many will see it, there is a difference between wanting Sony to fail and wanting the PS3 to fail. Unless the PS3 is Sony in which they do deserve to fail for putting all their eggs in the same basket.

[slip81]

What I really don't understand is why the thing is still so much. I know the blu-ray is exspensive and they're already taking a major loss on each console. But I mean, we all know that these companies set up their pricing structure to intentionally loose money on the hardware, so they can make the software mosre exspensive to recoup their loss.

So to me (at least) it seems like it would be smarter for Sony to lower the system to say $250, so they can then literally sell a crapload of systems and regain the top market spot and then just sit back and wait to regain their profits in the software area. I mean games are 60 and BR are at about 30. I'm sure they'd sell tens of thousands of systems in just a short while at that price point ( I mean really, at that price it'd probably outsell the Wii), and then all these people would need media for their new black boxes, so they run out and pay full price for games/movies.

[megasdkirby]

Example: If you want Sony to fail, then you either want their competitors to win (oh, great... let's give MICROSOFT a bajillion more dollars) or you're hoping their collapse will create some kind of bargain-bin discount on their product (foolish, as Sony isn't going to fire-sale their gaming star and blu-ray poster child). Hoping for Sony's failure doesn't make any sense as a gamer.

I don't want Sony to fail. But I do want for them to learn a lesson. They have become too arrogant and needs a reality check. They think that because is has the "Playstation" logo, they think they are all mighty. A little slap in the face will help them regain some of their humility and lose some of their arrogance.

Nintendo had the same problem. Sony is to follow suit. And if Microsoft ever gets that way (most probably), they should learn the same lesson as well.

What we really want is for NO ONE to establish superiority. We want them to fight tooth and nail for every sale. We want every game to be that hopeful "push to the top" product. We don't want any company to be so far behind that it doesn't matter anymore. We don't want any company to be so far AHEAD that it doesn't matter anymore. In that scenario (the anti-fanboy "let's get the best games we can" scenario) Sony puts out a mega hit. Microsoft follows. Nintendo follows. Sony counters. Microsoft counters. Nintendo counters. Get it?

THINK, gamers.

Exactly! This is the best way to go. No company on top. Awesome games everywhere.

Now if we can reprogram a fanboy's brain...that would be priceless.

[mailman187666]

I can only hope that none of the hardcore gamers HERE would revel in the losses of a major contributor of videogaming culture.

Example: If you want Sony to fail, then you either want their competitors to win (oh, great... let's give MICROSOFT a bajillion more dollars) or you're hoping their collapse will create some kind of bargain-bin discount on their product (foolish, as Sony isn't going to fire-sale their gaming star and blu-ray poster child). Hoping for Sony's failure doesn't make any sense as a gamer.

What we really want is for NO ONE to establish superiority. We want them to fight tooth and nail for every sale. We want every game to be that hopeful "push to the top" product. We don't want any company to be so far behind that it doesn't matter anymore. We don't want any company to be so far AHEAD that it doesn't matter anymore. In that scenario (the anti-fanboy "let's get the best games we can" scenario) Sony puts out a mega hit. Microsoft follows. Nintendo follows. Sony counters. Microsoft counters. Nintendo counters. Get it?

THINK, gamers.

thats the way that I think as well. I the big 3 and the portable 2 and I switch between them (when my 360 isn't broken). Its like having two shoe stores across the street from each other. They will always fight to match each others prices until its the best that they can do without losing money per sale. If Sony and Nintendo died, then Microsoft would be like "oh, well nobody else is making games now, so just slap something together and pay off reviewers to give it high scores." They'd have no reason to make anything insanely good because they wouldn't have any Marios, Zeldas, God of Wars, or anything to contend against. I hope all three companies go on to make bigger and better games than one another.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

The loses of the PS3(so far) have been more than the PS2 made in all it's "glory" years: http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/ne...rated-at-peak/

Glory years means "peak years" and not "all years". As always, console makers know that new hardware gets put into the marketplace as a loss-leader. So PS3 losing money in it's first two years isn't a surprise to anyone. But what is surprising is how much it's lost so far: 3.3 billion and counting...

So that means Sony, is in the "Glory" Hole right now?

[garagesaleking!!]

ps3 was way too much money, and also their online service is inferior to xbox live. People really want a good online service. I think that has a big effect.

[Trebuken]

This is silly. Systems have lost money initially for awhile now. Sony new this, they new they would lose tons, and that is why they declared a ten year cycle for the system. The article states they made a profit last quarter (thanks to MGS4 likely) so they may not see a profit this quarter it's likely they will soon start to make a consistent profit. They are holding the price of the console for now to stem their losses.

Everything is going the way Sony predicted I suspect. They need more big games (they are coming). They need to gear up online, they seem to be procrastinating -- they need to give us something more, though good games are tantamount.

[megasdkirby]

Everything is going the way Sony predicted I suspect. They need more big games (they are coming). They need to gear up online, they seem to be procrastinating -- they need to give us something more, though good games are tantamount.

I don't think so. I bet Sony expected their system to sell due to the "Playstation" logo. To sell mass amounts. To dominate.

It has sold decently, but only because of the brand name. If it was any other company who released the same, exact console, it would have bombed. Also, I bet if the Wii was made by Sony and they named it the "Playstation Wii", it would sell like crazy.

[Oobgarm]

I don't think so. I bet Sony expected their system to sell due to the "Playstation" logo. To sell mass amounts. To dominate.

It has sold decently, but only because of the brand name. If it was any other company who released the same, exact console, it would have bombed. Also, I bet if the Wii was made by Sony and they named it the "Playstation Wii", it would sell like crazy.

NO sir.

The PS3 is selling based on the Blu-Ray player in it. The PS logo is giving it a bit of brand recognition, but it is in no way a driving force in sales.

Sony expected it to sell based on the specs. Which, in turn, dictated a high price point, the system's major flaw.

[swlovinist]

I want each company to duke it out and in return, we get better products. Like others have said, Sony failing as a company is bad for everyone. Sony learning from mistakes, is good for everyone. With that being said, the PS3 continues to just stun me how they handle things. I hear that the "new" 80GB PS3 on the horizon will not be compatible with PS2 games(like the 40GB) and still cost $100 more than its competitor. While I know that the PS3 is mostly bought for the BR player, Sony needs to realize that the system that they have made and what the customers are requesting are two different things.

I for one, am looking forward to the day that Sony "gets it"

[megasdkirby]

NO sir.

The PS3 is selling based on the Blu-Ray player in it. The PS logo is giving it a bit of brand recognition, but it is in no way a driving force in sales.

Sony expected it to sell based on the specs. Which, in turn, dictated a high price point, the system's major flaw.

I'll give you that.

But who is to say that if Sony marketed the Wii, what would occur? If they called it "Playstation Wii" it WILL sell only because of the brand name. I can bet that it will sell, and by the millions.

Also, many are simply buying it for the Bluray player, as you said. I know many customers who don't even buy games for it... I know customers who purchase the consoles just because "it's Sony". Same goes for digital cameras and camcorders. Even if it's the worst product ever, many will still favor Sony, only because of the brand.

[garagesaleking!!]

i bought a sony vaio laptop with a blu ray player. Pretty much because it was a sony. Every movie always has vaio laptops in them. I think the quality realy is better with their laptops, but their laptop prices are also higher.

Lol i a gonna have nightmares about that giant kirby head!