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.

mundus6 on 07 July 2010

Lol at the people that don't think Halo Reach will move consoles... Even MW2 moved consoles and thats for PS3 and PC as well.



Around the Network
jarrod on 07 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Mr Puggsly said:

5) I wonder how much they'll make off Bluray royalties. Was it worth making the PS3 a disaster?

do you even have any idea what you can make from a formaty royalties.the losses made by the PS3 will be easily wiped out

Were the standard DVD royalties that worthless?

they weren't worthless but they were dying and slowly decreasing in amount to as DVD forum cuts the royalty fees to continue demand

and if they didn't go with BLU-RAY then HD-DVD would have won and they  would have got nothing.

but now they are getting both DVD and BLU-RAY royalties

5) Seems like a lot of people get royalties from Bluray. Lets all hope their share is enough to cover the PS3.

"Easily wiped out" is something I've never seen supported by hard numbers, anywhere.  Sony's take on Blu-Ray royalties is said to be under 30%,

i would like your numbers when you are questioning others.

tell me why would a comapny spend billions for others profits

and even less than rival electronics maker Panasonic (who also supplies Nintendo's optical formats btw).

no it doesn't make less than Panasonic

 Sony & Phillips basically had to bring so many companies on board to ensure the format's victory

they brought them to take sides adn give their own suggestions and contribute not give them the royalites.

that ways DVD has so many members on-borad but only 9 get paid royalties

(including rival content firms like Disney and initial HD-DVD backer Warner),

Warner didn't have much choice.they were one of the last HD-DVD supported and they already knew that it was going down.even if they had supported it further it would have gone down

that they've locked themselves out of the lucrative sort of royalties they started the platform for... the way things went, they might as well have gone with DVD Forum submission.

yeah right

 Sony's still getting a bigger take than they did from DVD (they barely got anything there, Toshiba's standards really took most)

do you even know what SONY and TOSHIBA were making from DVD,you are just aking everything out of your ass

there were 2 groups for DVD royalties of total 9 companies

Toshiba,Matsushita Electric,JVC,Mitsubishi Electric,Hitachi,Time Warner were in the 6C group

Sony,Philips,Pioneer were in the 3C group

but far, far less than they got off CD-ROM (whose patents, and thus royalties, expired in 2001), and worse they had to basically sacrifice their most valuable product line (PlayStation) in a needless format war of their own making.

no they didn't do it for needless war,you will see next gen

Also, the BR Group has been steeply dropping license fees to help further drive adoption,

every format gtoup does that and that brings more sales which will actually compensate for the smaller royalties perunit but more on overall sales

they've been precipitously dropping fees (far faster than DVD did),

blu-ray has also been adopted way faster than the DVD.DVD only got its major boost in 2000s not in 1996 but blu-ray got it from start

meaning even less return from Sony's perspective.

more sales bring more royalties on overall basis,i don't know how is that lees returns

 At best I think Blu-Ray can be seen as a pyrrhic victory for PS3's failure, most analysts agree the format won't be as lucrative as DVD, CD or VHS,

analysts talk bullshit most of the time.we have seen them fail most of the time.

its funny how you try to prove your point by saying analysts say this,they say that................lol

digital content delivery is on the verge of taking over for film

taking over?.....................lmao

its far away from taking over

and emerging as a force for games,

we will see when that happens

again its far away from taking over

and I'd say it's very arguable if Sony in the long view has actually gained more from Blu-Ray's victory than they have lost from the downfall of and damage to the PlayStation brand...

we can only find that out next gen with PS4 and blu-ray's cheaper years

Well some sources on most of the figures and claims I made earlier...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9874317-7.html

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005106_9074_tc024.htm

http://www.myce.com/news/Blu-ray-prices-to-fall-as-patent-holders-simplify-licensing-15591/?utm_source=cdfreaks&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_newsletter_activestories_week

...now how about citing some actual sources of your own?  Specifically anything that would at all indicate Sony recouping the $4.7B-plus moneysink that was PS3 off BD royalties?

Also, your take on Warner's change seems pretty grossly off point.  Warner's defection was precisely what killed HD-DVD, which is why the BDA offered to use their codecs and throw so much in terms of royalties their way so late in the game.  It was basically a moneyhat to end the format war.



jarrod on 07 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
huaxiong90 said:
jarrod said:
iWarMachine said:

damn...this is the most derailed thread ever! and LOL at the guy saying that exclusives doesn't matter... dude, the exclusive games are what makes you choose between consoles...yeah, sure you can play bayonetta in the 360 instead of god of war 3...but in the ps3, i can play both, and with the 360 i can't.

Well, in that case you'll also be playing a gimped Bayo. :/

Not all multiplatform releases are created equal, literally, and this is something that at least historically has tended to favor 360.  Of course there are also cases where the PS3 rev comes out ahead (Burnout Paradise, FFXIII) but those tend to be exceptions for the most part. 

Does a few minor graphical differences really matter? lol.

People say RDR on PS3 is gimped. When I played both versions, the ONLY differences I noticed are a loss of shadows in the intro scene for the PS3 version, and more foliage in the Xbox 360 version. But at the end of the day, both versions are flawed.

Bayo PS3 is more than just graphical differences, it's actually performance based (the engine chugs) and it impacts gameplay.  Sometimes the differences are small, or purely visual, but that's not the case for Bayonetta.

talking about BAYONETTA,you should also take into advice that the devs didn't do a good job porting so don't blame PS3

Well, the developers of Bayonetta didn't port the game at all.  Sega handled it, Platinum only worked on the 360 version.

whover did it,they did a bad job like most others,why blame PS3 for it?

I'm not blaming PS3 for it, and I'm bit unsure where you've gotten the idea that I have?  I'm just commenting on the state of the actual libraries of both, not getting into any reasons behind that.



jarrod on 07 July 2010
huaxiong90 said:
jarrod said:
huaxiong90 said:
jarrod said:
iWarMachine said:

damn...this is the most derailed thread ever! and LOL at the guy saying that exclusives doesn't matter... dude, the exclusive games are what makes you choose between consoles...yeah, sure you can play bayonetta in the 360 instead of god of war 3...but in the ps3, i can play both, and with the 360 i can't.

Well, in that case you'll also be playing a gimped Bayo. :/

Not all multiplatform releases are created equal, literally, and this is something that at least historically has tended to favor 360.  Of course there are also cases where the PS3 rev comes out ahead (Burnout Paradise, FFXIII) but those tend to be exceptions for the most part. 

Does a few minor graphical differences really matter? lol.

People say RDR on PS3 is gimped. When I played both versions, the ONLY differences I noticed are a loss of shadows in the intro scene for the PS3 version, and more foliage in the Xbox 360 version. But at the end of the day, both versions are flawed.

Bayo PS3 is more than just graphical differences, it's actually performance based (the engine chugs) and it impacts gameplay.  Sometimes the differences are small, or purely visual, but that's not the case for Bayonetta.

 A patch fixed most of the performance issues. The only unrepairable issue now is the graphics.

Eh, not from what I understand... the patch mainly reduced load times, which were also an issue in the PS3 rev.  Also, I've been told the patch came from Sony, bizarrely, rather than Sega.



A203D on 07 July 2010
dirkd2323 said:

Never say never, 360 has a year plus head start and is only ahead 5 million units, The last few months PS3 has had a shortage of units, or more would of been sold. Since PS3 slim has come out over 1 year ago, PS3 has pretty much smacked the 360 in sales, for awhile even in America, so yah the last 6 months the 360 has sold 5-10 thousand more units a week, big deal, PS3 has been above 360 on sales board for over a year now, even with this new 360 slim, copy, its only out saling it buy 90,000 a week which will not last, Ps3 is now on year number 4, and is making money, now with PSN plus, most of 360 players are shooter fans , especially in America, Natal, Kinect what ever you want to call it SUCKS for FPS, it will not sale near as good as the PS move, so keep dreamin, MS has Halo Reach and Gears 3 as there big hitters , PS has Killzone 3, Twisted Medal , Infamous 2 , Res 3 , GT5 , Uncharted 3 , Along with PS move. SO xbox fans enjoy this spike in sales, because it won't last long. We still have a nice long ride this gen, What I am most curious about is the new 360s failure rate, can they keep it under 60 percent this time, I hope so , I am so tired of sending mine in to be fixed.

I liked reading this, but even if the 360 outsells the PS3 every week for the next 2 years, what then?? i expect to be playing my PS3 for at least the next 6 years if not 7 or 8. can the 360 or the wii even go half that distance?? and a lot of people seem to think that the next gen is just around the corner, like 2 years time. i dont think sony or M$ will launch new consoles when their current consoles havent sold 50 mil yet alone 100 mil. and they've both lost a lot of money just getting that far in 5 years.

when it comes down to it, its like you say - all about the games, and i'm not debating who has the better exclusives, but we'll see who has a better year. the games i'm looking forward to the most are 3rd party anway, but it will be interesting to see how well games that lead on the PS3 do when it has been the 360 that has had lead development mostly until now....

PS. even though PS3 has more exclusives, it is well know that Halo or Gears may sell about triple what a PS exclusive sells; so imo it really up to 3rd party developers to show how lead development on the PS3 can actully result in better games.



Around the Network
joeorc on 07 July 2010
jarrod 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!

Er... you don't seem to grasp though, PSP, PS2, etc are automatically figured in given he's using division profit/loss figures from SCE.  That $4.7B loss figure he's throwing out?  That already has PSP's profits, and PS2's concurrent profits, and any profit from PS3 software/HOME/etc figured into it.  The truth is PS3 lost SCE far more than $4.7B.  PS3 has actually lost more than PS2 and PSP ever made (and also counting PS1's latter 5 years of pure profits), all combined.   Forget PS2's "peak years", PS3 has lost that and then some.

If we only had SCE figures from 93/94/95/96, we could judge if the PlayStation division has been profitable or not overall... going from 97-on though it's already close to a loss overall.

no he's not read what he stated..he was talking about just the last 5 year's of the PS2..that was stated in 2008..he was not even talking about the PS1 or the PSP..

and as for this:

That $4.7B loss figure he's throwing out?  That already has PSP's profits, and PS2's concurrent profits, and any profit from PS3 software/HOME/etc figured into it.

no it's not for one he's taking a guess, and second Sony has stated the Playstation platform as a whole has sold over 50 billion @ retail...so keep dreaming

so even taking into account the PEAK sales of othe PS2 that does not still take into account for the other profit's generated by the PS1 and PSP and part of the PS2's ...there is no way it does since sony has stated they Sold over 50 Billion

yes that's not all profit, but still come on.!



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

joeorc on 07 July 2010
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Mr Puggsly said:

5) I wonder how much they'll make off Bluray royalties. Was it worth making the PS3 a disaster?

do you even have any idea what you can make from a formaty royalties.the losses made by the PS3 will be easily wiped out

Were the standard DVD royalties that worthless?

they weren't worthless but they were dying and slowly decreasing in amount to as DVD forum cuts the royalty fees to continue demand

and if they didn't go with BLU-RAY then HD-DVD would have won and they  would have got nothing.

but now they are getting both DVD and BLU-RAY royalties

5) Seems like a lot of people get royalties from Bluray. Lets all hope their share is enough to cover the PS3.

"Easily wiped out" is something I've never seen supported by hard numbers, anywhere.  Sony's take on Blu-Ray royalties is said to be under 30%,

i would like your numbers when you are questioning others.

tell me why would a comapny spend billions for others profits

and even less than rival electronics maker Panasonic (who also supplies Nintendo's optical formats btw).

no it doesn't make less than Panasonic

 Sony & Phillips basically had to bring so many companies on board to ensure the format's victory

they brought them to take sides adn give their own suggestions and contribute not give them the royalites.

that ways DVD has so many members on-borad but only 9 get paid royalties

(including rival content firms like Disney and initial HD-DVD backer Warner),

Warner didn't have much choice.they were one of the last HD-DVD supported and they already knew that it was going down.even if they had supported it further it would have gone down

that they've locked themselves out of the lucrative sort of royalties they started the platform for... the way things went, they might as well have gone with DVD Forum submission.

yeah right

 Sony's still getting a bigger take than they did from DVD (they barely got anything there, Toshiba's standards really took most)

do you even know what SONY and TOSHIBA were making from DVD,you are just aking everything out of your ass

there were 2 groups for DVD royalties of total 9 companies

Toshiba,Matsushita Electric,JVC,Mitsubishi Electric,Hitachi,Time Warner were in the 6C group

Sony,Philips,Pioneer were in the 3C group

but far, far less than they got off CD-ROM (whose patents, and thus royalties, expired in 2001), and worse they had to basically sacrifice their most valuable product line (PlayStation) in a needless format war of their own making.

no they didn't do it for needless war,you will see next gen

Also, the BR Group has been steeply dropping license fees to help further drive adoption,

every format gtoup does that and that brings more sales which will actually compensate for the smaller royalties perunit but more on overall sales

they've been precipitously dropping fees (far faster than DVD did),

blu-ray has also been adopted way faster than the DVD.DVD only got its major boost in 2000s not in 1996 but blu-ray got it from start

meaning even less return from Sony's perspective.

more sales bring more royalties on overall basis,i don't know how is that lees returns

 At best I think Blu-Ray can be seen as a pyrrhic victory for PS3's failure, most analysts agree the format won't be as lucrative as DVD, CD or VHS,

analysts talk bullshit most of the time.we have seen them fail most of the time.

its funny how you try to prove your point by saying analysts say this,they say that................lol

digital content delivery is on the verge of taking over for film

taking over?.....................lmao

its far away from taking over

and emerging as a force for games,

we will see when that happens

again its far away from taking over

and I'd say it's very arguable if Sony in the long view has actually gained more from Blu-Ray's victory than they have lost from the downfall of and damage to the PlayStation brand...

we can only find that out next gen with PS4 and blu-ray's cheaper years

Well some sources on most of the figures and claims I made earlier...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9874317-7.html

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005106_9074_tc024.htm

http://www.myce.com/news/Blu-ray-prices-to-fall-as-patent-holders-simplify-licensing-15591/?utm_source=cdfreaks&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_newsletter_activestories_week

...now how about citing some actual sources of your own?  Specifically anything that would at all indicate Sony recouping the $4.7B-plus moneysink that was PS3 off BD royalties?

Also, your take on Warner's change seems pretty grossly off point.  Warner's defection was precisely what killed HD-DVD, which is why the BDA offered to use their codecs and throw so much in terms of royalties their way so late in the game.  It was basically a moneyhat to end the format war.

no ..no ...no

I do not know where you get that trite from but that is false..for the last freakin time.

Warner was on the board of Director's of the BDA since before HD DVD was even released and was still on it even as WB supported HD DVD also besides Blu-Ray. and was still throughout this so called HD CONTEST.

WB did not need to defect they were already supporting BD and the fact that the only reason WB did support HD DVD was because they infact wanted to Give it A chance in the Market. IE: double dip releases.

That was even asked Did WB get money hatted. they denied it, on top of that only one freakin company made the D@MN HD DVD optical drives and Player's..that Was Toshiba, HD DVD had no chance to win , With or Without the PS3 Blu-Ray was going to be the Winner because none of the other CE manuf. could make any money with HD DVD!

that's the truth.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Kynes on 07 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Kynes said:

32nm where? TSMC ditched it, Globalfoundries ditched it.


you really don't follow gaming news

 

they ditched it when PS3's were on 65nm and they directly tried to go to 32nm and skip 45nm(currently in PS3)

but then it was taking too much time and SONY's wanted it early so they abandend it and went back and did 45nm

 

YOU SHOULD REALLY FIRST CHEAK WHAT YOU ARE COMMNETING AND THEN SPEAK

WTF are you talking about???

 

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Globalfoundries-32nm-Bulk-Process-Canceled-139063.shtml

http://www.cdrinfo.com/sections/news/Details.aspx?NewsId=26392

 

You deserve a Ban. You only spread fud, don't know a shit of what you say, and you are only saying your wishful thinking. Please, grow up, and before writing stupid things, learn to read, and to provide links.

 

Do you really think any foundy thought of skipping 45nm? Provide a link! Provide a link where it says it's Sony who convinced them to return to 45nm. Provide a link where it says they will make 32nm bulk for Sony. Do you know anything you write about? GROW UP, and don't invent things.

 

The sad thing is that probably you believe all the stupidities you write.



jarrod on 07 July 2010
joeorc said:
jarrod said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
jarrod said:
Mr Puggsly said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Mr Puggsly said:

5) I wonder how much they'll make off Bluray royalties. Was it worth making the PS3 a disaster?

do you even have any idea what you can make from a formaty royalties.the losses made by the PS3 will be easily wiped out

Were the standard DVD royalties that worthless?

they weren't worthless but they were dying and slowly decreasing in amount to as DVD forum cuts the royalty fees to continue demand

and if they didn't go with BLU-RAY then HD-DVD would have won and they  would have got nothing.

but now they are getting both DVD and BLU-RAY royalties

5) Seems like a lot of people get royalties from Bluray. Lets all hope their share is enough to cover the PS3.

"Easily wiped out" is something I've never seen supported by hard numbers, anywhere.  Sony's take on Blu-Ray royalties is said to be under 30%,

i would like your numbers when you are questioning others.

tell me why would a comapny spend billions for others profits

and even less than rival electronics maker Panasonic (who also supplies Nintendo's optical formats btw).

no it doesn't make less than Panasonic

 Sony & Phillips basically had to bring so many companies on board to ensure the format's victory

they brought them to take sides adn give their own suggestions and contribute not give them the royalites.

that ways DVD has so many members on-borad but only 9 get paid royalties

(including rival content firms like Disney and initial HD-DVD backer Warner),

Warner didn't have much choice.they were one of the last HD-DVD supported and they already knew that it was going down.even if they had supported it further it would have gone down

that they've locked themselves out of the lucrative sort of royalties they started the platform for... the way things went, they might as well have gone with DVD Forum submission.

yeah right

 Sony's still getting a bigger take than they did from DVD (they barely got anything there, Toshiba's standards really took most)

do you even know what SONY and TOSHIBA were making from DVD,you are just aking everything out of your ass

there were 2 groups for DVD royalties of total 9 companies

Toshiba,Matsushita Electric,JVC,Mitsubishi Electric,Hitachi,Time Warner were in the 6C group

Sony,Philips,Pioneer were in the 3C group

but far, far less than they got off CD-ROM (whose patents, and thus royalties, expired in 2001), and worse they had to basically sacrifice their most valuable product line (PlayStation) in a needless format war of their own making.

no they didn't do it for needless war,you will see next gen

Also, the BR Group has been steeply dropping license fees to help further drive adoption,

every format gtoup does that and that brings more sales which will actually compensate for the smaller royalties perunit but more on overall sales

they've been precipitously dropping fees (far faster than DVD did),

blu-ray has also been adopted way faster than the DVD.DVD only got its major boost in 2000s not in 1996 but blu-ray got it from start

meaning even less return from Sony's perspective.

more sales bring more royalties on overall basis,i don't know how is that lees returns

 At best I think Blu-Ray can be seen as a pyrrhic victory for PS3's failure, most analysts agree the format won't be as lucrative as DVD, CD or VHS,

analysts talk bullshit most of the time.we have seen them fail most of the time.

its funny how you try to prove your point by saying analysts say this,they say that................lol

digital content delivery is on the verge of taking over for film

taking over?.....................lmao

its far away from taking over

and emerging as a force for games,

we will see when that happens

again its far away from taking over

and I'd say it's very arguable if Sony in the long view has actually gained more from Blu-Ray's victory than they have lost from the downfall of and damage to the PlayStation brand...

we can only find that out next gen with PS4 and blu-ray's cheaper years

Well some sources on most of the figures and claims I made earlier...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9874317-7.html

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005106_9074_tc024.htm

http://www.myce.com/news/Blu-ray-prices-to-fall-as-patent-holders-simplify-licensing-15591/?utm_source=cdfreaks&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_newsletter_activestories_week

...now how about citing some actual sources of your own?  Specifically anything that would at all indicate Sony recouping the $4.7B-plus moneysink that was PS3 off BD royalties?

Also, your take on Warner's change seems pretty grossly off point.  Warner's defection was precisely what killed HD-DVD, which is why the BDA offered to use their codecs and throw so much in terms of royalties their way so late in the game.  It was basically a moneyhat to end the format war.

no ..no ...no

I do not know where you get that trite from but that is false..for the last freakin time.

Warner was on the board of Director's of the BDA since before HD DVD was even released and was still on it even as WB supported HD DVD also besides Blu-Ray. and was still throughout this so called HD CONTEST.

WB did not need to defect they were already supporting BD and the fact that the only reason WB did support HD DVD was because they infact wanted to Give it A chance in the Market. IE: double dip releases.

That was even asked Did WB get money hatted. they denied it, on top of that only one freakin company made the D@MN HD DVD optical drives and Player's..that Was Toshiba, HD DVD had no chance to win , With or Without the PS3 Blu-Ray was going to be the Winner because none of the other CE manuf. could make any money with HD DVD!

that's the truth.

Warner's defection was the death knell for HD-DVD, that's pretty much inarguable, and that's what granted them such a coup on IP rights for BD (and thus royalties).  It's what also allowed Paramount to get out of their exclusivity contract with HD-DVD.

Also, are you high?  No Toshiba wasn't the only CE manufacturer making HD-DVD drives, NEC, HP, LG, Samsung, RCA, Acer and others also made HD-DVD drives and even some combo drives (HD-DVD plus BD).



jarrod on 07 July 2010
joeorc said:
jarrod 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!

Er... you don't seem to grasp though, PSP, PS2, etc are automatically figured in given he's using division profit/loss figures from SCE.  That $4.7B loss figure he's throwing out?  That already has PSP's profits, and PS2's concurrent profits, and any profit from PS3 software/HOME/etc figured into it.  The truth is PS3 lost SCE far more than $4.7B.  PS3 has actually lost more than PS2 and PSP ever made (and also counting PS1's latter 5 years of pure profits), all combined.   Forget PS2's "peak years", PS3 has lost that and then some.

If we only had SCE figures from 93/94/95/96, we could judge if the PlayStation division has been profitable or not overall... going from 97-on though it's already close to a loss overall.

no he's not read what he stated..he was talking about just the last 5 year's of the PS2..that was stated in 2008..he was not even talking about the PS1 or the PSP..

and as for this:

That $4.7B loss figure he's throwing out?  That already has PSP's profits, and PS2's concurrent profits, and any profit from PS3 software/HOME/etc figured into it.

no it's not for one he's taking a guess, and second Sony has stated the Playstation platform as a whole has sold over 50 billion @ retail...so keep dreaming

so even taking into account the PEAK sales of othe PS2 that does not still take into account for the other profit's generated by the PS1 and PSP and part of the PS2's ...there is no way it does since sony has stated they Sold over 50 Billion

yes that's not all profit, but still come on.!

lol.  The only one dreaming here the person clinging to PR and ignoring IR. ;)

I'd suggest you take a quick look in this thread.  The numbers aren't perfect, they're a hell of a lot more accurate than "50 billion @ retail".