let's take a look at the big 3

[EricDeLee]

Okay... per USA Today's article today... the PS3 is falling behind in sales. Compared to the Wii. Naturally, I think we all knew that.

 

However... here's the thing.

 

The Wii is quoted at a cost of $250 and has sold 1.9 million consoles.

If you multiply those together... you get $475 million buckaroos.

 

The PS3... it has two different options, but it was quoted as selling 1.1 million consoles. Lets just say all of those consoles were the cheaper version. ($500): That brings PS3s total as $550 Million smackaroos

If you assume they are all the $600 models... the total price jumps up to $660 million clams.

 

So... the wii has made roughly $475 million

The PS3 anywhere between $550-660 million

 

Now... we all know the PS3 is going to be taking a hit in profit because of production costs. I am unsure what that amount is.

But... isn't it safe to say, Sony is still holding grounds thus far?

 

I think most companies are banking their profits in software sales. That's where you get ahead of the game. Right now, the Wii has a few great games. Most notable the new Zelda.

 

PS3 is not a slouch in this area. They have a few great games as well, with two very huge blockbusters on the way: MG 4 (September??) and FF (DEC).

So to say they are really losing this battle... wouldn't that be a moot point? To me they are still swimming very well with their heads above water.

 

Also... to complain about the price of the PS3 as compared to XBOX 360... isn't that a moot point as well? I mean, what's the cost of the XBOX 360? $499? Then add in extra cost for the $199 HD dvd player... doesn't that push it above the cost of the PS3? I may be wrong on the cost of the 360... not really sure. And yes... I know the entire thread may reek of fanboy-isms... but I'm just looking at the numbers and I really don't see a big difference. Aside from that, with XBOX charging $200 for the HD DVD Player... isn't this just like DS owners buying stuff to add features to their DS that the PSP already had (yet they snickered at PSP for having such features in the beginning)?

 

Yes... fanboyish... but I have been trying to actually analyze this without a pure SONY perspective point. I'm just wondering why they get all of the heat and if it is really deserved (Granted I do understand those standing on the top recieve the harshest words from critics).

 

Opinions?

[Atari Master]

Last I checked, they're losing nearly $200 per system sold. Lets just say $150 incase costs have gone down.

 

$150 x 1,600,000 = $240,000,000 lost.

 

Unless I messed up my math, which is very possible. I'm a dope at Math.

 

Wii on the other hand, makes money per system sold. So they're not enduring losses.

[EricDeLee]

Actually I got it at 165 million loss. LOL

 

So... the real profits could be $385-495 million

 

So... in all reality... not too far behind in sales (console wise that is)

 

As for software sales... it should catch up quite a bit this year with the big name games coming.

[Gabriel]

Well, to take a look at the PS3 versus the X360, here's a feature comparison between the two high end models:

 

Portable Media: The 360 has its 64 Meg memory cards, and can do some things with USB devices. The high end PS3 has several different types of common memory stick slots as well as several USB ports. Neither one is really compatible with legacy memory cards from last generation, although you can buy an inexpensive and Sony supported device to transfer older game saves over to the PS3. We'll say this one is too close to call.

 

Controllers: Both are wireless. The X360 has rumble while the PS3 doesn't. The PS3 has motion sensing while the X360 doesn't. The X360 controller ships with Energizer batteries, while the PS3 ships with a built in rechargeable and charging cord. To get the same for the X360, you have to spend $20 on a plug and charge kit, or a similar amount on rechargeable batteries and a charger. The advantage here is for the PS3, but it's so marginal we'll still call it too close to call.

 

Internet: Both offer stores and online play. The X360's online store is a better shopping place currently. The PS3 offers online play for free while the X360 charges for the privledge. The PS3 has Wi-Fi too while you have to buy a separate adaptor for the X360 for the same capability. Once again, let's say it's too close to call.

 

Hard Drive: The high end PS3 has 3 times the storage of the high end X360. To get the same amount of storage for the X360, you'd need to buy 2 more hard drives, so add $200 to the 360's cost.

 

High Definition movies: Both systems play normal DVDs. The PS3 supports Blu-Ray out of the box. The X360 requires the purchase of an extra $200 device to be able to play HD movies. Blu Ray also seems to be pulling ahead in supported titles. So, the advantage certainly seems to be on the PS3's side. Add $200 to the X360's cost to make it comparable.

 

Backwards Compatibility: The X360 is backwards compatible with about 20% of the old XBox library. The X360 upscales these games to HD quality, but many games are buggy when played on the X360. The PS3 is backwards compatible not only with over 95% of the PS2 library, but about the same percentage of the PS1 library. A few games are slightly bugged, but not many. The advantage is clearly with the PS3 in this instance. So, we should add the price of an X-Box to the X360. Let's say $100 since it's a nice round number.

 

So, a high end PS3 is currently $600. A high end X360 is $400. However, to get roughly the same features from the X360 as the PS3 already has, you have to add about $500 worth of extra stuff to it. So, that would make it $900.

 

And people are saying Sony should slash the price of the high end PS3 to between $100 and $300? Yeah, right.

[Atarifever]

Okay... per USA Today's article today... the PS3 is falling behind in sales. Compared to the Wii. Naturally, I think we all knew that.

 

However... here's the thing.

 

The Wii is quoted at a cost of $250 and has sold 1.9 million consoles.

If you multiply those together... you get $475 million buckaroos.

 

The PS3... it has two different options, but it was quoted as selling 1.1 million consoles. Lets just say all of those consoles were the cheaper version. ($500): That brings PS3s total as $550 Million smackaroos

If you assume they are all the $600 models... the total price jumps up to $660 million clams.

 

So... the wii has made roughly $475 million

The PS3 anywhere between $550-660 million

 

Now... we all know the PS3 is going to be taking a hit in profit because of production costs. I am unsure what that amount is.

But... isn't it safe to say, Sony is still holding grounds thus far?

 

I think most companies are banking their profits in software sales. That's where you get ahead of the game. Right now, the Wii has a few great games. Most notable the new Zelda.

 

PS3 is not a slouch in this area. They have a few great games as well, with two very huge blockbusters on the way: MG 4 (September??) and FF (DEC).

So to say they are really losing this battle... wouldn't that be a moot point? To me they are still swimming very well with their heads above water.

 

Also... to complain about the price of the PS3 as compared to XBOX 360... isn't that a moot point as well? I mean, what's the cost of the XBOX 360? $499? Then add in extra cost for the $199 HD dvd player... doesn't that push it above the cost of the PS3? I may be wrong on the cost of the 360... not really sure. And yes... I know the entire thread may reek of fanboy-isms... but I'm just looking at the numbers and I really don't see a big difference. Aside from that, with XBOX charging $200 for the HD DVD Player... isn't this just like DS owners buying stuff to add features to their DS that the PSP already had (yet they snickered at PSP for having such features in the beginning)?

 

Yes... fanboyish... but I have been trying to actually analyze this without a pure SONY perspective point. I'm just wondering why they get all of the heat and if it is really deserved (Granted I do understand those standing on the top recieve the harshest words from critics).

 

Opinions?

That's some fuzzy, fuzzy math. Sony lost money overall, period, while Nintendo made money overall. As penny-arcade would say, that isn't the difference between, say $1 million and $2 million. That is the difference between infinity and the void.

 

One could say that Ford is more profitable than Walmart if the per-unit average were simply multiplied by units sold, but that is clearly not true.

 

As for the "you need to add things to the 360 to make it a PS3" argument, well, that's pretty circular reasoning:

 

The PS3 sells for so much because of all the stuff that's added on that haven't exactly been leading to PS3's flying off the shelf, because of the associated price increase to include the aforementioned things. If Microsoft wanted to be equally unsuccessful selling 360s, they would have to add things to the console which would cost more money, making them sell poorly too. However, if they added those things they'd have to do similar math to what Sony did, and would, in all likelihood, end up at the same price as the PS3. As they decided to give consumers the choice to buy things individually if they wanted them, those things aren't produced in such a bulk, and need their own packaging and distribution, so they cost more. Thus, if you now try to make a PS3 out of a 360 it will cost more. However, if the 360 were a PS3, it obviously would not be selling well, as it would cost more, losing the 360's main marketing advantage, leading me to ask, who cares? If you want something that is basically a PS3, then buy a PS3. Given the numbers Sony is currently putting up, it appears few people really want a PS3. There is no reason to figure out what a 360 would cost were it a PS3 anymore than it is necessary to consider how much the PS3 would cost if one wanted to make it into a space shuttle. The 360 is a 360, and costs what a 360 costs. If I wanted the PS3 to have a Wiimote it would cost me a mint, in research and development costs alone. So what?

[Gabriel]

Given the numbers Sony is currently putting up, it appears few people really want a PS3.

 

Yeah, just 1,100,000. And they want it enough to spend a minimum of $550,000,000. Only a tiny few.

[Atarifever]

Given the numbers Sony is currently putting up, it appears few people really want a PS3.

 

Yeah, just 1,100,000. And they want it enough to spend a minimum of $550,000,000. Only a tiny few.

Yep, just 1,100,000. You're right, that is pretty shitty. Good call Gabriel. I especially think it must be pretty bad considering that with Sony, chances are, that's units shipped. And that's the people who are Sony fans or hardcore gamers. Wow. And here it is halfway through March. Yikes.

 

The combined dollars spent on it is pretty meaningless. If the argument is that the PS3 is too much you like to point out that, really, for what it is it is pretty cheap. Now your argument seems to have miraculously shifted to "and they liked it enough to spend THIS MUCH, when you consider the price, that's pretty great."

Edited March 20, 2007 by Atarifever

[Hyper_Eye]

This thread is sad... in it's numbers and in it's reasoning.

 

Nintendo makes money when they sell a console and Sony loses money. This money is made up in software royalties... and that requires software. Sony has barely started the race and I have no doubt that they will be profitable in the end but it remains to be seen if it will be to the extent of the PS2. The announcements yesterday about DMC4 and Ace Combat (as well as the already known non-exclusivity of RE5) has not been in the favor of PS3.

 

The cost of the 360 core unit is $299 and the cost of the premium is $399. Making the premium $499 would match it up with the cost of the 20g PS3 which would make the price argument less of an argument. The difference between the high-end models is $200 which is the cost of the HD-DVD addon. The difference between the two is choice. The decision to make the HD-DVD drive an add-on was the smartest move MS made with the console. If someone wants to make a HD media player out of their 360 they can. For those that just want a game console they saved $200 by having that choice. You can mark this in the PS3 category if you want but I see this as a plus for the 360 without a doubt.

 

I will give you the storage argument as you are correct that the PS3 has got the 360 beat in this category... for now. For the money there better be more storage.

 

The idea that XBox Live and Sony's online concept are equal is ridiculous. MS has been working on and improving XBox Live for a long time and it shows in the end product. When I got XBox Live on day 1 it was already light years beyond what the other consoles tried to provide for online gaming and it is now light years beyond what it was. Sony may get there but I don't see a comparison in this category.

 

The XBox 360 controller is one of the best controllers I have ever used. It is comfortable even after hours of play and the battery life is good. Including the recharge feature with the PS3 is a nice bonus but I don't think it wins this category for the PS3. Sony has stuck with the same general controller design since the PS1 and it sucks as much today as it did then (for me anyway.) The controllers feel small, cheap, and the left analog stick is still on the wrong place. For FPS games MS has the controller down perfectly and it works well in most other situations I have experienced as well. Forced Feedback (rumble) is here to stay and Sony's decision to exclude it (besides the lawsuit) is simply beyond me. As for the motion sensing I have a Wii which was completely built on this feature and it does it well. This is what I enjoy about the Wii. Would I want my 360 to work this way? Not at all. I hope MS doesn't go this route with their next console as that will be a negative for them imo.

 

MS blew it on BC. PS3 has MS beat on BC BUT Wii has the PS3 beat. Better to come in second then last but sometimes you have to come in first to win overall.

 

I see PS3 stealing a lot from the other consoles and trying to be the console for everyone. In the process they are doing a lot of things the other consoles are doing but not as well. The PS3 motion sensing controller can't compare to Wii's and the online features don't compare to 360's (and we will see if PS3's Mii feature... as that is exactly what it is... will have the same success it has had on the Wii.) MS is releasing a limited edition 360 and then replacing the premium with an upgraded console that will make the PS3 have even less advantages. The old argument was 1080p but that argument is moot now as the 360 will output 1080p over component and will soon have hdmi. The media storage will also be moot with the 360's 120GB hdd. When the machine replaces the premium unit I believe it will still be $399. Let's see if the PS3 price is dropped then (I doubt it.) Right now I simply see no reason to purchase a PS3. I hope something will make it worth it. Some of this is my opinion and you can view at as you will (fanboys are hopeless so I don't expect you to think highly of it) and some of this is fact. Ignore the facts if you want. It makes you sleep better I'm sure.

[Gabriel]

Since you seem at least willing to discuss...

 

Nintendo makes money when they sell a console and Sony loses money. This money is made up in software royalties... and that requires software. Sony has barely started the race and I have no doubt that they will be profitable in the end but it remains to be seen if it will be to the extent of the PS2. The announcements yesterday about DMC4 and Ace Combat (as well as the already known non-exclusivity of RE5) has not been in the favor of PS3.

 

So, you feel that the fact that customers have spent much more money total in supporting the PS3 thus far is an inconsequential bit of trivia about the market?

 

I completely disagree. The sales of the Wii are surprising, but money-wise customers are casting a decided vote that they want the HD experience (PS3 and X360) rather than a pointer controller.

 

And I was quite stunned to learn that Namco/Bandai is moving such a cornerstone PS franchise to the X360.

 

The cost of the 360 core unit is $299 and the cost of the premium is $399. Making the premium $499 would match it up with the cost of the 20g PS3 which would make the price argument less of an argument. The difference between the high-end models is $200 which is the cost of the HD-DVD addon. The difference between the two is choice. The decision to make the HD-DVD drive an add-on was the smartest move MS made with the console. If someone wants to make a HD media player out of their 360 they can. For those that just want a game console they saved $200 by having that choice. You can mark this in the PS3 category if you want but I see this as a plus for the 360 without a doubt.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying at the start of this, because I did state the X360 premium was priced at $400, not $500 as you seem to be insinuating. I think you're crossing the initial post and mine.

 

And yes, the X360 offered a valid choice. The two PS3 bundles offered a bit less valid one. However, I think it's safe to say that for many people one of these machines will be their entry into playing an HD video format. With the PS3, they already have it. With the 360, they'll have to upgrade later.

 

 

The idea that XBox Live and Sony's online concept are equal is ridiculous. MS has been working on and improving XBox Live for a long time and it shows in the end product. When I got XBox Live on day 1 it was already light years beyond what the other consoles tried to provide for online gaming and it is now light years beyond what it was. Sony may get there but I don't see a comparison in this category.

 

I suppose this is something of a matter of opinion. Then again, you have to pay extra to get anything out of Live. That's why I said the PS3 matched it on this point. It may not be as slick, but it's free.

 

The XBox 360 controller is one of the best controllers I have ever used. It is comfortable even after hours of play and the battery life is good. Including the recharge feature with the PS3 is a nice bonus but I don't think it wins this category for the PS3. Sony has stuck with the same general controller design since the PS1 and it sucks as much today as it did then (for me anyway.) The controllers feel small, cheap, and the left analog stick is still on the wrong place. For FPS games MS has the controller down perfectly and it works well in most other situations I have experienced as well. Forced Feedback (rumble) is here to stay and Sony's decision to exclude it (besides the lawsuit) is simply beyond me.

 

I think you're wrong on this point in every way that can possibly matter. While the X360 controller is a vast improvement over the craptacular ones for the original XBox, they are still uncomfortable and unweildy things compared to the Playstation controller design. The fact that the PS controller design has remained so stable for the past generations is an advantage, not a hindrance. When you've got something that works well, don't throw it away.

 

I'll agree to disagree on this point if you will.

 

 

MS blew it on BC. PS3 has MS beat on BC BUT Wii has the PS3 beat. Better to come in second then last but sometimes you have to come in first to win overall.

 

And the PS3 can still play about 1,000 more games than the Wii with it's 2nd place backwards compatibility. So, I say it definitely wins overall.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Gabriel

[Hyper_Eye]

Since you seem at least willing to discuss...

 

So, you feel that the fact that customers have spent much more money total in supporting the PS3 thus far is an inconsequential bit of trivia about the market?

 

I completely disagree. The sales of the Wii are surprising, but money-wise customers are casting a decided vote that they want the HD experience (PS3 and X360) rather than a pointer controller.

 

And I was quite stunned to learn that Namco/Bandai is moving such a cornerstone PS franchise to the X360.

 

I don't think it is insignificant at all. I do think it is less significant then what is being implied. The core fan base will always be there and I am not surprised at all by the number of units sold. The core fan base will always be first in line for a product. Sony's fan base is nothing if not large and loyal. But, the core fan base can only carry you so far. It seems that Nintendo is reaching a much larger audience. I have personally had conversations with people that haven't had a console in a long time if ever and they state they "have" to have one... as soon as they can find one that is. I have had conversations with Sony fans that are less then enthusiastic about the PS3 (and some of those are quite enthusiastic about the Wii.) Of course I have walked into a game store and heard the fanboys making their arguments for the PS3 (some of it factual and a lot of it made up junk.) As I said things remain to be seen. I personally believe the Wii sales will slow down and in the end they will do better then they did with the Gamecube but not by as great a margin as people are speculating. With the PS3 I don't know. They have a lot up their sleeves due to the success of the PS1 and PS2 but I think they are at their most vulnerable at this moment.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying at the start of this, because I did state the X360 premium was priced at $400, not $500 as you seem to be insinuating. I think you're crossing the initial post and mine.

 

I did not intend to cross the initial post and yours. I stated pretty clearly in the first sentence of my post that my reply was aimed at this thread in general. This was meant for the OP. A lot of my post was a response to you as I felt it was the only post (besides the arguments to the OP) that was reasonable and could be replied to without just laughing.

 

And yes, the X360 offered a valid choice. The two PS3 bundles offered a bit less valid one. However, I think it's safe to say that for many people one of these machines will be their entry into playing an HD video format. With the PS3, they already have it. With the 360, they'll have to upgrade later.

 

I agree that people who purchase a PS3 will be introduced to HD movies with the PS3. I don't think it will do that for most people. I think selling HD movies to people is going to be a lot harder then it was for DVD's. Most people just don't care (I care but I am a tech geek.) But, the video game market is huge and for people looking for a game console the price point of the 360 is attractive.

 

I suppose this is something of a matter of opinion. Then again, you have to pay extra to get anything out of Live. That's why I said the PS3 matched it on this point. It may not be as slick, but it's free.

 

Taking away the price of 360 the winner in this category is obvious. The question becomes how much you care about the online system of the console. Is it worth the price? For many it is. Some people don't care about online play and for these people they could care less. Good thing the 360 dosn't make you pay for it. With the free silver account you can get downloads and such without paying.

 

I think you're wrong on this point in every way that can possibly matter. While the X360 controller is a vast improvement over the craptacular ones for the original XBox, they are still uncomfortable and unweildy things compared to the Playstation controller design. The fact that the PS controller design has remained so stable for the past generations is an advantage, not a hindrance. When you've got something that works well, don't throw it away.

 

I'll agree to disagree on this point if you will.

 

The controller design is definitely a matter of opinion and it really can't be argued. I don't like it personally and would take a stomach (original XBox controller) over a PS controller. The S Controller and the 360 controller, in my opinion, are close to perfect. I do think whether or not the motion sensing should have been included can be argued and I would argue against it. I think they should have left it out and done whatever they needed to to retain forced feedback.

 

And the PS3 can still play about 1,000 more games than the Wii with it's 2nd place backwards compatibility. So, I say it definitely wins overall.

 

You could say that Wii has been made compatible with all previous Nintendo consoles as well as the TG16 and Genesis. This gives them a huge library to use. I feel this is a bit of a stretch but it is how a lot of people see it. Plus they have almost 100% compatibility with GC (I don't know what the percentage is and it could be 100 for all I know.) I would like to see how good the BC is on the PS3 when they switch to software emulation.

[Atarifever]

Since you seem at least willing to discuss...

 

Nintendo makes money when they sell a console and Sony loses money. This money is made up in software royalties... and that requires software. Sony has barely started the race and I have no doubt that they will be profitable in the end but it remains to be seen if it will be to the extent of the PS2. The announcements yesterday about DMC4 and Ace Combat (as well as the already known non-exclusivity of RE5) has not been in the favor of PS3.

 

So, you feel that the fact that customers have spent much more money total in supporting the PS3 thus far is an inconsequential bit of trivia about the market?

 

I completely disagree. The sales of the Wii are surprising, but money-wise customers are casting a decided vote that they want the HD experience (PS3 and X360) rather than a pointer controller.

 

 

So when the PS2 is blowing the others out of the water, it's total unit sales that count. When the PSP is beaten by the DS in sales, you claim that the fact that it is doing less than 100% terrible, despite poor marketing by Sony, shows how much the market needs the system. When the PS3 sales are in third place you say that total money spent means that consumers are actually behind it? Wow, those are some very different standards.

 

The money-wise arguement makes no sense. You're comparing something that costs $250 to something that costs between $400 and $500. You have no way of comparing the sales of the systems were the Wii $400. Thus, you believe the PS3 is geting customer support simply because it costs more. You're using a pre-consumer statistic to measure sales success. Also, if anything consumers are showing that their preference is for the 360 and not the HD generation in general. In order to think they are supporting PS3 you really have to be trying to see it that way.

[AtariJr]

the dreamcast sold well too money wise... then it landed in the toilet, and that system at least had good exclusives and didnt have games leaving the exclusive list all the time before it faded away. sorry, but being a fan of oh too many dead systems i have to agree with my roomate on this one... its sega all over again...its a one two punch, the failing handheld that was better but higher price (gamegear-psp) and the uneventful system/s that followed. while if sony was sega, we woudl see a ps4, but many people forget that before the ps3 was released, they said that if a playstation system ever started to go to the way of the do do, they would pull the plug on the "playstation" name and not let a failure in one dept ruin thier name for all thier other products. in short, if they see the playstation consoles and handhelds going downhil .. like really bad downhill, which could be coming.. theyd not continue the line as they dont want to let that failure take down the whole company. just something to chew on and my two cents. in the beginning, i would have said the ps3 would have done decent, but if this exclusive thing keeps happening to ps3, it doesnt matter what system is better/cheaper... cuase if there are no games to play then its worth jack squat.

 

i do have one wish though. i hope that if the ps3 does go down , that at least the 360 at that time isnt a giant overheating red ring pos. its pretty much scared me into waiting for the new chip to be in the systems before a purchase of that console... and as i want one in warrenty just in case, id NEVER buy this console used.

 

in the end, i see a lot of francises going the 360 and wii way.. if this keeps happening many people will see the ps3 is not worth the price tag anymore. like i said, all i need is kingdom hearts 3 to go 360 or wii, and the ps3 just lost the main exclusives i care about (armored core, devil may cry, ace combat, and soon to be virtua fighter)

[Hyper_Eye]

The last post made me think of a quote from Sony Corp. CEO Howard Stringer in which he actually praises the Wii and mentions the possibility of the PS3 failing:

 

"Wii is a wonderful device," said Stringer. "But has a different target audience. If we fail, it is because we positioned PS3 as the Mercedes of the video game field."

 

I think his choice of words is quite interesting. With the major negative of the PS3 being it's high price tag he actually admits that the price tag could be it's failure by equating it to the Mercedes of game consoles. I believe that Sony would pull the plug on the PS line if it started causing losses and served to degrade the image of Sony. I think the success of Blu-Ray would go with it. Without the PS3 studios would be switching to HD-DVD so fast people would forget there was ever competition at all.

 

Link

[cimerians]

Sony still owns the marketshare based on PS2 install base and the PS3 wont be behind too long either.

 

The mistake Sony made in my opinion is the Blue-Ray player (which hiked the price up, doesnt anyone at Sony remember 3DO?) and what microsoft did.

 

Blue Ray:

Lets face it, right now and from what I see in the future year in regards to gaming, all it provides is just some more additional space.

 

Microsoft:

Microsoft proactively (I hate that word) established the future of consoles with their xbox dashboard and xbox Live. Sony realized this too late and now is emulating them with there Playstation network and weak PSP looking dashboard. (Although Home is looking very good)

 

I still like Sony and the PS3. The PS3 itself is a remarkable peice of hardware. I play most PS1 games on it (that I care about). I also play PS2 games on it and if I want I can go out and buy a Blue-Ray movie. It also has a lot of future potential.

 

BUT

 

Right now, I'd have to say that the machine I have the most fun out of is the WII and then maybe the 360 only because the PS3 simply doesnt have many worthwile games. But that will change.

 

I predict Microsoft will eventually win the market in the U.S.

[misspent_youth]

I think that towards the end of the current generation of consoles (s/b 5 years or so, right?), the additional storage available on the Blu-Ray disc will be a definite advantage for the PS3. Microsoft has gambled on standard DVD length games, stating that it has no intention of producing or even allowing games to be played on its HD-DVD add-on. This may change if the extra storage does come to be a factor, but it will hurt MSFT because people will have to buy a HD-DVD add-on to play certain games.

 

Also, IMO, Nintendo will have a super-strong showing with the Wii, attracting even more non-gamers to the machine, but I question the ability of any console to convert non-gamers to anything more than casual gamers. The casual gamers may end up with 5 games for the system, and play it 2-3 times a month, but I don't think that by itself will push Nintendo over the top.

 

Fortunately for Nintendo, it seems that there is more than enough demand from current gamers to guarantee that they don't finish with a showing anywhere near as bad as the GC.

 

I think one of the Hi-Def systems will come out on top, as the graphical eye-candy will prove more enduring than Wii's new user interface. I also think that history will look back kindly on Wii as a turning point in gaming, where UI became a focal point for game developers.

[AtariJr]

I think that towards the end of the current generation of consoles (s/b 5 years or so, right?), the additional storage available on the Blu-Ray disc will be a definite advantage for the PS3.

 

this is actually a very interesting point. hate to use the dreamcast as an example again, but history does tend to repeat itself. the dreamcast primarily lost not because of a lack of decent graphics, but because of the gdrom. i think that , while the demand for a blue ray player isnt like the dvd player of a ps2/xbox, i DO think that , lik ethe ps2, games will slowly migrate from needing only dvd space to blue ray (like cd to dvd), thus making ports of these games to dvd playing systems like the 360 harder or impossible. for instance if the dreamcast lived longer, it would have faced many of these porting problems as many of the games simply wouldnt fit on the disk. while games like dead or alive were alright, i doubt a game like resident evil 4 could have fit on a gdrom.

Edited March 21, 2007 by AtariJr

[JB]

Actually I got it at 165 million loss. LOL

 

So... the real profits could be $385-495 million

 

So... in all reality... not too far behind in sales (console wise that is)

 

As for software sales... it should catch up quite a bit this year with the big name games coming.

The REAL profits?

How can they HAVE profit when they have a loss?

For this comparison, you take retail price, and subtract the cost of manufacture. If the result is positive, you have profit. If it's negative, you have loss. You can't subtract losses from profits on the same sale, because you can't HAVE a profit and a loss on a single sale.

 

They sell the system for less than it costs to make it. WHERE is the profit coming from?

It is IMPOSSIBLE to turn a profit on the PS3 hardware until the retail price goes up or the hardware cost goes down.

 

They LOSE money with every PS3 they make. NONE of it comes back.

 

 

 

Since I can't stand seriously bad math, I'll re-run the numbers...

 

The PS3 loses 150-200 per unit. That means they cost 150-200 more to make than they retail for. There is no subtracting of losses from profit, as there is no profit to subtract from.

I'll take the lower value of -150 per unit.

 

-$150 * 1.1 million = -$165 million.

 

So Sony has LOST 165 million dollars selling PS3s.

 

The Wii turns a profit. That's undisputed fact.

Probably about $60 per unit, from what I've heard.

As I understand things, Nintendo thought they could turn a profit at $200, but retailers were worried it'd be perceived as "cheap", so they bumped the price. I assume about $10 profit at the $200 level.

 

So...

+$60 * 1.9million = +$114 million.

 

Now it's basic addition and subtraction from here.

 

The profit difference between the PS3 and Wii is

114 million

--165 milion.

 

Subtracting a negative means you're actually adding, so the distance between the two is

114 million

+165 million.

 

That equals 279 million.

 

That's a MUCH bigger gap than either of your numbers, assuming the profit/loss values are correct.

It also ignores the fact that Nintendo is on the right side of the number line, and Sony is on the left side.

Sony is losing money per unit sold, Nintendo is making money per unit sold.

 

 

 

And backing up to your first post...

 

I think most companies are banking their profits in software sales. That's where you get ahead of the game. Right now, the Wii has a few great games. Most notable the new Zelda.

 

PS3 is not a slouch in this area. They have a few great games as well, with two very huge blockbusters on the way: MG 4 (September??) and FF (DEC).

So to say they are really losing this battle... wouldn't that be a moot point? To me they are still swimming very well with their heads above water.

You're ignoring something. Nintendo is seeing profit mainly from software sales. Sony is seeing profit mainly from software LICENSING.

 

Think about it: the Wii must-haves are Nintendo brands(the holy trinity of Zelda, Metroid, and Mario).

Most of the PS3 must-haves AREN'T Sony brands(Metal Gear, Devil May Cry(now headed to 360), Final Fantasy).

 

Nintendo makes much more per 1st-party game than Sony does per 3rd-party game, because there's only one hand in Nintendo's cookie jar.

And they're guaranteed a better sale rate. Most of the people that own Wiis probably own them for ZeldaMetroidMario.

Resistance may have good penetration now, but it won't hold up.

 

 

I quote upcoming Wii games because you quote upcoming PS3 games.

[Gabriel]

Firstly, I don't believe the widely spread lie that consoles are sold at a loss. Every calculation I've ever seen regarding consoles being sold at a loss is based on full retail markup of the parts in question. As far as I'm concerned, consoles being sold at a loss is a concept latched hold of by the console manufacturers as a propaganda tool. It makes people think they're buying more than they paid for. It's also a tool which has been prepped for the eventual move of consoles to rental set top boxes.

 

But, conspiracy or not, the fact that a lot of money has been spent by consumers on the PS3 is not the be-all-end-all. It is however, important to look at, especially when combined with X360 sales of the same period. Overall, consumers are tossing their money at the PS3 and X360. Despite the high prices, the volume of money is going with the HD consoles.

 

The same thing may or may not have happened with the Dreamcast. I couldn't find any numbers quickly, but the ones I did find indicated the Dreamcast was outselling the PS2 early on. Yet, the volume of money spent on the PS2 was greater. I think I recall reading that the Dreamcast at that point was making money for Sega, and the legend is that the PS2 was losing Sony bucketloads of money. Yet, Sega bit it.

 

If I was an exec, I'd definitely find this little bit of trivia interesting. It's not about profit at this point. It's about how the votes are being cast, and a vote cast with $600 is more valid than a vote cast with $250. The question is how to turn that trivia into something useful and turn it from an alleged loss to a profit.

 

I've said it before in another thread, but the irony of the whole matter is that I really think the X360 is the winner of the moment. The difference is that I don't feel the PS3 is the utter failure which several of you are so eager to write it off as. Several of you are acting like its the N-Gage or something.

 

Hell, even when I thought the X360 was going to be a flop, I said that the proper launch of the console wasn't actually it's launch, we should look at it the following Christmas. It's past the following Christmas, and the X360 is healthy and a strong competitor.

[EricDeLee]

 

Resistance may have good penetration now, but it won't hold up.

 

 

Well actually... they do say actual penetration only lasts for an average of 7 and 1/2 minutes. Wait a sec.... Oh nevermind. I'm on atariage... not my dysfunctional group forum.

[Atarifever]

 

If I was an exec, I'd definitely find this little bit of trivia interesting. It's not about profit at this point. It's about how the votes are being cast, and a vote cast with $600 is more valid than a vote cast with $250. The question is how to turn that trivia into something useful and turn it from an alleged loss to a profit.

 

 

No a $600 vote is not more important than a $250 vote. Developers don't develop for the cost-units sold ratio-- they develop for people who own systems. The argument is so ridicules that I can't believe you're still trying to defend it. If only 1 PS3 were ever sold but it went for 1 billion dollars, and developers were still selling for somewhere in the range of $50-70 a game, then they wouldn't develop games for the PS3 would they? Your arguement says that it is more important that Sony sold 1 one billion dollar system than that the Wii sold 5 million. And you think "execs" would agree with you? Right, because they hate money.

 

And before you get started on your "at this stage" speech, look at the "exclusive" PS3 games going to the 360. I think your mysterious "execs" are casting their votes already. If Sony is ever going to sell systems, it'd be at launch when they still had those games 'locked down". If anything, this is the best time for the PS3, so I'm hardly swayed by the 'but it's early" argument". Early is when we should be most impressed with their chances.

Edited March 21, 2007 by Atarifever

[EricDeLee]

Wasn't Oblivian going to be an exclusive 360 game. I think that one swayed over to PS3... and from the sounds of it, it will be a better version. Not trying to star anything new... but I think it is a trend nowadays for some of these exclusive titles to go to the other consoles. Obviously, we can't have Mario sent over to PS3... or Zelda. I don't think just because xbox 360 gets a game that was exclusive to PS3 6 months later... that it means PS3 is failing all of a sudden.

 

I just think it is the trend nowadays.

 

Hell... Why would a 3rd party software company only want to make a game for ONE console when the money is there from three difrferent console supporters? Bad idea just to stick to one. Great idea to sign a contract to make it exclusive for about 6 months... and then right before Xmas time... the other consoles get there share of the fun. Lots of extra money for the 3rd party.

[EricDeLee]

I think Tempest said it best in a recent Wii post regarding the Wii and how I feel about Nintendo:

 

"I'm not sure how the Wii will age, but for right now it's alot of fun. I don't think it will be my console of choice for playing serious games (like RPG's or adventure games), but for party and mini-games it seems to be king. The Wii was worth the $250, and I strongly recommend it to anyone who is looking for something a bit different. "

 

 

It won't be my go to system. I think it is a system for the kiddos to play... while I'm messing with my PSP and the PS3

 

Or... well... my Lynx. LOL

[EricDeLee]

Btw... where is there a solid link that states that MGS 4 is going to Xbox the day it releases?

 

from the internet.....

 

 

"Konami has no plans to bring Metal Gear Solid 4 to the Xbox 360 at this time," a Konami representative told CVG. The spokesman reiterated that Guns of the Patriots is "exclusive to PlayStation 3."

 

We have heard similar responses from game publishers in the past because they have signed time exclusive agreements with console manufacturers that force them to deny other platforms until the time exclusive ends. Will that be the case with Konami and Metal Gear Solid 4? Time will tell.

Edited March 21, 2007 by EricDeLee

[Mendon]

And before you get started on your "at this stage" speech, look at the "exclusive" PS3 games going to the 360. I think your mysterious "execs" are casting their votes already. If Sony is ever going to sell systems, it'd be at launch when they still had those games 'locked down". If anything, this is the best time for the PS3, so I'm hardly swayed by the 'but it's early" argument". Early is when we should be most impressed with their chances.

 

You may be right on this point, but I tend to disagree with your reasoning.

 

I really don't think that ANY previously exclusive game franchise going to another system is a vote by the developer for which system is better or which system will sell the most units. I believe that the reason that games like MGS, RE, AC4, etc are no longer exclusive is simply developers trying to recoup as much of their development costs as they can. Sell as many copies of a game as you can and profits go up.

 

I tend to believe that developers have looked at the cost of making their titles and said "Why limit ourselves to just selling 2 million copies of our game. If we invest a little more into the development budget and port our title to all three systems, we'll sell 6 million copies and make a bigger profit".

 

Example: UBISoft and Rayman: Raving Rabbits. Rayman came out for the Nintendo systems and is also available for the 360, PS2, and PC. Would it have been more profitable for UBISoft to develop Rayman exclusive to the Nintendo systems and develop another game for the PS2-PC-360 or to just port Rayman to all of the gaming systems?

 

With the price of game developement going higher and higher, I would think that the companies are porting games out simply to increase sales and profits, not as a vote of confidence in any one system manufacturer.

 

It may have been why many games didn't appear on the Gamecube... the cost of even porting the game from the XB or PS2 wouldn't have been made up by actual GC game sales. Little or no profit.. ignore it.

 

 

 

Mendon

[MCHufnagel]

It may have been why many games didn't appear on the Gamecube... the cost of even porting the game from the XB or PS2 wouldn't have been made up by actual GC game sales. Little or no profit.. ignore it.

 

 

 

Mendon

 

That may have been true for the most part, but it doesn't explain why games that sold best on the Gamecube (Soul Caliber II and Godzilla Destroy All Monsters Melee) didn't have the follow up games also on the Gamecube. Although I did hear that Sony paid Namco for the exculsive rights to Soul Caliber III.