Sony’s PlayStation 3 console has been performing well since the introduction of the PlayStation 3 Slim and (more importantly) a price cut to $299. ShackNews noted that the PS3 is at 33.71-million units worldwide, while the Xbox 360 is at 39-million. Considering that it came out later than Microsoft’s system and its initial price was a turn-off to many gamers, I was surprised to learn that the global installed bases are so close.
In related news, Endgadget has reported that Sony is currently losing about $18 per PlayStation 3 sold. In November I wrote about Sony Corp.’s CFO saying that the PS3 will be profitable some time in 2010. It will be interesting to see if and when the company reaches that goal.
As always, I’d love your thoughts on the console wars. Do you think Sony can catch up to Microsoft this year? Do you think the PS3 will reach profitability?
@RROD
Something being overpriced is a relative term as much as it is a specific term. $600 for a game console (let's face it, the Playstation is primarily a game console to many) was a steep price no matter how you slice it. It came with a bluray player? Ok…so now you can buy $30 movies or wait a year or two before Netflix offered decent bluray support. At $300 the machine is a hell of a deal. Wireless, HDD, Bluray, games, PSN, etc. At $600, I took a pass. Though I was all over the $500 MGS bundle simply because it was the last BC sku.
I used to think that FF13 would sell a lot of PS3s but with the ability to play it on 360 now, I think the amount of potential PS3 sales will not be as significant in the US. Just my opinion. i'm not buying the game one way or the other so there is no bias there.
I think whatever Sony does with PSN moving forward will determine the future of the machine. They are going to charge for access but it will depend on what the premium covers. If you have to pay to play like on Live, I don't think it will surpass the 360.
@RROD: The thing is that "overpriced" and "profitable" are two different discussions altogether. Whether something is "overpriced" or not only matters to the consumer. Whether something is "profitable" or not only matters to the company that offers the product.
The PS3 was overpriced because it wasn't selling a lot of units compared to it's competition. When the price came down, it started selling. Thus it was no longer overpriced.
If Sony loses money on every console, than it's not gonna be profitable whether they're selling like hotcakes or sitting on store shelves collecting dust.
The PS3 so far as always lost money on each console sold yet people say it was overpriced. I still want someone to explain to me how something is overpriced when the company is losing money with each sale. Anyhow, Sony will definitely surpass M$ but I doubt it will be this year. I think it will happen next year. Not to mention the fact that the PS3 is a 10 console so it will definitely have the lifetime sales as the Xbox can’t last that long, especially not physically. I believe M$ will drop 360 support and move on the next gen in a year or two to get another head start on Sony and Nintendo again.
@RROD
Blu-Ray is the culprit to both arguments. The gamers say it is overpriced because it isn't worth more than the competition (results wise), and it isn't profitable because of the Blu-Ray drive. Gamers don't care about Blu-Ray when it comes to choosing a console, albeit a nice addition none the less, and over look its value because of it. Of course, there is always to sides to any argument.
I think all of you responding to RROD are missing his point.Sony didnt price ps3 at 600$ on a whim it was priced to damage profits as little as possible.Without PS1 we might still be using cartridges w/o ps2 we might still be using cds and without blu ray you might be switching discs and getting compressed audio/video.etc.Sony has been the driving force and innovator in the game scene since they entered and i am glad they continue pushing forward instead of resting on their laurels.People questioned use of cds for ps1 they unseated sega.People balked at using dvds said they didnt need that much space ps2 absolutely dominated.PS1 PS2 and PS3 developers said it was hard to develop on.Circle of life lol
i agree with trikkey
sony killed the genesis, super nintendo, turbografix, saturn, n 64, 3do, jaguar, dreamcast and the original xbox
microsoft wised up this gen though….they realized that they should release one year early, with low quality hardware, so everyone could afford one. Also, they marketed their system towards tweens…another very smart move.
Back at the feed, the xbox fanboys used to tout sales as the one advantage they had over the ps3. Sony WILL overtake the 360 in sales, its first party software support is ridiculous.
its not checkers, its chess. That being said, i will buy the next microsoft console, if they stop breaking all the damn time, im not a sony fanboy…im a QUALITY fanboy
@Trikkey: Actually, you're the one missing the point. Profitability has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it was overpriced. It doesn't matter how much hardware you cram into something if no one will buy it. Economics 101.
@Trikkey
You are confusing innovation with value. Those aren't measured in the same light. I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't erase the fact the machine was overpriced at launch.
@Thundercracker
I think Live was always the goal with the first xbox. That investment paid off with the release of the 360. Just my opinion though.
@smartguy
perhaps reliability will be the goal of the next xbox, cause it certainly has cost microsoft this gen, i see your point though. Sony dropped the ball the first 2 years of the ps3. They have definitely gotten their act straight though…should be interesting to watch
A lot of interesting points here. Perhaps this is a good coffee talk debate for later this week.
another good coffee talk idea
how the saints pulled the upset, and how reggie bush was the difference maker
GO SAINTS
good luck smartguy, youve waited a long time for this…im with you bro
@Nightshade
@Smartguy
I respectfully disagree. You two are the ones who's missing the point. I understand what your saying but you did miss the point. $600 is a lot of money to most people these days and simply couldn't afford that but that doesn't make something overpriced. Most people can't afford to drive a Lamborghini but that doesn't mean they are overpriced, it just means that most people can't afford them. The PS3 has always had the value to match the price. Now, charging $180 for a 120gb HDD is overpricing something. 400% mark up right there. Not being a fanboy but that was the only real example that I can think of in gaming where something is truly overpriced.
One more thing, when you think of something being overpriced you think of a company purposely charging waaaay more than fair market value for a product. The PS3 was not $600 because Sony marked it up by 300%. Sony needed to sell the PS3 at $800 to break even but of course they sold it for less like all new consoles do. M$ made all of their peripherals proprietary so that they can OVERCHARGE for their products and their customers would have no choice but to fall for it. $100 for a simple wi-fi adapter, now that's overpricing and again a 400% mark up and waaaay above fair market value. I don't know how anyone can't understand that.
If you need to compare a gaming console to a Lamborghini than you're crazy. It's just a gaming console. I don't know who the hell the target audience for the PS3 was supposed to be if that was the mindset, cause it wasn't the average gamer.
I guarantee that all of you Xbox owners have paid well over $600 now with all of the peripherals and LIVE subscriptions and replacement consoles. No one ever sees the big picture and M$ knew no one would from the start.
@RROD
The 360 works with any wi-fi receiver/router. The HDD is still ridiculous though.