Nomura made KH and KH2 for ps2.
Nomura is creating FFXIIIv for ps3.
And now Nomura is not creating KH3 for ps3? For what reason?
He didn`t like ps3 ? or

Your explanations amount to "I mean, come on. Come on. Of course it's going to be on the PS3!" 

I have a host of responses to such arguments, but I think they're all moot, as there is one factor that overrides the others; no matter how likely a Kingdom Hearts game is for the PS3, it still hasn't been announced, and you shouldn't simply assume. Because obviously, of course, I mean come on, it will be on the PS3. 

Bodhesatva, then what is yours explanations, why Kingdom hearts 3 won`t come to ps3?

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/769/769776p1.html

Well the exact same thing has been reported numerous times about dvds as well but there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with 360, Wii, PS2, and Xbox dvds so I'm thinking it probably won't be a problem.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/31/1043804519345.html

A bad case of DVD rot eats into movie collections

By Sue Lowe
February 1 2003

If you think your prized collection of DVD movies will last a lifetime, think again - some are already starting to rot while others are falling apart.

Unofficial estimates put the number of affected discs at between one and 10 per cent. Yet some of the largest distributors for Hollywood Studios are accused of refusing to accept the problem exists and replace faulty products.

Last year Australians spent $398 million buying 13.3 million DVD movie titles - a three-fold increase on the 4.3 million sold in 2001, according to research firm GFK.

The technology, sold as a replacement for VHS video tape, with added interactive content, is now five years old and the DVD industry claims it is the most successful packaged media in consumer electronics history.

You've essentially made my point for me. Yes, a market share strategy will build up fans and establish a brand name in the short run. (Remember all the Sega fans in the 1990s, anyone?) But since no company is perfect, inevitably mistakes will be made. No one can see the future; everybody releases a clunker eventually. For Nintendo, it was their restrictive licensing agreements, incredible arrogance, and cartridge format in the 5th generation. For Sega, it was the release of too many hasty systems and a whole lot of falling on their own sword. For Sony, it was ignoring price point and trying to build the most powerful console possible (currently ongoing). Everybody makes mistakes and screws up sooner or later. And when pursuing a market share strategy, one generation of console losses destroys the success of many, many successful generations. Historically speaking, it was inevitable that Sony would make a mistake eventually - that's why selling at a loss over and over again doesn't work!

@Bodhesatva: thanks for clarifying. I agree that this is a bad strategy for Sony to pursue at all, but doubly bad given that one of its competitors seems to determined to bleed itself even further into the red to win market share. That a no-win scenario there.

Why not? The competition isn't over pockets, it's over cash registers. Nintendo is pursuing a different strategy, and more power to them, but Sony has far more ways to make money off the PS3 than Microsoft can vis-a-vis the 360. Camera pix? Put 'em on the PS3. Downloadable games? Got 60 GB of space. Next-gen media? Blu-Ray. (I still think the 360's lack of next-gen media is one of the worst business decisions in corporate history.) Online services? Powering up fast. HD display devices? Bravia. Portable devices? PSP. Content? Movies galore plus studios capable of producing marvels like Shadow of the Colossus and God of War 1 and 2. And of course the PS2 continues to sell like hotcakes. For every dollar Sony loses on a PS3, they'll make five dollars elsewhere. All Sony needs to do is reduce the PS3 to $500 this fall, and to $400 by 2008, and they'll do just fine as the Mercedes of gaming.  

First, the PS3 isn't the Mercedes of gaming -- that's the high end PC. There are already games in development for the PC that the PS3 can't handle, such as Crysis, and the PC will continue evolving past there.

More improtantly, you're just pointing out ways that Sony can make money. That's not what this thread is about. It's about spending money. Sony can't spend endless amounts of cash in the hopes of higher market share as Microsoft can.

I'm not sure you realize how much bigger Microsoft is than Sony; I think a lot of people lump both into the "very big giant corporation with tons of money" category and don't really think about any distinctions amongst companies that fit that description. Microsoft is to Sony what Sony is to Nintendo; MS has 8 times as much cash in reserve and its profit margin is 10 times higher (on average, obviously) per year than Sony's is. Microsoft has a great deal more money to burn than Sony does.

So while Sony has historically used their wallet to buy up exclusive titles, development studios, etc, Microsoft can buy even more, pay for more exclusives, and spend billions more than Sony can, because they simply have more money to spend. The recent Grand Theft Auto exclusivity is an example of that.

God, I love it when people make arguments like "for every dollar Sony loses on a PS3 they'll make five dollars elsewhere."  That could be true, whatever, but the fact still remains the PS3 still is losing money.

Oh, and way to assume some horrible price cut strategies. 

And it also plays precisely into my point.

Sony can stand to lose money on the PS3, there's no question. A few billion perhaps, it's hard to say, but they'd probably jettison the division if it kept that up for long.

The problem is that Microsoft can stand to lose even more money than Sony can -- a whole lot more. If Sony makes five dollars elsewhere, Microsoft makes fifty, and that's the problem here. Sony's strategy for market dominance relies on burning those extra 5 dollars, but Microsoft can burn a great deal more than that.

I'm going to re-emphasize this, because I still feel people don't realize the enormous difference between Sony and Microsoft. They see that both companies make billions of dollars, both companies have lots of other avenues of revenue and profit, and see each as giant, money making organizations. They're basically the same, right? No. Microsoft has 7-8 times as much money in reserve and has 10 times as much profit per annum, so it's not even close.

wrong wrong wrong. not even ms will be happy to lose money on anything. remember that the ps3 isnt just a video game player. it is a blu ray player and is winning the war for sony. couple billion in licensing there. it is also going to be a media download center. it will be the first company to think of when buying an hdtv. it will be the start of their cross media (get it) plan. sony has a lot of plans to unify the company and make money off of the ps3 through things other than the ps3. if the ps3 overall breaks even (which it should) i think sony stands to make crazy amounts of money off of it.

the xbox does do much for ms besides straight up make them money. if it loses money, that money is gone forever. sony can lose money on the ps3 and use it to make more money elsewhere, but ms uses other money to take the brunt of the losses.

that is why the xbox is more likely to die than the ps.