This is great news. I hope they make up for their losses from last year, and fast! This also means that a 100 dollars/euros pricecut next october/november on the PS3 is not that farfetched an idea :D

well cute the guy a break, he just posted this art. 9 months in advance

"Sony breaking even on PS3" isnt exactly what this article says, its just "PlayStation 3 production cost cut in half" which is quite a bit different ..... Before making up weird topics it would be better to stay with the actual claim :)

Maybe. Sony is hardware company and knows how to reduce losses.

Why is it unrealistic? Take away chips, assembly time, assembly errors, diode errors, and you get that.

$400-500 sounds reasonable to me. And they said it was Citigroup who said that, which I dont think anyone can say is not reliable.

dont you think sony would of make this a big deal if it was true?

The article had its source ,it wasnt made up estimations .

Ah all those questions. How about this source ?

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008018_681920.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_global+business

Nikko Citigroup's Kota Ezawa estimates the games division will lose $1.4 billion this fiscal year, following last year's $2.1 billion loss. And while he doesn't expect the business to be prosperous until late 2009, Ezawa applauds Sony's efforts to shrink the PS3's chips and tweak its design. Already such changes have cut the cost per machine to around $400 now, from above $800 just before it went on sale in November, 2006, he says. (The PS3 with an 80-gigabyte hard-disk drive retails in the U.S.

And people calling me crazy for my 450-480$ estimations.


Nikko Citigroup's isn't a nobody. If they stating such a thing, it will be close to reality.

Grey Acumen said: madskillz said: Galaki said: I doubt this is true. Sony would have break the big news all over the places... / QFT ... Sony would be releasing press releases worldwide, even to grade-school newsletters touting their *success.* Reporters learn a few things about writing news stories. First, you need at least three sources for your story. Next, you try to see if the information from the sources are accurate and deemed reliable. Lastly, you ask the questions - who, what, when, where and why. The OP's link is nothing more than a biased blog. It cites no sources and it really just a column of opinion. Please tell me this hasn't been Dugg. IT PHAILS, son! Buried as inaccurate. LOL haven't been watching news over the past few years, have you?

Sadly, journalism is so diluted, it isn't funny at all. Gone are the days of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the two Washington Post reporters who broke the Nixon/Watergate stories. Today, anyone can be a journalist. If you have a blog, in some circles, you are a journalist. The industry is about putting news to the back while Paris Hilton, Britney Spears and the like are pushed to the cover. Folks don't want news - they want a fix. If a TV station or newspaper reported real news, they wouldn't have a real audience. 

It's sad, because I got into the biz as it was declining fast. I miss seeing grizzled reporters, swearing at how they got scooped on stories. I miss watching them report real news - about corrupt political figures. Now, reporters and editors are scared of what corportation - advertisers - politicans will do, how they won't give them the exclusives anymore. Journalism has fallen from the informer to a cheap whore.

I am exiting the biz and feel for new journalists coming into the biz. Maybe they can change the tide - and let folks know FOX Noise isn't news.

OT - Diomedes1976, can you please show us where a source is quoted just once in the article. It is one person's view - hell, Dio, you could create a blog stating some inaccuracies and have a friend (or you) submit it to Digg.

It's sad when a blog serves as news for folks ...