Sigh.. why do people insist on spreading this nonsense again and again and again and again. As I have explained at least twice, this is not how the real world works. For the last fiscal year, Sony announced shipment of 13 mio units. That was not a number pulled out of thin air, that was the amount according to the orders they received from their regions. Exactly those 13 mio units were produced (as you can see in their fiscal year report) and not a single unit more - simply because it wasn't in the plan to produce more. Now ,in hindsight, America seems to have wanted more units than they ordered - bad luck. Again for the n-th time: America got every unit they ordered for the fiscal year. No other region shipped their units to America just because Americans are so nice (simply because it would be a logical nightmare and they were selling all their alotted units). For this fiscal year, Sony announced 15mio units. So there will be 2 mio units more manufactured - but what region ordered enough units and if America ordered enough this time - we will see in the coming months. If shortages continue in America - tough luck again, they get the short end of the stick, again. Sony is not going to magically increase production on short notice (that would probably take 3/4 of a year - just remember how long Nintendo went through their draught period before they increased production of the Wii).

It is unlikely that America received every PS3 they ordred.  It would make more sense for Sony to review those orders and estimate the amount of loss they can afford in America.  The number of 13 million PS3's produced isn't just demand driven it is also supply driven. In this case Sony is only willing to suppply a certain number of PS3's due to losses taken on each console.

For example it is more likely that US Retaliers ordered 7 million Ps3's.  But Sony forced to weigh losses per console sold can only allow 6 million into the supply chain for the US.  As the product becomes profitable Us retailer orders will be filled to capacity.

Come on 360, Natal just can't come soon enough.

so will Xbox 360 outsell the PS3 WW???

PS3 is in last place and has only recently do the units make a gross margin. BTW, the PS3 may still not be profitable. All that happened now is that Cost of Goods Sold is less then Net Sales. This means they will have a positive Gross Margin (or Contribution Margin) before deducting other cost.

Fact is that PS3 is doing badely and there is no if, ands or buts about it. I could write you a book about everything that is wrong about the PS3. It just isn't doing well.

Also, just looked at Amazon and they have 28 PS3s new. This is not a mass supply constraint and even if it was, it would be pathetic on all levels (Nintendo still outsold the other guys when they were supply constraint).

nightsurge said: Lol, I guess the 360 isn't going to be below 80k like someone wondered Serious question, though. Why is the PSP selling well still in Japan and Others but absolutely dead in Americas?

It has a Japanese focused lineup and Europeons pirate more then Americans?  (I think europeons pirate more then Americans anyway.)

Piracy pushes PSP sales... it really does.

Would Ipods be nearly as popular if you could only put songs on it that you bought from Itunes, or from CDs you have regisetered with itunes with a little code that comes with the CD?

You have to be kidding. You just said it yourself, the PS3 is doing bad. Heck, PS3s may still lose money if cost like salaries and advertisment and depreciation exceed the gross margin.It demands on what they are talking about, and that is never clear.

But let me put it into numbers: The last figures show the PS3s lost $18 a unit. Let's say the PS3 as at 34 million before all of them made money (NOTE:All PS3s sitting on shelves before the drop in production cost still lose money thanks to inventory keeping. Some PS3s shipped may still hold the sale loss on them).  Multiply the two numbers together and you get a lose of $576,000,000. The system has lost 576 million dollars. Now this is just the last figure. The cheaper PS3s may not have been shipped which may mean they lost 612 million dollars. It could even be more as $18 was the last figure, and probably the lowest one. This is a low ball estimate. To add insult to injury, if Sony is using the FIFO inventory method, they will be losing money for Q2 and 3 despite the production being cheaper (this is one instance where LIFO yeilds a higher net income).

Sony also does not increase in demand. The two jumps past the Wii the system has ever had have been price cuts. The first was the initial and and the other was the Slim. The Slim fizzeled out quickely, so this method is going to be weaker and weaker. In other words, Sony has to cut profitability to sell more units. They can't make money on these units unless they sell. So what do they do? Sell few and hope to make a little earnings, or drop the price again and risk the system's unit price being under it's unit cost. Basically, there is no win here.

No to mention that Sony's first party developers do poorly. The best selling games on the PS3 are from third parties which have sold around 5 million I beleive. This is a far cry from Microsoft's 10 million and Nintendo's 40 million for their top game(s). Sony has to pray that third party developers can make the software to sell systems.

If you want to make this really bad, Sony's "shortage" has the system still under the Wii and 360 (also pointing that demand has stayed consitant the whole time). When the Wii was supply constraiting, they were outselling the compition and still sold for $600 on Ebay.

So now try saying with a straight face that the PS3 is not a failure. People are becoming disalussional.

I don't have spell check on VGchartzs post, so I will have a lot of mispellings. The $18 is from VGCharts. But, that is actually a good number. It may have lost anywhere from 60 to 200 dollars per unit over it's lifespan.

The thing is you are cherry picking and only seeing what you want to see. How is the PS3 not a failure now? PS3 is now supply constraint and is selling under the compition, but Nintendo sold over them. This means people aren't calling stores to see if they have PS3s. They aren't waiting in long lines for them. They are not rushing out the store with the last PS3. Demand is low for PS3s and anyone with a basic understanding of economics can see that.All of what I said in the slash paragraph is well known. Anyone here can tell you about it.

Heck, can you even give me a reason the PS3 is doing not bad now? You'll probably say the system is proitable, but

• That could be the gross margin, not income on the PS3 line
• If they use the FIFO inventory method, they still lose money

Not to mention that if you look at the weekly sales overtime, you'll see the PS3 is starting to drop again. Lower pirce or hold on and hope for the best. There is no hope of a demand incease either.

The past was bad making today bad. All of the mistakes of the past stick with the PS3 today and all the "solutions" seem to have done very little. The PS3 was a failure, ir a failure and will likely stay a failure.

LOL WOW.

1)I've answered all of your questions (Heck, you didn't naswer my question. It will be bolded this time)

2)This is over time. Sony's Slim boost is falling and there is no doubt about it. This particular week was bad, but ig you look at weekely sales, this was happening before this week.

3)This is you being void of reason or cherry picking. Take your pick. Everyone knew the PS3 was loosing money, some even before the system was out. To say what you did is ignorance at it's finest (then again, you fail to see the failure that is the PS3). I said that the $18 number comes from an article on VGChartz, and I'm not going to dig it up just for you (you'll ignore it anyway). Plus, logic would dictate the figures were higher anyway. Sony has cut the pricce 50% over it's life. If the PS3 was produced at $510 and sells for $500, and the next day you sell it for $400, you lkose more money. Now, you lost $110 on each system sold. This is why $18 is a low ball because Sony has dropped the price so much. Unless, magically, the system's production cost fell within a few hours, the system would have lost $50-$100 more a price drop. Price cuts drop profitability. This is why what you said makes no sense. The absents of evidence is not the evidence of absents.

4)We aren't talking about the 360, so why are you trying to shift topics? If you and I are running for a bear, I just have to be faster than you. Doesnn't matter how fast I am because you still get eaten. That still means that Sony has to out sell the 360 by 5,000. The Gap gets bigger every week the 360 beats the PS3. But, in truth, there is no hope of Sony coming back. For one, they only increase in quanity demanded, so they have to cut price to sell more. Second, the gap is too big and the 360 outsells the PS3 every week. They can't catch up anymore. That is a pipe dream. Microsoft is up by 5 million units. That is how much more Sony has to sell than Microsoft, and they haven't even started yet.

5)Business does not opperate in a vaccum. The failures of yesterday are the failures of today and of tomorrow. What you are doing is the deffinition of cherry picking. You want to look at only today and ignore all other points, despite the fact they are very relevant. Has Sony not made the system cost so much to produce, they would not be in this bind today and struggeling to break even. If Sony had made the system affordable, they might not be struggeling against the cheaper 360 today. Everything is related.

So that I'll ask you. Why is the PS3 not a failure today?

You didn't answer all his question's. You're also glossing over his post's and just keep yammering on and repeating yourself.

If you can't provide decent sources, then we have no real information to base your theories on, you've read information and yet you can't identify if those article's were even valid or if they were even official from Sony. I've seen plenty of articles, taking plenty of guesses on the going on's of Sony's PS3, I can't use guesses to back up my arguments. So his right, until you provide a good source, then everything you've said is just guess work.

CGI also never claimed that the PS3 was ever going to outsell the 360 in it's lifetime in America. He only asked that if you think Sony is doing badly by selling 45,000 in it's worst territory, then it's main competitor be doing much worse because it's selling 50,000 in it's best territory. I don't think anyone think's that Sony will over take the 360 in America, but it's kicking it's ass pretty hard in the rest of the world.

CGI also never said that the PS3 didn't have past failures. It's just that as of last year, the PS3 has been selling very well and has seen a tremendous growth every week since the price cut and it's one of the few consoles which is consistently posting a growth in both hardware and software Year on Year. A 100% rise in software is pretty good for a console that's meant to be doing badly.

Sony may never make back all their losses in this generation, but they've shown that their not giving up yet and over the next couple of year's they may make a healthy profit from the Playstation brand in preparation for the next generation. If going from a dying console to outselling your direct competition weekly world wide, selling more software compared to the competition, making a profit on every console sold and having one of the most stellar line up's in Sony's history is considered doing badly, then I think your the one who's delusional.