At the end of it all, the only metric that really matters is profit and even if Sony does break 80M units on the PS3, I doubt they'll break even on the deal. So I'll stay with phyrric.

Sony broke even two years ago on the PS3. Everything from now on is purely profit. Its the Vita and Move that are in the negative.

Do you have a cite for that? As I understand it Sony stopped selling at a loss, but it will be a long way to recoup on the initial unit losses.

Old news bro. Sony from 2010 until the ten year plan is over will be profitting off of the PS3. The can drop the price of the PS3 since because of them creating market popularity, Blu Ray is dirt cheap now. Essentially they were four years in the negative, and will be six years in the range of profit.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/196214/sonys_playstation_3_turns_profitable.html

This reminds me of the initial marketing campaign. 'Welcome to the third place' indeed.

How ironic that is today. Sony was too arrogant with the PS3.

@S.T.A.G.E

Let us be very clear about one thing in your last statement. The hardware being profitable doesn't necessarily mean that the division itself will be profitable. The studios can lose Sony money, R&D can lose Sony money, Acquisitions can lose Sony money, and new Hardware can lose Sony money. The PS3 no long loss leading may be beneficial to Sony, but it isn't the whole story. For that matter a ten year life span isn't a foregone conclusion either. At least in the sense you are probably thinking about. The profit that far out may be meager, or non existent. If the hardware is selling poorly in year nine, and the same holds for software. Then Sony may indeed be forced to cut losses by selling both at losses just to get them out the door.

Sony can espouse a ten year plan all it wants to, but the market will dictate whether that time frame will be a real gold mine for Sony, or a mine that has been totally played out. One can mean that Sony makes money, and the other means that Sony spends more money then is being made. Sony doesn't dictate the market anymore, and so they have no control over what effect the pricing of others will have. You shouldn't think of this tail end belonging solely to Sony. There could be more competition there then you might expect. Not just newer models being more price competitive then what happened in previous generations, but current models from competitors selling at a deep discount.

@topic

Let me point something out on this topic that kind of got overlooked. The PS3 launched with motion control. It was all but entirely ignored by the media and consumers. When it was mentioned it was usually a underhanded insult to Sony for trying to rip Nintendo off. Regardless without Sony putting read software development behind the feature it never gained any traction. Nintendo did that with its motion control, and if Move were there, and it was to move consoles. Then Sony would have had to do the same. The fly in that ointment is that Sony probably couldn't have matched Nintendo with its stable, and in trying to do so they would have likely forfeited a lot of the high end games that Sony enthusiasts wanted.

I wonder how well Sony enthusiasts would have handled not having games like GT5, Metal Gear Solid, Resistance, and Final Fantasy. When those games weren't made, or became Xbox exclusives, because that would have been the only console on the market to handle the visual fidelity they require. I remember one thing distinctly about that first year, and that was the PS3 sold on hardware alone. Entirely in line with the big dick philosophy. People who bought the machine. Did so for technological glory. Take away the glory, and the bleeding fucking edge, and a lot of those people would have bought a 360 if capabilities really mattered to them, or a Wii if they just wanted to be hip.

I reckon it would of sold better than the wii but not the ps2
Also, if sony sold ps3 that cheap at launch, it would of likely went bankrupt or got close to it, due to the massive losses, But then again the extra sales might of saved it, in that case

Obviously it will be a gold mine of profitabiltiy and Sony does the ten year plan for a reason. They need an area of profitability when they take risks (trust me Sony and Nintendo are the only companies taking risks with their consoles in the industry). Sony usually profits off of the gamers who buy old consoles with the slimmer versions before the gen ends.  It was the same in the PSX and PS2 era and Microsoft is following along wit that plan as well. The PS4 will show whether Sony is still dedicated to providing value for a great price to its consumers. They overdid it this generation, but thats the point, its only one generation and no other console has had a better third place than them. They might be downsizing a bit but such comes from the effects of not being the leader in certain areas anymore. Microsoft brought PC style online gaming to consoles which would help them push themselves into the forefront as far as the core are concerned with online gaming, but thats not exactly hard once everyone figures it out. Look at Nintendo, they introduced simple loveable characters with crazy worlds to gamers everywhere in the late 80's. Sony came to the gaming industry with the value Nintendo had during the SNES but touching on all areas of games and working with third parties in the way a proper gaming corporation should. Sony is having problems all around with decision making and that is noted, but in the gaming industry they still deliver a value that cannot be duplicated by either Nintendo or Microsoft which promtes offering variety and new IP's at all times. This generation made their conviction when it comes to gaming more apparent and you see it with every E3 as well who cares. I am glad in a way in retrospect that Microsoft took away the third parties from them, because much like Nintendo Sony will be more focused on first party quality even more so next gen.

As for your other statement Microsoft can take all the third parties away from Sony that they want, but what they've really done was strip away the parts of a monster within. Have you ever seen a gen were Sonys first party was more dominant than now? It doesn't have to be a sales killer either because we know what niche they are focused on, us.  Microsofts existence in the industry has made me realize how important PC gaming is, because all they are really doing is putting PC games and multiplatforms in one package with a handful of exclusives and calling it a day. PS4/PC next gen for sure. If Microsoft starts to realize what got gamers to jump ship to them earlier this gen I might squeeze them in, but my eye is more focused on the Wii U for now.

I'm not sure if your serious.  One look at PS3's profit margin vs loss and it's obvious that even at their most profittable, six years is no where's close to enough time to recoop the massive loss Sony took.  Plus PS3 hardware and software sales are in steady decline (lost money last quarter) and will continue to decline at an accellerating rate as WiiU and new Xbox and PS consoles come out and just due to market saturation.   Sure Sony can cut price (and profit) to boost sales temporarily - won't help.

The important thing is it's making money today (maybe).  But don't delude yourself into thinking PS3 overall was, is, or ever will be, a financial success.   Only the original Xbox will have lost more money.   On the flipside, I'd be surprised if 360 ever recoops the initial 2B loss it had despite being more profitable for longer and certainly will never, ever recoop the original Xbox's 4B loss.  (anyone got any stats on this??)

This razor and blades model the industry (minus Nintendo) is following is folly.

This generation has been a disaster for Sony as a company. They turned profit on their cosolee though, so just accept that. If you want to see the PS3 as a failure, thats your opinion. The Move and the Vita are going through their issues now and its Sonys duty to pull them out of it or stop dealing with them.