Sony is actually losing money because of the decisions they made regarding the PS3.
The combined materials and manufacturing cost of the PlayStation 3 is $805.85 for the model equipped with a 20Gbyte Hard Disk Drive (HDD), and $840.35 for the 60Gbyte HDD version. This total doesn’t include additional costs for elements including the controller, cables and packaging. At these costs, Sony is taking a considerable loss on each PlayStation 3 sold. Materials and manufacturing costs for the 20Gbyte model exceed the suggested retail price of $499 by a total of $306.85. For the 60Gbyte version, costs exceed the $599 price by $241.35. With Sony taking a smaller loss on the higher-end model, it’s not a surprise the company is steering customers to the 60Gbyte version.
not to burst your bubble, but console makers have traditionally lost loads on producing their systems. licensed games are their saving points, it’s how they get their money back. it’s been like that for a while. granted, bad games normally spell death for the company, like Sega and their Dreamcast (best system ever, and you know it!!), so they might go in the red a bit, but a good library would help them bounce back. remember, games always make the difference.
Well as MattH said, Sony’s losses may only be temporary. We’ll have to see how it goes with the software part of the console wars. I didn’t know that video game companies had losses at the beginning of console launches, thanks for the enlightenment MattH. The Dreamcast did rock!
Anyway, there really hasn’t been an official “owning” of any company, I just wanted to throw that in there for a dramatic effect = )
whoa. how old are you, anyway? I was born into the NES era, with classics such as “A Boy and His Blob” and “Maniac Mansion” (which retailed for $50 back in the day, btw :p). Now that was a realconsole with worthwhile games. :eyebrowlift:
Now they start to deliver even stripped down PS3 versions to europe. In contrary to the first ones and the ones the Japanese are still getting, they are stripped of the PS2 chip. So one has to run his old PS2 games via software emulation which is obviously slower and less compatible. Somebody really wants to drive the PS3 car into the pit.:rolleyes:
You have to remember that development of the PS3 was side by side with two other technologies, both of which could end up being major sources of income - Blu-Ray and the Cell processor.
Sony can afford to take a hit on the PS3 if the either of these technologies catches on in the mainstream (consoles vs DVD players or PCs are small fry).
If the next generation of revised architecture PCs start shipping with Cell derived processors and Blu-Ray drives then Sony and their partners won’t give a flying * about the PS3 losses.
AMD are already saying that their next generation will involve specific purpose chips rather than an all powerful multi purpose CPU, and if the market is headed that way, then established tech like the Cell could be very licensable (not really a word).
At the moment the PS3 is just a very expensive technology demo, that is as much about interesting other companies as gamers.
The Wii is an overclocked Gamecube with a gimmiky controller.
The 360 is an underpowered PC with overheating issues.
Crysis - the most beautiful game that has been developed so far - and the most Next Gen game ever - will not be released on the 360 because ‘it isn’t powerful enough’ to do it any justice - so much would be lost that it wouldn’t be the same game. I doubt the PS3 is powerful enough either. The Wii is 10 miles and a galaxy away from running it.
Some superconsoles them.
When I need my PC powerful enough to run that game it’ll cost less than the price of a console to upgrade it. It always does.
It was only a matter of time, since Microsoft got in to the whole gaming arena. That basically marked the end of the PlayStation franchise.
Don’t misunderstand me, I hate Microsoft with a passion, but there is something to be said about their business practices…well yes, “ruthless” would probably sum it up, but also “sharp” would be a valid word to use.
Now, I’m not saying that the SONY guys are business morons (ahem), but seriously - “blu-ray”, what were they thinking? I mean yea, it’s a great storage medium, but the technology is too expensive, and more importantly, it’s completelly unnecessary (XBOX 360 uses a very sophisticated compression algorithm, so there is no space shortage in any forseable future, however even if that became a problem within the 360s life span, they could just use an online delivery system for all their software, because they definitelly have the network for it). The CELL processor was also a bust, because it was initially designed to act as a GPU, but they couldn’t get it working right in that respect, so they had to contract Nvidia to make the RSX.
it’s completelly unnecessary
Yes, for us but not for Sonny and their dev-teams. Try to copy them:no: I guess thats the part which they would never replace against something cheaper. Let the Users fight with a software emu instead.:evilgrin:
oh heck yes, 2 of the finest games ever there. However, I was born into the SNES/Gameboy era. Still got my A Boy and His Blob: Rescue of Princess Blobette cartridge here somewhere…
I liked the old Sega systems a lot. Sega Channel was the best thing to hit video games during it’s time. I would stay up for hours playing all the games = )