Is this game over for Sony?

[celine]

Hi, Static " What exactly are you trying to prove? MS took a loss on the xbox by 4 billion but they are stilll here. Sony can take extreme losses before making the "choice" to back off. Nintendo and sega are mainly game companies. Sega couldn't take the losses and I highly doubt nintendo can as well. " MS took that extreme loss on xbox without exit the market because they can afford it ( MS is the wealthiest company in the world ). With 4 billion $ loss Xbox sold only slighty better than GC, it's tragicomic. Xbox1 was NOT the success that many americans think ( thanks to MS's PR ). 4 Billion $ is a tremendous loss that even MS can't suffer for long time ( Now Peter Moore's key word is : Profit.Profit.Profit.). MS is aiming for PC's digital distribution market. Do you know who is the biggest threat to this market ? PS3 because Sony with this console/computer/player want to do a Paradigm shift : Sony want to shift digital distribution from PC to living room. So Xbox projects are MS's retaliation to Sony's revolution... Here the cashflow ( A.K.A war chest ) of MS, Sony and Nintendo : MS ( whole company not just MSGameStudios ) = about 31.8 billion $ Sony ( whole company not just SCE ) = about 4,7 billion $ Nintendo = about 6.6 billion $ Here where I take these data: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/10/console_wars_a_.html Nintendo do only VG and it's not so crazy to take that loss. Sony main income in the last years was made by SCE whereas SonyElettronic department did very bad. Sony CAN NOT take extreme loss on VG department. " When did the amiga have two very sucessful console before it? The called the PS2 a computer when it was released as well remember? Did that affect it sales? Why is the Wii like the NES? " Are you kidding ? Amiga was made by Commodore. Commodore was , at that time, the most successful home-computer maker. Commodore's Commodore 64 sold so well that many in '80 thought that the future of VG was in home-computers and not in console ( for example, Trip Hawkins president of EA ). PS2 was called "computer" but it wasn't a computer. Ps3 functionalities tend to replace those of PC. Again, Wii is like the NES because both of them have the same goal : disrupt a market. Remember : Iwata's Nintendo is very different by Yamauchi's Nintendo. For the rest, there is Erik's post .... For Mamec: " Which strategy had Nintendo?, the strategy to lost in every generation 14millons of systems and reduced at 50% the software sells?. " No, Nintendo's strategy is "Taking names and kicking asses" ( I'm just kidding ). Nintendo's strategy for both Wii and DS is "Disruption", so this strategy has nothing to do with those of N64, Snes or GC. If you read Erik 's posts and mine maybe you can understand it.