Kaz didn't say hoped. He said they were. And said they have been since last fiscal year.

"Any idea when Sony is expected to start posting profits on individual consoles? Right now, aren't they essentially taking a huge gamble by assuming SW sales will make up for losses from HW?"

If it were any other poster besides you I would give you a serious answer... but knowing you I won't waste my time

"Kaz didn't say hoped. He said they were. And said they have been since last fiscal year."

Link?

It's not a claim. It's actually pretty well known among the gaming community.

But if you want proof: http://news.softpedia.com/news/PlayStation-3-Cost-Sony-3-3-Billion-88957.shtml

Now don't act like I'm making stuff up.

I think Kaz Hirai is a better CEO than Ken Kutaragi. He will make PS3 more competitive
until it makes a whole lot of money xD

I'm not doubting Kaz is doing a good job though. Considering the situation, he's doing pretty well. But man, still taking a cut just for better sales is still a risk.

Well, it's making money in the UK. I can't be bothered to find the source, but it's been making money here for a while now. At one point, the PS3's £425 price equalled a crazy $700 equivalent, and even at £300 it was about $520. Now the slim is $412 in the UK according to a quick google based on the current exchange rate.

It's a similar situation in the rest of Europe, too.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/sony-still-losing-money-with-the-ps3-slim.ars

"If you're just talking about the hardware alone, the quick answer is yes. That makes good headlines, but I don't actually know that that's the true nature of the business that we're all in, whether it's PlayStation, Xbox or the Wii. I think the better indicator is to look at the business as a whole platform, to ask: are you profitable in terms of the hardware, software and peripherals. And the answer to that question is yes on a gross profit level since the last fiscal year."

obvious there are more costs to running a business than just PS3 HW.

This has always been SCE's business model since the PS1. The current generation differs primarily because it started with the largest discrepancy between manufacturing cost and retail cost yet seen to date. A $240 net loss per unit is ridiculous for something expected to sell in the millions.

Less than three years later, SCE has managed to whittle that down to under $40, which would also be about as ridiculous (being able to scale down manufacturing costs so quickly) if it weren't so likely that this was all a part of the long term plan from the beginning.

The the key discrepancy limiting success was the delayed acceptance rate relative to the last generation, not surprising given the 2X difference in initial retail price.

But the reason why the focus by so many has been directed at the losses per unit, is that some tie this directly to SCE's ability to stay in the hardware business. And let's face it; some, for whatever personal reasons, are actually hoping to see SCE exit the business and will naturally focus on what they see as proof this has to happen.

Of course, everyone knows it's not the profit per hardware unit that makes a platform successful, rather the ability to draw continued development support from the broadest spectrum of third parties. It's really only when that support dries up that a platform is finished, other than any major management level incompetence.

I don't think anyone WANTS to see SCE leave. However, given the fact that they're STILL losing money on each console sold AND the fact that they're taking a huge gamble by assuming that SW/peripheral sales will make up for their losses, it's not an impossible outcome.