It still brings a smile to my face.

@MikeB
""""Actually there are many more PS3 exclusives under development than there are for the XBox 360. And almost all future non-exclusives for the XBox 360 are also being ported to / developed for the PS3.""""

==> are u sure of this ? can u prove it ?

@shams,

A 1000$ console will just not sell. So yes, Sony will not lose money, but they will not win too since nobody will bought the system. At 1000$, PS3 would not have been the cheapest blue ray player and it was important for the PS3 launch sales.
Now, they are losing money but, at least, some people are buying the system ...and I predict more are waiting for a price since 600$ (worldwide) is still too expensive.

@ libellule

An incomplete list of PS3 games available and under development: 

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-playstation-3-games

Me (and I guess many others) don´t dissagree on the profit part of your commnet, the problem is Sony would only make profit on the consoles they could sell and it wouldn´t be enough to get some good marketshare and 3rd party support, so it would lose money in the long run, thats why big companys like Sony and MS try to lose money to make money and drive out little(er) companys like Nintendo who can´t compete with inflated prices, (only this time around Nintendo knew what to do), point is you can´t make money with a product if its not what consumers whant and it doesn´t have the pricetag consumers whant, first one is a no brainer for Sony, who in his right (fanboy free) mind would not whant a PS3 ??? Who whants to spent 500$-600$ dollars on one... ok now we are getting to to the problem.

the PS3 will do much better when the price is down and more games are out, peoblem is the competition has those fields coverd as well, if Sony whanted to to make profit from day one they would have needed a machine weaker than the 360, but for the big companies this doesn´t go well with a 7-10 year plan....until Nintendo pulled a houdini...now everyone is waiting for it to fail (it used to be next month, now its next year, we just have to see)

Profit is a great thing but when you whant to sell the most powerfull machine to a broad range of customers over a long range of time you need to cut back on something, Nintendo cut back on power ( seriously who thought that was gonna go well until they saw what the Wii really was) MS and Sony cut back on profit.

Still I like your way of thinking shams, the PS3 is a ballsy and very ambitious project and it needs some outside of the box thinking, my problem is that eventhough Sony can wait for the PS3 to build momentum and be a 10 year plan, developers can not whait that long, they need money for new projects fast and on a strong userbase, they don´t care how well it will do in 8 or nine years, they need a userbase, Sony needs games, right now this relationship is a little disfunctional so Sony needs to cut price and make profit later.

The two biggest factors hurting the PS3 (not a flame just my opinion) are IMO the mutimedia format wars Sony whanted to pull gamers into (and most of us have no interst in fighting two wars at the same time) and a stronger MS with a now known XBox brand name, a good price and many good games (of which many where PS3 exclusives) the Wii may also be a problem but its definitly not the biggest.

Ummm... no.

You know, everybody is concerned about Sony losing money. I say that's not a problem for them. Being an electronics giant, they can counterfinance their losses - just like Microsoft. And don't forget the PS2, I still sells like crazy after 8 years or so; must be dirt cheap to produce by now.

Sony's main issue has to be gaining a bigger user base, so they should rather lower the PS3's price. I guess in 2008, with a lot of highly anticipated exclusives coming, the PS3 will gain some momentum. So 2007 is the time window for Nintendo to grow the Wii user base as fast as they can, and I (personally) hope N are aware of that and give it all they got.

Not a complete answer. The point in question was PS3 having more games coming than 360 or Wii.

To piggyback on your response, the flaw in your thinking Shams is that you are looking at this as a simple system, like selling Coca-Cola. Make product, calculate costs, charge more than cost.

The gaming market is a much more complex and dynamic system. To start, consoles are more expensive than most products the average person buys, so there is extra scrutiny that goes into a purchase. But beyond that, the money made off console sales has always been minimal, and consumers generally aren't interested in the console per se because traditionally they don't do much on their own (though that has changed). The bulk of the money has always been made in games, and that means getting as many consoles into as many hands as possible. Once you go over $200-300 on a console's price, there is a very steep drop off in the number of consumers willing to spend the money.  In short, whatever you gain on the console's cost, you lose more from a shrinking customer pool.

 Now toss in 3rd party publishers, who don't make a dime on the console, and who often determine the final success or failure of a system. The only way to get their support is with a successful console, which they see not as one that makes a profit (which they don't see a penny from), but one that has a large number of potential customers they can sell their games too. If they don't see that, they don'tmake the games, the customers don't buy the console, and console manufacturer doesn't get money anywhere. Thus it is their best interest to sell the console for the cheapest price possible, even if it means taking a loss in the first year or two (which is usually the case).

This is not really the case, Sony's worth is less than Nintendo's now and they have far less flexible funds to freely spend. Sony is actually in all kinds of financial worry at the moment despite their stock doing farily well. Even if all other divisions were doing well there is no reason for Sony to keep supporting a money pit that threatens their long term standing with investors (this of course assuming Sony would take the safer route). Microsoft is the only one that actually has the money to burn and freely does so as people time and time again have mistaken Sony as having the potential for, I think people simply just assume all large companies function like Microsoft does leading to the illussion that Sony can pull off these miracles as many claim in threads like this.