Sony very existance into gaming wasn't for profit, they actually when to nintendo believe it or not with the cd tech, nintendo low balled them and the ps1 was just a revenge console, that took off and revolutionized gaming forever. ps2 was the highest selling console of all time and they still dropped the price, the wii dropped the price only because they were being outsold. look back at the history of sony in gaming the ps3 is mirrroring the ps2 and 1 (not sales wise).So why is sony not in it for profit. proplr think they sold the ps3 for 600$ because they are arrogant, cocky, and money driven, when in fact it was simply because the console itself cost 840$ to make. They lost almost 250$ on every console, and that don't seem arrogant in any way. they are what 4 billion + at losses, and still putting up top quality. Why didn't they charge for psn when seeing how successful live was. why did they make wifi and blu-ray, standard without extra cost. look at the games they are pushing, instead of putting out the established fanchises, and recycled experiences, they releasing all these new ip's. why the freshness, and it's costing them an arm and a leg to do it.

look at the cosole itsself, the literally used anything do anything console. honst to god my friend uses wii speak as a mic, the xbox cam,  keyboard and mouse to navigate the xmb, and has a 320gig hdd for his ps3. so what's with all the consumer love..... i'm at odds, what do you think.

Ehm...they are thinking about the future?lol

I'm guessing you meant the gaming division, because as a whole Sony made $3.23 Billion profit in 2008.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2008/snapshots/6640.html

The games division wanted to add BD so that the Bluray format would gain traction, which would mean access to a huge huge movie market, and royalties from the 720s and Wii2 's BD based games. In either case you do have a point, that the games division is probably tired of losing money as a standard especially after it did so well w/ the PS2. So look for them to be more profit oriented when the profits actually do start rolling in, and to conserve their money more carefully.

For the record (from wikipedia):

"The SNES-CD was to be announced at the May 1991 Consumer Electronics Show (CES). However, when Hiroshi Yamauchi read the original 1988 contract between Sony and Nintendo, he realized that the earlier agreement essentially handed Sony complete control over any and all titles written on the SNES CD-ROM format. Yamauchi decided that the contract was totally unacceptable and he secretly canceled all plans for the joint Nintendo-Sony SNES CD attachment."

I wouldn't necessarily call that "low balling" by Nintendo, considering the plan details.

that sir is a damn low ball, if your gonna cancel or deal have some nuts and we don't wanna do it. that's respectable.

"secretely cancelling everything" & then randomly announcing a partnership with Philips IS low balling no matter what was in the contract

Fair enough, but Sony was low balling them just as much with the details of the contract.

It's not my fault those silly Japanese have such small and squinty eyes that they can't read properly.

Hah, I kidd. ^_^

Japanese companies are not funded primarily through the stock market like American companies are. This means they do look at profits but not quarterly or even yearly. An American company faces intense pressure to make a profit every quarter sometimes cutting good ideas off to make numbers or pulling revenue forward (sometimes artificially) to make wall street targets.

Japanese companies use bonds more often then stock (long term contracts for funding with interest). This means they look over a 12 year instead of 12 month horizon in many cases. That is why Sony has an easier time sticking with things that don't pay off right away (the whole playstation brand) vs many American companies that have to pull products that don't hit right away within months.

Microsoft is a bit of an exception to this rule because they have a monopoly in two places (office software and OS) that they can get nearly unlimited revenue from which subsidizes the losses of their other projects thus making them resistant to the 3 quarter rule. If either of those streams of unlimited profit go away though, you will see the american product reality set in rather quickly. It may seem strange, but the Xbox systems existence depends almost entirely on the success of Windows 7 and Office 2010. If the billions they lost on the project isn't just a rounding error on sales of office/windows in the future the stock price system will force the Xbox out.

On the other hand its hard to see Sony being forced out unless the whole company goes under. Electronic entertainment is what they do, its not just a hobby with extra money they have lying around from selling Office software. Electronics being seen as vital to Sony is also part of why their electronics are so much better made then the thrown together stuff in the 360. The difference between the 360 and PS3 is the difference between a side project and the essential focus of your business. A little more care goes into the latter to be sure.

   You can also see the difference in the feature set of the playstation systems (designed to last for 10 year cycle) vs the rather perishable feature set of the xbox platforms (only uses off the shelf current parts, no real long term innovation like blu ray or advanced processors ect).  The Xbox is designed to be there for a few years, make some money, and be replaced quickly like a PC.  The PS systems are designed to be more or less cutting edge so they age gracefully and stay relevant 10 years after release.

Ok then what would you call it??