(1) hahaha, oh man youre trying to hard. I presume your a 360 fan which makes it hard for me to believe you can't accept it. Look back at 2005 at which price the 360 started back at then. And dont fucking change the subject. We were talking about the lifespan of the 360. And not only 2007.

(2) Refer to my previous reply, read it. When you got it, make a decent arguement to it and reply.  

(4). Nope, you were talking about making a profit through the online service. Jesus christ, get the hell out here.

Youre no good at trying to make some else look bad. Manipulating doesnt work that easy my friend. Its ironic that you, yourself is trying to demolish others arguements through your eyes. Youre doing an okay effort son, but not good enough.

To answer the question the OP asked in the title: Yes.

I'm this close <-> to reporting you as a troll.

1) Launch price - $399.99. Current price - $349.99.

2) I don't need a more decent argument, because you haven't yet replied to my original one.

4) No, I was not. I specifically said "subscription fees".

I hope your next reply is less insulting and trollish.

Haveing a hard time accepting opinions? I can easierly put you in the same position. Regardless of how long you've been here, it doesnt merrit you invincibility. Is it that hard for you to convince me, that you need to resort to reporting? Come on I thought you were better than that :/. Expected more from you.

(1) Talking about one SKU, what about the other? I believe the arcade/basic model dropped in price several times. Show me a fact sheet about it from a neutral source, then I will genuine withdraw my comments about the price cuts. I dont mind knowing whats right.

(2) You definitely do, if we have to continue this.

(4) "There's no corresponding revenue source for Sony". Just qouting you on what youre saying. DLC and such definitely branches under online downloadable payments.

Trollish & insulting eh? Got anything better say? Dude, if you think Im being trollish, then we're in the same league here.

1) The core was replaced by the arcade with a $20 drop from $300 to $280. The Elite had a single price drop too, of $70 if I remember correctly (don't feel like checking, I'm sure you can use google too).

2) I will if/when you prove I was wrong regarding the unprofitabillity of many of PS3's first party games.

4) How many times do I have to repeat that I was talking about subscription fees? It's very specifically written in my original post, including all the letters of the expression "subscription fees". Sure, they both have DLC, so what? That doesn't change a thing about my original point.

The point here is not about opinions, You're trying to compare two situations which are very different, and you don't even know what you're talking about as you have demonstrated with your lack of knowledge (and unwillingness to search your own sources) about 360's pricing strategy as compared to the PS3's. At the same time, you write in an insulting tone which is absolutely unnecessary here.

Net incomes / losses ( in US$ million ) Sega, MSH&E, SCE, Nintendo and EA from FY 1997 onward ( from 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2007, updated to Q1 FY 2008 ) :

FY____Sony(CE)__Nintendo__Microsoft(H&E)___EA______Sega

1997_______________________________________________46.4

1998____974______629_______________________________-389

1999__1,130_______645___________________72.9________-450

2000____730______421___________________116.8______-398.1

2001___-409_______726___________________-11.1_______-438

2002____623______800______-750__________101.5_______-169 ( Sega first half FY )

2003____939______560_____-1,191___________317__________

2004____650______316_____-1,215___________577__________

2005____404______777______-485*___________504__________

2006_____75______894_____-1,262___________236__________

2007__-1,969____1,474_____-1,892____________76___________

Totals  3,147**      7,242**     -6,795***            1,990.1**      -1,797.7****

( * Revision from following FY report ; ** Totals as 31 March 2007 ; *** Totals as 30 June 2007, **** Totals as 30 September 2001 )

Current fiscal year ( update on 30 September 2007 ) :

2008__-1,078____1,151_______165___________-327

Totals   2,069       8,393         -6,630              1,663.1

Source:

Financial report for EA, MS H&E, SCE and Nintendo except for first FY of MS H&E and older Financial years of SCE and Nintendo.

For Sega Enterprise ( not SegaSammy ) I could not guaranted except the last results ( via IGN DC ).

(2) I wasn't ignoring your initial statement about the first party games. You must see this from a long term view. And I was speaking as in general, meaning including Sony's first party effort. Like I said, you don't seem to initerest in making an appropriate statement to what Im asking. Well, regardless you dont have to, its your choice. Its alright. ;)

(4) How many times do I have to repeat those belong within the same category. Which it ultimately makes it related. They don't have to use subscription fees to gain the similiar profit as Microsoft's game division. Sony doesn't need to promote the same kind of move that Microsoft proposes to achieve similiar profit. Let's agree to disagree then. We stand on two different side then.

In general it is about opinions. I see it from an alternative angle of optimism for the PS3 platform, while you prefer strictly to hold onto there being an overall equal similiarity for it happen (the PS3 being able to get profit). I don't believe they both have to take advantage of the same business model to drive profit.

 I dont take it from you wether I am knowledgable or not. I have no need or desire to prove anything to. I asked if you could show me sources, to support your arguements. I didn't feel obligated to do it myself. If you believe I write in an insulting tone then you probably haven't been experienced some one who does so. This is just a fierce debate. Don't you enjoy it?

Good point.

Isn't the 3 billion losses from both the PS3 and the Blu-ray combine? Obviously PS3 is designed to be used to play HD movies and game since from what I've read PS3 have of the best Blu-ray player unlike PS2 average DVD player.

Also according to many Wii fans here the PS3 will have a long life of 20-50 years. If people really don't care about HD then PS3 (xbox360) is all you would ever need to run games in 480p (more like overkill). So there would be no need for a next generation PS. (All it needed is a different controller every five years.)

The thing is Nintendo is all about games and nothing else (many sees this as a good point) but Sony isn't all about games but also movies, HDTV , Blu-ray,etc.

2) How can you view 1st party game sales from a long term view?  Once they stop selling its the end of income for the title.  Hence you have a solid figure for profit/loss.  Its not a long term issue unless the title sells LONG TERM.  What low selling 1st party PS3 titles are still selling at a meaningful level?  Do you understand?

4) His point is that BOTH have DLC, but MS is the only company bringing in revinue from subscription fees.  It is not comparable at all.  The DLC for MS and Sony are comparable yes, thats true.  But you can't compare MS' subscription fees to anything Sony is doing.

Rather than get involved in the debate with NJ5 (with whom I largely agree), I want to stress just how important the revenue from Xbox live is.

Let's assume there are 5 million Gold Members. It's probably more than that at this point, but I'm trying to be conservative here.

5 million x 4 dollars per month = 20 million dollars per month, 240 million per year.

So that's 240 million dollars per year that Microsoft is making and Sony isn't. They both make money on DLC, they both lose money by providing an network (with all the costs associated with upkeep), and then Microsoft makes 240,000,000 more a year from Xbox Live. That total is likely to continue to increase.

240 million is a LOT. Sony/MS would be lucky to make that much as an entire' quarterly net income (save the Holiday quarter).

Now imagine 2 years from now, we have 10 million Gold subscribers. That's nearly 500 million dollars per year in revenue that Sony has no counter for. Does anyone have any idea how Sony can magically make that 500 million dollars/year?