PS3 delayed in Europe

[Jakut]

lol the funny thing is that Estonia will get the ps3 about 2 months after the rest of europe >_> That means maybe ill have to wait until summer. And there's a high probability that there wont be any 60gig model here.

 

[ZeroNightmare]

i dont think its limiting.

i have dead rising, **** halo, chrome hounds, oblivion, perfect dark zero, plan on getting many other games... and those are all great games... except halo... because halo is over rated

...budget prohibiting

they have plenty of good games

how many games does ps3 and wii have out? its just going to take them longer to slap things out, except nintendo which will drop out 10 mario games and a zelda or 2. and smash isnt even a launch title? boo!

sony will have good games yeah, but its not enough to say that nothing on the xbox will EVER have any depth ever and all games will fail.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

It's just a let down getting bad news after bad news, you know?

Take heart, man. Most of the bad news on this site relating to Sony is either outright BS (see "Sony going out of business" comments) or overblown spins on negative press from anti-PS3 websites with no real journalistic credibility (i.e. mislabeled opinion pieces).

Here's one such idea that has been propagated by this forum and the very type of spinster "article" talk to which I am referring:

They're actually going to lose a lot of money on the launch. They lose money with every console sold so they're going to lose millions.

Companies don't do this. Anywhere you've read this, it's a hypothetical crock of **** devised by some dubious mathematical guesswork from people who write propaganda pieces for piece of **** websites designed to do nothing more than to keep you coming back and seeing their stupid 5-bucks-per-hit banner ads. I will repeat this for any who don't understand: NO FACTUAL MATH HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THIS IDEA. So rest easy about this. Trust me, man--this is capitalism at it's finest. Corporations don't do a damn thing unless the bottom line is in their favor.

That being said within a year the PS3 will have outsold all competitors, I promise.

Unless Sony goes out of business first... /sarcasm

 

[Promiscuous Girl]

I suppose realistically; in the end, people will still most likely ignore the Wii and the Xbox 360 and buy a PS3, either way.

After all, people do have short term memory and hype and marketing always wins, which Sony can't be stopped at. Not to mention that Sony still has an army of 3rd party developers making games for them. MS and Nintendo just can't keep up with Sony in that regard.

 

[Adaptus]

Right, so companies don't lose money on consoles.

It's only what everyone always says. I guess then there's no truth in that, just because you say so, right Pride?

Got proof to back it up?

 

[Fire Phoenix]

I'm sure if SONY wasn't going to profit from the PS3, they wouldn't make it. SONY isn't ever going to go out of business. They make too much stuff. Computers, CD players, Stereos, among other things I'm sure. They will make money from the PS3, and they will make a lot of it.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

Right, so companies don't lose money on consoles.

It's only what everyone always says. I guess then there's no truth in that, just because you say so, right Pride?

Got proof to back it up?

Unless you have Sony's financial documents from the last 2 years of development, you don't have proof to the contrary, either.

All I know is it's simple business--you don't become a multi-million dollar electronics company by spending more money than you make.

 

[Adaptus]

Then again, consoles aren't all they make, therefore they don't lose money on all that they make.

Them being a successful company doesn't logically mean they can't lose money on the manufacture of consoles.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

If they lose money on the consoles, but have money from all of the other stuff they do...then that means they didn't really lose any money, doesn't it?

 

[Adaptus]

No, it doesn't.

They lose money if they have to sell the consoles for less than what it costs to make them, because God knows nobody would buy the damn things if they were much pricier than they already are.

Cost > Sale price = Loss.

 

[sub]

Here's one such idea that has been propagated by this forum and the very type of spinster "article" talk to which I am referring: Companies don't do this. Anywhere you've read this, it's a hypothetical crock of **** devised by some dubious mathematical guesswork from people who write propaganda pieces for piece of **** websites designed to do nothing more than to keep you coming back and seeing their stupid 5-bucks-per-hit banner ads. I will repeat this for any who don't understand: NO FACTUAL MATH HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO SUPPORT THIS IDEA. So rest easy about this. Trust me, man--this is capitalism at it's finest. Corporations don't do a damn thing unless the bottom line is in their favor.

Pride, what the hell? It takes money to make money man. They sell their consoles at a loss so they can get it into more peoples homes, they make money on royalties by selling games. For every game sold, a certain portion of that money goes to Sony as a royalty for making the game on the console. That's why PC games can cost less money than Console games, they have no royalty fees to pay.

It's the same thing companies that sell printers do. They sell the printers at a loss so that you'll buy it. Once you do buy it, you'll need to buy ink which is dreadfully overpriced. They make money on the ink and the ink alone.

As proof to back up my claim, I bring you wikipedia:
"An interesting strategy that many console manufacturers take is to sell their console at a low price (respective to the production costs) with the hopes that this will entice more consumers to purchase the hardware, which in turn will generate additional profit through extra software sales. For example, although a bit extreme in terms of "normal" pricing strategies within the industry, it has been reported that Microsoft was losing nearly 275 USD with the sale of each Xbox unit."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_manufacturer

That example is for the xbox, but it's going to be the same thing for the PS3. If you don't want to believe me, Ken Kutoragi even said to investors that they'll lose a lot of money at the Playstation Launch. I believe his exacts words were "It's nothing to scoff at, even for Sony."

With that in mind, they do eventually get the manufacturing costs down so they can sell it breaking even or for a small profit, but for the PS3 launch, they'll lose millions, something Sony can't afford to do at the moment.

edit: According to Wired Magazine, Sony loses roughly 300 dollars for every PS3 bought. Wired stated that Sony had $6 billion in their reserves. 4 billion of that is going into the PS3, in R&D, and production. So Sony is putting 2/3 of ALL of their budget into the PS3... Just for some clarification. I really hope blu-ray takes off or something ... =/

 

[Chakra-X]

I mean as long as a I get one, I'm fine with it. I would like to get a good look on what games come out, how they play, how the consoles work and whatnot, because my Playstation 2 does the trick with entertaining me, so Playstation 3 will have to surpass it (in my view) by leaps and bounds, so if I can't get a hold of one, I can kill time by seeing how it does in the world.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

I understand the idea behind the 'loss' stuff, Sub. My point is, if they spend 900 to make a PS3, then someone buys it for 600, then goes and buys a TV for 1200 that only costs them 900 to make...then they didn't lose any money at all, technically.

Besides it's not as if the thing isn't going to sell phenomenally well.

And again I will say, if they couldn't afford to do it this way, they wouldn't. Also I don't subscribe to the idea that a CEO would say to investors "Well we're going to blow millions on this one guys" ...what kind of dumbass would do that?

Until somebody starts flashing some business documents or credentials around here, Sony's financial standing shouldn't even be a part of the argument.

6 billion "In their reserves" implies to me that it is EXTRA money, not money used to fund the day-to-day workings of the company.

I'll believe Ken Kutoragi's comments when I see them coming from his office or his mouth. Sorry. Nothing anyone has read here about Sony holds any credibility whatsoever. Where do you even get these figures from? And what company gives out all of these details about their income and costs, anyway? Even the Wired Magazine stuff...who wrote that? Who told them those figures?

Like I said I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[sub]

Pride, you can't say one thing and then take it back. You told me that what I said was a lie when it's not. I never said that Sony won't make money on the PS3 - Of course they will. I merely said they're going to lose millions on thier launch and you went into this whole thing about how no company is that stupid.

About the business documents, they're required to release that stuff, they're a public company.

 

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

I didn't take anything back. All I said was that income from other products will balance that loss out until it becomes profitable -- just like the last two machines.

And yes, no company is that stupid. Do you honestly think they would take a gamble like that, especially right now, without having the ability to recover from it indefinitely? I'm not disagreeing with you that the PS3 will be built at a loss (though I can't help but feel the Nintendo Spinsters' Union has made it out to be much worse than it actually is) but there are many other factors in Sony's arsenal that can easily balance that out that we don't know about. Blu Ray licensing for movies, peripherals, other products...there will be plenty of money coming in. All the spinning and angles make it sound like they're going to break the bank to build the thing and it's going to cripple them, leave them dead in the water, when it just plain isn't.

As for the business docs, I know they are public domain and all but nobody has ever used them as a source when they start to go off about this stuff. They just spit out uneducated illogical numbers (which to your credit is NOT what you're doing) and cite some pro-Nintendo internet editorial as if it's gospel.

 

[The_Forgotten]

I didn't take anything back. All I said was that income from other products will balance that loss out until it becomes profitable -- just like the last two machines.

And yes, no company is that stupid. Do you honestly think they would take a gamble like that, especially right now, without having the ability to recover from it indefinitely? I'm not disagreeing with you that the PS3 will be built at a loss (though I can't help but feel the Nintendo Spinsters' Union has made it out to be much worse than it actually is) but there are many other factors in Sony's arsenal that can easily balance that out that we don't know about. Blu Ray licensing for movies, peripherals, other products...there will be plenty of money coming in. All the spinning and angles make it sound like they're going to break the bank to build the thing and it's going to cripple them, leave them dead in the water, when it just plain isn't.

As for the business docs, I know they are public domain and all but nobody has ever used them as a source when they start to go off about this stuff. They just spit out uneducated illogical numbers (which to your credit is NOT what you're doing) and cite some pro-Nintendo internet editorial as if it's gospel.

I am banned, my opinion is at this point, irrelevant.