I think its the disbelief of how a market leader of over 15 yrs has managed to lose all the money it made in less than 3 yrs- and how it cant afford to keep doing so, unlike nintendo and m$

From the link: "** -- it's FY+1 for Sony for comparison reasons"

WSJ shows a loss for 2000, in that table it's shown as 2001.

This really is a bummer for Sony. They built one hell of a house of gaming and a single product managed to completely destroy it. In this coming generation, if there is a PS4, Sony will be starting basically from scratch and Microsoft and Nintendo will be more entrenched than ever.

But if history teaches us anything, it's that success in one console generation doesn't guarantee success in the next.

People need to read between the lines here. Sony is committed to turning this disastrous business strategy that they turded out 3 years ago into a profitable venture. How does a company do this?

This is how:
-Layoffs (done)
-cutting corners (done)
-removing functionality from the product (done)
-focus on profitable ventures, in this case software publishing, which is why sony is focusing more on 1st/2nd party offerings. (done)
-and most importantly, SPENDING FREEZE (I’m convinced this also has been done)

In other words, no new handheld or console is in R&D. They can’t afford it. Right now nintendo's R&D spending is reportedly thru the roof, but Sony will not be developing a new console. If anything Sony will release a PS4 that will be a sligtly updated PS3. They will do this believing that it would work the same way it did for Nintendo, but since Sony isn’t nearly as savvy a company; I can predict that they would have no market research, game designing and development, nor offer any new interesting technology like Nintendo did and the PS4 will fall flat also. If sony doesn’t release a PS3.5 then they will concentrate on the profitable part of their game division, publishing, and cut out hardware. You heard it here first.

The worst part of the article was this - "Sony also is suffering from a lack of attractive titles that are exclusive to the PS3. Microsoft has hit the jackpot with two action-adventure game franchises, Halo and Gears of War" Can't believe these guys had to dig out Halo for justifying the false claim of the 360 having better exclusives.

I think the author is talking about sales, he probably does not care about Metacritic or Gamesrankings.

Your post would make sense, but I have two problems with it. I don't see Sony's game division doing any significant layoffs yet, and I still don't see that they'll become profitable with the measures done so far. Did I misunderstand anything?

They don't care about rankings, awards, forums or reviews. They just care about sales; Gears of War 2 is at 2.4 million copies just in the US acording to VG Chartz and Halo 3 is at 6.3 million copies. The best selling exclusive for the PS3 in America is MotorStrom with 1.85 million copies.

Though the graph is showing improvement, it's going to take a VERY long time to recoup the losses from the first 3 years. So while they may make a profit in 09', they are still in the hole with their gaming division as a whole.

I disagree. If you read the drift of the article, the author clearly means that sale of the PS3 is lagging because of a dearth of good exclusives on the console. This is simply not true. If he had said something like "lack of enough marketing for exclusives" it would have made more sense.

I agree with the point about price. However when you put in a bullshit point like the tired and worn-out logic of PS3 not having enough exclusives you lose credibility very fast.