Actually its not that bad of a deal since the deal also includes R&D to constantly shrink the RSX cutting manufacturing costs for the GPU and console. Plus you guys are forgetting how many PS3s have actually been sold. If the PS3 was a total failure then yes this would be a ton, but its not. I actually believe Microsoft probably has paid AMD just as much in royalties for the 360's GPU. Cost per console started at like $70~ when the PS3 was launched. Now it probably costs like $20 max. Next revision it will drop again by at least 15% for the GPU and the rest of the console due to shrinking the PSU, and mobo.

Sony has made several billion off the PS3 so far, this is actually a drop in the bucket now.

You mean profits? Since when?

It would be really unfortunate if Nvidia has profited more from the PS3 than Sony ...

im meaning overall. Consoles software accessories PSN services Video Rentals PS Home advertising. But we do know that the PS3 has been profitable since early 2010 so I'm sure they have covered the royalty costs of the RSX in profit by now easily.

He made a mistake.  The financials are public and relatively clear.

Where are you getting these numbers from?  Sony's financial's haven't shown anything that you're talking about.

Its called gross revenue....

I don't know about that.

If we keep in mind that PS2 and PSP were profitable in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009...and Sony Gaming division still lost money as a whole, PS3 based losses are a lot bigger than even their financials indicated.

I do agree that they seem to be profiting now witht he existing PS3 model and pricing of components...

My thoughts exactly. Not bad for an (even in 2006) obsolete chip.

nVidia really knows how to do business... sometimes hehe.

Even in the red you can have large amounts of money considered as gross revenue going in and out of a division through each fiscal year. Earning money from all sources helps even if your going deeper into the red before balancing things out to get to the black.