http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33094/118/

Tokyo (Japan) - Sony posted strong sales figures for its first fiscal quarter of the year, but only because its electronics division offset a winding loss in the Playstation brand.

Sony's quarterly net profit rung in at 66.46 billion yen ($557 million), doubling the 32.3 billion yen it posted last year for the same period. Total revenue climbed 13% year-to-year, with 2 trillion yen ($16.78 billion), while operating income tripled to 3.3 billion yen ($27.7 million).

Unfortunately for the company's esteemed Playstation brand, none of this profit came from Sony's games unit. In fact, that division showed an operating loss of 29.2 billion yen, which is even more than last year's 26.8 billion yen deficit.

Sony made up for that in a big way with its core electronics division, though. 1.42 trillion yen in sales were attributed to things like LCD TV sets and digital cameras. The division posted 84.1 billion yen in operating income, a 77% year-to-year increase.

Finally, Sony Pictures had a big year-to-year turnaround with operating income at 3.3 billion yen this quarter. Last year for the same period it posted a 1.2 billion yen loss.

Nintendo's most recent quarter showed profits up four fold from last year, while Microsoft took a $1 billion loss in announcing and extended warranty to three years and retroactive service charge refunds for the Xbox 360.

Thats actually much less than I thought they would. They will make that up in no time through BD royalties.

Thats actually much less than I thought they would. They will make that up in no time through BD royalties.

Same here. What did MS lose on the first XBox, again?

On second reading, I think this is the loss of the whole division. PS3 losses may be offset by games (including PS2 royalties); and PS2 sales. Anyone else read it this way?

Wow, that's way less than MS has lost on the Xbox 360. Just this quarter MS's gaming division lost $1.2 billion. MS's gaming division has also never had a single quarterly profit since their inception 6 years ago.

I think it just goes to show really how well the PS2 and PSP are doing, and that the PS3 is not as costly to produce as some people assume. It almost sounds like Sony's gaming division could be profitable again in two quarters.

I wonder if MS is kicking themselves for having axed the Xbox so fast. I mean they cut that thing completely off in 4 years time. And when I say they cut that thing off, they showed no mercy. It's like at the 4 year deadline, they literally totally stopped making them. I'm sure the Xbox could be a very big seller for them if they still made games for it and, well, still actually produced it. It had a great game library and was inexpensive but they threw that old bag out the back window like she was worthless. I have a hard time trusting MS after what they did to their last system and how they completely stopped all game production for it in such a short time.

Ironically if you read the history of all of this, the Xbox 360 was designed by a totally different team in order to be cheap to produce and be profitable. Ironically it is becoming more costly for them than the original Xbox BECAUSE it is so cheap to produce and hence the incredible failure rate which gaming sites estimate to be around 30%.

Thats actually much less than I thought they would. They will make that up in no time through BD royalties.

I don't want to hear Blu-ray supporters complain about HD DVD spin anymore.

This whole thread is off to a whack start.

Some points of clarification:

1) First, tech and gaming sites are notoriously bad at conveying financial information - so don't go to them. Go to a financial site.

2) That said, the loss in the gaming division is for the quarter, not the lifetime effect of PS3. The lifetime effect is obviously in the billions if you take a look at last year.

3) The "increased" losses discussed are for the quarter as opposed to the year-ago period, where obviously it makes sense they would increase, since PS3 wasn't even launched back then.

4) This quarter represents the start of what is supposed to be one of the most profitable fiscal years for Sony in a long time - and it seems on track.

5) As the year progresses, the gaming division should find themselves in a stronger position to reach profitability again next year (their present goal).

I don't want to hear Blu-ray supporters complain about HD DVD spin anymore.

Is it spin if it's true?

Anyway it appears Sony may be more poised to be aggressive price wise because the gaming division as a whole is better balanced than MS which is counting almost solely on the 360 and related products (is zune part of this division too?) to drive sales.

Hal,
Yeah I read that the same way, Sony's Game Unit lost money including all royalties and sales from the other divisions in the gaming unit (PS3, PS2, PSP, games etc). Its a good thing that their other CE divisions are doing so well.

Is it spin if it's true?

Anyway it appears Sony may be more poised to be aggressive price wise because the gaming division as a whole is better balanced than MS which is counting almost solely on the 360 and related products (is zune part of this division too?) to drive sales.

You'd have to know how much Sony is making per BD disc license and right now noone has that information.

You'd also have to know whether Sony is yet turning a profit on BD manufacturing, especially of BD50 discs, and again, noone knows that info.

Lets say that Sony makes $1 per BD disc sold (highly unlikely but I'm feeling saucy)... well, to date they've sold 1.6M BD discs. So they've made 1.6M on BD subsidies, which is chump change compared to the tens of millions they are losing per quarter on the PS3.

The losses for the game division were for the whole division. So every profitable PS2 console and accessory they sell is being used to negate the huge losses they are taking on PS3. That's not spin, that's fact.

The losses for the game division were for the whole division. So every profitable PS2 console and accessory they sell is being used to negate the huge losses they are taking on PS3. That's not spin, that's fact.

Too bad Microsoft doesn't have a game system from the last cycle to rely on for support of their current console.

Sony doubled their profit in the first quarter of 2007...So, all is not too bad...

* From the NYTIMES today

But I thought the PS3 was being built for a profit for several months now.:)

But I thought the PS3 was being built for a profit for several months now.:)

Only the ignorant have thought that.

Sony doubled their profit in the first quarter of 2007...So, all is not too bad...

* From the NYTIMES today

And some additional info:

"In the Electronics segment, operating income increased 77.3% compared to the same quarter of the previous fiscal year. This was primarily due to a positive impact from the depreciation of the yen versus the U.S. dollar and the Euro, as well as an increase in sales of semiconductors to the Game segment. In the Game segment, the operating loss increased primarily due to the loss arising from strategic pricing of PS3 at points lower than its production cost."

From the Sun-Sentintinel

That includes quite a few recent posters in this section along with a few reporters.

Too bad Microsoft doesn't have a game system from the last cycle to rely on for support of their current console.

The issue is not about XBOX. MS has their own cross to bear on that one, but it has nothing to do with the format battle. The issue is that the PS3 is losing huge chunks of cash over the Trojan Horse strategy, and despite guesses to the contrary, apparently the economies of scale have not yet substantially kicked in.. And what that means with regards to the format war....

That includes quite a few recent posters in this section along with a few reporters.

But again, those folk were idiotic. There are people that know what they're talking about, and people that don't. Certainly being a journalist doesn't automatically lump anyone into the former category.

I smack that ridiculous PS3-at-a-profit notion everytime I come across it.

The issue is not about XBOX. MS has their own cross to bear on that one, but it has nothing to do with the format battle. The issue is that the PS3 is losing huge chunks of cash over the Trojan Horse strategy, and despite guesses to the contrary, apparently the economies of scale have not yet substantially kicked in.. And what that means with regards to the format war....

Yep fact is Sony lost almost $240 million this quarter and $220 million last quarter.

The issue is not about XBOX. MS has their own cross to bear on that one, but it has nothing to do with the format battle. The issue is that the PS3 is losing huge chunks of cash over the Trojan Horse strategy, and despite guesses to the contrary, apparently the economies of scale have not yet substantially kicked in.. And what that means with regards to the format war....

...but on the other hand.... of course they've kicked in. Listen, the PS3 is substantially less expensive to manufacture now than even four months ago. Frankly, when you consider the loss now vs the loss a year-ago, before the thing even launched, this loss is quite low, and not much higher than Microsoft's loss on their own gaming division would have been last quarter without the ~$1 billion charge.

The fact is it comes down to component pricing, and anyone that understands semiconductor fabrication knows the costs for PS3 components are set to reduce very aggressively. Things like price-cuts offset that. But the 'trojan horse' strategy is one that exists in parallel to their core business, and PS3 - when we're talking about the games division as we are here - is a games console. Their money is not to be made up in Blu-ray sales, but game and online content sales. And, that day will of course come.

The issue is not about XBOX. MS has their own cross to bear on that one, but it has nothing to do with the format battle. The issue is that the PS3 is losing huge chunks of cash over the Trojan Horse strategy, and despite guesses to the contrary, apparently the economies of scale have not yet substantially kicked in.. And what that means with regards to the format war....

When half of the HD DVD players are physically attached to an xbox360 then the issues relating to the PS3 as a BD player are also about the 360 w/ add-on as an HD DVD player.

Yep fact is Sony lost almost $240 million this quarter and $220 million last quarter.

A year ago Lee, a year ago.

Last quarter the gaming losses were enormous.

You'd have to know how much Sony is making per BD disc license and right now noone has that information.

So obviously your guess is better than mine? :rolleyes:

You'd also have to know whether Sony is yet turning a profit on BD manufacturing, especially of BD50 discs, and again, noone knows that info.

See my response from above :rolleyes:

Lets say that Sony makes $1 per BD disc sold (highly unlikely but I'm feeling saucy)... well, to date they've sold 1.6M BD discs. So they've made 1.6M on BD subsidies, which is chump change compared to the tens of millions they are losing per quarter on the PS3.

I don't know whether $1/disc is extremely low or extremely high nor do I really care because I think we both know that Sony and Toshiba aren't playing this game to sell 1.6M discs/year.

The losses for the game division were for the whole division. So every profitable PS2 console and accessory they sell is being used to negate the huge losses they are taking on PS3. That's not spin, that's fact.

Sony is selling three hardware products each with large accesory lines and have extensive and growing 1st party catalogs. Sony has a Whole division of gaming products compared to MS who currently has only the 360. Sony can be aggressive with price cuts on the PS3 because the division does not sink or swim based entirely on the success of that hardware unit in the short term.

Wow, the spin here is dizzying.....

Maybe it's just me, but Sony having a small loss in that quarter is a bad sign. PS3s are charged against Sony when they're sold to retailers. Having a small loss implies that either Sony had significantly dropped production costs on the PS3, or that they didn't sell that many PS3s. Given the NDP data for the last couple of months, I'm inclined to agree with the latter. Small PS3 sales combined with the PS2 still selling well and being profitable, I can see how they would have a small loss.

What you guys should be looking forward to is the financial quarter that includes July. They'll have a massively loss caused by the price drop and increased sales on the 60gb PS3.

So obviously your guess is better than mine? :rolleyes:



See my response from above :rolleyes:



I don't know whether $1/disc is extremely low or extremely high nor do I really care because I think we both know that Sony and Toshiba aren't playing this game to sell 1.6M discs/year.



Sony is selling three hardware products each with large accesory lines and have extensive and growing 1st party catalogs. Sony has a Whole division of gaming products compared to MS who currently has only the 360. Sony can be aggressive with price cuts on the PS3 because the division does not sink or swim based entirely on the success of that hardware unit in the short term.

Talking about a backend loaded strategy... most reasonably run business would not accept a dvision that quarter in quarter out that makes quarter billion dollar operating losses... as far forward as the eye can see.

Having a small loss implies that either Sony had significantly dropped production costs on the PS3, or that they didn't sell that many PS3s.

I'd say it's both, and yes, July will be an interesting month to watch.

Talking about a backend loaded strategy... most reasonably run business would not accept a dvision that quarter in quarter out that makes quarter billion dollar operating losses... as far forward as the eye can see.

...is that your opinion of SCE?

Unless you're an investor, this information (the OP) is pretty much useless. Companies like Sony can show profits and losses with a flick of a pen. More than that, some losses are good and some aren't. If you want to know the real story, (and I don't) you have to look a whole lot deaper than a little article that says they lost $237 million dollars.

Unless you're an investor, this information (the OP) is pretty much useless. Companies like Sony can show profits and losses with a flick of a pen. More than that, some losses are good and some aren't. If you want to know the real story, (and I don't) you have to look a whole lot deaper than a little article that says they lost $237 million dollars.

hey hey!!! no logic in here ;)

...They will make that up in no time through BD royalties.
Wow, only a Sony fanboy could be happy about that thought. Reminds me of when I bought some BP stock so that I would be happy to pay $3.50 per gal.

Talking about a backend loaded strategy... most reasonably run business would not accept a dvision that quarter in quarter out that makes quarter billion dollar operating losses... as far forward as the eye can see.

Well since neither of us have eyes that can see very far into the future, could you tell me has sony's game division posted losses as far back as the eye can see?

Lets say that Sony makes $1 per BD disc sold (highly unlikely but I'm feeling saucy)... well, to date they've sold 1.6M BD discs. So they've made 1.6M on BD subsidies, which is chump change compared to the tens of millions they are losing per quarter on the PS3.




You fail to take into account that every PS3 game will be printed on a BD for the next 6 + years.

I don't want to hear Blu-ray supporters complain about HD DVD spin anymore.

You can always go to the HD-DVD forum and make another whining topic about blu-ray :rolleyes:

As people have alluded to above, the largest portion SNE's profitabily in this area is due to currency translation. That has nothing to do with actual profits or the viability of a console. Naturally non-financial people are quick to point out that SNE is doing "better", yet the massive depreciation of the dollar, almost unseen in the last 20+ years, has contributed greatly to the appreciation of the stock market in the last year.

Also, MSFT can afford to take losses on the 360, their liquidity portfolio alone is over 33 billion, 3x what SNE has. If MSFT earned 5.7% on their investments in the portfolio they would completely pay for the 360 losses. Considering I know, for a fact, that their earnings are much higher than that, MSFT makes more just on returns from their portfolio than the 360 loses. MSFT's treasurer did a presentation at my job late last year discussing managing such a massive fund, it was pretty interesting to see the earnings they could manage.

MSFT makes only 63% of what SNE does and is 12x more profitable. Think about that for a minute. SNE made over 70 billion in revenue but only 1bn in Net Income. MSFT made over 12.5 billion on 44bn in revenue.

People may say "companies shouldn't be in areas where they lose money", which is a completely erroneous argument. Many companies are in money-losing businesses that are subsidized by profitable businesses.

Don't even try to compare MSFT's earnings to SNE, or losses, on products. It's a stupid comparison as one is marginally profitable (1.4%) and the other is massively profitable (28.3%). One throws off twice the cashflow per year than the other.

Also think about this. MSFT declared a 33 *BILLION* dollar dividend in 2005. That's half as much as SNE made in revenue that year. During the 3 year period MSFT, removing the dividend, would have piled on another 10bn or so in free-cash flow. Adjusting for stock repurchases, all-in, they would have added about 60bn in cash. SNE lost 400m in cash the same period and piled on an addition 1.4bn in debt.

There is no comparison here. SNE can't afford to underwrite these losses nearly as much as MSFT can.

You fail to take into account that every PS3 game will be printed on a BD for the next 6 + years.

If BD or PS3 last that long. Unlikely, but who would have ever predicted the SD outputting Wii would maul a $600 cutting-edge videogame system/high-definition disc player? The very fact I (owner of all previous Sony consoles and an avid gamer that has passed on PS3) would question whether PS3 and BD will be here in six years shows just how precarious Sony's position is right now. :rolleyes:

If BD or PS3 last that long. Unlikely, but who would have ever predicted the SD outputting Wii would maul a $600 cutting-edge videogame system/high-definition disc player?

Id say its a better bet than say... HD DVD, wouldn't you?

...but on the other hand.... of course they've kicked in. Listen, the PS3 is substantially less expensive to manufacture now than even four months ago.

I thought the whole reason Sony cut the PS3 60GB price was because of the millions of already manufactured PS3s sitting on the shelves and not because they can build them for less now?

If BD or PS3 last that long. Unlikely, but who would have ever predicted the SD outputting Wii would maul a $600 cutting-edge videogame system/high-definition disc player? The very fact I (owner of all previous Sony consoles and an avid gamer that has passed on PS3) would question whether PS3 and BD will be here in six years shows just how precarious Sony's position is right now. :rolleyes:

Actually I think it just shows how biased you are by your desires in regards to high def media.

Anyone who thinks the PS3 is going to be discontinued or that games are going to stop being produced for it really needs to step back from the situation to get some perspective.

Best post I have read on this topic in a long time.


As people have alluded to above, the largest portion SNE's profitabily in this area is due to currency translation. That has nothing to do with actual profits or the viability of a console. Naturally non-financial people are quick to point out that SNE is doing "better", yet the massive depreciation of the dollar, almost unseen in the last 20+ years, has contributed greatly to the appreciation of the stock market in the last year.

Also, MSFT can afford to take losses on the 360, their liquidity portfolio alone is over 33 billion, 3x what SNE has. If MSFT earned 5.7% on their investments in the portfolio they would completely pay for the 360 losses. Considering I know, for a fact, that their earnings are much higher than that, MSFT makes more just on returns from their portfolio than the 360 loses. MSFT's treasurer did a presentation at my job late last year discussing managing such a massive fund, it was pretty interesting to see the earnings they could manage.

MSFT makes only 63% of what SNE does and is 12x more profitable. Think about that for a minute. SNE made over 70 billion in revenue but only 1bn in Net Income. MSFT made over 12.5 billion on 44bn in revenue.

People may say "companies shouldn't be in areas where they lose money", which is a completely erroneous argument. Many companies are in money-losing businesses that are subsidized by profitable businesses.

Don't even try to compare MSFT's earnings to SNE, or losses, on products. It's a stupid comparison as one is marginally profitable (1.4%) and the other is massively profitable (28.3%). One throws off twice the cashflow per year than the other.

Also think about this. MSFT declared a 33 *BILLION* dollar dividend in 2005. That's half as much as SNE made in revenue that year. During the 3 year period MSFT, removing the dividend, would have piled on another 10bn or so in free-cash flow. Adjusting for stock repurchases, all-in, they would have added about 60bn in cash. SNE lost 400m in cash the same period and piled on an addition 1.4bn in debt.

There is no comparison here. SNE can't afford to underwrite these losses nearly as much as MSFT can.

As people have alluded to above, the largest portion SNE's profitabily in this area is due to currency translation. That has nothing to do with actual profits or the viability of a console. Naturally non-financial people are quick to point out that SNE is doing "better", yet the massive depreciation of the dollar, almost unseen in the last 20+ years, has contributed greatly to the appreciation of the stock market in the last year.

Yet those exchange rate figures were a part of their previously stated forward-looking statements.

Also, MSFT can afford to take losses on the 360, their liquidity portfolio alone is over 33 billion, 3x what SNE has. If MSFT earned 5.7% on their investments in the portfolio they would completely pay for the 360 losses. Considering I know, for a fact, that their earnings are much higher than that, MSFT makes more just on returns from their portfolio than the 360 loses. MSFT's treasurer did a presentation at my job late last year discussing managing such a massive fund, it was pretty interesting to see the earnings they could manage.

MSFT makes only 63% of what SNE does and is 12x more profitable. Think about that for a minute. SNE made over 70 billion in revenue but only 1bn in Net Income. MSFT made over 12.5 billion on 44bn in revenue.

Microsoft is in software - an inherently high-margin business. Of course they can afford to take the losses... who's questioning that? But that doesn't mean they're happy to do so.

People may say "companies shouldn't be in areas where they lose money", which is a completely erroneous argument. Many companies are in money-losing businesses that are subsidized by profitable businesses.

How does many companies doing it make it an erroneous argument?

Don't even try to compare MSFT's earnings to SNE, or losses, on products. It's a stupid comparison as one is marginally profitable (1.4%) and the other is massively profitable (28.3%). One throws off twice the cashflow per year than the other.

Also think about this. MSFT declared a 33 *BILLION* dollar dividend in 2005. That's half as much as SNE made in revenue that year. During the 3 year period MSFT, removing the dividend, would have piled on another 10bn or so in free-cash flow. Adjusting for stock repurchases, all-in, they would have added about 60bn in cash. SNE lost 400m in cash the same period and piled on an addition 1.4bn in debt.

The dividend was announced as simply a means of doing something with their cash hoard, since investors were becoming increasingly restless with its non-utilization.

There is no comparison here. SNE can't afford to underwrite these losses nearly as much as MSFT can.

Of course they can afford to - afterall, you can see from this quarter's performance that the loss was readily absorbed and they ended quite profitably.

lol, people still in this day with all the resources available to them believe that the PS3 is going for a short term profit? Yeah, they should have made billions by now, must be a total failure! :eek: ;)

I thought the whole reason Sony cut the PS3 60GB price was because of the millions of already manufactured PS3s sitting on the shelves and not because they can build them for less now?

They cut the price of the 60GB to:

a) Clear inventory ahead of the...

b) launch of the 80GB console in the US. The 80GB unit costs a good bit less than the 60GB to manufacture.

Once the 60GBs are gone, I expect the 80GB to drop to fill the $499 price point, but the bottomline is, the entire shift is premised by their improved manufacturing-related costs.

I thought the whole reason Sony cut the PS3 60GB price was because of the millions of already manufactured PS3s sitting on the shelves and not because they can build them for less now?

Sony is cutting PS3 prices for many reasons, but one is that every month that PS3 inventory sits unsold on a shelf it is costing a retailer dollars.

Retailers in Japan, with their smaller shelf spaces, have been complaining to Sony for a price cut and I'm sure US retailers aren't happy either.

I have a feeling that the price cut is as much of a political face saving move with angry retailers as anything else.

Just to add some more spin... Sony not only is losing $ in the game division, they are no longer the dominent game console maker. They went from 1st to 3rd.

This is the difficult part from them. Not only are they losing hundreds of millions, they no longer have much control of the game industry. Micrsosoft with 11 million+ consoles out already and Nintendo whose consoles can't be kept on the shelves are now in control. On top of that MS will have a new console out long before Sony, so they will be 3rd for a long while.

Also, what I find intersting is that the last I heard the PS2 was outselling the PS3. That may no longer be true, but the PS2 is now very profitable For the PS3 to offset the whole rest of the game division and to still lose hundreds of millions on top of that is totally amazing.

It's strange that you bring up the PS2 Everdog when it's convenient to your points, but you obviously leave it out when declaring MS #2 in the console space. Last I checked, PS2 was outperforming the 360.

Just to add some more spin... Sony not only is losing $ in the game division, they are no longer the dominent game console maker. They went from 1st to 3rd.

This is the difficult part from them. Not only are they losing hundreds of millions, they no longer have much control of the game industry. Micrsosoft with 11 million+ consoles out already and Nintendo whose consoles can't be kept on the shelves are now in control. On top of that MS will have a new console out long before Sony, so they will be 3rd for a long while.

Also, what I find intersting is that the last I heard the PS2 was outselling the PS3. That may no longer be true, but the PS2 is now very profitable For the PS3 to offset the whole rest of the game division and to still lose hundreds of millions on top of that is totally amazing.

Why would Microsoft have a console out way before Sony?

In the ps2/xbox cycle PS2 came first, in the ps3/360 cycle 360 came first. Why? Because they lost the last cycle. If anything judging from what we see now and have seen in the past Sony should be first.

A year ago Lee, a year ago.

Last quarter the gaming losses were enormous.

My bad - you are absolutely correct:

Operating losses in gaming deteriorated to 29.21 billion yen ($242.4 million) for the latest quarter, worse than the 26.80 billion yen loss racked up the same period a year ago.

lol, people still in this day with all the resources available to them believe that the PS3 is going for a short term profit? Yeah, they should have made billions by now, must be a total failure! :eek: ;)

No, but when their WHOLE gaming division is losing hundreds of millions a quarter, and their new console is in last place, it makes people wonder.

They use to be the dominent game console maker. Now they are 3rd. While they may catch MS in a few years and be in 2nd, MS will have new console by then.

You have to admire Nintendo though. They have the fastest selling console AND it is making money.

My bad - you are absolutely correct:

How the heck did they lose so much a year ago? The PS3 was not even out?

How the heck did they lose so much a year ago? The PS3 was not even out?

PS3 R&D and initial sourcing costs.

Why would Microsoft have a console out way before Sony?

In the ps2/xbox cycle PS2 came first, in the ps3/360 cycle 360 came first. Why? Because they lost the last cycle. If anything judging from what we see now and have seen in the past Sony should be first.

MS bases their console on standard PC hardware and is able to come out with new models faster. Sony uses more proprietary HW and it takes longer to develope.

Just to add some more spin... Sony not only is losing $ in the game division, they are no longer the dominent game console maker. They went from 1st to 3rd.

This is the difficult part from them. Not only are they losing hundreds of millions, they no longer have much control of the game industry. Micrsosoft with 11 million+ consoles out already and Nintendo whose consoles can't be kept on the shelves are now in control. On top of that MS will have a new console out long before Sony, so they will be 3rd for a long while.

Also, what I find intersting is that the last I heard the PS2 was outselling the PS3. That may no longer be true, but the PS2 is now very profitable For the PS3 to offset the whole rest of the game division and to still lose hundreds of millions on top of that is totally amazing.

RED: The Game Division is not the only division to fall behind the competition. They are no longer #1 in LCD sales both worldwide and No. America - that now belongs to Samsung. - one of Sony's core business's and one of their "tent poles"

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6452180.html

PS3 R&D and initial sourcing costs.

That makes sense. Thanks.

MS bases their console on standard PC hardware and is able to come out with new models faster. Sony uses more proprietary HW and it takes longer to develope.

The XeCPU is certainly not 'standard PC hardware,' and to the extent that the GPU is, it is much less so than the GPU inside the PS3.

The only thing more 'standard' about the 360 is the programming model associated with its CPU vs the Cell in PS3.

The XeCPU is certainly not 'standard PC hardware,' and to the extent that the GPU is, it is much less so than the GPU inside the PS3.

The only thing more 'standard' about the 360 is the programming model associated with its CPU vs the Cell in PS3.

It still took a lot less time to develope.

Best post I have read on this topic in a long time.
Agree 100%.

Question - I should care how much Sony lost why? (I don't own stock)

RED: The Game Division is not the only division to fall behind the competition. They are no longer #1 in LCD sales both worldwide and No. America - that now belongs to Samsung. - one of Sony's core business's and one of their "tent poles"

Sony is a come-from-behind story in the LCD space. They were a very late player to the game, and it was actually Playstation main honcho Kutaragi that kick-started their full-blown participation in the LCD space when he signed an agreement with Samsung to start a joint venture focusing on next-generation LCD panels - before he shook up the division, their primary efforts were still CRT-based. Since then Sony has had an amazing climb to pass Sharp and the rest in the LCD space, and whether they are #1 or not in the US compared to Samsung (different reports say different things), they are one of the few manufacturers that have been able to maintain their margins on the sets. Sony's performance in the LCD sector can only be deemed as terrific compared to where they were a couple of years ago.

(Incidently DisplaySearch often has Sony ranked higher than iSuppli does, so best to wait for both sets of numbers)

Yet those exchange rate figures were a part of their previously stated forward-looking statements.



Microsoft is in software - an inherently high-margin business. Of course they can afford to take the losses... who's questioning that? But that doesn't mean they're happy to do so.

How does many companies doing it make it an erroneous argument?

The dividend was announced as simply a means of doing something with their cash hoard, since investors were becoming increasingly restless with its non-utilization.

Of course they can afford to - afterall, you can see from this quarter's performance that the loss was readily absorbed and they ended quite profitably.

1. Yes, the currency translation was included in the forward looking statements provided before earnings release. However, the currency translation amount used during the statement was less favorable than the actual translation amount used for Q1 earnings. Additionally, people see a profitability surge between Q4 and Q1, yet that surge is really just due to the translation.

2. It doesn't? They are looking at the x-box line as a long-term money making project. The costs of entry are high and they are taking their licks in stride. They can afford to do so for a long time in order to drive long-term profitability.

3. Sure, the Div announcement was to reduce their plethoric cash horde, but your point only strengthens mine. If MSFT can put that cash to use that will, in the long term, create investor wealth, then they will use it.

Everdog,

No, but when their WHOLE gaming division is losing hundreds of millions a quarter, and their new console is in last place, it makes people wonder.

They use to be the dominent game console maker. Now they are 3rd. While they may catch MS in a few years and be in 2nd, MS will have new console by then.

You have to admire Nintendo though. They have the fastest selling console AND it is making money.

According to quite a few BD supporters, in quite a few threads, your analysis is wrong. According to these individuals, the Wii does not count, because it cannot be considered a next generation game console. Therefore, the PS3 is either number 1 or 2, depending on the market.

Everdog, I do admire Nintendo but at the same time it concerns me slightly as a techie who loves the best in graphics and sound (PS3). I would hate Sony to go the route Nintendo did (don't think they would though) next round and not push the AV experience to a new level in favor of hoping to gain a wider audience. I'm all for the new controller scheme for games that it works well .

It is just that it would have been so much sweeter to havethat AND the kick ass visuals and audios (drools to think of Zelda, Mario, Metroid in 720p lossless surround-- snap reality chek--). I would own a Wii right now if they did and would gladly have paid another $100 or so if that is what it would have costed. Remember I'm talking about my wants and not mass market, so you don't need to speculate what mass market would have paid and how many less they may have sold. We are all aware of those arguments. Simply pointing out a trend that I hope doesn't continue with the tech side or leak over into the thoughts of Sony or even MS.

It's strange that you bring up the PS2 Everdog when it's convenient to your points, but you obviously leave it out when declaring MS #2 in the console space. Last I checked, PS2 was outperforming the 360.

I was talking about this generation of conoles. The PS2 is (not was) a huge success. Sony will still be selling them for a few more years and the Xbox360 will NEVER catch up to it. The PS2 does not provide as much leverage in the game world anymore. MS and Nintendo now have that.

The problem is that Sony went from the huge success of the PS2 to the failure of the PS3 (in the game market, its a big success in HDM).

Everdog,



According to quite a few BD supporters, in quite a few threads, your analysis is wrong. According to these individuals, the Wii does not count, because it cannot be considered a next generation game console. Therefore, the PS3 is either number 1 or 2, depending on the market.

Actually what we brought up before George, I think to you actually even is that the Wii does not count in the HDTV Software Media discussion as it doesn't have any functionality in that area. As a gaming console it certainly counts and is certainly next gen (as that refers to a time frame in my mind) regardless if the graphics and audio are on par with last gen consoles.

I was talking about this generation of conoles. The PS2 is (not was) a huge success. Sony will still be selling them for a few more years and the Xbox360 will NEVER catch up to it. The PS2 does not provide as much leverage in the game world anymore. MS and Nintendo now have that.

The problem is that Sony went from the huge success of the PS2 to the failure of the PS3 (in the game market, its a big success in HDM).

It's been out less than a year and you consider it a failure? How many consoles had the 360 sold in the same amount of time? How many PS2's have been sold in the same amount of time? To call it a failure at this point is simply being very short-sited IMO.

1. Yes, the currency translation was included in the forward looking statements provided before earnings release. However, the currency translation amount used during the statement was less favorable than the actual translation amount used for Q1 earnings. Additionally, people see a profitability surge between Q4 and Q1, yet that surge is really just due to the translation.

2. It doesn't? They are looking at the x-box line as a long-term money making project. The costs of entry are high and they are taking their licks in stride. They can afford to do so for a long time in order to drive long-term profitability.

3. Sure, the Div announcement was to reduce their plethoric cash horde, but your point only strengthens mine. If MSFT can put that cash to use that will, in the long term, create investor wealth, then they will use it.

The point is that you make it seem that somehow Sony cannot compete in the space, and base it on their financials. With the same brush, you state that MS can endure indefinitely until the payday.

If one of these two firms is better equipped to weather the console storm, it is Sony, whose console business has generated profit on the order of billions thus far over its life, and already has the worst of the PS3 pain behind it. But that said I think both will turn profitable in their efforts - I do not believe gaming is a zero sum business - which further makes me wonder what your point #2 is about... do you believe that Sony feels any differently?

I also want to point out that over the last several years, people have said that Nintendo should get out of the console business, that they had *lost.* Well, I was never one of those people; however, I find it strange now that just as then, suddenly people take a snapshot in time and extrapolate across eternity.

Everdog,



According to quite a few BD supporters, in quite a few threads, your analysis is wrong. According to these individuals, the Wii does not count, because it cannot be considered a next generation game console. Therefore, the PS3 is either number 1 or 2, depending on the market.

This is called an excuse. Developers only have so much time and resources to devote to creating games. Right now they will devote more resources to the Wii, because it is doing better than the PS3.

It's been out less than a year and you consider it a failure? How many consoles had the 360 sold in the same amount of time? How many PS2's have been sold in the same amount of time? To call it a failure at this point is simply being very short-sited IMO.

The PS3 is third (or 4th if you include the PS2). It will be years before that changes if it ever does. To go from 1st to 3rd (or 4th), I think can be called a failure.

first we dont know how many pS3 are made that created the $237 million loss.

lets say sony build 5.5 million ps3 through march 31th.

they sold 3.6 million. that means there are still 1.8 million ps3 sitting somewhere. but they cant be hold for losses of that loss of fabrication is already in the $237 million.

still $237 million in the minus is a lot. it will be interesting to see what will happen this x-mas.

The PS3 is third (or 4th if you include the PS2). It will be years before that changes if it ever does. To go from 1st to 3rd (or 4th), I think can be called a failure.

I'll stick with a long term view, it served me well last year with HD-DVD fans declaring victory when they were ahead and had won the war last year due to launching earlier ;)

Was hoping you had the answers to my questions as well as the info I've read is a bit old and only reflects 4 months.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/nintendo/charticle-the-first-four-months-249629.php

Blu Ray winning the format war may put Sony out of business.

Blu Ray winning the format war may put Sony out of business.

I suggest you RTFA

The point is that you make it seem that somehow Sony cannot compete in the space, and base it on their financials. With the same brush, you state that MS can endure indefinitely until the payday.
Sony can compete, but MS is sitting in the catbird seat at the moment. Sony can not endure a price war with MS, they would lose. The financials prove it, Sony simply does not have the cash stream that MS does.

It's a fight neither one wants - there's no point in it. They want market share but not at the point of ruining the company.

I'll stick with a long term view, it served me well last year with HD-DVD fans declaring victory when they were ahead due to launching earlier
You can stick with whatever you like but it ain't going to happen. There are too many "gotchas" in the way for the PS3 to ever hit PS2 levels......in anything.

The market is too big for any company to be exclusive without heavy subsidies. These very subsidies will cost a company more than it's worth in the pay off (it won't sell enough consoles). This means it's a multi-platform market which reduces any incentive to go/stay brand loyal.

The big item, which really seems to annoy fans, is that the PS3 architecture is terrible for developers. There are so many design issues & these issues are hardware = there's no "fix". From memory to cache there are significant PITA structures that will add to development costs. Just the way it is. It's simply so much easier to code for the base & cross platform it & given the astronomical increase in development costs it will be an issue.

The point is that you make it seem that somehow Sony cannot compete in the space, and base it on their financials. With the same brush, you state that MS can endure indefinitely until the payday.

If one of these two firms is better equipped to weather the console storm, it is Sony, whose console business has generated profit on the order of billions thus far over its life, and already has the worst of the PS3 pain behind it. But that said I think both will turn profitable in their efforts - I do not believe gaming is a zero sum business - which further makes me wonder what your point #2 is about... do you believe that Sony feels any differently?

I also want to point out that over the last several years, people have said that Nintendo should get out of the console business, that they had *lost.* Well, I was never one of those people; however, I find it strange now that just as then, suddenly people take a snapshot in time and extrapolate across eternity.

I think you're misinterpreting my post. I never said that SNE can't make it in the console area, obviously they can. However, I do not think they will remain to be as dominant as they were under the PS2. I certainly believe the PS3 was a very large mistake for them, they tried to accomplish too much within a short timeframe, a classic case of overreaching.

Has SNE gotten over the worst of it? I doubt it. Looking at console sales, they still are not doing very well. The 360 has been out much longer and is still selling 2x as fast. Even if the price cut results in 2x the sales, a much older console (and cheaper to produce) will still be selling the same amount.

My point was that people keep pointing at MSFT losing billions and I was trying to put that into perspective. MSFT losing billions is a drop in the bucket compared to SNE losing billions. They point to MSFT losing that much money and suddenly expect the company to roll up the business and quit because they can't take the losses. That's hardly the case. MSFT's warchest is huge and, as of yet, investors haven't pressured them all that much (if at all) to stop fighting in this area. They continue to see it as a long-term investment.

As far as Nintendo. They did an awesome move. Essentially they finally decided that competing in the way they were they were going to lose. So they found another way to circumvent the situation. In a way it reminds me of Intel and AMD. Intel was getting smacked hard by AMD in the processor market. AMD was gobbling up marketshare. Their processors were faster, cooler, cheaper, and consumed less power compared to the P4. Intel tried to stretch the P6 architecture out by lengthening pipelines, trying to keep stretching MHZ to the max. However, the more they stretched the less efficient they became.

Their way around it was Centrino. They lucked out that a smaller Israeli team was working on the P5 architecture, optimizing it to be vast, small, and very power efficient. They were completely going the opposite way of the main Intel R&D teams. They intended the processor to be a mobile-only, but the thing just kicked so much arse in as much as they could ramp up speed quickly, then go dual processors easily. Intel lucked out in this sense and they now have a leg up on AMD.

Nintendo bucked the trend and is reaping the rewards for a very intelligent move. However, that doesn't help PS3.

As far as the broader HD-DVD/BD war, if the PS3 keeps sucking wind it's not going to help one iota.

Bailey, I never said or implied they would reach PS2 levels, in fact I've always stated that I don't believe they will. As previously stated I believe they are more than willing to have a smaller market share in the console industry to increase their chances with blu-ray. Long term plan that potentially leads to a much larger revenue streams. No doubt it has its risks.

Just some facts on the PS2:

PlayStation 2 still the most played console, by far
26 July 2007 19:28 by DVDBack23

Although the PlayStation 3, Wii and Xbox 360 dominate most current headlines, the Sony PlayStation 2 continues to be the most played system in the US as well as one of the best selling.

According to Nielsen GamePlay Metrics, the PS2 accounts for just over 42 percent of current game use in the US. The Xbox (original) holds the distinction of second place, at a distant 17 percent. The Xbox 360 is at 8 percent while the Nintendo Gamecube held at just under 6 percent.

The Wii, although enjoying incredible sales since its launch in November 2006, is played in only 4 percent of households while the PS3 stood at 1.5 percent placing ahead of the Nintendo 64 and PSOne.

Nielsen said it used 33,000 individuals from 12,000 households to get its data for the month of June.

Source:
BetaNews

Brian,

Actually what we brought up before George, I think to you actually even is that the Wii does not count in the HDTV Software Media discussion as it doesn't have any functionality in that area. As a gaming console it certainly counts and is certainly next gen (as that refers to a time frame in my mind) regardless if the graphics and audio are on par with last gen consoles.

True, you and I did, and I agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, several BD supporters have a differing views.

It's been out less than a year and you consider it a failure?

To the extent that it is performing below Sony's expectations and predictions, yes, it is a failure. It will be a failure when it does not become the dominant console (outselling all other consoles) by March 08 for example.

How many consoles had the 360 sold in the same amount of time?

Comparisons to the 360 are, IMO, irrelevant. First, to me, the success or failure of the PS3 is determined by Sony and its announcements.

Bailey, I never said or implied they would reach PS2 levels, in fact I've always stated that I don't believe they will. As previously stated I believe they are more than willing to have a smaller market share in the console industry to increase their chances with blu-ray. Long term plan that potentially leads to a much larger revenue streams. No doubt it has its risks.
Agree 100% - I get back to why do I care what Sony lost? I ain't a stockholder :D

They seem to have enough cash to market the product very well - that's at least half the game.

Agree 100% - I get back to why do I care what Sony lost? I ain't a stockholder :D

They seem to have enough cash to market the product very well - that's at least half the game.

I don't currently own either but I wouldn't day trade based on the PS3 anyways, Sony isn't simple Blu-ray and the PS3 which most of us should know. Similar (but not the same) with MS and the 360. Big N on the other hand is kicking as at what they do.

I find it interesting that in the BR vs HD DVD battle software titles and studio backing is all Sony fanboys talk about and in the Game Wars it seems to be all about specs and potential.

It all looks the same to me, Sony keeps saying go ahead and commit big money to our hardware, the software and features are coming.


S.oon O.nly N.ot Y.et

Brian,



True, you and I did, and I agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, several BD supporters have a differing views.



To the extent that it is performing below Sony's expectations and predictions, yes, it is a failure. It will be a failure when it does not become the dominant console (outselling all other consoles) by March 08 for example.



Comparisons to the 360 are, IMO, irrelevant. First, to me, the success or failure of the PS3 is determined by Sony and its announcements.

Fair enough from that perspective, which pretty much makes Nintendo the only non-failure in the console industry. Granted Sony also said they'd expect the same console dominance as well last year, I don't see that happening. So yes a failur in meeting their stated goals, but not a failure in general from my perspective.

I find it interesting that in the BR vs HD DVD battle software titles and studio backing is all Sony fanboys talk about and in the Game Wars it seems to be all about specs and potential.

It all looks the same to me, Sony keeps saying go ahead and commit big money to our hardware, the software and features are coming.


S.oon O.nly N.ot Y.et

They have been coming steadily through firmware updates ;)

Talking about a backend loaded strategy... most reasonably run business would not accept a dvision that quarter in quarter out that makes quarter billion dollar operating losses... as far forward as the eye can see.

Microsoft accepts that their entertainment division lost $6 Billion and they keep chugging along. What's your point? And also their overall profit DOUBLE from a year ago, so I don't see how thats bad for the gaming division. It's obvious the gaming division is being propped up by the other divisions this time. Few years ago, the gaming division keep Sony alive so now its the other way. A good company will have a diversified business, same as MS.

They have been coming steadily through firmware updates ;)


Brian,

I don't agree with you much but you seem like a really good guy! May your blu ray player be blessed with many titles for years to come!


Remember SD is the enemy:)

Sony can compete, but MS is sitting in the catbird seat at the moment. Sony can not endure a price war with MS, they would lose. The financials prove it, Sony simply does not have the cash stream that MS does.

I'm not sure how many here have listened to the MS conference calls recently... I have. Investors aren't all that excited about the console division over at MS, and let me tell you that if MS were in the catbird seat, I'd expect them to be engaging in that price war with Sony to eliminate their most relevant competition. But they're not. Whatever the war-chest over at MS proper, the console division is on a tight leash. Same with Zune, online search, everything... no matter how much money MS has, it's not as if they throw it all at any given challenge. As strange as it seems, MS for all its money is a company that has been playing on the defensive for some years now. Their client and business operations remain their bread and butter.

I think you're misinterpreting my post. I never said that SNE can't make it in the console area, obviously they can. However, I do not think they will remain to be as dominant as they were under the PS2. I certainly believe the PS3 was a very large mistake for them, they tried to accomplish too much within a short timeframe, a classic case of overreaching.

Well firstly, I want to say that I agree that PS2-level success seems well beyond reach. That said, whether it was a mistake or not will require a retrospective look some years from now.

Has SNE gotten over the worst of it? I doubt it. Looking at console sales, they still are not doing very well. The 360 has been out much longer and is still selling 2x as fast. Even if the price cut results in 2x the sales, a much older console (and cheaper to produce) will still be selling the same amount.

By getting over the worst I mean in terms of losses generated; I'm not expecting any more $1 billion+ loss quarters from SCE.

My point was that people keep pointing at MSFT losing billions and I was trying to put that into perspective. MSFT losing billions is a drop in the bucket compared to SNE losing billions. They point to MSFT losing that much money and suddenly expect the company to roll up the business and quit because they can't take the losses. That's hardly the case. MSFT's warchest is huge and, as of yet, investors haven't pressured them all that much (if at all) to stop fighting in this area. They continue to see it as a long-term investment.

My thoughts on this above in the answer to Bailey.

As far as the broader HD-DVD/BD war, if the PS3 keeps sucking wind it's not going to help one iota.

Every single piece of positive news and marketshare gain made by Blu-ray around the world is either directly or indirectly related to the PS3. If Blu-ray wins, I'm not sure that Sony gaming division losses can really be called an offset; on the contrary, the benefits generated will be the thing that is hard to quantify - but I imagine that they will decisively outbalance the negatives endured to reach it.

And if Blu-ray doesn't win...? Well, yes, a costly gamble in terms of what they were willing to sacrifice in gaming marketshare.

Brian,

I don't agree with you much but you seem like a really good guy! May your blu ray player be blessed with many titles for years to come!


Remember SD is the enemy:)

You might want to update your sig to reflect that.

It currently makes you look like another Phase Hydra out to make HD DVD supporters look bad.

Brian,

I don't agree with you much but you seem like a really good guy! May your blu ray player be blessed with many titles for years to come!


Remember SD is the enemy:)

Why thank you. May your home be blessed with blu ray ;)

lol, on the "SD is the enemy".. My friends think I have a sickness as I joke with them that I can't watch DVD's they rent.

Cheers,
B

How is Sony's quarterly report relevant to "HDTV Software Media Discussion"?

Mods should lock this trolling.

I'm not sure how many here have listened to the MS conference calls recently... I have. Investors aren't all that excited about the console division over at MS, and let me tell you that if MS were in the catbird seat, I'd expect them to be engaging in that price war with Sony to eliminate their most relevant competition. But they're not. Whatever the war-chest over at MS proper, the console division is on a tight leash. Same with Zune, online search, everything... no matter how much money MS has, it's not as if they throw it all at any given challenge. As strange as it seems, MS for all its money is a company that has been playing on the defensive for some years now. Their client and business operations remain their bread and butter.
Of course they're not happy, nobody is happy losing money. But they are in the dominant position at the moment. They have enough market share to be a force, the technology is strong, and they can react to every price move Sony makes. They also have the position of their product being the easiest "develop on -> port to". This gives them an overall strong position.....aka......sitting in the catbird seat.

Why in the hell would MS want to eliminate Sony? Get a rash from the Fed again? No, I'm sure they're right where they want to be - the dominant player that can react however needed to the market.

How is Sony's quarterly report relevant to "HDTV Software Media Discussion"?

Mods should lock this trolling.

Ahh, I was wondering where does this came from.

Talking about a backend loaded strategy... most reasonably run business would not accept a dvision that quarter in quarter out that makes quarter billion dollar operating losses... as far forward as the eye can see.

The PS2 devision did not turn a profit until 2 years ago.

The PS2 devision did not turn a profit until 2 years ago.

I would love to see a link on this. Also, does this include sales of accessories and first party PS2 games also, or just sales of PS2s?

I was talking about this generation of conoles. The PS2 is (not was) a huge success. Sony will still be selling them for a few more years and the Xbox360 will NEVER catch up to it. The PS2 does not provide as much leverage in the game world anymore. MS and Nintendo now have that.

The problem is that Sony went from the huge success of the PS2 to the failure of the PS3 (in the game market, its a big success in HDM).

I think it's a little premature to call the PS3 an utter failure at this point. It still doesn't have it's killer app game yet. When Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo, and other platform exclusives come out, then we can adequately gauge how well the console is doing. Of course, that does highlight the long development time for PS3 games, but if anyone remembers, that was also an initial problem with the PS2 that was overcome with time and experience.

The PS3 is third (or 4th if you include the PS2). It will be years before that changes if it ever does. To go from 1st to 3rd (or 4th), I think can be called a failure.

To extrapolate from the Nintendo Wii example, that's exactly what happened with the Gamecube, and yet they somehow managed to become the leader in this generation of game consoles.

The PS2 devision did not turn a profit until 2 years ago.

According to whom? Sony's old financial info certainly contradicted your assertion.

I think it's a little premature to call the PS3 an utter failure at this point. It still doesn't have it's killer app game yet. When Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo, and other platform exclusives come out, then we can adequately gauge how well the console is doing. Of course, that does highlight the long development time for PS3 games, but if anyone remembers, that was also an initial problem with the PS2 that was overcome with time and experience.

The PS3 IS a huge failure. The Xbox360 is still killing them in sales even though it is a year older. The PS3 didn't even sell 100,000 units in June while the Xbox360 sold double that. That is why the PS3 is a distant 3rd in the latest generation, and 7th over all.

http://www.thetanooki.com/2007/07/23/npd-group-june-sales-and-figures/

Sony has designs on making tons from software sales. OTOH, MS is trying to maintain the brand name in a more positive, shall I say "younger" demographic. I think Windows is perceived as a drudgery by many and a business tool by others--certainly not a technically-progressive, "cool" product in the same vein as an iPod (forget the Zune, it's just poop).

That said, the money spent on gaming for MS is in many ways money spent on PR. The question then becomes, "what are they trying to promote?" It's a valid question if you consider that the whole Media Center has not been fully-realized (as if it would be hard for EVERY XP machine out there to seamlessly connect to any 360 and play the same media one could play on their PC without a problem).

If MS wants to dominate the living room, that's fine. Personally, the solution really is to seamlessly integrate a non-DRM'd portable with iTunes Music Store compatibility, the 360, and any media cross-platformed between the three. The ability is there, but this whole DRM/media rights issue is making the whole thing rather difficult. Apple is attempting this now (and is on its way to success) and MS simply needs to offer a reasonable alternative without sacrificing any features.

What they need to do this is a "rebirth of cool", whereby the MS brand is no longer perceived as the guy in shorts and black socks getting punked by the young kid, ala the brilliant Apple ads. How to change this without looking disingenuous is a tough call, but this is a prerequisite if there is to be any expectation of increased sales in the space MS occupies (or wants to). This before any new product IMO should be the focus.

The PS3 IS a huge failure. The Xbox360 is still killing them in sales even though it is a year older. The PS3 didn't even sell 100,000 units in June while the Xbox360 sold double that. That is why the PS3 is a distant 3rd in the latest generation, and 7th over all.

http://www.thetanooki.com/2007/07/23/npd-group-june-sales-and-figures/

This is all interesting, but what is exactly the point? If you want to look at all this data cross-sectionally, that's fine but there are countless problems in painting such a static picture. But if I were you I'd change my name to Babe Winkleman -- at least that name is a bit more honest in terms of what you are doing.

This is all interesting, but what is exactly the point? If you want to look at all this data cross-sectionally, that's fine but there are countless problems in painting such a static picture. But if I were you I'd change my name to Babe Winkleman -- at least that name is a bit more honest in terms of what you are doing.

Not sure what your point is. And you are not adding anything to the discussion. Do you have anything to show that the PS3 is doing well?

My point is that Sony has to be very disappointed with PS3 sales. I am trying to find the data, but I think they have lost to both the Wii and the Xbox360 each of the past 6 months. We know they were killed in June (see above).

People on this forum keep posting how well the PS3 is doing and I am just trying to show that is wrong.

All the predictions and speculation so early makes me laugh. You people would have learned when everyone on these forums said Nintendo will be last or second because Sony and MS would be pretty much tied. Now Nintendo with a run away has caught MS and no one knows how anything will turn out.

Not sure what your point is. And you are not adding anything to the discussion. Do you have anything to show that the PS3 is doing well?

My point is that Sony has to be very disappointed with PS3 sales. I am trying to find the data, but I think they have lost to both the Wii and the Xbox360 each of the past 6 months. We know they were killed in June (see above).

People on this forum keep posting how well the PS3 is doing and I am just trying to show that is wrong.

I think I have several points - though I must confess they are latent and not manifest.

1. This whole debate is silly. There is not nearly enough information to make any type of claims about failures or successes. This is like proclaiming the genesis a winner less than a year after the SNES came out. The trend data you are trying to employ in your argument is grossly inadequate to predict anything. You can try all you want, but it is a futile effort. Your are better off trying to pick the winner with a magic 8-ball at this point in the console war.

2. I really don't care one way or another who "wins" or "loses". The market is so much larger in the console arena than it was 10-years ago there is room for both - even "losers". So I am not quite sure what these debates contribute? One way or another I'll have some multiplatform games and some nice first party games to play. It is simply inmaterial to me the rank order who's first.

3. Babe Winkleman - This is more manifest. If you say you are here to knock people off their high horse, then how is this different from trolling?

All I know is that I dream of a world where PS3 enthusiasts can get along with 360 enthusiasts. Where one enthusiast doesn't go into the other's forum with the intent of causing trouble. Where a console is not measured by the number of units sold, but rather is measured by the content of its games.

Yes, I have a dream!

The big item, which really seems to annoy fans, is that the PS3 architecture is terrible for developers. There are so many design issues & these issues are hardware = there's no "fix". From memory to cache there are significant PITA structures that will add to development costs. Just the way it is. It's simply so much easier to code for the base & cross platform it & given the astronomical increase in development costs it will be an issue.

There will be middleware solutions and new game engines coded to overcome these "issues" -- The PS3 has plenty of power and the game developers and publishers that harness and market their games correctly will be rewarded greatly.

Critics said the same thing about developing for the PS2. Patience.
Patience.

I think I have several points - though I must confess they are latent and not manifest.

1. This whole debate is silly. There is not nearly enough information to make any type of claims about failures or successes. This is like proclaiming the genesis a winner less than a year after the SNES came out. The trend data you are trying to employ in your argument is grossly inadequate to predict anything. You can try all you want, but it is a futile effort. Your are better off trying to pick the winner with a magic 8-ball at this point in the console war.

2. I really don't care one way or another who "wins" or "loses". The market is so much larger in the console arena than it was 10-years ago there is room for both - even "losers". So I am not quite sure what these debates contribute? One way or another I'll have some multiplatform games and some nice first party games to play. It is simply inmaterial to me the rank order who's first.

3. Babe Winkleman - This is more manifest. If you say you are here to knock people off their high horse, then how is this different from trolling?

All I know is that I dream of a world where PS3 enthusiasts can get along with 360 enthusiasts. Where one enthusiast doesn't go into the other's forum with the intent of causing trouble. Where a console is not measured by the number of units sold, but rather is measured by the content of its games.

Yes, I have a dream!

I thought I encluded in my posts above but did not, that the PS3 is the big hero of the HD format war so far. I am not against it. When people say that the PS3 is the reason BR is so far ahead of HD DVD in sales, I agree 100%. If they say that it is doing great as a game console, then I disagree 100%

This is called an excuse. Developers only have so much time and resources to devote to creating games. Right now they will devote more resources to the Wii, because it is doing better than the PS3.

What you call an excuse, others think of as a logical fallacy. You cannot compare devices when their key differentiatiors appeal to different markets. Its Apples and Oranges. Anyone with a business background knows they are going for completely different markets, expecting completely different product life cycles. The features alone mean the ps3 will have the staying power of the ps2, with the same eventual market swings towards a more balanced segment, away from early adopters and eventually mass market appeal. Because it didn't happen as soon as they dreamed, does not mean it shorten's the products life cycle.

In my opinion, the slower demonstration of demand of the ps3, and the uptake of the wii is not telling me consumers are buying a wii instead, iit tells me the majority is not ready for this generation. My friends with wii's don't even dare to compare it to the ps3. If anything the wii is competition for the ps2.

The PS3 IS a huge failure. The Xbox360 is still killing them in sales even though it is a year older. The PS3 didn't even sell 100,000 units in June while the Xbox360 sold double that. That is why the PS3 is a distant 3rd in the latest generation, and 7th over all.

http://www.thetanooki.com/2007/07/23/npd-group-june-sales-and-figures/


Uh... whats your point in this thread?

Xbox 360 is the Rokzor? Thats good... but how much did the xbox 360 lose this past quarter? Oh and how much did the Playstation brand cost Sony this quarter?

And since 2001... how much has sony lost in the PS division? How much has MSFt?

The xbox 360 is a great piece of hardware... if you dont mind insanely high failure rates. So high that it cost MSFT 1.19 billion to fix the 12 million 360s that have been built. Yeah... the 360... GREAT SUCCESS.

Uh... whats your point in this thread?

Xbox 360 is the Rokzor? Thats good... but how much did the xbox 360 lose this past quarter? Oh and how much did the Playstation brand cost Sony this quarter?

And since 2001... how much has sony lost in the PS division? How much has MSFt?

The xbox 360 is a great piece of hardware... if you dont mind insanely high failure rates. So high that it cost MSFT 1.19 billion to fix the 12 million 360s that have been built. Yeah... the 360... GREAT SUCCESS.
Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices Division (which also includes the Zune), is about $6 billion in the red. And that was before they announced that the $1 billion in forecasted loss because of the 3 year warranty plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/business/06soft.html?ex=1341374400&en=17425cc16f154e46&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19620158/

This thread is poop.

To Win Sometimes You Need To Lose, But You Lose Sometimes And You Lose It All.

Wow, only a Sony fanboy could be happy about that thought. Reminds me of when I bought some BP stock so that I would be happy to pay $3.50 per gal.
Supposed to by the oil well, d'oh!

carbs or protein? In another post here someone made a good point. Nintendo and Sony took different strategies. Nintendo is doing well and the Wii is popular and making them money. But like just carbs don't give you lasting energy, the Wii won't future proof Nintendo much. Sony chose the protein diet and didn't come blasting out of the starting gate. They knew early on in the product life-cycle that the PS3 would lose money. Eventually the game developers will figure it all out and the games will be very good. The PSN will get better too.

The PS3 IS a huge failure.
sony expected sales to increase by %200 by lowering price of 60GB PS3, amazon reported that sales of PS3 increased %3200 after the price drop.

I think it's a little premature to call the PS3 an utter failure at this point. It still doesn't have it's killer app game yet. When Metal Gear Solid 4, Gran Turismo, and other platform exclusives come out, then we can adequately gauge how well the console is doing. Of course, that does highlight the long development time for PS3 games, but if anyone remembers, that was also an initial problem with the PS2 that was overcome with time and experience.


probably for those who simply hate sony and ps3...thats all..any failure sony has people like that will flock to it..even if sony wins the "war", the haters will revel in their failures.

The PS3 IS a huge failure. The Xbox360 is still killing them in sales even though it is a year older. The PS3 didn't even sell 100,000 units in June while the Xbox360 sold double that. That is why the PS3 is a distant 3rd in the latest generation, and 7th over all.

http://www.thetanooki.com/2007/07/23/npd-group-june-sales-and-figures/

It hasnt even been a year...and why do u care?
LOL
Do u have a ps3?
Probably not..so i ask again..why do u care?
Because there are ps3 fans?
So what if they are....who are you to change their minds?

Actually the word FAILURE is synonymous with the xbox360 as in 33% FAILURE rate! That machine is such a great piece of engineering. ;)

Actually the word FAILURE is synonymous with the xbox360 as in 33% FAILURE rate! That machine is such a great piece of engineering. ;)

33% comes from some guy working at an EB Games store. I'm sure he knows the nitty gritty though. :rolleyes:

Before throwing poop at MS about the 360 you should be questioning why Sony, with the arguably "better" product is getting their asses handed to them every month by a gussied up game cube with a new control interface.

And certainly these "reliability" claims haven't hurt 360 sales numbers, their lead over the PS3 grows every month.

I think it's great that the same guys who say that it's "early" for PS3 and they will wage a "comeback" are the same ones that are over in the Nielson thread saying how HD DVD can never dig itself out of the hole its in with the sales numbers against Blu-ray.

And some additional info:

"In the Electronics segment, operating income increased 77.3% compared to the same quarter of the previous fiscal year. This was primarily due to a positive impact from the depreciation of the yen versus the U.S. dollar and the Euro, as well as an increase in sales of semiconductors to the Game segment. In the Game segment, the operating loss increased primarily due to the loss arising from strategic pricing of PS3 at points lower than its production cost."

From the Sun-Sentintinel

If sony wants to subsidise my game addiction I'm all for it. I'm going to buy a PS3 today, my PS2 died last night.

However I'm in the 360 camp right now, I don't want to buy the PS3 but If I want the good Backwards compatibility I have to purchase now.

sony expected sales to increase by %200 by lowering price of 60GB PS3, amazon reported that sales of PS3 increased %3200 after the price drop.

Yeah 599.99 is the kiss of death 499.99 seems reasonable. Even though the extras would cost more for a 360, Wireless, and HD-DVD attachment will set you back 300.00 so the 360 is actually 699.99 when equiped simularly. However I like the 360's modular system if you don't want it don't buy it. However the 360 is less of a value, as far as perhiprials go. But software wise the 360 is the better value.

But software wise the 360 is the better value.
What's that mean? You mean since there are more games the 360 is better? The PS3 without games is a better value, install YDL and you have a PC too. Do this, list side-by-side what the 360 gives for $699 and what the PS3 gives you for $499. The games will come for PS3.

Before throwing poop at MS about the 360 you should be
questioning why Sony, with the arguably "better" product is getting their asses handed to them every month by a gussied up game cube with a new control interface.

The Wii is the hare and the PS3 is the tortoise. Most people don't understand what the PS3 really is, they hear about the Wii and it's cool and so they buy one, it's in a price range where buyer's won't regret the purchase and they'll get lots of good game play. The Wii is not very future-proof.

The PS3 is hard to program for, it's a significantly complex architecture and the programmers will want to eke out as much as they can from the architecture. And that'll mean some of the most amazing games for any console, ever. But it'll take time and who wants to wait? Most people don't want to so they buy the system that they can play now.

The PS3 is third (or 4th if you include the PS2). It will be years before that changes if it ever does. To go from 1st to 3rd (or 4th), I think can be called a failure.lol, ok :rolleyes:

I haven't seen a moderator in like 2 or 3 weeks.

Hello? Kyser, are you there??