you could be right. I would have to see hard analysis on this.

PS3's is using older ram which is actually rising in cost. CELL is unique, and they have to tool specific to produce it.

Many of the other compenants are probably similiar in cost. Blu-ray, HDD.

PS4 was making a small profit at launch, logic would dictate that margin has improved over 2 years. I find it very possible the profit per piece of hardware is similiar with a slight edge to the PS3.

PS3 licensing cost could still be a little high as it has a nvidia gpu and that company has a history of being a pain when it comes to tech royalties. Generally though the current ps3 uses a cheap 40nm fabrication process and there are always options for using other components that perform at the required level. Most hardware becomes cheaper because later fabrication processes allow many more chips to be made at each time as the older hardware is lower performance. I'm sure the ps3 is making Sony good money nowadays and they likely have 2 or 3 more revisions to come. Some may simply be cheaper internal designs for lower cost others might be more radical for example a ps3 without an optical drive so relies on psn completely for game downloads. Perhaps something like this will replace the playstation tv.

It's a different story at Microsoft though who are probably itching to drop the 360 and move people onto the xbone.

No. Some popular titles may not get BC treatment.

There are alot of 360 titles with active online populations. So there are probably millions of Gold subscibers just using 360.

Its likely MS still benefits pretty well from the 360 sales and Gold subscribers.

Neither company really supports last gen in a significant way.

However, I think its more important MS pleases 360 fans if they want them to become X1 owners. The BC is a good effort to make that happen.

By support they probably mean they are going to sell it and won't shut down PSN for ps3. There won't be Amy blockbuster games from Sony for ps3 anymore.

from your OP

"Its time for Sony to kill off GEN 7.

1. PS3s dont generate the profit margin that the PS4 does because of the free online.

2. PS4 is doing quite well, Sony should target their faithful, but slow adopters before the competition does something too."

maybe instead of trying to tell others they are misreading your topic and OP, you should reword them to be more clear from the begining. you're saying one thing and then at the end trying to say that you aren't saying it.

They should focus on getting PS4 sales but there isn't a good reason for them to think of the ps3 as competion for the ps4, they could make great deals on both of them this fall.

SCE should keep the PS3 in production for as long as it remains profitable.

It's still great as an all in one media hub that happens to have access to a giant library of software, aging or not, that the PS4 won't be able to match for years. It's still a gateway device for SCE online services.

No one can realistically expect any AAA exclusives at this point, barring any that were stuck in production pipeline limbo yet are still going to be released on the original platform it was developed for, but it will still get plenty of 3rd party ports.

Price-wise, realistically I don't see the PS3 going below $199 with bundles. I suppose they could do a 12GB core system for $149, but I have a hard time seeing that option improving SCE's bottom line.

The paid online will always be a dealbreaker for the PS4 for me.

PS+ is definitely worth it whether you play online or not. It basically pays itself back with all of those free games within 2 months.

I disagree.

Its not cause they give acess to some random games temporarely (mostly indies) that i'm suddenly going to want to play them. I know it sounds crazy, but i buy the games i want to play. So, at best they offer lots of stuff i'm not very interested in.

Its funny how quickly people jump in agreement when the word "free" is dropped. They arent free, they are rentals. When you stop paying you stop having acess to them.