I really thought Sony had a handle on statements like this.

I hope this isn't foreshadowing their press conference.

This is hysterical. I think more people might buy the PS3 if they drop the price. Thanks for the laugh.

You could make an argument thats he's right. I mean, the Wii is still sitting at a poultry 48% market share. Evidently it'll stay a niche product untill it attains 50% market share, which shouldn't be long with ccompetitor CEO's making comments like that...

 So because they are not selling at a loss the system is overpriced? The fact that it has been sold out for well over a year suggests the price is too low if anything. And honestly, you are willing to pay $400-600 for a PS3, but $250 for a Wii is too much?

 He should have just congratulated Nintendo on their success and then made his reference to PS3 sales picking up and the console offering morefeatures. I do love how the one guy claims being sold-out over the one holiday season caused demand to decrease. I think it is just silly to try and claim low supply hurt you when your product competes with the Wii.

It's an inside joke.

On topic:

What I don't get is that only two types of people are going to read that statement.  Core gamers and investors

Core gamers aren't going to change their minds over stupid comments.

Investors look at financials and laugh.

cue the person that rolls in here saying that Sony operates at a loss because it somehow wants to help gamers out.

It's quite simple the point he's making. The PS3 is a multifaceted machine that plays blu rays/dvds, works a a network hub for any video or music you want on your TV, in some markets works as a DVR now, can run a full fledged OS (Linux is really easy to install), can use 3rd party items really easily (UPnP devices for content, 3rd party hard drives for 320GB PS3s, a ton of blue tooth devices ect.). On top of that it plays high end cutting edge games that rival the best in the high end PC world.

The point is not that the Wii doesn't make money or isn't a gaming device, but rather it is nothing compared to the PS3 on most fronts, which quite simply, it isn't. If you want a really simple gaming toy thats great! The Wii does that perfectly. It is, however, a toy with very limited use beyond simply playing games hence niche. Even the PS2 had more media features then the Wii (and still does). Many niche devices sell well, its not a sales comment. The point is that its highly overpriced for what it delivers and it has very limited value for the cost relative to the PS3 or even the 360. For 250 dollars Nintendo is basically selling a PS2 with slightly updated hardware and a new controller that has very poor support for anything beyond playing games that were current in 2002. The Wii should really be more like 150 for what it provides whether or not Nintendo can charge more.

If you don't think that the value provided by the 400 dollar PS3 vs the 250 dollar Wii is greater then really, you have no concept of overall value. You can say "OMG I love Mario Kart and Wii!" But that is separate from the relative value of the systems. The PS3 is basicly a computer in the living room, the Wii is a toy that just plays games, its as simple as that. If you don't WANT a high end HD device then fine, but don't pretend that the PS3 isn't a better value for those who aren't satisfiedwith 480i/p (which was current 10 years ago) as the top resolution output.

   And for all you Nintendomination advocates, in dollars of gaming devices sold Nintendo and Sony are basicly equal given that millions were willing to pay twice as much for a PS3 because they realized the PS3 is more then twice the value of the Wii (in terms of feature set, capabilities and hardware I would peg it at around 3 times the Wii).  Price isn't the same as value, value is the relation between what you pay and what you get.  The Camary is a better value then the Yaris even though the Yaris costs a lot less because the Yaris is feature poor and clunky even if it still runs.

You said it all, nothing to add.

@ Impulsivity
"For 250 dollars Nintendo is basically selling a PS2 with slightly updated software that has very poor support for anything beyond playing games that were current in 2002."
That is why the difference between the wii and ps2 is about the same technically to that of the wii and hd consoles? Also what games were current in 2002 that the wii has?

Edit: I forgot to mention that the ps2 had motion controls for most games also right?

Its Bloomberg. If you don't understand the specifics of energy supplies and trading these people can say whatever they want and the rich investors will 'believe' it. How are video games any different? The thing that seems kinda ironic is that the Wii is everywhere and everyone including these bloomberg readers know it, its bleeding obvious.