So far, PS3 is one of the biggest commercial flops in console gaming history

PS3 is a good console that deserves to be doing better than it is, but there are many here trying to paint it into a success and that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's lost billions and lost Sony 80% of their marketshare, and over 60% of the overall console marketshare in a single generation. No other console has done this before, nor has any console ever gone from first place to last place in a single generation. Need I remind you that it took Nintendo 2 generations to go from first with the Super Nintendo, second with the N64, to third with the Gamecube. No other console has ever accomplished this. So if you want to go by money and marketshare lost, the PS3 is the biggest failure of a console ever created.

Actually, incredibly Sony has lost more on the PS3 than they made with the PS2 ... http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169439

doesn't stop it to make great games though ;)joopyme

There are bigger failures in history. Even the saturn was worse off than the PS3.

I may not know much about economics, but isn't the marketshare also related to the non gaming division?

PS3 is a good console that deserves to be doing better than it is, but there are many here trying to paint it into a success and that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's lost billions and lost Sony 80% of their marketshare, and over 60% of the overall console marketshare in a single generation. No other console has done this before, nor has any console ever gone from first place to last place in a single generation. Need I remind you that it took Nintendo 2 generations to go from first with the Super Nintendo, second with the N64, to third with the Gamecube. No other console has ever accomplished this. So if you want to go by money and marketshare lost, the PS3 is the biggest failure of a console ever created.

TheNextOrder

Because no other console manufacturer sold 100+million units 2 generations in a row. The biggest failure of a console ever created is probably the 3DO.None of this matters. The PS3 is an awesome gaming console. Stop hating.

There are bigger failures in history. Even the saturn was worse off than the PS3.

I may not know much about economics, but isn't the marketshare also related to the non gaming division?

hakanakumono

[QUOTE="joopyme"]doesn't stop it to make great games though ;)TheNextOrder

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

There are bigger failures in history. Even the saturn was worse off than the PS3.

I may not know much about economics, but isn't the marketshare also related to the non gaming division?

TheNextOrder

I have to disagree with you on the biggest failure in console history part.

BIG failure = NO

TOTAL disappointment = YES

but look on the bright side, rather 2009 +++

:)

[QUOTE="joopyme"]doesn't stop it to make great games though ;)TheNextOrder

PS3 is a good console that deserves to be doing better than it is, but there are many here trying to paint it into a success and that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's lost billions and lost Sony 80% of their marketshare, and over 60% of the overall console marketshare in a single generation. No other console has done this before, nor has any console ever gone from first place to last place in a single generation. Need I remind you that it took Nintendo 2 generations to go from first with the Super Nintendo, second with the N64, to third with the Gamecube. No other console has ever accomplished this. So if you want to go by money and marketshare lost, the PS3 is the biggest failure of a console ever created.

TheNextOrder

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

There are bigger failures in history. Even the saturn was worse off than the PS3.

I may not know much about economics, but isn't the marketshare also related to the non gaming division?

TheNextOrder

It's really more about Sony's fall, more than the PS3 as a failure. And yes, nintendo fell just as far in the 90s after the snes. N64 might have done decently in the west, but in Japan it was dismally behind botht he saturn and the playstation.

Nintendo got cocky in the 90s and fell on their face. Sony did the same thing this generation. It's really a repeat of history.

There are bigger failures in history. Even the saturn was worse off than the PS3.

I may not know much about economics, but isn't the marketshare also related to the non gaming division?

hakanakumono

To be specific, because SONY , with the PS1 and the PS2, has already established a marketshare.

In this generation though, they relied on the most part that the PS3 would still sell, being proud of their track record.

Sony lost a huge chunk of their marketshare, but they're still running. :)

If you want to talk about the non-gaming divison though, you should congratulate Nintendo for that. :)

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]

PS3 is a good console that deserves to be doing better than it is, but there are many here trying to paint it into a success and that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's lost billions and lost Sony 80% of their marketshare, and over 60% of the overall console marketshare in a single generation. No other console has done this before, nor has any console ever gone from first place to last place in a single generation. Need I remind you that it took Nintendo 2 generations to go from first with the Super Nintendo, second with the N64, to third with the Gamecube. No other console has ever accomplished this. So if you want to go by money and marketshare lost, the PS3 is the biggest failure of a console ever created.

mazdero

Because no other console manufacturer sold 100+million units 2 generations in a row. The biggest failure of a console ever created is probably the 3DO.None of this matters. The PS3 is an awesome gaming console. Stop hating.

[QUOTE="mazdero"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]

PS3 is a good console that deserves to be doing better than it is, but there are many here trying to paint it into a success and that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's lost billions and lost Sony 80% of their marketshare, and over 60% of the overall console marketshare in a single generation. No other console has done this before, nor has any console ever gone from first place to last place in a single generation. Need I remind you that it took Nintendo 2 generations to go from first with the Super Nintendo, second with the N64, to third with the Gamecube. No other console has ever accomplished this. So if you want to go by money and marketshare lost, the PS3 is the biggest failure of a console ever created.

TheNextOrder

Because no other console manufacturer sold 100+million units 2 generations in a row. The biggest failure of a console ever created is probably the 3DO.None of this matters. The PS3 is an awesome gaming console. Stop hating.

They were still bigger failures. The brand name and history really doesn't really indicate whether a console is a failure or not. Context doesn't make a console a failure. There's a reason why there was never an M2, another apple console, etc.

A disappointment is the word you're looking for.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

There are bigger failures in history. Even the saturn was worse off than the PS3.

I may not know much about economics, but isn't the marketshare also related to the non gaming division?

hakanakumono

It's really more about Sony's fall, more than the PS3 as a failure. And yes, nintendo fell just as far in the 90s after the snes. N64 might have done decently in the west, but in Japan it was dismally behind botht he saturn and the playstation.

Nintendo got cocky in the 90s and fell on their face. Sony did the same thing this generation. It's really a repeat of history.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="mazdero"]

Because no other console manufacturer sold 100+million units 2 generations in a row. The biggest failure of a console ever created is probably the 3DO.None of this matters. The PS3 is an awesome gaming console. Stop hating.

hakanakumono

They were still bigger failures. The brand name and history really doesn't really indicate whether a console is a failure or not. Context doesn't make a console a failure. There's a reason why there was never an M2, another apple console, etc.

A disappointment is the word you're looking for.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]True, but Sega never dominated like Sony did. So one can argue that Sony fell further.Lionheart08

It's really more about Sony's fall, more than the PS3 as a failure. And yes, nintendo fell just as far in the 90s after the snes. N64 might have done decently in the west, but in Japan it was dismally behind botht he saturn and the playstation.

Nintendo got cocky in the 90s and fell on their face. Sony did the same thing this generation. It's really a repeat of history.

I think so. It'll be interesting to see how their next console does. I do believe they're becoming increasingly reliant on a group that will not support them next gen, when a motion sensing console is nothing new and exciting.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]Nah people throw names out there like the 3D0, but that consoe was panasonics first and only try in the market. Nor did any anybody other than Trip Hawkins expect anything from it. PS3 was such a letdown because of it's pedigree.TheNextOrder

They were still bigger failures. The brand name and history really doesn't really indicate whether a console is a failure or not. Context doesn't make a console a failure. There's a reason why there was never an M2, another apple console, etc.

A disappointment is the word you're looking for.

In context, the 3DO was a mild success then? This really only works in context. The PS3 is doing just fine, outside of context, hence ... it's not a failure.

The race between the 360 and the PS3 is pretty close as well.

The PS3 may be a "surprise" and a "disappointment," but those are the only things that context can really indicate. Of course you can believe words can mean whatever you want them to, and you're free to do that I guess.

Considering how monstorously well the PS2 sold, it can't be helped...or denied for that matter. I can still see Sony pulling out with a respectable number though.Lionheart08

[QUOTE="Lionheart08"]Considering how monstorously well the PS2 sold, it can't be helped...or denied for that matter. I can still see Sony pulling out with a respectable number though.TheNextOrder

huh? :?

Didn't I say it couldn't be denied it flopped in comparison?

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

They were still bigger failures. The brand name and history really doesn't really indicate whether a console is a failure or not. Context doesn't make a console a failure. There's a reason why there was never an M2, another apple console, etc.

A disappointment is the word you're looking for.

hakanakumono

In context, the 3DO was a mild success then? This really only works in context. The PS3 is doing just fine, outside of context, hence ... it's not a failure.

The race between the 360 and the PS3 is pretty close as well.

The PS3 may be a "surprise" and a "disappointment," but those are the only things that context can really indicate. Of course you can believe words can mean whatever you want them to, and you're free to do that I guess.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="Lionheart08"]Considering how monstorously well the PS2 sold, it can't be helped...or denied for that matter. I can still see Sony pulling out with a respectable number though.Lionheart08

huh? :?

Didn't I say it couldn't be denied it flopped in comparison?

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]I completely disagree. I think context has everything to do with determining the success of a console. A new consoles chance at market domination is slim, but a console that formerly dominated the console war is expected to continue dominating, not fall into the last place position, lose the majority of its marketshare along with billions of dollars. PS3's failure has been a huge media spectacle and the entire world is watching, while consoles like 3D0 flew under the radar because nobody expected much from it in the first place.TheNextOrder

In context, the 3DO was a mild success then? This really only works in context. The PS3 is doing just fine, outside of context, hence ... it's not a failure.

The race between the 360 and the PS3 is pretty close as well.

The PS3 may be a "surprise" and a "disappointment," but those are the only things that context can really indicate. Of course you can believe words can mean whatever you want them to, and you're free to do that I guess.

Sony has always made money on the games, not the consoles.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]I completely disagree. I think context has everything to do with determining the success of a console. A new consoles chance at market domination is slim, but a console that formerly dominated the console war is expected to continue dominating, not fall into the last place position, lose the majority of its marketshare along with billions of dollars. PS3's failure has been a huge media spectacle and the entire world is watching, while consoles like 3D0 flew under the radar because nobody expected much from it in the first place.TheNextOrder

In context, the 3DO was a mild success then? This really only works in context. The PS3 is doing just fine, outside of context, hence ... it's not a failure.

The race between the 360 and the PS3 is pretty close as well.

The PS3 may be a "surprise" and a "disappointment," but those are the only things that context can really indicate. Of course you can believe words can mean whatever you want them to, and you're free to do that I guess.

And how do you know they won't make any profit off the PS3 by the end of this generation? You working for Sony or something? You must know how much they make off every PS3 right?

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

In context, the 3DO was a mild success then? This really only works in context. The PS3 is doing just fine, outside of context, hence ... it's not a failure.

The race between the 360 and the PS3 is pretty close as well.

The PS3 may be a "surprise" and a "disappointment," but those are the only things that context can really indicate. Of course you can believe words can mean whatever you want them to, and you're free to do that I guess.

hakanakumono

Sony has always made money on the games, not the consoles.

Actually, incredibly Sony has lost more on the PS3 than they made with the PS2 ... http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169439

Anyone still want to attempt to argue that the PS3 is a success?

Actually, incredibly Sony has lost more on the PS3 than they made with the PS2 ... http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169439

Anyone still want to attempt to argue that the PS3 is a success?

TheNextOrder

Sony is continuing to make money with the PS2 and that article is old. Furthermore, its based on speculation and guesses - and the guy who made the claim wasn't even part of Sony.

I'm not saying it was a total success, but I don't think it was a failure either. It's mostly just problematic.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]

Actually, incredibly Sony has lost more on the PS3 than they made with the PS2 ... http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169439

Anyone still want to attempt to argue that the PS3 is a success?

hakanakumono

Sony is continuing to make money with the PS2 and that article is old. Furthermore, its based on speculation and guesses - and the guy who made the claim wasn't even part of Sony.

I'm not saying it was a total success, but I don't think it was a failure either. It's mostly just problematic.

[QUOTE="mazdero"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]

PS3 is a good console that deserves to be doing better than it is, but there are many here trying to paint it into a success and that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's lost billions and lost Sony 80% of their marketshare, and over 60% of the overall console marketshare in a single generation. No other console has done this before, nor has any console ever gone from first place to last place in a single generation. Need I remind you that it took Nintendo 2 generations to go from first with the Super Nintendo, second with the N64, to third with the Gamecube. No other console has ever accomplished this. So if you want to go by money and marketshare lost, the PS3 is the biggest failure of a console ever created.

TheNextOrder

Because no other console manufacturer sold 100+million units 2 generations in a row. The biggest failure of a console ever created is probably the 3DO.None of this matters. The PS3 is an awesome gaming console. Stop hating.

Letdown and Failure is not the same thing. I'll give you let down, but it is not a failure. 3DO=Failure, Phillips CDi=Failure, Dreamcast=failure,Jaguar=failure.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="mazdero"]Because no other console manufacturer sold 100+million units 2 generations in a row. The biggest failure of a console ever created is probably the 3DO.None of this matters. The PS3 is an awesome gaming console. Stop hating.

mazdero

Letdown and Failure is not the same thing. I'll give you let down, but it is not a failure.

[QUOTE="mazdero"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]Nah people throw names out there like the 3D0, but that consoe was panasonics first and only try in the market. Nor did any anybody other than Trip Hawkins expect anything from it. PS3 was such a letdown because of it's pedigree.TheNextOrder

Letdown and Failure is not the same thing. I'll give you let down, but it is not a failure.

The PS3 has not been cancelled. It is still selling, and it is still getting the majority of top tier multiplats. It is not a failure. All those I mentioned were failures. PS3 is still alive and kicking.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="mazdero"]

Letdown and Failure is not the same thing. I'll give you let down, but it is not a failure.

mazdero

The PS3 has not been cancelled. It is still selling, and it is still getting the majority of top tier multiplats. It is not a failure. All those I mentioned were failures. PS3 is still alive and kicking.

The whole concept of the PS3 failing hard is a big, fat lie and a severely skewered view on reality. So far, the PS3 stands with 21 million consoles sold as of January 2009 since launch, and seeing the 360 at 28 million, it isn't too far behind, considering the initial head-start of the 360, and considering the PS3 exclusive drought on the first year of the Sony PS3 launch. The PS3 is doing better than the PS2 in its current age, and we are comparing the PS3 to possibly, the best-selling console of all time (the PS2). So obviously, it has lost a fair amount of market share, but that doesn't change the fact that 21 million users felt like the PS3 was worth the price of admission, despite its high premium cost. Over 100$ more expensive than a regular 360 console, it is holding on its own fairly well, even in this dire global recession.Brainhunter

1. Your post is systemwars rubbish. Sony has lost nearly all of their marketshare this generation, while Nintendo and MS have gained alot of ground.

2. Sony has lost more money on the PS3 than they made with the PS2. Nothing can define a commercial failure more clearly.

[QUOTE="mazdero"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]Nah people throw names out there like the 3D0, but that consoe was panasonics first and only try in the market. Nor did any anybody other than Trip Hawkins expect anything from it. PS3 was such a letdown because of it's pedigree.TheNextOrder

Letdown and Failure is not the same thing. I'll give you let down, but it is not a failure.

You're using the word "failure" incorrectly. There's a difference.

Want an example of a failure? Try the dreamcast. Its not like there's going to be another sony console. It's unlikely that there's going to be another sega console.

[QUOTE="Brainhunter"]The whole concept of the PS3 failing hard is a big, fat lie and a severely skewered view on reality. So far, the PS3 stands with 21 million consoles sold as of January 2009 since launch, and seeing the 360 at 28 million, it isn't too far behind, considering the initial head-start of the 360, and considering the PS3 exclusive drought on the first year of the Sony PS3 launch. The PS3 is doing better than the PS2 in its current age, and we are comparing the PS3 to possibly, the best-selling console of all time (the PS2). So obviously, it has lost a fair amount of market share, but that doesn't change the fact that 21 million users felt like the PS3 was worth the price of admission, despite its high premium cost. Over 100$ more expensive than a regular 360 console, it is holding on its own fairly well, even in this dire global recession.TheNextOrder

1. Your post is systemwars rubbish. Sony has lost nearly all of their marketshare this generation, while Nintendo and MS have gained alot of ground.

2. Sony has lost more money on the PS3 than they made with the PS2. Nothing can define a commercial failure more clearly.

What a great comeback. That automatically makes what he says not true!

Way to invalidate context, when you strongly use it in your argument in the first place.

[QUOTE="mazdero"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"] Okay once more, to date, Sony has lost more money on PS3 than they made on PS2. If losing billions of dollars on a new product isn't a failure I don't know what is.

TheNextOrder

The PS3 has not been cancelled. It is still selling, and it is still getting the majority of top tier multiplats. It is not a failure. All those I mentioned were failures. PS3 is still alive and kicking.

No, by definition if its alive its not a failure and if its dead it is.

PS3 is a good console that deserves to be doing better than it is, but there are many here trying to paint it into a success and that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's lost billions and lost Sony 80% of their marketshare, and over 60% of the overall console marketshare in a single generation. No other console has done this before, nor has any console ever gone from first place to last place in a single generation. Need I remind you that it took Nintendo 2 generations to go from first with the Super Nintendo, second with the N64, to third with the Gamecube. No other console has ever accomplished this. So if you want to go by money and marketshare lost, the PS3 is the biggest failure of a console ever created.

TheNextOrder

Sony may have Lost more markeshare than any other console, but that's because Sony also gained more marketshare in all of history. It works both ways.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]

PS3 is a good console that deserves to be doing better than it is, but there are many here trying to paint it into a success and that's the furthest thing from the truth. It's lost billions and lost Sony 80% of their marketshare, and over 60% of the overall console marketshare in a single generation. No other console has done this before, nor has any console ever gone from first place to last place in a single generation. Need I remind you that it took Nintendo 2 generations to go from first with the Super Nintendo, second with the N64, to third with the Gamecube. No other console has ever accomplished this. So if you want to go by money and marketshare lost, the PS3 is the biggest failure of a console ever created.

SolidTy

Sony may have Lost more markeshare than any other console, but that's because Sony also gained more marketshare in all of history. It works both ways.

No! Only the TC is allowed to provide context!

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="mazdero"]

Letdown and Failure is not the same thing. I'll give you let down, but it is not a failure.

hakanakumono

You're using the word "failure" incorrectly. There's a difference.

Want an example of a failure? Try the dreamcast. Its not like there's going to be another sony console. It's unlikely that there's going to be another sega console.

Ofcourse, I'm looking at this from a logical business perspective while all of you are looking at it from a 'omgz teh PS3 is still doing better than the Gamecube"! Systemwars perspective.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]

Actually, incredibly Sony has lost more on the PS3 than they made with the PS2 ... http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169439

Anyone still want to attempt to argue that the PS3 is a success?

TheNextOrder

Sony is continuing to make money with the PS2 and that article is old. Furthermore, its based on speculation and guesses - and the guy who made the claim wasn't even part of Sony.

I'm not saying it was a total success, but I don't think it was a failure either. It's mostly just problematic.

Ahem... need I remind you?

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]Okay once more, to date, Sony has lost more money on PS3 than they made on PS2. If losing billions of dollars on a new product isn't a failure I don't know what is.

TheNextOrder

You're using the word "failure" incorrectly. There's a difference.

Want an example of a failure? Try the dreamcast. Its not like there's going to be another sony console. It's unlikely that there's going to be another sega console.

The thing is you don't really know how much they've lost and how much they've made. It's all based on conjecture.

You're also using context to narrow the definition of a failure to suit the needs of your argument, when context is only really useful when you're broadening the picture.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Sony is continuing to make money with the PS2 and that article is old. Furthermore, its based on speculation and guesses - and the guy who made the claim wasn't even part of Sony.

I'm not saying it was a total success, but I don't think it was a failure either. It's mostly just problematic.

TheNextOrder

Ahem... need I remind you?

Sony's production costs have gone down and their sales have increased. So no, its less relevant.

Sorry i misread it about the estimates.

What you failed to read:

"Putting things in perspective, though, Sony did lose quite a bit on PS2 hardware in its first year or so -- likely not $3 billion, but still. If things continue to move in Sony's favor and the PS3 manages to have a healthy 10-year life cycle (it's possible...the 8-year old PS2 managed to outsell both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 last year), it's still possible, when all is said and done, that the company can break even on hardware costs this generation. Or maybe eventually even make a profit. At this rate it'd better; who knows what the PlayStation 4 could end up costing the company."

That provides a little more context than your own, from the same article. Suddenly it's not so bad. It puts it into perspective, instead of narrowing it down to some obscure abuse of the english language.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

You're using the word "failure" incorrectly. There's a difference.

Want an example of a failure? Try the dreamcast. Its not like there's going to be another sony console. It's unlikely that there's going to be another sega console.

hakanakumono

The thing is you don't really know how much they've lost and how much they've made. It's all based on conjecture.

You're also using context to narrow the definition of a failure to suit the needs of your argument, when context is only really useful when you're broadening the picture.