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

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.

hakanakumono

You can't call it a failure unless it doesn't make it through the gen. I would definitely deem it unsuccessful when compared to its predecessor, or underwhelming when you measure it up to the hype that preceded it. Great console, just can't or hasn't cleared the bar set for it.

[QUOTE="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.

bez2083

Actually, we do know how much they lost.

My bad.

EDIT: A little more context:

The sale of PS3 games have actually gone up, which they actually make money on.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]Even taking the PS2s sales this generation, Sony has still lost more money on the PS3 than they made with the PS2. Actually PS2 sales are really starting to diminish and Sony is expected to be bleeding even more because of it. And you think this article being from 2008 somehow means its any less valid? It's MORE valid because Sony has lost even more money since then. It's not based on specualtion and guesses, it's based on Sony's earnings reports. If you had any idea of what you were talking about, you'd know that we don't need to work for Sony to be privy to that information, the general public is already privy to Sony's earning as it's a publicly traded company. Please don't speak of what you do not know. You're embarassing yourself.hakanakumono

Ahem... need I remind you?

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

[QUOTE="bez2083"][QUOTE="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.

hakanakumono

Actually, we do know how much they lost.

My bad.

EDIT: A little more context:

The sale of PS3 games have actually gone up, which they actually make money on.

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

Ahem... need I remind you?

TheNextOrder

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

Sony did sell more consoles in 2008 than 2007. So, no.

And their production costs have gone down.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="bez2083"]

Actually, we do know how much they lost.

TheNextOrder

My bad.

EDIT: A little more context:

The sale of PS3 games have actually gone up, which they actually make money on.

They're losing about $50 on each console as of now it seems, since production costs have gone down. Of course their total losses aren't offset by their profits on games yet, but thats why the Playstation 3 is an investment - just like the Playstation 2 was. Unless sony is ridiculously stupid, they'll stick with the PS3 until they profit from the system as production costs decline.

Sony did sell more consoles in 2008 than 2007. So, no.

And their production costs have gone down.

hakanakumono

Even so, they're still in a tough spot. They can either

1. Drop the price, sell the console at an even bigger loss and hope the increase in units sold offsets that.

2. Not drop the price, lose even more marketshare, and wait until the console turns a profit before dropping the price.

Sticky situation if you ask me.

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

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

hakanakumono

Sony did sell more consoles in 2008 than 2007. So, no.

And their production costs have gone down.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Sony did sell more consoles in 2008 than 2007. So, no.

And their production costs have gone down.

bez2083

Even so, they're still in a tough spot. They can either

1. Drop the price, sell the console at an even bigger loss and hope the increase in units sold offsets that.

2. Not drop the price, lose even more marketshare, and wait until the console turns a profit before dropping the price.

Sticky situation if you ask me.

Doesn't their marketshare have more to do with a lack of sales in their TVs, mp3 players, and other electronic appliances?

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]They posted another loss in their most recent earnings report a few weeks ago so once again you're wrong. How many times is that in one thread? Trying to break some kind of record?TheNextOrder

Sony did sell more consoles in 2008 than 2007. So, no.

And their production costs have gone down.

No, production costs went down again after the price of the console went down.

Which is why they're speculating a price cut that hasn't happened yet.

Really, because the article you quoted states:

"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."

Which you conviniently forgot to read in my other post. Essentially what its saying is, that the PS3 is an investment.

" but he did want to point out the extreme investment Sony is making in its hardware this generation. He (and DFC) predict Sony will extend this generation even longer than the PS2's because of this (making Sony's claims of 10-year life cycle a real possibility)."

Look, it even uses the word "investment" in the article.

[QUOTE="bez2083"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Sony did sell more consoles in 2008 than 2007. So, no.

And their production costs have gone down.

hakanakumono

Even so, they're still in a tough spot. They can either

1. Drop the price, sell the console at an even bigger loss and hope the increase in units sold offsets that.

2. Not drop the price, lose even more marketshare, and wait until the console turns a profit before dropping the price.

Sticky situation if you ask me.

Doesn't their marketshare have more to do with a lack of sales in their TVs, mp3 players, and other electronic appliances?

No. We are strictly talking about SCE. At the height of PS2 Sony had an overwhelming share of the video game market (handhelds, consoles).

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

Sony did sell more consoles in 2008 than 2007. So, no.

And their production costs have gone down.

hakanakumono

No, production costs went down again after the price of the console went down.

Which is why they're speculating a price cut that hasn't happened yet.

Really, because the article you quoted states:

"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."

Which you conviniently forgot to read in my other post. Essentially what its saying is, that the PS3 is an investment.

" but he did want to point out the extreme investment Sony is making in its hardware this generation. He (and DFC) predict Sony will extend this generation even longer than the PS2's because of this (making Sony's claims of 10-year life cycle a real possibility)."

Look, it even uses the word "investment" in the article.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="bez2083"]

Even so, they're still in a tough spot. They can either

1. Drop the price, sell the console at an even bigger loss and hope the increase in units sold offsets that.

2. Not drop the price, lose even more marketshare, and wait until the console turns a profit before dropping the price.

Sticky situation if you ask me.

bez2083

Doesn't their marketshare have more to do with a lack of sales in their TVs, mp3 players, and other electronic appliances?

No. We are strictly talking about SCE. At the height of PS2 Sony had an overwhelming share of the video game market (handhelds, consoles).

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure.

Considering that the PS2 sold 120 million, the TC is making a mountain out of a molehill. Yeah, the PS3 has had the biggest dropoff of any console, but that's because it's predicessor was the most successful system of all time. It is NOT the biggest failure though, which is an absolutely ridiculous fanboy statement. The PS3 is still doing pretty well, but it's not living up to the lofty expectations set by its predicessor. PS2 was popular enough that Sony could AFFORD to lose a giant chunk of their fanbase (not that it isn't costing them through the nose, but you get my point I hope). If you look at a company like Sega, they sold 30 million Sega Genesis units, but then with the Saturn they dropped down to 17 million. When your market share is already small, a dropoff of 13 million hits you A LOT harder. PS3 will bounce back. It will never be as popular as the PS2, but I think it has a chance at a solid second place if Sony hurries up and drops the price to $300 during the spring gaming season.Timstuff

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]So did the cost of their console. Bingo. We have a winner. Sony has lost money on the PS3 every year since its release and nobody with any basic knowledge of business predicts they will even come close to recouping their losses within the next decade, much less console cycle.TheNextOrder

No, production costs went down again after the price of the console went down.

Which is why they're speculating a price cut that hasn't happened yet.

Really, because the article you quoted states:

"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."

Which you conviniently forgot to read in my other post. Essentially what its saying is, that the PS3 is an investment.

" but he did want to point out the extreme investment Sony is making in its hardware this generation. He (and DFC) predict Sony will extend this generation even longer than the PS2's because of this (making Sony's claims of 10-year life cycle a real possibility)."

Look, it even uses the word "investment" in the article.

No it's saying that it may eventually make money. Thats why they used the wordinvestment, which means that it will eventually make them more money than it costs them. That's what an investment is.

So, the PS2 was a commercial failure in it's first few years as well?

Also, keep in mind that part of the investment of the PS3 isn't only in games but in the bluray medium.

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

No, production costs went down again after the price of the console went down.

Which is why they're speculating a price cut that hasn't happened yet.

Really, because the article you quoted states:

"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."

Which you conviniently forgot to read in my other post. Essentially what its saying is, that the PS3 is an investment.

" but he did want to point out the extreme investment Sony is making in its hardware this generation. He (and DFC) predict Sony will extend this generation even longer than the PS2's because of this (making Sony's claims of 10-year life cycle a real possibility)."

Look, it even uses the word "investment" in the article.

hakanakumono

No it's saying that it may eventually make money. Thats why they used the wordinvestment, which means that it will eventually make them more money than it costs them. That's what an investment is.

So, the PS2 was a commercial failure in it's first few years as well?

Also, keep in mind that part of the investment of the PS3 isn't only in games but in the bluray medium.

Allright then let's play a game...

You made an investment, but so far it hasnt paid off, actually it hasnt paid off at all...

Infact, your in the hole, you're BILLIONS in debt.

but if everything goes perfectly in your favor at the end of ten years you 'may' break even! but of course you probably wont.

so...uhhhh.....

how great you feeling about that investment right now? :lol:

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]Basically what is being said is that if everything goes in Sony's favor (need not mention the economy) they might break even at the end of their ten year console cycle. It's one hell of a long shot, but hey, get back to me in ten years, and if the PS3 has managed to "break even" I'll make sure edit out everywhere in this thread where I called the PS3 a commercial failure... but until then, yeah, it's a commercial failure.TheNextOrder

No it's saying that it may eventually make money. Thats why they used the wordinvestment, which means that it will eventually make them more money than it costs them. That's what an investment is.

So, the PS2 was a commercial failure in it's first few years as well?

Also, keep in mind that part of the investment of the PS3 isn't only in games but in the bluray medium.

Allright then let's play a game...

You made an investment, but so far it hasnt paid off, actually it hasnt paid off at all...

Infact, your in the hole, you're BILLIONS in debt.

but if everything goes perfectly in your favor at the end of ten years you 'may' break even! but of course you probably wont.

so...uhhhh.....

how great you feeling about that investment right now? :lol:

Thats not how it works. You don't give up on an investment before its even half over unless you can't afford to anymore - which Sony can because the PS2 was so successful.

This is the scenario: You put billions of dollars into a console and it BLEEDS money the first couple of years, but you expect it to not only break even, but to MAKE more money than you lost once the console's life is over.

Investment timeline:

LOSING MONEY ... LOSING LESS MONEY ... BREAKING EVEN ... MAKING A LITTLE MONEY ... MAKING MONEY

---------------------------------------------+

+ = you are here

So, as you can see, the PS3 has a long time to go on the investment scale.

If 10 years are up and its still at the same stage, or lower, then yes, it will be a commercial failure. But you won't know if its a commercial failure until the life of the console is over, or abruptly cut short.

So to answer your feeling question, the answer would be "expecting a future profit."

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

No it's saying that it may eventually make money. Thats why they used the wordinvestment, which means that it will eventually make them more money than it costs them. That's what an investment is.

So, the PS2 was a commercial failure in it's first few years as well?

Also, keep in mind that part of the investment of the PS3 isn't only in games but in the bluray medium.

hakanakumono

Allright then let's play a game...

You made an investment, but so far it hasnt paid off, actually it hasnt paid off at all...

Infact, your in the hole, you're BILLIONS in debt.

but if everything goes perfectly in your favor at the end of ten years you 'may' break even! but of course you probably wont.

so...uhhhh.....

how great you feeling about that investment right now? :lol:

Thats not how it works. You don't give up on an investment before its even half over unless you can't afford to anymore - which Sony can because the PS2 was so successful.

This is the scenario: You put billions of dollars into a console and it BLEEDS money the first couple of years, but you expect it to not only break even, but to MAKE more money than you lost once the console's life is over.

Investment timeline:

LOSING MONEY ... LOSING LESS MONEY ... BREAKING EVEN ... MAKING A LITTLE MONEY ... MAKING MONEY

---------------------------------------------+

+ = you are here

So, as you can see, the PS3 has a long time to go on the investment scale.

If 10 years are up and its still at the same stage, or lower, then yes, it will be a commercial failure. But you won't know if its a commercial failure until the life of the console is over, or abruptly cut short.

So to answer your feeling question, the answer would be "expecting a future profit."

schooled from one end of the thread to the other

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]Wow you sure seem to love this word "investment".

Allright then let's play a game...

You made an investment, but so far it hasnt paid off, actually it hasnt paid off at all...

Infact, your in the hole, you're BILLIONS in debt.

but if everything goes perfectly in your favor at the end of ten years you 'may' break even! but of course you probably wont.

so...uhhhh.....

how great you feeling about that investment right now? :lol:

TheNextOrder

Thats not how it works. You don't give up on an investment before its even half over unless you can't afford to anymore - which Sony can because the PS2 was so successful.

This is the scenario: You put billions of dollars into a console and it BLEEDS money the first couple of years, but you expect it to not only break even, but to MAKE more money than you lost once the console's life is over.

Investment timeline:

LOSING MONEY ... LOSING LESS MONEY ... BREAKING EVEN ... MAKING A LITTLE MONEY ... MAKING MONEY

---------------------------------------------+

+ = you are here

So, as you can see, the PS3 has a long time to go on the investment scale.

If 10 years are up and its still at the same stage, or lower, then yes, it will be a commercial failure. But you won't know if its a commercial failure until the life of the console is over, or abruptly cut short.

So to answer your feeling question, the answer would be "expecting a future profit."

schooled from one end of the thread to the other

I misread the article somehow, and thought you were basing your argument off of an old article that made estimates before sony's financial earnings were available. I was wrong.

But that doesn't distract from the point I presented like you are trying to do.

Yes, of course it was sony's plan to lose money on the PS3 originally - they wouldn't release it at a loss if it wasn't. I just explained to you what an investment is, how hard is that ot understand?

An investment isn't some magical word without meaning. Please try to come up with a real point, like why it won't be an investment.

Here's a little review: an investment involves losing money.

You're not really "schooling" me because you presented nothing that disproved my point, or why the fact that its an investment is insignificant.

I'm pretty sure the Turbo Grafx 16 lost more.lolfaqs

The PS3 is not a total failure, its selling isn't it??? The PS3 labeled as a big disappointment would actually make sense, however Sony is slowly trying to turn things around with it.

From that article.

According to Perry, Sony has lost more money selling PlayStation 3s than it made selling PlayStation 2s during the entire five years of its peak.

The PS3 is not a total failure, its selling isn't it??? The PS3 labeled as a big disappointment would actually make sense, however Sony is slowly trying to turn things around with it.

shawn7324

It's no use. The TC has no sense of perspective or the concept of an investment.

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

Thats not how it works. You don't give up on an investment before its even half over unless you can't afford to anymore - which Sony can because the PS2 was so successful.

This is the scenario: You put billions of dollars into a console and it BLEEDS money the first couple of years, but you expect it to not only break even, but to MAKE more money than you lost once the console's life is over.

Investment timeline:

LOSING MONEY ... LOSING LESS MONEY ... BREAKING EVEN ... MAKING A LITTLE MONEY ... MAKING MONEY

---------------------------------------------+

+ = you are here

So, as you can see, the PS3 has a long time to go on the investment scale.

If 10 years are up and its still at the same stage, or lower, then yes, it will be a commercial failure. But you won't know if its a commercial failure until the life of the console is over, or abruptly cut short.

So to answer your feeling question, the answer would be "expecting a future profit."

hakanakumono

schooled from one end of the thread to the other

I misread the article somehow, and thought you were basing your argument off of an old article that made estimates before sony's financial earnings were available. I was wrong.

But that doesn't distract from the point I presented like you are trying to do.

Yes, of course it was sony's plan to lose money on the PS3 originally - they wouldn't release it at a loss if it wasn't. I just explained to you what an investment is, how hard is that ot understand?

An investment isn't some magical word without meaning. Please try to come up with a real point, like why it won't be an investment.

Here's a little review: an investment involves losing money.

You're not really "schooling" me because you presented nothing that disproved my point, or why the fact that its an investment is insignificant.

Stop acting like Sony planned on losing more money on the PS3 in its first 3 years than they made on the PS2. Stop acting like Sony planned on losing so much money in their first 3 years that it would take the rest of the console cycle just to break even. Stop acting like Sony planned to be in third place three years in with 80% of their marketshare gone. To even suggest such a thing is absurd, borderline insane perhaps. You may think you have been involved in the most epic of arguments, but I assure you that it was an entirely one-sided affair... you will come to realize that as your knowledge matures.

You're in over your head here son. I admire your determination, but the extent of your blind faith and justification in all that is Sony is starting to get scary. Completley uneducated... but scary none the less.

Let it go.

[QUOTE="shawn7324"]

The PS3 is not a total failure, its selling isn't it??? The PS3 labeled as a big disappointment would actually make sense, however Sony is slowly trying to turn things around with it.

hakanakumono

It's no use. The TC has no sense of perspective or the concept of an investment.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]lmao tell me how it works fanboy. You didn't even know that the general public had access to Sony's earnings and losses two pages ago but now all of a sudden your a business major? Do you really think it was in Sony's plans to lose more money on the PS3 than they made on the PS2 altogether within the first three years of the PS3's lifecycle? No but I guess it's all going to work out in the end because they made an "investment"! An investment! :lol:

schooled from one end of the thread to the other

TheNextOrder

I misread the article somehow, and thought you were basing your argument off of an old article that made estimates before sony's financial earnings were available. I was wrong.

But that doesn't distract from the point I presented like you are trying to do.

Yes, of course it was sony's plan to lose money on the PS3 originally - they wouldn't release it at a loss if it wasn't. I just explained to you what an investment is, how hard is that ot understand?

An investment isn't some magical word without meaning. Please try to come up with a real point, like why it won't be an investment.

Here's a little review: an investment involves losing money.

You're not really "schooling" me because you presented nothing that disproved my point, or why the fact that its an investment is insignificant.

Stop acting like Sony planned on losing more money on the PS3 in its first 3 years than they made on the PS2. Stop acting like Sony planned on losing so much money in their first 3 years that it would take the rest of the console cycle just to break even. Stop acting like planned to be in third place three years with 80% of their marketshare gone. You may think you have been involved in the most epic of arguments, but I assure you that it was an entirely one-sided affair... you will come to realize that as your knowledge matures.

You're in over your head here son. I admire your determination, but the extent of your blind faith and justification in all that is Sony is starting to get scary. Completley uneducated... but scary none the less.

Let it go.

No, you still dont' get it. Sony may not have planned to lose as much money as they did with the PS3 and it certainly didn't sell as much as it was expected to, but there's no guarantee whether its a poor investment yet. The only way to know whether its a poor investment is if sony suddenly stops producing the console or if in about five or so more years, they were unable to make any money off of the console.

You're looking at a bump in the road and calling it a roadblock. Sony hasn't cancelled the PS3 have they? In a world where the economic situation is dwindling, its only natural for some turbulence.

The only way you can say that it was a failure at this point in the game without them dropping the PS3 would be for it to be impossible for sony to make any money off of the system. Unless you can come up with a prediction of future sales, predict the future sales of games, and predict the cost of producing the PS3 and whether or not they'll cut the price again - then stop pretending like this will stop sony in their tracks.

You're the one who needs to let it go, while people in this thread come in and explain to you that its a disappointment or a let down, and not a failure.

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...

Actually, incredibly Sony has lost more on the PS3 than they made with the PS2 ...

TheNextOrder

Well, first of all, the PS3 has barely been around for 2 years compared to the nearly 9 years that PS2 has been around. Secondly, the guy in that article only looked at the 5 peak years of the PS2. Why? I don't know. 5 seems like an arbitrary number. Finally, what's this DFC intelligence he keeps referring to? I genuinely don't know.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="shawn7324"]

The PS3 is not a total failure, its selling isn't it??? The PS3 labeled as a big disappointment would actually make sense, however Sony is slowly trying to turn things around with it.

TheNextOrder

It's no use. The TC has no sense of perspective or the concept of an investment.

Obviously I do know what I'm talking about - I've clearly demonstrated what an investment is and where the PS3 currently is in the investment. It's not making money now. Thats true. But what's preventing it from making a profit in the future?

[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...

Actually, incredibly Sony has lost more on the PS3 than they made with the PS2 ...

lolfaqs

Well, first of all, the PS3 has barely been around for 2 years compared to the nearly 9 years that PS2 has been around. Secondly, the guy in that article only looked at the 5 peak years of the PS2. Why? I don't know. 5 seems like an arbitrary number. Finally, what's this DFC intelligence he keeps referring to? I genuinely don't know.

So does that mean that the PS3 hasn't lost more money than the PS2 made?

Hmmm.

So does that mean that the PS3 hasn't lost more money than the PS2 made?

Hmmm.

hakanakumono

Well, we're taking the guy's word for it. He's saying that in the 2 years PS3 has been out, it's lost more money than the "5 peak years" of the PS2. Without being able to see the curve from which he got those 5 years and without an explanation of why he chose the number 5 to begin with, it's hard to say. He's also basing this off of data from "DFC intelligence," and I have no clue who or what DFC is. Maybe someone else does though.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]Considering that the PS2 sold 120 million, the TC is making a mountain out of a molehill. Yeah, the PS3 has had the biggest dropoff of any console, but that's because it's predicessor was the most successful system of all time. It is NOT the biggest failure though, which is an absolutely ridiculous fanboy statement. The PS3 is still doing pretty well, but it's not living up to the lofty expectations set by its predicessor. PS2 was popular enough that Sony could AFFORD to lose a giant chunk of their fanbase (not that it isn't costing them through the nose, but you get my point I hope). If you look at a company like Sega, they sold 30 million Sega Genesis units, but then with the Saturn they dropped down to 17 million. When your market share is already small, a dropoff of 13 million hits you A LOT harder. PS3 will bounce back. It will never be as popular as the PS2, but I think it has a chance at a solid second place if Sony hurries up and drops the price to $300 during the spring gaming season.TheNextOrder

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

I misread the article somehow, and thought you were basing your argument off of an old article that made estimates before sony's financial earnings were available. I was wrong.

But that doesn't distract from the point I presented like you are trying to do.

Yes, of course it was sony's plan to lose money on the PS3 originally - they wouldn't release it at a loss if it wasn't. I just explained to you what an investment is, how hard is that ot understand?

An investment isn't some magical word without meaning. Please try to come up with a real point, like why it won't be an investment.

Here's a little review: an investment involves losing money.

You're not really "schooling" me because you presented nothing that disproved my point, or why the fact that its an investment is insignificant.

hakanakumono

Stop acting like Sony planned on losing more money on the PS3 in its first 3 years than they made on the PS2. Stop acting like Sony planned on losing so much money in their first 3 years that it would take the rest of the console cycle just to break even. Stop acting like planned to be in third place three years with 80% of their marketshare gone. You may think you have been involved in the most epic of arguments, but I assure you that it was an entirely one-sided affair... you will come to realize that as your knowledge matures.

You're in over your head here son. I admire your determination, but the extent of your blind faith and justification in all that is Sony is starting to get scary. Completley uneducated... but scary none the less.

Let it go.

No, you still dont' get it. Sony may not have planned to lose as much money as they did with the PS3 and it certainly didn't sell as much as it was expected to, but there's no guarantee whether its a poor investment yet. The only way to know whether its a poor investment is if sony suddenly stops producing the console or if in about five or so more years, they were unable to make any money off of the console.

You're looking at a bump in the road and calling it a roadblock. Sony hasn't cancelled the PS3 have they? In a world where the economic situation is dwindling, its only natural for some turbulence.

The only way you can say that it was a failure at this point in the game without them dropping the PS3 would be for it to be impossible for sony to make any money off of the system. Unless you can come up with a prediction of future sales, predict the future sales of games, and predict the cost of producing the PS3 and whether or not they'll cut the price again - then stop pretending like this will stop sony in their tracks.

You're the one who needs to let it go, while people in this thread come in and explain to you that its a disappointment or a let down, and not a failure.

This is the present.

This is reality.

This is where I live.

So that, my friend, puts the burden of proof on you to expouse Sony's "future " glory through your predictions that the rest of this generation will go swimmingly. I, however, am not convinced -- nor do I have reason to be. When or if Sony starts making money, reclaiming their marketshare, then we'll talk. until then, here in the present, in the real world, the PS3 is a COMMERCIAL FAILURE.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"][QUOTE="Timstuff"]Considering that the PS2 sold 120 million, the TC is making a mountain out of a molehill. Yeah, the PS3 has had the biggest dropoff of any console, but that's because it's predicessor was the most successful system of all time. It is NOT the biggest failure though, which is an absolutely ridiculous fanboy statement. The PS3 is still doing pretty well, but it's not living up to the lofty expectations set by its predicessor. PS2 was popular enough that Sony could AFFORD to lose a giant chunk of their fanbase (not that it isn't costing them through the nose, but you get my point I hope). If you look at a company like Sega, they sold 30 million Sega Genesis units, but then with the Saturn they dropped down to 17 million. When your market share is already small, a dropoff of 13 million hits you A LOT harder. PS3 will bounce back. It will never be as popular as the PS2, but I think it has a chance at a solid second place if Sony hurries up and drops the price to $300 during the spring gaming season.Timstuff

The dreamcast and saturn were actually pretty equal. The Saturn did well in Japan, but poor in the US. The Dreamcast did poor in Japan, but well in the US. So it was really the fact that they couldn't handle two saturns in a row, as well as all of the other factors - like microsoft's entry into the race.

Wow there's more spin in this thread than Sony's NPD statements.

You guys should work for Sony. You're finding ways to make nearly killing a brandname look good :)

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]Every console from every console maker is an investment. Some investments succeed and others fail. A good example of a investment that looks like a failure is one that loses so much money within it's first three years, that it would the full ten years of its cycle with everything going off without a hitch for that investment to break even. This has poor or failed investment written all over it.

Stop acting like Sony planned on losing more money on the PS3 in its first 3 years than they made on the PS2. Stop acting like Sony planned on losing so much money in their first 3 years that it would take the rest of the console cycle just to break even. Stop acting like planned to be in third place three years with 80% of their marketshare gone. You may think you have been involved in the most epic of arguments, but I assure you that it was an entirely one-sided affair... you will come to realize that as your knowledge matures.

You're in over your head here son. I admire your determination, but the extent of your blind faith and justification in all that is Sony is starting to get scary. Completley uneducated... but scary none the less.

Let it go.

TheNextOrder

No, you still dont' get it. Sony may not have planned to lose as much money as they did with the PS3 and it certainly didn't sell as much as it was expected to, but there's no guarantee whether its a poor investment yet. The only way to know whether its a poor investment is if sony suddenly stops producing the console or if in about five or so more years, they were unable to make any money off of the console.

You're looking at a bump in the road and calling it a roadblock. Sony hasn't cancelled the PS3 have they? In a world where the economic situation is dwindling, its only natural for some turbulence.

The only way you can say that it was a failure at this point in the game without them dropping the PS3 would be for it to be impossible for sony to make any money off of the system. Unless you can come up with a prediction of future sales, predict the future sales of games, and predict the cost of producing the PS3 and whether or not they'll cut the price again - then stop pretending like this will stop sony in their tracks.

You're the one who needs to let it go, while people in this thread come in and explain to you that its a disappointment or a let down, and not a failure.

This is the present.

This is reality.

This is where I live.

So that, my friend, puts the burden of proof on you to expouse Sony's "future " glory through your predictions that the rest of this generation will go swimmingly. I, however, am not convinced -- nor do I have reason to be. When or if Sony starts making money, reclaiming their marketshare, then we'll talk. until then, here in the present, in the real world, the PS3 is a COMMERCIAL FAILURE.

It's only a commercial failure when it stops selling. As long as its selling and shows the promise of making money in the future, its not a commercial failure. "Failure" doesn't mean whatever you can twist it into meaning.

If you want to live for the present, then why make decisions that impact the future? The future is far more important than the present, because by the time you mention the present, it's already passed. There's a reason why people make investments - because they're looking to the future.

The burden of proof? I haven't made any claims, so burden of proof doesn't apply to my arguments. Your arguments, however, lack in the numbers that show that the PS3's lifespan up to 2009 has cost more than the entire 9 years of the PS2.

In the present, its too soon to tell whether the Ps3 is a commercial failure or not.

Wow there's more spin in this thread than Sony's NPD statements.

You guys should work for Sony. You're finding ways to make nearly killing a brandname look good :)

TheNextOrder

We're simply pointing out the flaws in your arguments, which you've failed to adapt to the points we bring up.

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

It's no use. The TC has no sense of perspective or the concept of an investment.

hakanakumono

Obviously I do know what I'm talking about - I've clearly demonstrated what an investment is and where the PS3 currently is in the investment. It's not making money now. Thats true. But what's preventing it from making a profit in the future?

The economy?

The Xbox 360?

The Wii?

Public perception that your consol has the stench of third place failure?

The media?

The fact that last month your console only had 1 game in the NPD top 20 and its software sales have been consistantly dissapointing?

I don't know am I getting warm yet?

Losses amassed in 2 years greater than your entire previous generation of profits?
TheNextOrder

It's funny you should say that, because you realize that the 360 didn't turn a profit until its 3rd year, right? Also, the PS2 has been out for 9 years and continues to sell consoles. The guy in the article said the PS3's losses were greater than the 5 peak yearsof the PS2. So your claim that it's greater than the entire previous generation is false. The PS2 has been selling for 9 years.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]If I had a dollar for every time you overused the word "perspective" or "investment" in this thread to try to come across like you actually knew what the hell you were talking about I might be able to take a little bite out of the debt the PS3 has amassed.TheNextOrder

Obviously I do know what I'm talking about - I've clearly demonstrated what an investment is and where the PS3 currently is in the investment. It's not making money now. Thats true. But what's preventing it from making a profit in the future?

The economy?

The Xbox 360?

The Wii?

Public perception that your consol has the stench of third place failure?

The media?

The fact that last month your console only had 1 game in the NPD top 20 and its software sales have been consistantly dissapointing? It's not as if the PS3 is sony's only product either. PSP games have consistently been making the media create charts, and the PS2 is STILL selling.

I don't know am I getting warm yet?

The PS3 is doing fine, stop making it out to look like its not selling - which it is. It's especially doing fine in the Japanese market, in which its been gaining on the wii.

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

ahem *cough* http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pc5oLqpenpT78W87pMfgvBA&gid=2 *cough*... what was that again?

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

ahem *cough* http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pc5oLqpenpT78W87pMfgvBA&gid=2 *cough*... what was that again?

He seems to have a habit of ignoring any real proof that people bring up. I wonder if he'll look at this.

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]

Wow there's more spin in this thread than Sony's NPD statements.

You guys should work for Sony. You're finding ways to make nearly killing a brandname look good :)

hakanakumono

We're simply pointing out the flaws in your arguments, which you've failed to adapt to the points we bring up.

[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.

Compared to the heights the PS2 reached its a failure!

*shakes head in disbelief*

lol why are you cows arguing otherwise? The TC is looking at market share! That's a quantifiable way of comparing the PS2 Vs the PS3. The TC isn't even saying it's a 'bad' console or even that it won't end up being a moderaten success.

[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.DAZZER7

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.

Compared to the heights the PS2 reached its a failure!

*shakes head in disbelief*

lol why are you cows arguing otherwise? The TC is looking at market share! That's a quantifiable way of comparing the PS2 Vs the PS3. The TC isn't even saying it's a 'bad' console or even that it won't end up being a moderaten success.

Comparisons don't indicate failure. Failure indicates failure.

No, he is. He's also denying that its an investment.

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

Wow there's more spin in this thread than Sony's NPD statements.

You guys should work for Sony. You're finding ways to make nearly killing a brandname look good :)

TheNextOrder

We're simply pointing out the flaws in your arguments, which you've failed to adapt to the points we bring up.

You really just can't come up with anything to combat the points that we've made. And its increasingly evident that your logic is faulty, which is why people are calling you on statements that you've made.

[QUOTE="whatisazerg"]

[QUOTE="TheNextOrder"]That I agree with, and it's hard to believe that the Wii, which has least games is in first. It's like people want the console with the worst games.hakanakumono

ahem *cough* http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pc5oLqpenpT78W87pMfgvBA&gid=2 *cough*... what was that again?

He seems to have a habit of ignoring any real proof that people bring up. I wonder if he'll look at this.

I was talking about the Wii :|

Cows :lol: