Sony is not making any money "lately", at least not with the PS3. We're not talking about the brand. We're talking about the PS3 on itself, which makes the PS2 and PS1 irrelevant about they made money or not, but you can use them to compare market share. It's not about if Sony is a failure or the Playstation brand is a failure. It's about the PS3, and that means, on its own. It actually does not matter how long it took for the Xbox brand to start making money, and it does not matter that Sony made money with its PS1 and PS2. You say you are sure the PS3 will start making a profit, but faster, but you are comparing the new Xbox brand which started from scratch, to a console that already has a name for years, which is simply not fair, and not logical, because you're comparing two generations to one. If you compare only this generation, the X360 is winning for now, both for the companies as for gamers. You say playstation network is growing very fast, but there's only a peak because of Killzone 2 as of now. If the PS3 games don't get better online for ALL its games, (at least on par as KZ2) it will never catch up to Xbox Live. And PS3 as Blu-Ray player only is actually bad for Sony because they can't win the money back by selling games to those persons because they only watch movies in the first place. So yet again:

PS3 causes the next for Sony:
[wanted to maintain/increase market share] Market share down, thus income lower than expected
[wanted to sell lots of games to regain console costs]Game sales lower than expected, thus income lower than expected
Console price high, thinking people would buy it anyway, disappointment, yet still losing money per sold console
[wanted to promote Blu-Ray] Lower game sales for selling console as player only
No/negligible extra income from other uses of the console (movie renting, online etc)
[wanted advanced powerful hardware]Relatively more time/cost to produce a game

Basically Sony has a financial dilemma, because if they decrease the price, more people are gonna get the PS3, but that means they'll lose money per sold unit, but maybe more games will be bought and make your profit higher. On the other hand, if they keep the price high, the PS3 will maybe turn into a profit, but the game and console sales will stay relatively low. Would that make more profit or not? What do you do in this situation? Since this console is basically giving Sony a headache, and it's not doing as they expected it to do, it is a failure for Sony.

X360 causes the next for Microsoft:
[wanted to get more known in gaming market] Increased market share, aka bigger fanbase and more income and getting a well known console brand in the gaming market
[game sales to regain console costs]Game sales are over the top, thus income very high
[wanted to approach different markets on price]Console price range relatively low, thus higher sale numbers
Console mainly bought for gaming, thus costs easily earned back by games
[wanted to give outstanding online experience and support] Additional income from internet services (Xbox Live, movie renting etc.), and accessories.
[wanted to produce with relatively cheap hardware] Lots of money loss because of RROD, some reputation degrading, but relatively low to the reputation gained

And Microsoft is happy with its console. They're getting money from every side. Even though the RROD costed them almost all the money they earned, they kept their service quality high to keep costumers happy. The X360 on itself is doing everything good for Microsoft, because Microsoft already has nothing to lose. They already gained so much with this console, it just can't fail for them.

The bottom line is, the PS3 is not pushing Sony in the direction Sony wanted to go, and the X360 is doing that exact thing MS wanted it to do. 

Psn already has 20 million users and its only 2 years old, PlayStation Home has 2 million active users.

And what's so bad about PS3 online games? Tell me one 360 game which can have up to 256 players in one server? No, wait, tell me one 360 game which can have up to 64 players in one server? No, wait, tell me the name of one 360 game which can have up to 32 players in one server? Oh and you obviusly never played warhawk online.

And i am sure losing 4 billion on 360 is ''exact thing MS wanted it to do''. Microsoft may have captured bigger markeshare with 360 than Sony with PS3, but Microsoft lost a lot more money on 360 than Sony on PS3.

Xbox started on scratch? Microsoft spend millions on 3rd party support, adds, DLCs, stealing PlayStation exclusives...Just watch the ''History of Xbox'' on youtube and you'll see.

PS3 games sell lower than expected? Did  anyone expected LBP to sell over 2 million that fast? Killzone 2 sold over 1 million for only 2 weeks. Did anyone expected Resistance FOM to sell over 3 million? How about MGS4?

Oh, and i am sure Microsoft consumers are happy when they are getting their 3rd 360 fixed. i would be happy too :)

Ok, I'm getting bored of this.

20 Million users would be far from active users since the PS3 (on itself) barely has 20 million owners, and most of them don't even game online, or even game at all. That number is not realistic, and even if it's true, it would be from PSP etc also, which is not relevant for the discussion if the PS3 on itself is a failure or not.

You didn't read what i said. Sony is not making money from online. That does not mean it's bad. Stop putting words in my mouth.

And about RROD you again didn't read what i said. I'm not gonna bother replying to that at all.

You said it took 7 years for xbox to start making a profit. ANd then i said, you are comparing one console, the PS3, which already has a brand name ( from PS2 and PS1), to the old Xbox, which had to start from scratch, so it's not fair to compare them like that, and if you compare X360 to PS3 on themselves, the X360 is winning.

PS3 games are not selling anything close to PS2 games, and that's lower than expected, because Sony's arrogance bit them in their own behind.

And X360 users who got a RROD just got another console, and if it happened again, they got another one again, 3 year warranty.... And that's within 2 weeks that you get a replacement console. Some people who don't have warranty, just got out and bought another X360. That says something about the service and gaming experience Microsoft is giving. No one would go and buy a second PS3 like that, especially because of the price and also because the experience is not worth the money twice.

You know, you are pretty biased, and you like to tweak little stories to make the PS3 come out on top, no matter what, and sorry, but that's not gonna help, you won't win an argument like that against me. Keep to the matter, which is the PS3, and keep on the money either company is making, and you'll KNOW the PS3 is not doing what Sony wants it to do. For gamers, they don't really care. All they want to do is play games so the PS3 is not failure there, but for Sony, it is. Why can't you just face it?

Dude, you are trolling bad right now.  You aren't even listening to the people that are talking to you and are just using the oppurtunity to spout fanboy crap.  Nobody is talking about ps3 failing as an entertainment device, because it doesn't.  There are lots of fun games for the ps3.  They are talking about how the ps3 is a failure business wise.  Fact of the matter is Sony is not capturing the same amount of marketshar as they did last generation which means a smaller user base which means less games sold.  You keep trying to bring in this console comparision between ps3 and xbox and all these people are trying to do is compare ps3 to ps2.  Let me say that again, so you can understand, they are comparing the ps3 to the ps2, not the xbox, unless they are responding to something you said.  So, give it a rest already, ok?  You are sounding very childish and you are actually hurting your cause, because you are not convincing at all.  OH, and BTW, Home does not have 2 million ACTIVE subscribers, they have 2 million subcribers, most of which probably logged on once and found out how lame it was and never logged on again (like myself).

LOL, i tried to sign up to PSN with PSP, it took more than 1 hour, the process is very slow, so most of people are making accounts on PS3. And you can sign up on PSN with PSP ONLY if you have the latest system update but a lot of users have hacked systems so they cant sign up to PSN.And PS3 owners DONT have to go and buy second PS3, because system is reliable.And I said microsoft MADE PROFIT ON 360 NOT ON ORIGINAL XBOX. When i said ''xbox'' i meant entire xbox brand not just original xbox. Please read carefully. I said  it took 7 years for XBOX BRAND to make profit for microsoft.

Here you can see that both Microsoft and Sony made profit from online, just microsoft made much more (since XBL is not free ):

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=62279

And i am not trying to say PS3 is on top, it obviously wont win this generation and its not doing as great as PS2 did. I am saying its not bigger failure than 360. I actually tought system with 32% of dead untis is an actual failure, but i guess i was wrong. Its far from failure for consumers and microsoft :)

I have to LOL at your reason why most peopel can't use their psp's on the PSN.  That may just be the dumbest reason I have ever heard, as the amount of people with hacked systems is way less than 1% of the people that own the system. LOL.

The second line that I bolded is EXACTLY what everybody has been saying, but you are trying to bring the xbox into the mix.  The reality is that the PS3 has lost almost all of the marketshare it's predecessor had.  It is also costing Sony way more per unit than the ps2 ever did.  Sony has done many things wrong this generation and has failed to attain pretty much any of their goals.  I remember the Sony reps talking about how they were going to pull ahead of the 360 by holiday 08, but that never happened.  What people are saying on here, that you are understanding, is that the ps3 is a bigger failure because they had everything going for them going into this generation.  They had the name brand, the loyal support of the customer, and the first place spot and now they are in 3rd place.  Microsoft has sold more units than the original xbox already, in half the time, that is a HUGE improvement from last generation, do you understand?  Don't talk to me about how much money they lost and how great sony's numbers are improving and all that crap that has nothing to do with this point we are trying to talk about.  Generation to generation, Microsoft has made lots of headway and have increased marketshare and brand loyalty while Sony has squandered down to nothing.  They will be lucky to hit 50 million units, thats a third the units they sold last generation.  DO YOU UNDERSTAND?  It really isn't that hard of concept to comprehend.  Nobody ,except you, is debating which system has better games or has better features.  We are merely talking about marketshare.

What's with the mega-quotes?

this is definitive right...its all about the money...so much people in the world really dont got the money to buy a 399 dollar console...Microsoft and Nintendo are only the winners this generation because they can afford to put out a console at 199 dollar without loss...but at least Sony got the best console out there this generation!

"Best" console is not exactly the way i would put it. Is it theoretically the most powerful console, yes. But that only does not make it the best. They really need to increase the quality of the experience, both for gamers and developers, to make it the "best" console, if you know what i mean. PS2 was the best console last generation, but it certainly was not the most powerful one either.

Dear God, whats up with all the Xbots.

ITS EASY TO BEAT YOUR PREDECESSOR WHEN YOUR PREDECESSOR LOST ABOUT 4 BILLIONS AND SOLD ONLY 25 MILLION UNITS. EVERY COMPANY WIHT LITTLE KNOWLEDGE COLD BEAT THAT.

ITS HARD TO BEAT YOUR PREDECESSOR WHEN YOUR PREDECESSOR SOLD 150 MILLION AND MADE MILLIONS.

Do you see now why that compresion with predecessors is not fair? and i never said 360 wasn't HUGE improvment, i just said, just because PS3 is not doing such a great job like Ps2 did, doesen't mean PS3 is a failure. Actually NES was doing better than SNES, SNES was doing better than N64, N64 was doing better than GameCube. Does that mean every Nintendo console besides NES and wii are failures?

And its ok if YOU think PS3 is a failure. Other 20 million people who bought it DONT think its a failure and they choose PS3 over 360. Oh and thanks for saying Sony would be happy if they sell 50 million PS3s. Now we all know you are 360 fanboy and Sony hater :)