Sony Blows PlayStation 2 Earnings On PlayStation 3

Here's an interesting bit of trivia to toss out at your next social function: According to industry veteran Dave Perry, Sony has lost more money selling the PlayStation 3 than it made selling the PlayStation 2.

Perry, best known as the founder of Shiny Entertainment, made the statement at the Games Convention Developers Conference today, citing statistics gathered by DFC Intelligence. According to those numbers, Sony has blown more cash selling the PlayStation 3 at a loss than it made during the five peak years of PlayStation 2 sales, a figure some estimates put as high as $3 billion.

It's a staggering amount in some respects, but Perry pointed out that it represents a tremendous level of investment in the system that could extend the console's lifespan beyond even that of the still-kicking PlayStation 2. While DFC has predicted the Wii will be the "winner" of the current console wars, due largely to the fact that Nintendo has been able to sell the unit at a profit since it launched, the long-term potential of the PlayStation 3 could prove even more lucrative. If Sony is able to live up to its claims of a ten-year lifespan for the unit, it could very well end up recovering those losses, and maybe even make a few bucks on the thing before it's all over.

Perry didn't quote specific figures for the Xbox 360, but according to 1Up, the number is likely to be at least as great and quite possibly even higher, given that Microsoft had to eat $1 billion as a result of the Red Ring of Death fiasco. Making matters worse, the company had already choked down $4 billion on the original Xbox, and even with a war chest the size of Microsoft's, one $4 billion loss after another has to hurt.

Permalink

I thought we already knew this or was that something else with a similar title?

Well, the real reason for the PS3 is so that Sony could secure Blu-ray as the dominant media format. Sony is looking beyond 10 years with the PS3, in that regard.

Hmmm, I'm pretty sure those graphics will be ancient by 2018

Echolocating:
Well, the real reason for the PS3 is so that Sony could secure Blu-ray as the dominant media format. Sony is looking beyond 10 years with the PS3, in that regard.

And now that Blu-ray has been established as the Next Big Thing, they'll likely start doing much better, especially in 10 years or so when everybody has really big HD TVs. In other words, when it becomes economically feasible for that to happen. As for now, close to nobody is rich enough (or has mixed up enough priorities) to splurge on a TV that's good enough to even notice the difference between HD and SD.

Just wait until media comes on memory sticks.

Ouch. For both.

stompy:
Ouch. For both.

I'll say. That's a shitload of money. Kinda says something about big the games industry is getting, and how big it will get.

windfish:

Echolocating:
Well, the real reason for the PS3 is so that Sony could secure Blu-ray as the dominant media format. Sony is looking beyond 10 years with the PS3, in that regard.

And now that Blu-ray has been established as the Next Big Thing, they'll likely start doing much better, especially in 10 years or so when everybody has really big HD TVs. In other words, when it becomes economically feasible for that to happen. As for now, close to nobody is rich enough (or has mixed up enough priorities) to splurge on a TV that's good enough to even notice the difference between HD and SD.

http://www.krunker.com/2008/05/17/consumer-blu-ray-interest-is-lacking/

http://www.abiresearch.com/press/1203-Consumers+Delaying+Blu-ray+Player+Purchases

Two years later, and they may have defeated their enemy, but they're running out of steam to press on.
People just don't care about Blu-Ray.

You might see more interested in Blu-ray after the big broadcast swapover from analog to digital; if broadcast TV starts looking better than what's on DVD, that might (emphasis, *might*) spark a revival for Sony's HD format.

Honestly, though, given the lack of sales-surge after Toshiba's effort folded, I think that most people are buying HD screens because they're big and bright and not for any improvement in image quality.

-- Steve

Sony lost a crapload of money selling the PS3? Not for nothing, but didn't we already know this?

BobisOnlyBob:

windfish:

Echolocating:
Well, the real reason for the PS3 is so that Sony could secure Blu-ray as the dominant media format. Sony is looking beyond 10 years with the PS3, in that regard.

And now that Blu-ray has been established as the Next Big Thing, they'll likely start doing much better, especially in 10 years or so when everybody has really big HD TVs. In other words, when it becomes economically feasible for that to happen. As for now, close to nobody is rich enough (or has mixed up enough priorities) to splurge on a TV that's good enough to even notice the difference between HD and SD.

http://www.krunker.com/2008/05/17/consumer-blu-ray-interest-is-lacking/

http://www.abiresearch.com/press/1203-Consumers+Delaying+Blu-ray+Player+Purchases

Two years later, and they may have defeated their enemy, but they're running out of steam to press on.
People just don't care about Blu-Ray.

Keep in mind the switch to VHS to DVD, I don't think the switch took place in 2 years. People are always reluctant of change but eventually they accept it and try it.

countrysteaksauce:
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure those graphics will be ancient by 2018

Graphics have peaked. Seriously, PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, I can't tell the difference.

Jumplion:
Keep in mind the switch to VHS to DVD, I don't think the switch took place in 2 years. People are always reluctant of change but eventually they accept it and try it.

There was a much more noticable difference in quality between DVD and VHS. DVD was by the far the superior format and people could easily notice it. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray isn't as easily noticable as was the difference between DVD and VHS. As long as Blu-ray is more expensive and the difference in quality is only slight, it's doubtful that it would replace the old format.

Nazrel:

countrysteaksauce:
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure those graphics will be ancient by 2018

Graphics have peaked. Seriously, PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, I can't tell the difference.

There most definatly is a difference, however not enough for the extra $10 price point on every game. The games certainly play the same.

thedrop2zer0:

Jumplion:
Keep in mind the switch to VHS to DVD, I don't think the switch took place in 2 years. People are always reluctant of change but eventually they accept it and try it.

There was a much more noticable difference in quality between DVD and VHS. DVD was by the far the superior format and people could easily notice it. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray isn't as easily noticable as was the difference between DVD and VHS. As long as Blu-ray is more expensive and the difference in quality is only slight, it's doubtful that it would replace the old format.

It's the same basic situation, there were plenty of people who were reluctant to switch over to DVD and still tried to stay with VHS because it was more familiar and safe. The worlds evolving and eventually Blu-ray will become as standard as DVDs but certainly not over a 2 year time or even a 5 year time.

Besides, I think this situation is the same as the 360 and PS3 situation right now. 360 is only selling well in North America, and the PS3 is doing well everywhere else. To my knowledge (correct me if i'm wrong) Blu-ray has been doing better pretty much everywhere else.
After all, America's not so great at picking the winners. US took VHS when (I think) Betamax was the better choice, we chose Customary over Metric, we turned Football into Soccer, we took plenty of things that the rest of the world didn't.

I suppose it comes down to personal opinion then. If the rest of the world chooses Blu-ray, then that's great. But for me, I can't justify buying all of the movies that I already own again on a different format or upgrading my personal movie players again, for much more money this time, in order to watch new releases. If it comes down to it, I'll just stick with digital downloads. Cheaper and easier.

Jumplion:

Besides, I think this situation is the same as the 360 and PS3 situation right now. 360 is only selling well in North America, and the PS3 is doing well everywhere else. To my knowledge (correct me if i'm wrong) Blu-ray has been doing better pretty much everywhere else.
After all, America's not so great at picking the winners. US took VHS when (I think) Betamax was the better choice, we chose Customary over Metric, we turned Football into Soccer, we took plenty of things that the rest of the world didn't.

Blu-ray doing better otherplaces against what?US blu-ray sales? DVD is owning Blu-ray everywhere (95,000 more movies helps) and VHS won though they chose the winner.

countrysteaksauce:
Hmmm, I'm pretty sure those graphics will be ancient by 2018

I am still in awe when I look at God of War I & II. The fact that the games lack all those shiny effects on textures, bump this and parallax that and super detail... gives them something.

People you all need to look at a border view of things Sony isn't a video game company but a corporation...they lost the console war,but they didn't cut it off at the knees,because they don't want to sell ps3.They want to sell the format bluray.Which is now dominating any other next gen format.

shatnershaman:

Jumplion:

Besides, I think this situation is the same as the 360 and PS3 situation right now. 360 is only selling well in North America, and the PS3 is doing well everywhere else. To my knowledge (correct me if i'm wrong) Blu-ray has been doing better pretty much everywhere else.
After all, America's not so great at picking the winners. US took VHS when (I think) Betamax was the better choice, we chose Customary over Metric, we turned Football into Soccer, we took plenty of things that the rest of the world didn't.

Blu-ray doing better otherplaces against what?US blu-ray sales? DVD is owning Blu-ray everywhere (95,000 more movies helps) and VHS won though they chose the winner.

Umm..wait what? That proves my point even more how this is like the 360 and PS3 situation.

DVD had a I don't know how many years head start, let's say 10 years. Blu ray has been introduced (into the mainstream anyway) a little over 2 years ago (no, I do not care about PCs using BLu-ray drives, show me one game that required a BLu-ray disc on the PC) and I'll assume that Blu-ray did pretty good in it's first two yearsof market a little less or more than DVDs in their first two years.

And how did VHS win? And who chose the winner? From what I remember, Betamax was technically supirior than the VHS and the rest of the world got it except the US which went with the VHSs.

Jumplion:
And how did VHS win? And who chose the winner? From what I remember, Betamax was technically supirior than the VHS and the rest of the world got it except the US which went with the VHSs.

What the hell are you on about? Are you saying that Betamax won? If you are, I'd just like to point this out.

The bit I want to highlight is this: "Betamax and VHS competed in a fierce format war which saw VHS come out on top in most markets."

X3heartless:
People you all need to look at a border view of things Sony isn't a video game company but a corporation...they lost the console war,but they didn't cut it off at the knees,because they don't want to sell ps3.They want to sell the format bluray.Which is now dominating any other next gen format.

I never thought of it that way... makes sense actually. Even if the PS3 comes in last place (if, not saying it already has), Sony still reap in the dough buy marketing the thing as a Blu-ray player. Thanks for the insight.

Reminds me of something I learnt in my history class. Henry VIII spent all the money that his father, Henry VII, had saved up in the treasury.

Indigo_Dingo:
right, you do know it can also upscale the quality of DVD video even on some 5 year old TVs?

So can a $50 HD-DVD player and that has an IR port and better audio.

stompy:

Jumplion:
And how did VHS win? And who chose the winner? From what I remember, Betamax was technically supirior than the VHS and the rest of the world got it except the US which went with the VHSs.

What the hell are you on about? Are you saying that Betamax won? If you are, I'd just like to point this out.

The bit I want to highlight is this: "Betamax and VHS competed in a fierce format war which saw VHS come out on top in most markets."

Ah, my mistake. Must have been thinking of something else.

But for the Corporation thing, all the companies want to sell their items. It's called money, and that's the only thing their after. Nintedno just wants to sell their peripherals and casual friendly console to stupid parents and try to get more people into the business, Microsoft just wants you to buy their console, and Sony wants to promote Blu-ray which is pretty much the "next big thing" or whatever for developers to use in the future.

You can't single Sony out for trying to sell their stuff as all the other companies are trying to sell their stuff to people, it's business, it's money.

Jumplion:
But for the Corporation thing, all the companies want to sell their items. It's called money, and that's the only thing their after. Nintedno just wants to sell their peripherals and casual friendly console to stupid parents and try to get more people into the business, Microsoft just wants you to buy their console, and Sony wants to promote Blu-ray which is pretty much the "next big thing" or whatever for developers to use in the future.

You can't single Sony out for trying to sell their stuff as all the other companies are trying to sell their stuff to people, it's business, it's money.

I'm not trying to single out Sony, and I'm sorry if it came out that way. I was trying to say how Sony may try and market the PS3 as more than a console. Even if the PS3 isn't so successful as a games console, it can still be viable to Sony if it sells well as a Blu-ray player, furthering Sony's hold over the Blu-ray player market.

It's just another way to look at the article.

stompy:

Jumplion:
But for the Corporation thing, all the companies want to sell their items. It's called money, and that's the only thing their after. Nintedno just wants to sell their peripherals and casual friendly console to stupid parents and try to get more people into the business, Microsoft just wants you to buy their console, and Sony wants to promote Blu-ray which is pretty much the "next big thing" or whatever for developers to use in the future.

You can't single Sony out for trying to sell their stuff as all the other companies are trying to sell their stuff to people, it's business, it's money.

I'm not trying to single out Sony, and I'm sorry if it came out that way. I was trying to say how Sony may try and market the PS3 as more than a console. Even if the PS3 isn't so successful as a games console, it can still be viable to Sony if it sells well as a Blu-ray player, furthering Sony's hold over the Blu-ray player market.

It's just another way to look at the article.

Yes that is true. But on the other hand, that Blu-ray player is probably the reason they're claiming it could last up to 10 years, the PS2 is certainly nearing it's 10 year stretch.

Jumplion:

Yes that is true. But on the other hand, that Blu-ray player is probably the reason they're claiming it could last up to 10 years, the PS2 is certainly nearing it's 10 year stretch.

What has been released on the PS2 since 2007 that is of significance (Madden 08 and 09 don't count they are even on the original Xbox)

where the hell has this thread gone man?

We're talking about Ps3 and 360 losing money not beta max, for that matter this is better suited as 'Nintendo wins, thus cementing the phrase 'we're fucked'' As long as this thing continues all the fun and "innovation" we'll get is gimmicks and poor quality ones at that.

Stop bickering about PS3 vs. 360, and focus on how to sledge hammer Nintendo's balls so hard they can no longer reproduce a POS console again. and possibly say myiamoto from being gagged and forced to do the say old song and dance.

Oh I guess I got off track too but still it holds as much relevence as the other posts as to good consoles are dieing at the hands of shit.

also I'd like to state that I have no problem with casual it can be fun but if we have to sacrifice quality then why? I like casuals people as long as they have fun instead of just being sick of this.

Indigo_Dingo:
Guitar Hero 3, Guitar Hero Aerosmith, Rock Band, Lego Indiana Jones, The Force unleashed, Ghostbusters, Ratchet and Clank: Size Matters, and a fair amount of shared titles with the Wii.

GH3 and Rock band are 2007 and I don't see a single exclusive(RC:SM is a bad PSP port) or blockbuster in the rest of the bunch. God of War 2 was the end of those.

EDIT:I guess I set my self up with the Madden part, that was to hold of the Maddenites who maintain its a amazing yearly blockbuster.

I'm pretty sure they mean the money from the ps2 hardware sales was spent, that's not a lot of money considering most of the money comes from software

I did appreciate fuzzylandmine's comment, awesome.

Indingo's right about the multi titles, though. It's not like all of the other systems are shy about touting how great these games are, and atleast PS2 owners aren't left in the lurch.

CAB0SE:
I did appreciate fuzzylandmine's comment, awesome.

Indingo's right about the multi titles, though. It's not like all of the other systems are shy about touting how great these games are, and atleast PS2 owners aren't left in the lurch.

PS2 was left out of well almost everything (DMC4,GTA4,MGS4,RC:FTD,RE5,COD4 etc)