Sony PS3 - still costs 10% more than it sells for!!
15 May 2009, 03:53 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sony PS3 - still costs 10% more than it sells for!!
Sony CFO Nobuyuki Oneda noted recently that the PS3's cost is still 10 percent higher than the system's price, reports Andriasang.com. With the console's price differences in each region, if Oneda is talking about Japan, that would be approximately ¥4,000 ($42). In North America the same $40 loss would also hold true.
As bad as losing money on each console manufactured sounds, it used to be worse. Just a year ago the estimate was that Sony was losing over $100 per system.
As bad as losing money on each console manufactured sounds, it used to be worse. Just a year ago the estimate was that Sony was losing over $100 per system.
18 May 2009, 01:30 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Throughout the history of console developement, the story is littered with companies who've had a seemingly unasailable lead, then blown it on the next generation.
Atari blew it in the early 80's
Nintendo threw it away with the N64, burning their fingers further with gamecube
Sony released PS1 and marched into the lead, reinforcing that lead with PS2
Microsoft steals a march on PS3 and begins outselling it. Sony begin hemorrhages money including STILL losing money on each machine sold.
Nintendo strikes back with Wii, targetting a different market to Sony and MS
At some point you know as a manufacturer your going to lose SUBSTANTIAL money. The cost of developing a new machine is rising exponentially.
As a games developer, your costs are soarinng, including the provision for a PS3 programming team, Xbox360, Wii, etc...
I honestly think it's time they got their heads together instead of taking these massive risks, produce a common standard, in a similar vein to what Bill Gates tried with MSX back in the 80's.
Hardware developement budgets would be shared, allowing anyone who signed up to produce hardware to the agreed spec.
Software developement would be made easier, without need to port your game to different formats, reducing your overheads along the way.
The common standard would be revised at a set interval, every 5 years or whatever.
Atari blew it in the early 80's
Nintendo threw it away with the N64, burning their fingers further with gamecube
Sony released PS1 and marched into the lead, reinforcing that lead with PS2
Microsoft steals a march on PS3 and begins outselling it. Sony begin hemorrhages money including STILL losing money on each machine sold.
Nintendo strikes back with Wii, targetting a different market to Sony and MS
At some point you know as a manufacturer your going to lose SUBSTANTIAL money. The cost of developing a new machine is rising exponentially.
As a games developer, your costs are soarinng, including the provision for a PS3 programming team, Xbox360, Wii, etc...
I honestly think it's time they got their heads together instead of taking these massive risks, produce a common standard, in a similar vein to what Bill Gates tried with MSX back in the 80's.
Hardware developement budgets would be shared, allowing anyone who signed up to produce hardware to the agreed spec.
Software developement would be made easier, without need to port your game to different formats, reducing your overheads along the way.
The common standard would be revised at a set interval, every 5 years or whatever.
18 May 2009, 10:15 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would hate to see a merger like that, when there are set standards the speed of technical advancement decreases.
At IBM/Intel/AMD research labs they commonly set two teams up to work towards the same goal, but they are not allowed to discuss there achievements on the projects, what happens is they both produce what was required but by doing it completely different to one another, then the two combined is how we get a 'technical revelation'
There is a proper name for the method, but I can't remember it.
At IBM/Intel/AMD research labs they commonly set two teams up to work towards the same goal, but they are not allowed to discuss there achievements on the projects, what happens is they both produce what was required but by doing it completely different to one another, then the two combined is how we get a 'technical revelation'
There is a proper name for the method, but I can't remember it.
19 May 2009, 02:08 PM
#6
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xbox 360 was losing an estimated $126 per console at launch, and whilst MS have reduced the cost of production, the huge cut in cost of the console means that they are still selling at quite a loss, so I don't really see your point.
Both MS and Sony have lost big time this time round.
In interesting quote from an article in which it is proposed that 360 and PS3 will in fact be the last consoles we see from these two....
If that were to transpire, it would be very bad news indeed, and what options would be left? Expensive PC gaming? I don't know what other manufacturer would come into the fold after seeing how much they lost.
Geezer
Both MS and Sony have lost big time this time round.
In interesting quote from an article in which it is proposed that 360 and PS3 will in fact be the last consoles we see from these two....
Sony is not the company they use to be and the Playstation 3 is a market failure. Sony will never recover the billions they lost on the current generation of consoles. Sony says we’re not making another for ten years, which is code for we can never make back the billions we lost on PS3, let alone convince our executives to make one again.
Microsoft has a hole mile deep dug in the middle of Microsoft’s Campus to bury the billion dollars of broken Xbox 360’s they’ve got. The Xbox business is not a profitable business for them. It’s only become incrementally profitable for them after many years, and billions invested. To give you some perspective the Xbox 360, which is the second most popular console in the U.S; All Xbox revenues combined; create less revenue than World of Warcraft subscriptions. The entire 360 software business is minuscule compared to one PC game.
So the interesting observation, is that both Microsoft and Sony are in a position where they’re unlikely to ever have the motive to invest the billions into making another generation of consoles.
Microsoft has a hole mile deep dug in the middle of Microsoft’s Campus to bury the billion dollars of broken Xbox 360’s they’ve got. The Xbox business is not a profitable business for them. It’s only become incrementally profitable for them after many years, and billions invested. To give you some perspective the Xbox 360, which is the second most popular console in the U.S; All Xbox revenues combined; create less revenue than World of Warcraft subscriptions. The entire 360 software business is minuscule compared to one PC game.
So the interesting observation, is that both Microsoft and Sony are in a position where they’re unlikely to ever have the motive to invest the billions into making another generation of consoles.
If that were to transpire, it would be very bad news indeed, and what options would be left? Expensive PC gaming? I don't know what other manufacturer would come into the fold after seeing how much they lost.
Geezer
19 May 2009, 06:34 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem with that quote is that is was written/said by St. John, who was part of an anti-console team in a debate, whose business is PC gaming.
Its almost guaranteed Sony will still be developing behind the scenes and will likely be able to produce the PS3 in a physically smaller case and thus half production costs, much like they did with the PS2 which is still making money to balance the current loss on the PS3.
I also believe that most consumers do not realise the potential for it as a media centre/bluray player etc yet, the market just hasn't got that far yet, an indication of this (sadly) is looking through the Argos catalogue, there are no Popcorn Hours/media tanks/network players etc there yet.
Its almost guaranteed Sony will still be developing behind the scenes and will likely be able to produce the PS3 in a physically smaller case and thus half production costs, much like they did with the PS2 which is still making money to balance the current loss on the PS3.
I also believe that most consumers do not realise the potential for it as a media centre/bluray player etc yet, the market just hasn't got that far yet, an indication of this (sadly) is looking through the Argos catalogue, there are no Popcorn Hours/media tanks/network players etc there yet.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
