I seen people on the internet including someone from Sony saying the Wii will only last about 5 years. This is dead wrong, and the predictions from the very beginning were also dead wrong.

I was sure sony couldn't possibly do that well with a $600 price tag, and almost thought I was wrong when it had a great launch, but was right after all. Now I guess I'm going to be the first one to say the Wii will last at least 7 years (or longer) because it has already won the war, and will continue to sell out for at least the rest of 2008, plus Nintendo still has yet to release the wii in 4 more countries.

This alone will keep the Wii moving 500,000 in sales a month or more, then a price drop of $50 will make it complete sellout all over again, and if not that a $100 dollar price drop will do the trick. If the sales dont start going under 200,000 a week on a regular basis this will probably not happen. Nintendo doesn't even have to beat Sony every week, as they just have to keep good sales to avoid a price drop.

Now about the whole lifespan wishful Sony thinking... The PS2 is still around and its still selling ok, but it's selling almost as well as the Xbox 360, so the 360's graphics are not going to kill the PS2 or Wii. I think soon after the PS2 is discontinued the 360 will go about a year after, which I guess will be in about a year and a half, so I'll give the 360 two and a half years then that's the end of the 360, and I'll give it nine more months in Japan.

Now I'll talk about the PS3. It was $600 in the beginning, now its $400, and after they did this they lost an estimated 86 billion dollars. I dont think they have the money they once had, so since it's selling good now they probably will not even attempt a price drop due to the lack of funds. It took a long time for the PS2 to drop down to $100, about 6 years, so I think Sony will have a price drop around the 4th quarter of 2009, just in time for Christmas, and I think it will be about a price drop of $100 (maybe depending on sales).

Once this happens Nintendo will strike back with a price drop efficient enough to put Sony right back in 2nd place weekly.

That's ridiculous.

1. No, M$ has more money than Sony. Hence the $ in the name. In all seriousness: though yes, they're two of the the biggest corporations in the world, Sony does not have the income of Microsoft. This is because many of Sony's divisions operate at a loss. In 2005, for example, the only division of Sony that had an operating profit was the (surprise) games division. In 2007, Microsoft had less total revenue than Sony, $51 Billion to Sony's $70 Billion, but Microsoft destroyed them in income (i.e. revenue minus expenses), with an operating income of $18 billion to Sony's $600 million, and a net income of $14 billion to Sony's $1 billion.

2&3. So you give Sony credit for doing well at some unspecified point in the future after FFXIII and GT5 come out (a year away at least), but say Wii will drop in the near term because of a lack of games for the summer. And then, in your sig, say that PS3 will both sell on average of 40K a week in Japan and 60K a week in Japan. I don't know how it'll magically jump to that number (no, MGS4 is not enough to make it average 40K a week for the whole year considering how they started the year). Putting all that ridiculousness aside, if the Wii did the unlikely thing by suddenly doing as poorly as you say it will in Japan (despite a JRPG coming out for it--a game that wouldn't be enough to boost sales massively, but will certainly help in preventing a huge dip), it would dip to...selling about twice as many consoles a week as the PS3, rather than six times or more as many.

You're right, Sony will rule all. We can only pray that they in their role as Spreme Corporate Master will be just to us, their cowering subjects.

M$:

63 bln. $.

Sony:

11 716 362 mln. yens = 108 bln. $.

108 > 63
ламер.

@jalsonmi,
try to read about japanese and american way of buisness and why less revenue in Japan is much better for buissnes. Hint: taxes.

That has got to be one of the most idiotic spins you made (but then again, I haven't seen many posts from you and I don't want to). You do realize that those assets don't equate to spending money, right? Land, inventory, machinery, construction? Sony can spend those? Hell, if you took a look at the cash and equivalent Sony has on hand, you'll find out its only a little over 7 million dollars.

@totalwar23,
just go and read about japan and american model of buisnes(unless you believe, that they don`t differ),
don`t look stupid with stating, that american model would work in Japan, lol.

 And since when did I mention anything about Japanese and American model of business? I'm here stating that MS has more money than Sony. Something that's not hard to figure out.

@Crazzy.

We are talking about money here, not assets. Microsoft has enough money that they can make an offer of 40 something billion for Yahoo, Sony quite simply doesn't have that much in liquid assets.

There is a very odd (underlying) thought process that Sony fans have when they talk of the long PS3 lifespan ... They believe the Wii should not be successful today because of how obsolete it is, and yet (in a couple of years) when the PS3 is in a similar position to the Wii they believe that it will become more successful.

To stay ON TOPIC, I agree with most of what Jeffrey9999 said. The Wii will last around 6-7 years before being succeeded by something else, and will probably sell a little below current PS2 numbers at that time. As for a price drop happening, I don't think that will happen unless Nintendo is in dire straits and must cut prices in order to match the other systems' value at the time.

Unless they get MacGyver to manufacture PS3s, I don't see their price dropping anytime soon. Even if they did, (along w/ MGS4 or something) the PS3 won't hit 40k sales in Japan and stay there for more the 3 weeks. Maybe when bigger games are getting released more frequently, then the plateau may slowly raise.

The 360 is dead in Japan, and as far as this "generation" goes, it's not winning the whole thing. Not having Japan as a profitable market is like losing by default. The Japanese have already chosen their console, and it is the Wii. However, the PS3 won't just go down dying over there.

@Crazzyman:

As other have said, I like how I make a post about income and you respond with assets. All assets prove is that if both companies had to liquefy all of that stuff tomorrow Sony would be able to get more for its shareholders. As totalwar pointed out, having 13 nad a half billion dollars in property doesn't do shit for Sony's operating budget, and is subject to the visiscitudes of the different places the two compnies do business and the way they do that business. That is, Sony has property in Japan which had massive property values, as well as a studio in Los Angeles (movie lots take up a whole lot of space--in other words land value. Not to mention the high land value of Culver City in LA where Sony Picture Studios is located) and multiplexes throughout the US. Microsoft doesn't need to have any of those things to make software and the little hardware they make, so they primarily own office building complexes around the US. Thus because Sony is in the movie business (which is I'm sure they main reason their property holdings are so high) they have a much higher property asset than Microsoft. They are also much less likely to sell that property as it's imperative to they way they do business. Unless they feel like selling Sony Picture Entertainment as a whole, in which case their assets across the board go way down. You can make similar arguments down the line of the asset sheet, but the point is assets are not the issue, revenue and operating budget and cash on hand are.

In terms of your point about revenue, what does that matter, if Sony actually had a higher revenue than Microsoft? Yes, the income is lower, but that shows just how much of the revenue is tied up in their business model. It's fixed expense, such that they cannot use their revenue or assets as freely as Microsoft can. As Rath mentioned, Microsoft can afford to made a $40 billion ofer for Yahoo. Sony, meanwhile, can't afford to buy a television network, which severley limits the company as a force among media companies. They are sixth in the world in size for media companies, the five above Sony--Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Viacom and GE--all own television networks (two in the case of Viacom, as the CW is now a partnership between Viacom and Time Warner, merging the Viacom owned UPN and the Time Warner owned WB) and cable stations. This is something they'd like to fix, but cannot, because they operate at such a comparatively low income level. You may say that's part of the Japanese way of doing business, but I am sure they were prefer to have more cash on hand. I'm sure both Sony and Microsoft work the books (under GAAP) to show as little net income as possible in order to lighten the load of income tax, but if Sony had more real income it would be willing to offset the heightened taxes in favor of cash on hand.