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.

Solid_Snake4RD on 07 July 2010
jarrod said:

So zero sources and 100% assumptions.  I should've expected as much.

U THINK THERE WILL BE SOURCES claiming SONY recouped $4.5B.do you think they will come from the future

Also, Warner wasn't the last to leave HD-DVD, Paramount was.  Warner's defection was what sunk the format though.

i said one of the last.i may have missed one but i have told you this before.now stop ntipicking

Warners defection was sunk in the format but it was gonna go down sooner than later

why would SONY pay warner hell load of royalties when warner even satying in it wouldn't save it or hard BLU-RAY as most were already on blu-ray?


Around the Network
Kynes on 07 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Kynes said:
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

what does that have to do with CELL being 32nm


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.

you telling me to grow up when you want whiining about wanting links for everything and not following news

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.

http://www.qj.net/qjnet/gadgets/sony-drops-cell-project-to-focus-on-32nm-microchip-technology.html

above you can see that they went to focus stright on 32nm but in 2008 when SONY couln't reduce price,they went bacl to 45nm in PS3 SLIM.now tell me if they went to 32nm then why did tehy put 45nm in PS3 SLIM,cause it was casuing delay.if they hadn't canceld then we would haveseen 32nm,wouldn't we?

now please don't ask me to post any links as 2 yeats old stories don't easily come forward when searching and follow news

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

the sad thing is that you believe other believe in stupidities but you urslef do and not others

So now selling assets because they aren't profitable means ditching 45nm. Do you really understand what you read? The funny thing is that it has nothing to do with what you write in te following paragraph:

"above you can see that they went to focus stright on 32nm but in 2008 when SONY couln't reduce price,they went bacl to 45nm in PS3 SLIM.now tell me if they went to 32nm then why did tehy put 45nm in PS3 SLIM,cause it was casuing delay.if they hadn't canceld then we would haveseen 32nm,wouldn't we?"

Where does it say in your link that selling their plants to Toshiba meant that they were abandoning 45nm? Do you think any sane company leaves a chip 4 years intact? So you know what the Moore's law means in semiconductor industry? Jumping 1 full node and 2 half nodes is a suicide. Never was Sony going to jump from 65nm to 32nm.

And you should revise what you write, it doesn't make any sense.



Kynes on 07 July 2010
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Kynes said:
Solid_Snake4RD said:
Acevil said:
Kynes said:

It seems that this link is always relevant:

 

http://neogaf.net/forum/showpost.php?p=19625436&postcount=90


I love how nintendo always has to offset sony's loses in total.  At least in 10Q1 and Q2.

don't forget that SONY's PS division profited alot of other SONY divisions which didn't happen in Ninty's case


Show us one quarter report where blu ray royalties, blu ray sales or tv sales offset the losses provided by the networking division. I'm not asking for a full year, only one quarter. If you don't provide a link, shut up.


yes they haven't till now but they will when thr format matures and becomes cheap like DVD did in 2000 with PS2.

Thank God you aren't Sony's CEO. I hope, if you study at the university, and have some economy lessons, that you learn something about opportunity cost.



Solid_Snake4RD on 07 July 2010
Kynes said:

So now selling assets because they aren't profitable means ditching 45nm.

no they sold assets as they stopped reasearching  and left the job to Toshiba.they still have the rights for a new factory

also they planned to go to 32nm as you read,but that was delaying too much costing SONY more losses so they skipped it

Where does it say in your link that selling their plants to Toshiba meant that they were abandoning 45nm?

it doesn't as links are too old so i couldn't find it but i tried to explain it to you

my link mentioned them working on 32nm when they didn't even do 45nm and were on 65nm at that time.

now why would a company go straight for 32nm as they thought more costs will be cut than developing 45nm but as time progressed the results didn't come and  they went back to 45nm in PS3 SLIMMER.

and also if they were working on 32nm then why did they put 45nm in PS3 SLIM,because 45nm took less time

Do you think any sane company leaves a chip 4 years intact?

wht do you mean????????????????

So you know what the Moore's law means in semiconductor industry?

it doesn't come in everywhere.not where company id doing their own thing.SONY tried to but failed that was the point

Jumping 1 full node and 2 half nodes is a suicide. Never was Sony going to jump from 65nm to 32nm.

they were.they thought more costs would be saved but 32nm took alot of time so they went back to 45nm,which i was trying to tell you

And you should revise what you write, it doesn't make any sense.

maybe you should read more and you will know the meaning or just follow simple news

 

i still didn't understand what had your earlier links had to do with this


Solid_Snake4RD on 07 July 2010
Kynes said:

Thank God you aren't Sony's CEO.

what the fuck does that even mean?

I hope, if you study at the university, and have some economy lessons, that you learn something about opportunity cost.

opportunity cost comes  only when you aren't pre-occupied.if you are already with full preparations an money spents the oppotunity cost means nothing other than what you have prepared for

 

keep you advices to urslef.i can see where you will land up





Around the Network
iWarMachine on 07 July 2010
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. 

can we play those games in other platforms? thank you, just because some perfomance hiccups doesn't mean the game is totally unplayabe, in fact, the best selling version of the game is the PS3 one...what makes you choose the console it's the unique features in it...360 = XBL Gears Halo... PS3 = Gran Turismo PSN free Uncharted



I'm Back! - Proud owner of the best doomed handheld of all time!

FonzGemini on 08 July 2010

Next gen of consoles MS will move on from the 360 and wont look back. Sony on the other hand will continue to support the PS3 well into the PS4's life cycle. That is why PS3 will pass 360 in lifetime sales.



Sephiroth357 on 08 July 2010

Never say never.

 

We'll make this an exception.




Killiana1a on 08 July 2010
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.



joeorc on 08 July 2010
jarrod said:
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).

first of all no once again...

Toshiba was the Only one to make those Optical Drives...those companies you listed had to buy those optical drives off of Toshiba..No the did not make them them selves..an the only one you got out of that list that would have been notice i said would have been was NEC but since they sold off a majority of their optical drive manf. to Sony back in 2006 the year A) HD DVD had their very first Play on the Market, B) the Fact that Sony HAD 56% control over the NEC manf. was Why NEC was not making HD DVD optical drives for PC's or Player's. Because it was being made for Blu-Ray instead.

Once again

It was just Toshiba, where do you think they got those combo drives from!

Toshiba could manuf. Blu-Ray drives since the very start, They themselves were going to drop HD DVD if it was not for Microsoft. This HD optical drive war would not have even been a problem.

Microsoft and "IHD software"

truth...but go ahead an ignore it



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.