So is PS3 Slim profitable at $299?

Anybody know?

So your going to make profit off of a PS3 Slim?

TC I think you should bring this up at your next SONY board meeting.

Looks like someone watched videos of someone about 360 being better becouse it's profitable....

TC I think you should bring this up at your next SONY board meeting.

Blue-Sky

it doens't really matter. its software where you make your money

it doens't really matter. its software where you make your money

wayne_kar

it doens't really matter. its software where you make your money

wayne_kar

thats something Sony & its shareholders need to worry about... us gamers should be concerned about games and with a solid line-up of upcoming exclusives + multiplats PS3 owners will surely be busy playing games rather than worry about PS3 making profits or not..

thats something Sony & its shareholders need to worry about... us gamers should be concerned about games and with a solid line-up of upcoming exclusives + multiplats PS3 owners will surely be busy playing games rather than worry about PS3 making profits or not..

Malta_1980

Sony said it isn't.Senor_Kami

This ^^

Profit or not, it's still got the best games

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]Sony said it isn't.Stats_

This ^^

Profit or not, it's still got the best games

[QUOTE="Stats_"]

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]Sony said it isn't.Jandurin

This ^^

Profit or not, it's still got the best games

nope thats not true because everyone has high end pc's so half of the 360 library is now non existant. yup yup

[QUOTE="Stats_"]

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]Sony said it isn't.Jandurin

This ^^

Profit or not, it's still got the best games

That's a freakin' lie.

Everyone knows that PC games > Wii games.

nope thats not true because everyone has high end pc's so half of the 360 library is now non existant. yup yup

anshuk20002

Everyone knows that PC games > Wii games.

CAPSROGUE

I'm sure Sony more then make up for it by massively overcharging their customers in Europe and other PAL regions

Chances are Slim to none. :P

[QUOTE="anshuk20002"]

nope thats not true because everyone has high end pc's so half of the 360 library is now non existant. yup yup

Jandurin

Everyone knows that PC games > Wii games.

CAPSROGUE

The same way N64 games > PS2 games are.

I'm sure Sony more then make up for it by massively overcharging their customers in Europe and other PAL regions

gourmet_house

The same way N64 games > PS2 games are.

CAPSROGUE

No Kaz said they still lose money.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/sony-losing-money-on-every-ps3-slim-sold

Anybody know?

mr-krinkles

[QUOTE="Senor_Kami"]Sony said it isn't.Stats_

This ^^

Profit or not, it's still got the best games

I forgot the " In my opinion"

Although, all the games i've played so far for the Xbox are excellent. Just not MGS4/Disgaea 3/inFAMOUS amazing.

I'm just wondering how Sony is overcoming the operational costs of things like PSN and Home. Are the game specific spaces and clothing furniture enough? We probably will never be privy to the info. Just a curiosity.

I'm sure Sony more then make up for it by massively overcharging their customers in Europe and other PAL regions

gourmet_house

It's not like MS and ninty does'nt so a pricedrop is a pricedrop. Price pf ps3 = price of elite.

[QUOTE="gourmet_house"]

I'm sure Sony more then make up for it by massively overcharging their customers in Europe and other PAL regions

Filthybastrd

It's not like MS and ninty does'nt so a pricedrop is a pricedrop. Price pf ps3 = price of elite.

Neither do it quite as badly as Sony though. For example where I come from the PS3 slim console costs the equivalent of USD$430. In comparison I saw an advertised xbox360 elite package deal today which included the elite console, Halo 3 and Halo 3:ODST (note this deal only comes into being one ODST is released) for the equivalent of USD$370 and this is probably not the best deal available.

I still want to get a slim but I find it quite pathetic that Sony continuously **** over their PAL customers

Anybody know?

mr-krinkles

Sony has already said that the PS3 slim is still selling at a loss. However, with the increased sales they are expecting increased game sales, and peripheral/controller sales and therefore they hope the console will be profitable.

I'm just wondering how Sony is overcoming the operational costs of things like PSN and Home. Are the game specific spaces and clothing furniture enough? We probably will never be privy to the info. Just a curiosity.

VoodooHak

I agree. How is it remotely possible for online gaming to be free? It has always been a charge service since it first started when the Xbox was invented.

/sarcasm.

p.s. paying for online gaming is the exception...not the rule. Sony also gets a cut of everything sold or downloaded off of PSN..even demos.

PS3 slim is making a $100 loss according to some sources, added that most PS3 exclusives are Sony funded titles; they must be cutting their profit margins rather thin right now.

Personally i think that Sony is lying and that the PS3 is profitable.

They are hardly likely to come out and say we're making $80 on each unit sold ..people will be saying .. Hey cut the price further !!

After all now that the stocks of Wii are everywhere and the sales are drying up everyone knows Nintendo makes a profit on Wii and everyone is thinking cut the flipping price already !!

TO be fair they can stagnate for about 3 years and still be thte top selling console.

[QUOTE="wayne_kar"]

it doens't really matter. its software where you make your money

raynimrod

Not quite. A failing console can cost your company a fortune. Ask SEGA. So in that sense, it does matter

nope

Not quite. A failing console can cost your company a fortune. Ask SEGA. So in that sense, it does matter

flazzle

Consoles selling at a loss and making the money back with software sales isn't anything new, it's so common that it is seen as the traditional way of operating. They sell at a loss to encourage adoption with the lower hardware price and then milk it back on the games, selling at a loss is certainly not a sign that the company is in trouble.

Now when they are taking hits with software sales, that is when you know a company is struggling.

according to sony it isnt but i wouldnt take their word for it.

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

Not quite. A failing console can cost your company a fortune. Ask SEGA. So in that sense, it does matter

AnnoyedDragon

Consoles selling at a loss and making the money back with software sales isn't anything new, it's so common that it is seen as the traditional way of operating. They sell at a loss to encourage adoption with the lower hardware price and then milk it back on the games, selling at a loss is certainly not a sign that the company is in trouble.

Now when they are taking hits with software sales, that is when you know a company is struggling.

thanks for the useless summary, but saying a console selling at a loss doesn't matter is naive.

thanks for the useless summary, but saying a console selling at a loss doesn't matter is naive.

flazzle

If you are going to criticise actually offer a counter argument, otherwise you are making useless responses.

You do realize the Wii is the only console that launched at a profit this generation? Both 360 and PS3 launched at a loss this generation, they do that on purpose to encourage the install base that attracts the games that make owning them worthwhile. What is the point in selling a console at a profit when the install base isn't big enough to attract worthwhile games? You don't last a generation on hardware sales.

Sony said it isn't.Senor_Kami

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

You didn't argue anything. You just coughed up some generic observation.

Let me simplify it for you: The price of a console matters. The amount of money it puts you in the red matters. Simple as that, minus useless information.

AnnoyedDragon

Well kindly bugger off then, there's no point in talking to someone who rejects what others say on the basis of "because I say so".

Xbox 360 hardware wasn't in the green until a year after release. Releasing at a loss and making the money back on software sales is a common activity by console companies, but apparently you are ignorant to that. This is how the industry works and it has been going on a long time, what you think is irrelevant.

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

You didn't argue anything. You just coughed up some generic observation.

Let me simplify it for you: The price of a console matters. The amount of money it puts you in the red matters. Simple as that, minus useless information.

AnnoyedDragon

Well kindly bugger off then, there's no point in talking to someone who rejects what others say on the basis of "because I say so".

Xbox 360 hardware wasn't in the green until a year after release. Releasing at a loss and making the money back on software sales is a common activity by console companies, but apparently you are ignorant to that. This is how the industry works and it has been going on a long time, what you think is irrelevant.

Can you answer this?

Do you think the amount money it costs the company to make matters? Yes or no?

It worked for Sony for the PS1 and PS2 when they dominated in market share and they only sold the console hardware for a loss for a year or so, doesn't mean that it's the only (or best) way to do it. And PS3 doesn't even follow that model, billions in losses during the first three years while selling at a far slower rate than it's predecessors and still losing money on just hardware even now, ain't like previous Playstations.lazybum131

It worked for Sony for the PS1 and PS2 when they dominated in market share and they only sold the console hardware for a loss for a year or so, doesn't mean that it's the only (or best) way to do it. And PS3 doesn't even follow that model, billions in losses during the first three years while selling at a far slower rate than it's predecessors and still losing money on just hardware even now, ain't like previous Playstations.

lazybum131

The simple answer to that is would that PS3 Slim be as popular if it was $100 more expensive? This is a do or die situation for Sony, they made their console too expensive and now they are paying for it. What this has done has extended the amount of time their console is sold at a loss, it will be years before they refine it down enough before it is in the grey.

The problem I have with flazzle is he is rejecting selling at a loss as being a acceptable business tactic at all, at any point on any system. By his reasoning any system sold at a loss is in trouble, never mind it has happened with the majority of consoles for years; and that it was a tactic used with some of the most successful consoles known.

Can you answer this?

Do you think the amount money it costs the company to make matters? Yes or no?

flazzle

Of course it matters, but you are only looking at this in terms of the console and are ignoring software sales. With the current position of the PS3 as evidence; the price of a console can push it behind the competition by millions of units. Do you crank up the price of your console to make a profit, impacting the install base of the console as a result. Or do you sell at a loss and acquire a larger install base, additional users who will go on to buy more games for you to milk for licensing fees.

You are looking at the console in terms of a single product, something independent. Therefore a loss on the console is a loss overall, you are not considering what increased unit sales will do to income on software sales. As time goes on, as seen with previous consoles, the console gets smaller and cheaper to make. So eventually they stop selling them at a loss and make a profit off units sold, of course Sony this generation is a rare exception, 2009 and they still cannot sell at a profit.

As I said in the original post they can survive this as long as software sales are healthy, which quite frankly they are not. Take any number of high profile PS3 exclusives coming out and you will note many are published/financed by Sony. Instead of being able to sit back and milk licensing fees off the work of other developers they are investing allot of their own money.

Which makes more money? A 3rd party title that sells 1m on a console, which Sony gets a cut of, or a 1st party title that sells 1m after Sony invested millions of their own money? The answer is obvious.

Can you answer this?

Do you think the amount money it costs the company to make matters? Yes or no?

flazzle

Of course it matters, but you are only looking at this in terms of the console and are ignoring software sales

AnnoyedDragon

No, and I'll stop your post right here. I did not state I am not 'only looking at this in terms' in any such way.

i think you have me either confused with someone else or inventing a dialogue we had based on assumptions. ALL I said was

"Not quite. A failing console can cost your company a fortune. Ask SEGA. So in that sense, it does matter"

That's it. Nothing else was said. And you agree with me: the amount money it costs the company does matter.

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole Fizzy Lifting Drinks. You bumped
into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing!

You lose! Good day, sir!

You lose! Good day, sir!

flazzle

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

Not quite. A failing console can cost your company a fortune. Ask SEGA. So in that sense, it does matter

AnnoyedDragon

Consoles selling at a loss and making the money back with software sales isn't anything new, it's so common that it is seen as the traditional way of operating. They sell at a loss to encourage adoption with the lower hardware price and then milk it back on the games, selling at a loss is certainly not a sign that the company is in trouble.

Now when they are taking hits with software sales, that is when you know a company is struggling.

Technically, it is relatively new. The first console company to start selling consoles at a loss is Sega when they were forced to cut the price of the Saturn to match the price of the PS1. Sega accused Sony of selling the PS1 at a loss, which Sony wasn't because they made most of the hardware themselves as opposed to "buying it off the shelf" like Sega. So Sega immediately dropped the price of the Saturn and sold it at a loss to compete.

Then the Dreamcast came out and SEGA said immediately it was selling at a loss. Sony lost money on the PS2 when it launched in NOrth America but this was mostly due to a decline in the US dollar at that time. Further, in their financial statements to shareholders at that time, Sony said that even with the poor dollar hurting their profits, if they would have been able to meet worldwide demand for the PS2, they still would have shown an immediate profit.

The Xbox sold at a loss, as has the 360. The PS3 also sells at a loss. Nintendo has never sold a console at a loss, although they did suggest that they might be willing to do so with the GC...but that was never confirmed or proven.

So let's recap.

Consoles NOT selling at a loss: Atari, Colleco, Intellivision, NES, Master System, SNES,Genesis, Jaguar, cd-i, 3d0, NeoGeo, N64, PS1, PS2, GC, Wii.

Consoles that sold at less than the cost to produce: Saturn, DC, Xbox, 360, PS3

While this is becoming the norm (which is unfortunate in my opinion as we are seeing how unsustainable this plan is), it is hardly the long-time norm that people mistakenly think it is. This is actually the perfect example of people on the internet saying something so often, that they believe it is how things always have and always will be.

[QUOTE="lazybum131"]

It worked for Sony for the PS1 and PS2 when they dominated in market share and they only sold the console hardware for a loss for a year or so, doesn't mean that it's the only (or best) way to do it. And PS3 doesn't even follow that model, billions in losses during the first three years while selling at a far slower rate than it's predecessors and still losing money on just hardware even now, ain't like previous Playstations.

The simple answer to that is would that PS3 Slim be as popular if it was $100 more expensive? This is a do or die situation for Sony, they made their console too expensive and now they are paying for it. What this has done has extended the amount of time their console is sold at a loss, it will be years before they refine it down enough before it is in the grey.

The problem I have with flazzle is he is rejecting selling at a loss as being a acceptable business tactic at all, at any point on any system. By his reasoning any system sold at a loss is in trouble, never mind it has happened with the majority of consoles for years; and that it was a tactic used with some of the most successful consoles known.

[QUOTE="flazzle"]

Can you answer this?

Do you think the amount money it costs the company to make matters? Yes or no?

Of course it matters, but you are only looking at this in terms of the console and are ignoring software sales. With the current position of the PS3 as evidence; the price of a console can push it behind the competition by millions of units. Do you crank up the price of your console to make a profit, impacting the install base of the console as a result. Or do you sell at a loss and acquire a larger install base, additional users who will go on to buy more games for you to milk for licensing fees.

You are looking at the console in terms of a single product, something independent. Therefore a loss on the console is a loss overall, you are not considering what increased unit sales will do to income on software sales. As time goes on, as seen with previous consoles, the console gets smaller and cheaper to make. So eventually they stop selling them at a loss and make a profit off units sold, of course Sony this generation is a rare exception, 2009 and they still cannot sell at a profit.

As I said in the original post they can survive this as long as software sales are healthy, which quite frankly they are not. Take any number of high profile PS3 exclusives coming out and you will note many are published/financed by Sony. Instead of being able to sit back and milk licensing fees off the work of other developers they are investing allot of their own money.

Which makes more money? A 3rd party title that sells 1m on a console, which Sony gets a cut of, or a 1st party title that sells 1m after Sony invested millions of their own money? The answer is obvious.

No, and I'll stop your post right here. I did not state I am not 'only looking at this in terms' in any such way.

i think you have me either confused with someone else or inventing a dialogue we had based on assumptions. ALL I said was

"Not quite. A failing console can cost your company a fortune. Ask SEGA. So in that sense, it does matter"

That's it. Nothing else was said. And you agree with me: the amount money it costs the company does matter.

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole Fizzy Lifting Drinks. You bumped
into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing!

You lose! Good day, sir!

flazzle

Oh **** off, you have done nothing but go on about the absolute importance of the hardware selling at a profit above all else; and now you are denying ever ignoring software sales despite doing it throughout your responses? I have repeatedly talked about the importance of software and hardware sales working together, all you have talked about is hardware price; as if that is all that matters.

You have ignored four paragraphs of my response and only focused on the first four words, you intentionally ignored everything but what suited you. I should have taken my own advice and stopped when I told you to bugger off. This is your half arsed attempt to end this discussion looking like you're in the right with little to no effort on your part, not even providing an actual argument on your side. How exactly do I lose? What have you disproved? All you have done is denied your hardware focus then declared ownage because you only care about the first four words of my response, which makes no sense.

You have been a complete waste of time, it really is hard to find people worth talking to in SW.

Technically, it is relatively new. The first console company to start selling consoles at a loss is Sega when they were forced to cut the price of the Saturn to match the price of the PS1.

ZIMdoom

Clearly "recent" is subjective, I wouldn't consider the PS1 generation recent when referring to how long this has been going on. Recent in terms of gaming as a whole maybe, but it has been going on for a fair while.

Why are you using PS3 exclusives as a way to judge if a consoles software sales are healthy. As you said they make money off of 3rd party games which there are WAAAY more of then 1st party exclusives. Yes the PS3's exclusives tend to be made in house and may cost some money to produce but now we are looking at how far that investment has gone. We are getting sequels to games that were heavily invested in like Fall of Man, Ratchet and Clank and Uncharted 2. The initial money that was spent on building the engine to run these games is STILL being used for the second edition and will continue to be used till the end of this gen. They will have to invest less to make the sequel then the first edition.

Sony is selling software at a very good rate, with some multiplats even selling more on the PS3, even though its fanbase is 8 million smaller then the 360. Sony makes money off of exclusives and 3rd party games. Javy03

The problem is all these 3rd party games, in their vast majority, are cross platform.

3rd party games are where the majority of the money is at, but you have to convince consumers to buy these games on your platform and not the competitions. How do you do that? Well it's the exclusives that get people to buy your platform, simply by owning the platform for exclusives increases the chances of them buying cross platform games on your platform. The problem is exclusives are in very short supply this generation, which is where Sony's self funded titles come in.

Sony is essentially creating their own USP games, which as explained earlier are less profitable than 3rd party exclusives for the same number of sales. If they only did this on occasion it wouldn't be a problem, but as I am sure many people have noticed there are a lot of Sony published games in the works. The console sells at a loss and makes the money back on software sales, but since Sony is funding the majority of their exclusives themselves; this creates an additional cost that otherwise wouldn't exist under this scenario traditionally.

I'm sure they are making money off all this, they couldn't continue if they wasn't. However the costs to be able to compete within the console market are much higher now that they have to increasingly fund their own exclusives.