ethomaz said: orniletter said: I did always understand the "comeback" as "going from being a pretty bad console at launch" to "beeing a great console now (for gamers)", but from a money perspective, there really is no comeback...:/ Why not... if you lost 3 billion in the first 2 years, profit 4 billion in the next 5 years then you did a comeback of 1 billion profit.

...where do you get these 4 billion profit from ?

sidious164 said: The ps3 was a failure. This is already known. Will probably sell more than the 360 which the sony fans claim is a victory, but they fail to realise that the ps3 cost sony billions and no profit, which makes it the ultimate failure.

PS3 will probably sell more than Wii.

PS3 is reason to Sony to be on track today... they lost a lot of money with it in the early years but after that only profited... the most part of the loss in the division was because the Bravia HDTV. The best thing Kaz did was to split the division... now the Game Division is just for PlayStation related products... so after that no loss was posted for the division.

Like I said even the Game Division of Microsoft just started o be profitable in the last quarter... previous that they are only covering the initial loss with the 360 development... and I think they will never cover the XBOX costs.

JoeTheBro said: I like how you completely ignored Vita costs in your "analysis."

What could they have been? A few hundred million dollars? The PS3 would still be a few billion dollars away from being profitable...

orniletter said: Why not... if you lost 3 billion in the first 2 years, profit 4 billion in the next 5 years then you did a comeback of 1 billion profit.

...where do you get these 4 billion profit from ?

? I give you a example... not related to anything.

kowenicki said: Huh?  What are you talking about?  For someone who reckons they know all aout sony and their financials you actually know very little.  It is VERY easy to see how the PS3 contributed to Sony losses. 2007, 8, 9 it was a distinct Game Division, for the rest of the time it was linked with Vaio's... pretty sure they are profitable.  It has NOTHING to do with TV's. Its 100% clear that the PS3 cost Sony bver $2bn in its first year and over $1.5bn in its second year, near to $1bn in its 3rd year. Beyond this the story is similar until you get to 2012.  Throw in all of the R&D for the cell and normal R&D, factor in the PS2 and PSP were profitable during this time and you can see how the numbers above are generous.  I doubt PS3 will ever be a profitable venture.

Same for 360... they have close 3 biilion loss in the first three years and after profited... PS3 is profiting since 2009 after the Slim launch.

Much of the cost for the PS3 that is attributed to the gaming division should be deferred to the company as a whole. Blu-Ray development and it's implementation in the PS3 were expected to return a profit for other divisions. Measuring the entirety of that as a PS3 loss is short-sighted and close to willful misdirection. No division is an island.

Edit:  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it almost seems like the OP is laying all the costs of the Cell on the PS3, as well, which makes no sense at all.

DirtyP2002 said: I have seen a couple of threads / posts and even articles claiming that the PS3 made one of the greatest comebacks and is a profitable ..

You forgot a significant contribution (estimates range from 600 to 900mio) from laptop write-offs when that business part was consolidated into the division. Either way, it is completely nonsensical to add all the stuff going on during PS3 development into a "PS3 is guilty" argument. Buying blu-ray patents, getting blu-ray diodes mass-manufacturable, building plants (for blu-ray diodes and cell plants) and subsequent selling and re-piurchasing said cell plants makes this a rather superficial calculation. t is clear that PS3 had to account for things that are long-time profitable and has to account for stuff that is really "lost" (like the cell plants). I'd guess the overall "real" loss now is less than 1billion.

ethomaz said: sidious164 said: The ps3 was a failure. This is already known. Will probably sell more than the 360 which the sony fans claim is a victory, but they fail to realise that the ps3 cost sony billions and no profit, which makes it the ultimate failure. PS3 will probably sell more than Wii. PS3 is reason to Sony to be on track today... they lost a lot of money with it in the early years but after that only profited... the most part of the loss in the division was because the Bravia HDTV. The best thing Kaz did was to split the division... now the Game Division is just for PlayStation related products... so after that no loss was posted for the division. Like I said even the Game Division of Microsoft just started o be profitable in the last quarter... previous that they are only covering the initial loss with the 360 development... and I think they will never cover the XBOX costs.

Thats what you get when you release an $800 machine for a pricetag of $600.

If they make the same mistakes again (they most likely wont), then cya Sony. It was fun while it lasted.

KHlover said: JoeTheBro said: I like how you completely ignored Vita costs in your "analysis." What could they have been? A few hundred million dollars? The PS3 would still be a few billion dollars away from being profitable...

Factor in R&D, game development, losses per system, advertizing, etc. Vita losses could be closer to half a billion. And what about PS4 R&D? The PS3 is still not profitable, but he really missed some things.