If the PS3 had come out a year earlier and launched at $299 and $399 (Blu-ray, lower hardware specs, no cell, no Move), I have no doubt that it would have at least matched PS2 sales. They may have even made a profit on the system by now. Oh yeah, and a competent marketing campaign would've been nice, as well.

It would not have forced Microsoft out of gaming.  I believe the X360 still would've gotten fairly close to selling their current total units.

ps3 launching at $299 it would be #1 in chartz right now, unfortunatly that wasnt the case. when i look back and think when i forst bought the ps3 £410 PHEW thats madness it was to costly end off. wii was cheap and cheerful and 360 always had an entry level console my first 360 i bought was ironicly £210..............thats £200 cheaper than my orig ps3

i will NOT be buying ps4 if its similar launch price as ps3

Probably. Competition is good though. MS' existence made Sony vastly improve its online infrastructure and offer free online gaming to entice customers.

Yeah, they turned a profit but, so what?  That's like going into a casino with $2000 lossing it all and winning $50 with your last quarter and saying you won money.   PS3's losses where greater than PSX, PS2 and PS3's profit combined.  

Look, I'm not trying to bash PS3.  Personally I think it's the best system out this generation with the best selection of games (just not my kind of games).  I love Sony for sticking with it and continually treating their fans right with great content.  However, trying to make PS3 sound like it's a money making machine just sounds naive.

Maybe at some time in the future isn't old news. Last I hear, the PS3 losses were more than the PS2 profits and I doubt the PS3 could ever be as profitable as the PS2.

Your point is? Six years of profit is still a whole gen worth (in itself) and Sony is known for being a hotspot for late generational gamers who pick up the last versions of the console. Even Microsoft knows its profitable, which is why they are trying to do the same.

@S.T.A.G.E

The console market has undergone a shift this generation, and Sony does not have the luxury that you think it has. In the past Sony may have been able to split its affections, because it had the studios and market position to do so. The case now is almost the complete opposite. Sony has far too many under performing or under delivering studios, and it doesn't have a dominant market position. In other words they are going to be hard pressed to cover their end of it, and third parties aren't going to be able to lavish like they have in the past.

What I see is Microsoft and Nintendo stockpiling development into the new generation. Microsoft is doubling, and even tripling up on first party studios. Nintendo is being first to the market. Which means by the time Sony moves into the next generation. One player is already going to have a pretty decent library, and the other is going to just pour in a pretty substantial number of first party titles. That isn't going to leave anything really for Sony to give to the PS3.

This is the problem Sony isn't going to be able to really support the PS3 once the PS4 comes out. It isn't really a matter of preference, but of necessity. Any resources withheld by Sony for the PS3 could result in some pretty dire consequences for the new platform. When you need every game you got, and every studio producing just to have a good chance at striking a cord. Splitting resources would be a really bad idea. Just as it was a bad idea for Sony this generation. Those games that went to the PS2 early in the life of the PS3 could have really helped the PS3 out a great deal.

I just don't see Sony doting on the PS3 after the PS4 comes out like they did with the PS2, and I really don't see third parties doing so either. Sure there will be games, but not big ones, and most definitely not a lot of exclusive games. Which is what let the previous consoles tread so long after their generations ended.

To break even, the PS3 would have to be more profitable during the tail-end of its cycle than the PS2 was during it's peak, while competing with the next gen for three years.

Sony has been breaking even on the PS3 since 2010 As I said the ten year plan will cover the cost and then some. SCEA has always planned well with the Playstation as a console when it comes to profit. I dont even know why this is a point of argument.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2010/06/30/sony-ps3-is-breaking-even/1

Sony has plenty of quality companies and they are not underperforming, they are overperforming in a market that is only interested in certain things. This means they are performing for a niche of people while probably not even knowing it. Sony will continue to deliver hot new IP's, but the problem is that they will cut down the development and focus on draw for specific games while still putting out other new IP's. They are the only ones doing it and they'll continue to be the only ones to promote that type of game development of all three platform makers. The PS4 will be fine as long as Sony delivers an affordable console, bundles well (early in the gen), launches and markets their games at the prime points of the year (as their titles are quite strong). Hopefully they gain a lot of the die hard gamers which defected to Microsoft earlier in the gen (like myself). They need to keep restoring faith of the consumer in them because they offer what Nintendo doesn't offer and what Microsoft could never offer (and vice versa). Some has proven to be the console that is the jack of all trades but the master of none. While their competition has high sales funneled through a handful of games, Sonys sales are sporadically shared amongst many. 

P.S.

If PS3 exclusives were on the 360 Microsoft would commercialize them through the roof. They would sell better too. Have you seen Xbox marketing on Facebook? They'll market anything. They mostly market third party (non-exclusives because they dont have many exclusives) but boy do they do a great job of it.