Sony: it would be "undesirable" for PS4 to launch significantly later than the comp

[Bligmerk]

MS has a real weird way of presenting their hardware products. They made a big hoopla about 10 years of the Xbox, then when it comes to the subject that the losses for the original Xbox were never recouped and are a long way from breaking even for the product line, then they say, oh, well 360 is not the original Xbox. But hurray, ten years for the Xbox!!!

For the ten years of the Xbox, MS is still about $7 billion in the red. The 360 is pulling in about $1 billion per year on the positive side, at least for now. They really don't have anything for 2012 and it doesn't look like 2013 at this point, so the positive balances may decrease very rapidly. There is no way they are going to be able to come out with a next gen console for $199 so if they do launch in 2013, then they are probably looking at big losses once again in 2014 and 2015, selling the hardware for less than it costs to manufacture.

It is going to be interesting from CES 2012 and on. MS is giving the keynote with Steve Ballmer himself, and if he doesn't say a peep about a new console generation and only talks about "great" Kinect improvements, then the rumor the next 360 launches late next year essentially becomes bullshit. However, E3 2005 did show what can happen. MS had two overheating Apple G5's as the 360 alpha devkit and Sony was on stage with their PS3 alpha devkit with IBM customized case and motherboard with two GT6800 cards in it. MS somehow launched in late 2005. It took until late 2006 for the PS3 to launch. If nothing like this happens at E3 2012, then next gen isn't until 2014.

[Completely Average]

For the ten years of the Xbox, MS is still about $7 billion in the red.

Hooray for totally made up bullshit numbers!!!


I don't suppose you could provide a link that proves your $7 billion loss claims, could you? Considering they lost less than that on both Xboxes combined and have made nearly $3 Billion in profits since (According to MS's SEC filings), somehow I doubt you can.

Is MS's gaming division out of the red since it started yet?

It's a lot closer than Sony's Playstation/Gaming/Name of the Month division is.

Sony's lost more money on the PS3 than they earned in profits from all other Playstation products combined, and MS earned more profit last year alone than Sony has earned in any single year with any Playstation product.

I'm not thinking it, it is a tangible thing that happened. Meanwhile, back in the technology world, the very process used to make first generation diodes changed completely and opened up true mass production. HD-DVD hit early where it could hit hard.

LOL. The diode issue was resolved within 6 months of the PS3 launch, and never cost Sony any serious money. Sony has been taking losses on the PS3 since launch, surely by now the diodes are not the cause.

Of course you'll claim otherwise, but Sony's SEC filings disagree with you.

Only if you're willing to mention how idiotic it is that any human being paid a single red penny for Vista.

This sounds like the kind of arguement my 10 year old daughter would make. Too young and immature to admit she's wrong, so she tries to divert attention away from her failure, just like you.

Unless you're also 10 years old, I expect a more mature and relevent response.

*insert tires sliding on pavement from a hard brake here* (Fun alternative: record coming to an abrupt stop)

Inserted stupid little comment since you cannot come up with an intelligent response.

Oh, so that's why they launched in 2005 with a system that had the life expectancy of a fruit fly? I learn something new every day. In fact, the below article is just a figment of my imagination:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/05/x...o-three-years/
A 1.05 Billion dollar figment of mine and engadget's imagination..

I suspect there are lots of things in your extremely vivid imagination, but the FACTS are that last year MS posted a $1.4 Billion dollar profit which means they could have sold 14 million Xbox 360's for $100 less than the current Xbox 360 price.

If you think you can argue with that fact, then start by dividing $1.4 Billion by $100 and see how many consoles MS could have afforded to sell without taking a loss.

Did you just compare an entire corporation to a division? Cuz like, that would be epic!

Not nearly as "epic" as you thinking a corporation like MS only makes $1.4 Billion per year. That would be a mental failure of epic proportions that would prove beyond any doubt that you are totally unqualified to discuss corporate financials on any level.

In case all those big words were too much for you, no, I compared MS's Xbox division to Sony's Playstation division. FYI, MS pulled in almost $20 Billion least year in total profits.

Yeah, that wouldn't see litigation for dumping or anticompetitive practices..

Classic. You've lost the arguement so now you'll make some silly claim that just shows how little you know about corporate profits, competition, and the law.


Because I need a good laugh, please do explain how a company which holds less than 40% of the market can be sued for dropping the price on their product. I really want to hear this.

So, back on the topic of cost of hardware manufacturing, which is what I was responding to.. Seriously, don't even try with me. It might work on other posters, but not me. Grab a picnic basket, I'll show you how a real bear does it.

I try not to argue with dumb animals. Especially ones who have already proven that they don't have any clue in regards to the subject being discussed.


But just for laughs baby bear, how about you tell me which costs more to include in the PS3. A bluray diode, or the HDD.

[Ixion]

I see this is starting to get chippy. Don't cross the line guys, or else....

[Jo-san]

MS has a real weird way of presenting their hardware products. They made a big hoopla about 10 years of the Xbox, then when it comes to the subject that the losses for the original Xbox were never recouped and are a long way from breaking even for the product line, then they say, oh, well 360 is not the original Xbox. But hurray, ten years for the Xbox!!!

For the ten years of the Xbox, MS is still about $7 billion in the red. The 360 is pulling in about $1 billion per year on the positive side, at least for now. They really don't have anything for 2012 and it doesn't look like 2013 at this point, so the positive balances may decrease very rapidly. There is no way they are going to be able to come out with a next gen console for $199 so if they do launch in 2013, then they are probably looking at big losses once again in 2014 and 2015, selling the hardware for less than it costs to manufacture.

It is going to be interesting from CES 2012 and on. MS is giving the keynote with Steve Ballmer himself, and if he doesn't say a peep about a new console generation and only talks about "great" Kinect improvements, then the rumor the next 360 launches late next year essentially becomes bullshit. However, E3 2005 did show what can happen. MS had two overheating Apple G5's as the 360 alpha devkit and Sony was on stage with their PS3 alpha devkit with IBM customized case and motherboard with two GT6800 cards in it. MS somehow launched in late 2005. It took until late 2006 for the PS3 to launch. If nothing like this happens at E3 2012, then next gen isn't until 2014.

Businesses typically don't recoup losses, because they are written off in the financial statements. At the other end of the scale, profits typically 'leave' the company in the form of a dividend to shareholders.

The only issue however when it comes to accepting losses is the availability of cash to offset against the losses. Microsoft for instance was able to stomach the eye-watering losses from the early years of the xbox because as a corporate entity it has incredible levels of cash and equivalents.

Incorporating the latest financial information, I believe the 'deficit' figure you allude to for the ED division is more in the region of $4bn, but it's a meaningless figure when reflected against Microsoft's hefty liquidity position. To put even that $7bn figure you raised into perspective; Microsoft generated operating income for the three months to Sep 30 of $7.2bn alone.

For the next generation, Microsoft is in a stronger position (the business is making money unlike last gen and it has significantly increased its market and mind share) to sell loss-making hardware than cash-poor, debt-laden Sony simply because it can opt for a war of attrition with its hefty cash pile. The business will opt for loss-making hardware in the short-term, especially if such a strategy is viewed as leading to long-term market share gain and hefty profits.


Coming back to the original post in the thread, I personally take the position that a console launch in 2012 for any of the manufacturers is questionable consider the rapid implosion of the €-zone and potential global ramifications that will be undoubtedly forthcoming.

[F34R]

Businesses typically don't recoup losses, because they are written off in the financial statements. At the other end of the scale, profits typically 'leave' the company in the form of a dividend to shareholders.

The only issue however when it comes to accepting losses is the availability of cash to offset against the losses. Microsoft for instance was able to stomach the eye-watering losses from the early years of the xbox because as a corporate entity it has incredible levels of cash and equivalents.

Incorporating the latest financial information, I believe the 'deficit' figure you allude to for the ED division is more in the region of $4bn, but it's a meaningless figure when reflected against Microsoft's hefty liquidity position. To put even that $7bn figure you raised into perspective; Microsoft generated operating income for the three months to Sep 30 of $7.2bn alone.

For the next generation, Microsoft is in a stronger position (the business is making money unlike last gen and it has significantly increased its market and mind share) to sell loss-making hardware than cash-poor, debt-laden Sony simply because it can opt for a war of attrition with its hefty cash pile. The business will opt for loss-making hardware in the short-term, especially if such a strategy is viewed as leading to long-term market share gain and hefty profits.


Coming back to the original post in the thread, I personally take the position that a console launch in 2012 for any of the manufacturers is questionable consider the rapid implosion of the €-zone and potential global ramifications that will be undoubtedly forthcoming.

Great post...

[Lethal_NFS]

Yeah, they need to take their time. The PS3's launch was also rushed and look how barebones it was when it first came out.

The PS3 was rushed? Sony pushed the release date back a whole year. Not really a rushed console.

[R3D D3V!L]

It was sort of rushed out still. Sony were losing a lot of money on each one and cut features.

[Sub-stance1]

One thing for sure. Whenever they both launch, MS will continue to be a thorn in Sony's side from now on.

[acryllicaltair]

whatever Sony do, i hope that they have learnt a lesson that above everything else, historic events count for nothing, and pricing counts for almost everything.

it is my hope that Sony have noticed that historical events or dominance count for nothing..........having a good product, having a good online functionality, and having great games may all be worth praising, but if the pricing is wrong, people will look elsewhere for their gaming fix.


Please use the edit option instead of double posting. -Ixion

[Nitey]

it is my hope that Sony have noticed that historical events or dominance count for nothing..........having a good product, having a good online functionality, and having great games may all be worth praising, but if the pricing is wrong, people will look elsewhere for their gaming fix.

A lot of people will look elsewhere, agreed

[FaLLeNMoNkEy]

Maybe the forums will come back to life pre-PS4.

[Sufi]

One thing for sure. Whenever they both launch, MS will continue to be a thorn in Sony's side from now on.

well that sucks

[D3seeker]

One thing for sure. Whenever they both launch, MS will continue to be a thorn in Sony's side from now on.

This is an unfortunate truth, however I can't help but feel that MS are being rather careless with their moves. Just to get out in front they'll throw something together at last minute then wait this long to throw their "untold amounts of money" at a problem,that shouldn't have been in the first place, or just flat out focusing on the wrong things and playing 'me too' kinect... hmph

[MATRIX 2]

This is an unfortunate truth, however I can't help but feel that MS are being rather careless with their moves. Just to get out in front they'll throw something together at last minute then wait this long to throw their "untold amounts of money" at a problem,that shouldn't have been in the first place, or just flat out focusing on the wrong things and playing 'me too' kinect... hmph

[Sub-stance1]

rofl....

[ddPLaNeT]

well that sucks

Yeah big time !

But for Sony to succeed, they need to release a great product with enough features at a good price and of course GAMES wich Sony are more than capable of bringing.

Focusing on beating Microsoft is never the right solution because MS is all about money money and more money. They (MS) can buy whatever they want. Sony needs to beat them where MS are weak, creativity, and they need to make a different product than MS. So it can attract a crowd of people looking at something different than the usual MS stuff.

I really really hope Sony succeeds and stays in the game next gen, i will support them big as they supported me this gen with awesome games nowhere to be found.

I actually think the only thing Sony needs to do next gen is have a great working operating system in their PS4 that supports great social features, less updates and it's on... because frankly Sony can bring the games more than any other company, big !

[radgamer420]

I think Sony has learned a valuable lesson regarding price point and developer friendly hardware. Sony needs to keep online play free and really market that. As for games Sony already has that in the bag with a great stable of first party developers and IPs.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

I think Sony has learned a valuable lesson regarding price point and developer friendly hardware. Sony needs to keep online play free and really market that. As for games Sony already has that in the bag with a great stable of first party developers and IPs.

This. The Vita is proof that Sony have learned alot:

Set a price point and assembled to tech to meet it.
Got first and third party devs to give their input on its architecture.
Prepared a SHIT load of launch games.
Added features missed by gamers on PS3.

PS4 is gonna be just fine. With a few right moves and its army of studios, Sony is well prepared for next gen.

[F34R]

It's going to be a great war when the two next gen consoles come. They are going to both have to work very hard to try and pull ahead of the other. We of course will be the winners again in that front.

[FükenMüven]

After this generation of the ps3...im def making the switch to Msoft...i loved sony from the ps1, ps2, and ps3 but ps3 will be my last sony console

[radgamer420]

After this generation of the ps3...im def making the switch to Msoft...i loved sony from the ps1, ps2, and ps3 but ps3 will be my last sony console

If you dont mind can I ask why? Just curious.

[D3seeker]

Lol. Righteously played.

Need to avoid the keyboard when I've gone 72 hours without sleep.

[Sub-stance1]

In today's market the software is where the battles are fought. Next gen will be more about the services. As long as sony still positions itself first and foremost as a hardware company that makes some software, instead of the other way around ,they are going to lose more and more ground as time marches on.

[Sufi]

In today's market the software is where the battles are fought. Next gen will be more about the services. As long as sony still positions itself first and foremost as a hardware company that makes some software, instead of the other way around ,they are going to lose more and more ground as time marches on.

That's slightly correct.

It is not about services first and foremost.

It's about games.

Then it's about services. Then price and the last one is hardware.

Now, of course everyone would have different opinions about services, price and hardware priorities but you can't deny that we buy these consoles to play games.

Services are a close second for sure but it's definitely not what determines it.

For example, if a console has NO services but it has games, it may still sell.

A console that has services but NO games, it probably won't sell.

^makes it easier to understand.

[Sub-stance1]

That's slightly correct.

It is not about services first and foremost.

It's about games.

Then it's about services. Then price and the last one is hardware.

Now, of course everyone would have different opinions about services, price and hardware priorities but you can't deny that we buy these consoles to play games.

Services are a close second for sure but it's definitely not what determines it.

For example, if a console has NO services but it has games, it may still sell.

A console that has services but NO games, it probably won't sell.

^makes it easier to understand.

Which are also services.