By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Its time to admit it. PS3 will NEVER overtake 360.

Killiana1a on 16 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Killiana1a said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Killiana1a said:
joeorc said:
Killiana1a said:
joeorc said:
jarrod said:
joeorc said:
Killiana1a said:

As I stated earlier in this thread, Sony took a $4.7 billion loss from when the PS3 was released until it started becoming profitable, which was around 2009.

That $4.7 billion was a real cost incurred by Sony and until they manage to recoup that $4.7 billion and then some from Walkman sales, television sales, or whatever, then the PS3 cannot be considered a worthwile, profitable venture that beckons a PS4.

All of that profit the PS3 is making now is what Accounting 101 calls a "credit" and that $4.7 billion loss is what Accounting 101 calls a "debit." Sony has a lot of credits to make from the PS3 in order to remove the parentheses from the red (4.7) billion.

I am just wondering what kind of uninformed investor invests in companies such as Sony who have shown with the PS3, that they are willing to take a $4.7 billion loss and still have another $5 billion loss via the PS4 in the next 5 years?

Now, I am assuming: 1. There will be a PS4 and 2. Sony and Kaz Hirai will try to 1up Nintendo and Microsoft by putting out another overpriced vanity machine (PS4) at a price all except the most fervent of Sony supporters will not buy.

I don't wish death on Sony as I have been a consumer of their product in my younger years, I just wish they would own up to their past mistakes, chop some heads off in their company, and get back to the basics by prioritizing what products are making a profit, continue to make those profitable products, and shut down the products and company divisions who are running at a loss, while being subsidized by the more profitable product divisions.

YET MORE DIATRIBE: LOL....

Playstation does not just = the PS3

yes let's just to choose to ignore the PSP profit's, the PS2 profit's and software from those 2 other platform's including the PS3 software profit's and PSN digital sales and the profit's from Home, and now PSN plus.....

PSP,PS2,PSN,PSN(PLUS),Home,psp software, PS2 software,ps3 software

is greater than just the

"PS3"

Actually, those were all considered and accounted for, he's talking SCE's overall loss.  In a very real sense just the "PS3" was greater than "PSP,PS2,PSN,PSN(PLUS),Home,psp software, PS2 software,ps3 software" in terms of loss/profit.

We'll never know the real scale of PS3's massive hardware losses because as you pointed out, those profitable sectors were helping pull up the division...

no it's not!

read what he stated! he's not talking about their entire profit's, he was just talking about the PS2's peak sales year's for the PAST 5 year's

" Sony has lost more money selling PlayStation 3s than it made selling PlayStation 2s during the entire five years of its peak."

the profit's that The PS3 ate into was the profit's for the PS2 for the last 5 year's when he made that statement  5 year's is not the entire profit's for the PS2 all together:

Hell he's not even including the PS1 or the PSP.

he's trying to point out just one aspect of the situation to say it = the entire profit loss of the entire playstation platform which is not true at all.

One product in their catalog does not = the entire catalog's sale's/profit's if there is more than just one product

the PS1's which had 10 year's worth of sales, the PSP now over 6 year

just because you want to concentrate on just one product does not mean you just ignore the other's in the catalog!

and why would they not help, their still playstation product's!

The PS3 is now profitable on it's own, now Sony has 3 Playstation Hardware Product's on the market that sell @ a profit!

How words get convoluted for a variety of reasons.

The numbers I have seen and which have been posted here ad nauseam include all the profits from PS1, PS2, PSP, and PS3. Fact is, and Sony consumers may not like to hear it,the PS3 has been an unprofitable venture from a company who could afford to take the loss. Any better run company or smaller company would have never taken on a project as ambitious as the PS3.

My gist is what happened 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and 10 years ago factors into the discussion when we are talking dollars and cents, which companies base business decisions off of. You may see reports saying "Sony PS3 is finally making a Profit" or some sort, but that is always in comparison to the costs and profits incurred earlier to make it a profitable machine now.

Like it or not, by the time the PS4 rolls around, if Sony has the money to take another loss, the sheer amount of dollars and mantime put into creating the PS3 will be remembered by the execs at Sony and they will make their decision accordingly.

where is the number's?

it's been the same post about Sony loosing all the profit's of the ps1, ps2, psp?

where is the proof.

I have not seen it....

hell the one who stated that is just guessing unless he's seen all the data from their finacial's.

which we can guess ourselves is a BIG FAT NO.

so the constant Diatribe is getting a little silly on this site...

Your constant defending of Sony as if you are working for them or have a major investment stake is getting old and silly. Seriously though, we will see come the next generation whenever that occurs. All this debate is just speculation and since you are not posting their financials, then you do not have an "in" with them or you may and the picture may be just as bad as some of us who have looked at a few of their financials know it is.

he wasn't defensing them,he was just pointing out the mistakes that you were trying to make him seem wrong

actually you urself are the one who should workd for someone trying to negating SONY's work and should grow up

you are no less so you shouldn't pick on others

How rich. I was defending my position not picking on others.

you were doing more than just defending and just trying to negate other comment

If you check out my games, you will see that unlike you, I do and have played consoles made from Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft.

what does that have to do with this?

Yes, I play a 360 right now because I would not stoop to paying over $300 of my own money to buy a PS3.

so?

Does this make me biased against Sony?

never said that.

its just that when you were holding an argument and other held an argument about SONY,you just ried to negate it

Yes, to a certain degree. I have seen their magic when I was a little younger than you are and had to buy a PS1 for Final Fantasy 7. I was there buying a PS2 the year it came out and gamed with it exclusively until I became mainly a PC gamer during my college years. Beforehand, I grew up on Nintendo and Super Nintendo during the golden age of gaming in the 1980s and 1990s. So yes, I have my biases like everyone else, but I am also old enough to have witnessed how far a company such as Sony has strayed from what made the PS1 great.

why are you even trying to prove urself?

i was just mentioning that you ignored other argument

Everyone has made their point ad nauseam. There is no more to be debated in this thread unless someone starts posting the hardware numbers for June. Anymore debate outside of that is personal and meaningless. I have my views, you have yours and neither of us is budging.

As for ignoring arguments, I do it consistently when the messenger is clearly a one brand individual. One brand individuals are not worth the attention because they have proven on this thread that no matter what  the numbers  show and the validity of the sources of the numbers, they will keep this thread going for 10 pages in a pathetic attempt to spin the debate their way so that when a new user jumps into the debate, they hope the new user will ignore the first 5 pages where there are cited numbers proving the branded individual on the 8th page completely wrong.



Around the Network
iron_megalith on 16 July 2010

60 page thread...

 

Anyway doesn't matter anymore whether PS3 is 3rd place or 2nd. Point is.. PS3 made a statement out there that they sell games pretty good.

 

So unless companies get money hatted or whatever, I don't see the PS3 getting the cold shoulders unlike in it's early release.



Solid_Snake4RD on 16 July 2010
Killiana1a said:
A203D said:

Yes, I play a 360 right now because I would not stoop to paying over $300 of my own money to buy a PS3.

I always find it bizzare when people say this. considering that until just recently microsoft charged people £50 for a wireless adapter, which should be built in from day 1. they charge a lot for an upgrade to the hard drive (£50). and they make it so you have to buy their expensive hard drives and cant use your own.

and lastly they charge people £50 for their live service which sony had free, and even when they were losing money they still offered the service free, its only recently they've begun to charge for it.

my point is, that this really isnt a justified argument. and theres probabily a few things i missed out anyway.

I purchased a used 2007 20 gig Xbox 360 model for $192 including shipping. If I was an early adopter, which I never have been with consumer electronics when it comes to my own money, then I would have incurred those charges.

The argument is that the Sony PS3 was overpriced for too long from 2006-2009 at $599 and $499 respectively. Price certainly does not matter for some, but it does for a lot of us.

IT WAS EXPENSIVE BUT NOT OVERPRICED AS IT OFFERED MORE TOO



Solid_Snake4RD on 16 July 2010
Killiana1a said:

Everyone has made their point ad nauseam. There is no more to be debated in this thread unless someone starts posting the hardware numbers for June. Anymore debate outside of that is personal and meaningless. I have my views, you have yours and neither of us is budging.

i am not saying that you don't give your own views but the way you did you were saying as it other comment didn't make any point.

As for ignoring arguments, I do it consistently when the messenger is clearly a one brand individual.One brand individuals are not worth the attention because they have proven on this thread that no matter what  the numbers  show and the validity of the sources of the numbers, they will keep this thread going for 10 pages in a pathetic attempt to spin the debate their way so that when a new user jumps into the debate, they hope the new user will ignore the first 5 pages where there are cited numbers proving the branded individual on the 8th page completely wrong.

now you are just dicrminating.


and how do you know that person is one brand individual and how does it matter?

if he is making a good point or stating his opinion then it  doesn't matter what he owns





Killiana1a on 17 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Killiana1a said:

Everyone has made their point ad nauseam. There is no more to be debated in this thread unless someone starts posting the hardware numbers for June. Anymore debate outside of that is personal and meaningless. I have my views, you have yours and neither of us is budging.

i am not saying that you don't give your own views but the way you did you were saying as it other comment didn't make any point.

As for ignoring arguments, I do it consistently when the messenger is clearly a one brand individual.One brand individuals are not worth the attention because they have proven on this thread that no matter what  the numbers  show and the validity of the sources of the numbers, they will keep this thread going for 10 pages in a pathetic attempt to spin the debate their way so that when a new user jumps into the debate, they hope the new user will ignore the first 5 pages where there are cited numbers proving the branded individual on the 8th page completely wrong.

now you are just dicrminating.


and how do you know that person is one brand individual and how does it matter?

if he is making a good point or stating his opinion then it  doesn't matter what he owns



Of course I discriminate, we all do. Where I choose to eat out for dinner is a matter of discrimination. If I choose burgers over Mexican food, then I am using the true meaning of "discrimination" at that time, not the ill-informed definition of discrimination, which minorities and gays use towards business and society.

How do I know someone is a one brand individual? I look at their full game library that they list on their VGChartz profile. If I see someone has well over 200 Sony games as you do, while they have far fewer Nintendo and/or Microsoft games, then it is safe to say they are a one brand individual.

Of course a person's video game tastes matter. I don't hold Karl Rove up to the same standard when I read his op-eds in the same manner I do Paul Krugman. Both come from different political slants, which inherently biases what they will write, what they will leave out for the sake of not lessening their argument, and how they write.

I apply the same lens which I read op-ed pieces on politics and economics as I do when I read forum posts in video game forums.



Around the Network
Solid_Snake4RD on 17 July 2010
Killiana1a said:

Of course I discriminate, we all do. Where I choose to eat out for dinner is a matter of discrimination. If I choose burgers over Mexican food, then I am using the true meaning of "discrimination" at that time, not the ill-informed definition of discrimination, which minorities and gays use towards business and society.

 

thats more of choice than taste,above you are saying just becuase i guy doesn't own multiple companies consoles or doesn't play thier game,he isn't correct and you ignore him....thats more like bullshit

How do I know someone is a one brand individual? I look at their full game library that they list on their VGChartz profile. If I see someone has well over 200 Sony games as you do, while they have far fewer Nintendo and/or Microsoft games, then it is safe to say they are a one brand individual.

but what does that have to do with their opinion and debates in the forum.this is where you are making presumptions

it could be that person like one type of games or he hasn't added games to his library

for example me,360 doesn't appeal to me as i don't like forced FPS's.Mass effect is the only 360 game for which i would have bought a new console but it came on PC so i didn't buy a 360,there is nothing else to that

and that i haven't added nintendo games to my library till now because there are loads i want to add but haven't had time to search and add them.so i have left that for future.same is for PSP,i have not added many games,same as PS2.but because PS3 games are there in the charts so i have added them straight from there

Of course a person's video game tastes matter. I don't hold Karl Rove up to the same standard when I read his op-eds in the same manner I do Paul Krugman. Both come from different political slants, which inherently biases what they will write, what they will leave out for the sake of not lessening their argument, and how they write.

I apply the same lens which I read op-ed pieces on politics and economics as I do when I read forum posts in video game forums.

nobody cares what you apply elsewhere,it is how you are discriminating here.





the_lonely_gamer_123 on 30 July 2010
mundus6 said:
the_lonely_gamer_123 said:

Well, I'd hate to admit it, the PS3 is almost certain to finish 3rd now, unless if Kinect bombs and if GT5 moves like 4-5 million consoles. Which could happen...


Except for every console GT5 moves, Halo Reach is bound to move 1 (or 2) as well.

I believe that most (90%) even remote Halo fans have a 360. But marketing can do some crazy things.



Human contact, the final frontier.

the_lonely_gamer_123 on 30 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
the_lonely_gamer_123 said:

Well, I'd hate to admit it, the PS3 is almost certain to finish 3rd now, unless if Kinect bombs and if GT5 moves like 4-5 million consoles. Which could happen...


how is it certain???????????????????????


The 360 has been nearly doubling the PS3 in US after price cut. It has increased its lead slightly. The PS3 looked on pace to sell more than X360, but now the gap is increasing. Also, I said almost certain. Like I'd bet on a third place finish for the PS3, but I am not 100% sure. Doesn't exactly please me, but I don't want to hang onto delusional, fanboy hope. 



Human contact, the final frontier.

Calmador on 31 July 2010

I admit it... the PS3 will never catch up to the Xbox 360... PS3 is third 4 life



All gaming systems, consoles/PC, have thier perks... why fight over preferences? I like Coke and you like Pepsi, that's it, let's not fight over which toy we like best cause that's what they are. Is someone's preference in a toy important or is the relationship between you and your neighbor more important? Answer is obvious, but THE most important thing is your relationship with God almighty. God Bless you in Jesus's name.

I can communicate without talking... I can send a loved one money without actually sending money... and I can commit theft without the product disappearing, the point of theft is the point of theft not one of it's possible symptoms which is the product dissappearing. The thief wants to gain something without paying for it, that's the point of theft, the thief doesn't have to care or anybody else has to care if the product dissappears. The product dissappearing is just a possible symptom of theft. Gifts are sacrfices, in order to give a gift, it has to be a genuine sacrfice/gift, meaning a copy of the game isn't still in your PC. Piracy is theft and/or being a culprit of theft.

rohn13 on 01 August 2010

Cute how you named yourself Godofwar3_forever to hide you xbox fanboy bias, but that is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.  The PS3 had even bigger sales when their slim model was released.  They are both great systems but the PS3 has much longer legs and will most likely have at least twice as long as a useful life cycle.   Probably the only keeping the PS3 from overtaking the Xbox360 is how dammed reliable it is.  Since their respective launches my household is on it's fourth Wii, Fifth Xbox360, but we are still on our original PS3 and thanks to a large amount of BluRay watching it gets twice as much use as the 360 and Wii combined.  Like I said they are all great systems but try and use you brain just a little bit before you make such imbicillic fanboy flamebait posts.  Its riduculously powerful cell processor and top of the line Blu-ray player will keep the PS3s flying off the shelves long after the 360 has been discontinued and that's even if kinect takes off and Move flops.