PS3 has "no chance of making money" Comments by Robert Purchese

So the reverse of what Crytek said - longer generation. I'd probably go with that, as this generation is still nowhere near at it's peak. I'd certainl not buy a new console if it came out within the next few years, seeing as the start of this one was such a shambles.

"So this is going to force them to make the PS3 last longer and they're kind of positioning to do that"

So what was the reason for the 10 year lifespan of both PS1 and PS2?

I belive PS1 og PS2 made Sony loads of money and still had a 10 year life span.

Acclaim aren't really the experts on making money are they? ;)

How does he know?

He don't.

what a joke.

I'm sure Sony are quite happy with PS3 and Blue Ray and the 'PS2 Peak' does not mean 'Lifetime'... what a nob.

How much does this guy get paid for speaking?

Does he have a game coming out soon hes trying to promote?

isnt the plan to always sell a console at a loss then get $X back from the game manufacturers for each game sold? Its a long term thing where they hope a console owner will be a certain amount of games in the consoles life.

What, are Sony going to give MS a head start again?

Well as long as the PS4 isn't an expensive piece of shit I don't care.

I don't want to be rude, but since when did Perry become relevant in today's gaming market?

Theres his bloated opinion over Sony's financial prediction using his crystal ball, and last month there was his bloated opinion about E3 with the threat that he might stop attending. Its a shame that Perry didn't use this crystal ball at the start of designing the Matrix games. Maybe that way his last commercial releases would have actually been good.

Either this is a call for attention to remind everyone that he exists, we don't care, or he actually does beleive that his has an elevated stature in this industry and people should listen to him. Concentrate more on getting your multiple, and wonderful MMO games and make Acclaim a commercial success, let Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo or whoever worry about themselves.

This article doesn't actually make it clear that he is just talking about hardware, not software.

This is non-bandana-Perry, isn't it?

I get so confused.

I suppose Sony are probably losing more per unit than they did on PS2 sales, but like DB2k said, the profit on the games is where it is at, not on the consoles.

I suppose Perry may have a point though - if the components are significantly more expensive, and you aren't selling as many games, then it will take longer to claw back in the loss you lead with on the hardware via software sales, but I think it is a little early in the lifecycle of the PS3 to be making sweeping predictions about it, isn't it?

I tell you what... Sony just pull out of the industry, you've got it wrong... David Perry said so.

:-D

And how much did Sony make by winning the format war? How much did the PS2 make in its first two or so years? How much of Sony's overall profit with the PS2 was from royalties paid to them from the metric shitload of games that were released on the platform?

"If they release the PlayStation 4 and have an even more expensive console and raise the cost of games by ten dollars, that would not be good."

I love this bit, as tho he thinks console manufacturer's are activeley considering this as there next move.

Acclaim has "no chance of making money".

/fixed

what an idiot... The machine was necessary to win the HD format war (the only reason PS3 was rushed to market) and I wouldn't be surprised if that alone was enough to make the business case positive.

Not sure how well this will come out in the comments thread... but here's the Sony figures since just before the PS2 was released:

Year Dollars
1998 1,253,000,000
1999 1,431,000,000
2000 900,000,000
2001 -488,000,000
2002 731,000,000
2003 1,076,000,000
2004 731,000,000
2005 440,000,000
2006 79,000,000
2007 -1,969,000,000
2008 -1,254,000,000

He's probably right on not being able to make the PS3 profitable. Unless it somehow becomes considerably more popular than the PS2 was. Who knows if they're making enough from blu-ray to make it worthwhile... it's hard to say as they only get a cut of the pie - they don't own all of it.

I'm sure that's heartening for PS3 owners... The machine you bought is tripe as a gaming machine, but now Blu Ray is the dominant HD format! Success!

This is pure speculation, Sony has some very murky politics going on, it really is all about Blue Ray.
If they had of skipped Blue Ray and charged the average wage (not sure what that is),
then they may have sold more, but then again they may not, who knows.
I think it is pretty cool that there are two good consoles out there,
and the longer they last the better the software.
I do not think the Wii has much to do with the high end, it is a bit like an expensive DS, though I have both.

I wish they come up with a PS4 as soon as possible. This one is a mistake, as a video-games system, imo.

Time to release the PS4 and forget about this failed console. It will be talked about in the same way as the Jaguar and 3DO in a few years time.

A total flop.


:D :D

of course baby. this expensive console is selling AS WELL as the ps2 did back then. so...how is the ps2 talked about? surely no jaguar...

Other problem being that although Blu-ray won the HD war its still not mass market yet as consumers are still prefering standard DVDs at this point.

Therefore there wont be any quick returns for Sony from either Blu-ray sales or the PS3

uh oh, who let the idiots in? Im looking at you Nick, LazyDan and miiguel. Room for one more?

@Nick and LAzyDan
Your main arguments seem to be the age old "no-games", please tell me what games Im missing out on if I dont have a 360? Yes Halo 3 is good, GOW excellent, but Uncharted is good, MGS4 is excellent.

orget about this failed console.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bes...

Hardly a failure, not a raging success but certainly not a failure. Highly doubful it will reach ps2 heights though.

Did it ever occur to him that perhaps they get money through other means as well as console sales?

they probably make a ton on Blu Ray licensing for example.

I feel the need to come up with synonyms for "outspoken game developer". They're not complimentary.

I reckon, the PS3 on its own would have worked out fine. Sell it as a loss-leader but claw back revenues from games, peripherals and - I presume - Blu-Ray movies.

But then Microsoft went and spoiled the party by making a pretty decent machine (RROD notwithstanding), and then Nintendo completely pissed on their fireworks with the Wii. For a lot of people, a 360 and Wii does everything they need. The PS3 isn't necessarily a first or even second purchase. It was the third one I bought, and its still not used as much as the 360 - so in terms of game revenue, I'm not being much help to Sony. (Only bought one game and that was second hand.)

I wonder how much Sony banked on revenue from Blu-Ray movies instead of games? The format's not exactly setting the world on fire is it?

"Perry suggested Sony's much-talked-about ten-year plan for PlayStation 3 was a way to claw back development costs in the long-term."

True...

But isn't this the dev that thought The Matrix game was good?

He is right, compared to the PS2 the PS3 is a complete disaster, more expensive and no better, worse even in some cases than whats all ready available. I keep trying to find a reason to get one but at the moment the main one is Blu-ray, Uncharted looks great but I cannot justify the outlay for one game.

Nick = FLOP

go on everyone, point and LOL @ him

I can write a = b

therefore it is a fact that a equals b

I like my PS3

Nick = flop
*shakes head, are the school holidays still not over?

how can you?! its a massive FLOP with VASTLY inferior games. Thats science FACT.

Have you seen the Unreal Tournament 3 screenshots? The PS3 is practically wireframe...

nick = science experiment

I was browsing Dabs yesterday looking for a new HDD for my PS3. Then I realised there was nothing I wanted to download for it.

ok, obviously this thread is going to get retarded. But basically he's just saying that the PS3 needs a 10 year life cycle to make a good profit which is what Sony are aiming for anyway so what's the big deal. I'm sure the PS4 will be out well before that 10 years as they will have their hand forced by a new console by MS. And you can bet the PS4 will not be as expensive to manufacture.

what about the Xbox then? isn't that a flop as well, financially?

"This is non-bandana-Perry, isn't it? "

Aye, this one is an annoying nob-end, the bandana one is an amusing nob-end.

nick = (failed) science experiment

@stepneg : Yes because PS3 has no good games... keep telling yourself that.

"He is right, compared to the PS2 the PS3 is a complete disaster.."

OR... maybe PS2 was such a HUGE success and PS3 will just not be able to match that marketshare. That doesn't mean PS3 is (or will be) a disaster.

does no one see, that recently the industry as a whole grew like some kind of mushroom in a garbage can? you cannot take figures of the past and refer to them analysing todays market situation because the biz has got much bigger.

Lets be honest the PS3 was never about games, its a blu-ray trogan.

Any loss on the PS3 can be justifed by the fact it sealed the HD format war for sony.

As many have said the PS3 does seem to come behind the 360 and Wii to most people, I will admit I am the same and the PS3 will be the third console purchase... just not at £300.

For me its:
Games: 360/PC/Wii
Games for other half: Wii/Occasional 360
Blu-ray/HD-DVD: PC plays both
Recording TV: PVR or PC

Basically the PS3 has no use apart from exclusive games (to me personally), there is a few I wouldn't mind but none of them make me want to spend £300 to play them.

@Beano

"stepneg : Yes because PS3 has no good games... keep telling yourself that."

I didn't say that, if you already own a 360 and possibly a Wii then it comes down to exclusives and the only one that takes my interest is Uncharted. This makes it more difficult to lay down 300 quid for the PS3, the PS2 was a must buy, you like games, you had to have one and thats just not the case with the PS3, at all.

how utterly bizarre, I seem to be playing loads of games on this thing that is only meant to be a bluray trojan.

@stepneg : I have a PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii (a.k.a.. dust-collector)... and right now, PS3 is fra more attractive to me both feature wise (bluray, browsing, multimedia) and games.
Last year it was 360 for me because of MS's strong 2007 lineup, but this year PS3 have the best line up by far... In my opinion ;)
Anyway my point was that PS3 have far more going for it than just Uncharted... also exclusives. I'm just tired of people using the "no good games" excuse when they haven't event tried the games.

@Nick_JC1

The Xbox devision has yet to break even once. So on this monatary discussion and your amazing science facts

Xbox & 360 = FLOP

It's odd because I don't truly believe the point of the PS3 has been to make money. Rather like Microsoft in the last generation, spending more than they took in to position themseles in the market, Sony seem to be spending more than they're taking in to position themselves as the market leader in HD technology - maybe they truly believe in a couple years we'll all go HD and they'll make a killing.

I think Perry has a point, that the PS3 is likely never going to make much money back for Sony as a piece of hardware. But of course, if that was never the intention then it's a moot point. If it's just more positioning by Sony to squat in the HD market waiting for the mass-exodus from SD, then they've done it. An excellent HD machine, the leading HD media format (by fair means and foul)...

Worked for Microsoft from last generation, positioning and then waiting to get in there early. Sony are probably doing the same, just in a slightly different way.