Is Ps3 now what it should have been on release?

[GreyianStorm]

WilliamWatts said:

GreyianStorm said:

They've gotten more than just disc royalties. If the PS3 is responsible for the disc royalties, that means you are saying the PS3 is responsible for Blu-Ray winning the format war. That means that the PS3 is also responsible for every cent of profit that Sony makes selling Blu-Ray players. Similarily, anything Blu-Ray related that profits, means the PS3 is responsible. The PS3 could also push a sizeable number of 3DTVs, which would be more profit attributable to the PS3. It isn't just about the royalties on the discs alone.

Now, I'm not saying Sony has made some masterstroke and will be earning billions per week. I'm saying that they took a calculated risk, which unfortunately for them went wrong. Even so, the PS3 could well end up profitable for Sony as a whole (hardware+software for PS3, Blu-Ray players, BD disc sales in the future, 3DTVs that sell because of PS3 etc) in the far future, just nowhere near as soon as Sony would have predicted (they probably thought within 10 years, whereas it will probably take 15, 20, 25+ years).

All that doesn't justify the idea they would knowingly give up several billion in what seemed to be pretty assured profit.

Logically it makes sense that they believed that the PS3 would sell better than it did at launch and the competitors, especially Nintendo would sell worse than they did. It doesn't make sense to assume they are still on the same plan they had at launch. The PS3 is a calculated risk gone wrong but definately a calculated risk they believed they would come up ahead on even if hindsight says otherwise.

@Red Part: Depending on what they thought was possible, they may well have considered it worthwhile to sacrifice the billions of the Playstation brand. Considering that the maximum possible number of consoles they would have deemed themselves able to sell would probably be ~150 million (at the max), they probably saw leadership of the TV and Blu-Ray sectors as far, far, far more profitable (home consoles make up a tiny market compared to worldwide TV sales, or current DVD sales).

I agree that they most likely expected both the 360 and Wii to not perform as well as they did and they probably are not on the same plan they originally were, but that doesn't mean that they threw away guaranteed billions (which, seeing how well the Wii has performed, may not have been guaranteed had they only tried to match the 360's specs and keep costs down) for nothing. They could have made far, far more had Blu-Ray taken over quicker (and it could yet become the market standard, which could replace the billions lost on the PS3 in losses + lost profits).