I think this is the case here. It would explain why the journalist put the word "would" in there.

@ NKAJ - read up. The word would was added by a journalist. It was never actually said

@ selnor - Acti/Blizzard gains more out of Sony than Sony gains out of Activision

So, who was actually there to hear Stringers answer, the tone of the answer and the true meaning of the answer? Hmmm....

The journalist! Thats right! No-one else here has any clue as to the context of the quote except him, and he decided to add "(would)" to his article for clarity. Why are we even arguing this? The word "would" was added for a reason, to give context to the quote, so no, Stringer did not say that the PS3 is currently losing money but that it would in the future if there was a price drop.

Just for clarity, I still think the PS3 is losing money, but that is not what Stringer said and I doubt he'd admit it if the PS3 is still losing money now (makes Sony seem more incompetent in not having lowered costs enough).

I'm in a journalism course in University and we're taught to use those kind of devices to bring clarity to a quotation. When someone adds something to a quote in Brackets or Squares it's usually used to identify what the person implied or what type of tone they were using. And Honestly I don't know why the OP seems so Hellbent on proving the Report from a respectable News Publication like Reuters would make such a critical mistake during one of there interviews. It really seems like you're reaching and grasping at straws. Is it really so Farfetched to think that after 6/7 months Sony's finally being able to break even on there PS3's? I mean if Sony is just starting to see a break even point or even some profit from each console sold OF COURSE it would be a horrible idea to do a price drop.

But it's also not farfetched to believe that if/when a PS3 slim drops the price will be dropped to a point where Sony will be able to afford it.

The fact that you a no-name random video gamer who comes on a video game forum is trying to disprove and bring attention to a possible error that Reuters reporter made which clearly isn't a mistake at all. Proves that you are a Fanboy of the highest order and needs to get laid immediately.

Sony is losing money...and their last financial report provide ample evidence of that...to think otherwise shows that some people aren't doing their homework, before making bold statements.

LOl its quite easy to see that he did say he WOULD lose money if he cut the price.

I don't see his statement refuting that he is ALREADY losing money...it could jsut mean that if he cut prices, he doesn't forsee the CBA to justify it.

All I see is, he would lose money, and he already is losing money. Going by how much that division has made as of late .... with the PS2/PSP and PS3 software profits, I doubt the PS3 is breaking even at best.

I strongly believe that Sony is losing on every console made NOW.
However, people do not just add words inside parentheses for no good reason.

Let me argue with myself for a moment:
Why didn't he put "already" in the parentheses?
Why did he insert a word there?
Was there something said in some other context that would point out the word "would" over the word "already"?
Is "would" there to do fit the role of the parenthetical clause by clarifying the original intent, or did the reporter blatantly misquote someone?

The point is sinha. That it could have been clarified by Stringer, but niether you or I know for sure. Oftentimes we use parenthetical clauses to preserve the quote itself, which is much more powerful than self corrections and stumbles.

Putting the word "would" into the statement (as the reported did) doesn't actually change the meaning of the original quote at all.

1. Sony said they are losing money on every ps3 sold.
2. If they are losing money on every ps3 sold now and dropped the price more - then they "would" be losing money on every ps3 sold in the future.

Both statements can be correct; it doesn't have to be one or the other.