Revenue means nothing without profits and a healthy business model. This generation has been an example of what you need to avoid in any business, as Sony has:

• higher costs
• higher revenue (this isn't bad per se, but when you consider the other factors, it's a bad thing in this situation as Sony hasn't profited with higher revenue)
• lower profit margins
• lower market share

Isn't that actually worse... with all that Revenue they made on the PS3 and in the end the gigantic losses they made..

If we look at the 360 in comparison to the xbox, we can easily see that revenue has gone up. Whether they sold 10x the previous amount at 1/5th of the price, or sold the same with a higher price, it shows that there is more support, correct?

"Both these figures are useful in determining the financial strength of a company, but they are not interchangeable. Bottom line describes how efficient a company is with its spending and operating costs and how effectively it has been controlling total costs. Top line, on the other hand, only indicates how effective a company is at generating sales and does not take into consideration operating efficiencies which could have a dramatic impact on the bottom line. "

So, in response Sony is effectively generating sales at LEAST as well as with the ps2, when you take pricing into consideration. WHat that means in plain English, is that ps2 would like be at the same place lifetime as the ps3 had it released at 499-599 (or the equivalent)

(underlines) I did take it into account. You just probably stopped reading.
(bolded) Source please

As far as differing currencies and etc etc, there's just no point. You call it all the same and treat them equally, and there should be only minor error. PS3 launched at 499 and 599, both in dollars and pounds and euros. The same didn't happen with ps2. It was priced based on the currency value. Like I said, I erred on the side of being wrong.

This statement you made is much too simple. Your ignoring the fact that it took $813 to make a PS3 back in 2006 and it was selling at around $600. Add in what just happened with PSN and the factor that PS3 was losing money until 2009. PS2 was a success from day 1 and making profits ever since. But there's no doubt that PS3 will surpass 360 and maybe even the Wii. But making more profits than the PS2 seems impossible at the momment

"Both these figures are useful in determining the financial strength of a company, but they are not interchangeable. Bottom line describes how efficient a company is with its spending and operating costs and how effectively it has been controlling total costs. Top line, on the other hand, only indicates how effective a company is at generating sales and does not take into consideration operating efficiencies which could have a dramatic impact on the bottom line. "

I want you all to think about something in a metaphorical way.

PS3 revenue on hardware is consistent with revenue on hardware for the ps2. Imagine that net profit doesn't exist.

PS3 hardware revenue is on par LTD with PS2. Healthy or unhealthy? Don't even bring up profit. Just answer that question.

Yes, you're right it's healthy.

Then we run into the problem of profit. Sony sold every ps3 at a huge loss. So how do we interpret the data?

Customers are pound-for-pound buying as much playstation as they did before while Sony is losing money.

• Now, are they buying because it's a huge bargain? Is it like a blowout sale at a supermarket where everything is 50% off and the market makes huge revenue but little profit? Hmm, given that there are two competing consoles for half the price (average since release), one with very similar graphic level, I can't honestly think of a motivation that would make someone buy a ps3 simply because Sony was giving it at a very good price.

• Are they buying it because it's expensive? No, that's not the case.

So, there is something that is making people spend just as much on ps3 as on ps2.

Haters, if you can figure out why, then the day is yours. For me, I think it's because the playstation product, for the consumer, is healthy. And I think it will go on to sell 24M when price drops to 200$. Especially in a year as packed with hits as this one. I think their "top line growth" is just as important.

Lamborghini does produce the same kind of revenue as toyota.

You gunna tell me revenue doesn't matter?

Equal revenue over the course of ten years means the strength of the product and the brand is just the same as it was. Playsation hasn't lost anything other than marketshare, except, for all the non-haterz out there (=P) PS3 pricing and sales based on price of the ps2 is equal. When ps3 reaches ps2 price levels we could see a new ps2 sales behemoth in the ps3. If the strength is equal and the total sales are higher, total sales will be higher.

I think this is the big problem everyone is having with this. Is there a point at which everyone stops reading?

When did I ever say anything about profit?

I even had an intro saying, "how far has the ps3 sunk?". It has nothing to do with sony profits, but with ps3 in the eyes of the consumer. The consumer apparently still feels that playstation is valuable, at least to the same value of ps2.

That is my point.

I am assuming you are making some weird point trying to claim Sony did a good job this generation and I couldn't disagree more. 

The only reason they made the PS3 like they did was so that they could sell more of the console than they did last generation.  The cost of manufacturing a PS3 has been astronomical and they have been shedding money on it like crazy.  The price originally being 600 dollars?  Well its manufacturing cost was something like 1000 dollars.  Then the pressure was on them because the Wii made such an economy system that they had to cut the price before the manufacturing costs went down at all.  I don't even think the PS3 is profitable even now. 

The point overall is that they were trying to capture more user share so they could sell more software on it.  The fact that we are coming in on the end of this generations console war with less than half the market share the PS2 had is proof of how horrible of a job Sony did.  Sony's been nailed to the cross this year. 

Im not saying any of this as a fanboy or anything its fact at this point.  Weather they can fix it with the next console generation that's the big question.  I was here on this forum when PS3 first came out and the sony fanboys argument was that the console would pick up later in its life cycle and sell 100 000 000 consoles and the Wii would stop dead at 40 000 000 or so.  Hell every analyst out there made the argument that sony was going to pick up by now.  Only the Wii fanboys claimed that wii would keep going and people thought it was a fanboy opinion. 

Even now the 360's manufacturing costs are probably lower than the PS3's unless Sony came up with some miracle cure for there console.  Their big issue was the red ring of death and the warranty costs associated with them.  Compare the cost of that to a built in blue ray which makes up like 80% of the PS3's price point....

No.

stopped reading there because you're using an incorrect assumption that was never even hinted at. That was a grasp at a straw. Nothing more.

I'm saying that based on the strength of the market towards the ps3, it actually hasn't fallen so far in the eyes of the consumers, and that based on the sales versus pricing, the ps3 actually can outsell 360 within a year if there is a price drop.

I said nothing more than that. Anything else you garner from that statement is wishful thinking.

EDIT: i did end up reading the rest anyhow.

As far as how much it will sell.... well it's sold more consoles at 299$ than ps2 sold at 299$. Given that the revenues are the same, ie, just as much consumer support, I wouldn't be surprised if ps3 really takes off at another price drop. Ps2 went from 299 to 199 within two years, ps3 might go to 249 to save costs.

Again, do not glean more that what I'm saying. Saying ps2 went from 299 to 199 has no implication other than the very specific fact that price went down.

Bad comparison. In last gen $199 was the sweet spot but in this gen $299 is the sweet spot.

TV sets and PCs have dropped in price in the last decade but for some other electronics devices people are willing to pay a lot more money nowadays because it gets them higher value.

5 years ago people bought mobile phones for perhaps $100-$200, now they are willing to get one for $450-600.

Gaming is more important to people now than in last gen so they are willing to pay more and u get movies and other features on your consoles now, u get the whole online experience, longer life-span etc.

In last gen a console was seen as a toy. Nowadays it's seen as an essential entertainment device.