The reliability issue hasn’t had so much impact with the gamers, but might have more with the wider market they are now going after. As a gamer I want to play the great games they have been chucking out so I need a 360. So I will put up with poor reliability because of that.

(My first machine replaced under warranty with a brand new box after 9 months – GPU failure, that replacement then had a RROD after 18 months fixed by MS and I’ve bought a falcon elite to replace it and passed on the old one to my brother).

When you consider that to the general public, who don’t know the difference between 512MB of RAM and 500GB a hard drive, the Playstation brand is practically everything that is gaming.

It’s part of the reason that analysts all over were predicting that the PS3 would absolutely batter the 360 within a few months of it’s release, and why people are still predicting that it will win in the end anyway.

Even now, the reality is that if Sony made bricks with the Playstation brand on them, people would probably still buy them.

I do agreee about the 360 reliability stuuf though. Even yesterday, the Guardian ran a piece on the cover of its technology section about the 360 faliure rates.

The fact is that MS has been selling people shoddy hardware, but somehow they’re not paying too heavy a price for it in terms of sales.

I doubt they’ll manage to shake off the reputation that they’ve earned over this until they manage to launch a console successfully with a small failure rate.

I think the reliability issues for the 360 were a calculated risk and one which in the long run will probably pay off. The problems were caused by pushing it out the door before it was ready, but getting it out the door early was a big part in the positive situation they are in today.

No don’t. I’m only joking.

@Giga
True – but I am surprised the PS3 is actually doing as well as it has done in some areas all things considered – price and in particular software. Arguably they are now addressing software a lot better but it may be way too late. I don’t think MS is out of the woods with regard to the reliability issues either – I’m talking about public perception here rather than implying there are still major problems. It’s got a much higher visibility to the general public than the fact that cross platform titles tend to be better on the 360 for example.

Reading beyond the headline it sems as if they base this on
SONY gaming divisions loss. Does that include software?

“We are currently at the stage in which we need to get a grip on the production costs. That takes time. We are already making more money with the games than we are losing with the hardware.”

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/the-wii-isn-t-hurting-us-says-sony-ceo

Even without that it should be fairly clear from the quarterly financial reports.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/05/15/sony-losing-260-on-each-ps3-sold/1

There’s no guarantee that they will continue to grow at the same rate.

The sale of one will almost always impact the sale of the other.

The better the 360 sells, the worse for PS3 in general, and vice versa. It’s only a tiny fraction of people who buy both.

“Sony CEO Howard Stringer has admitted that PS3 hardware sales aren’t ever likely to recoup the $3.3 billion losses the machine has already occurred.”

As for attach rates – true – but when over all numbers of consoles are not all that far off then there is some comparison there. If the Sony figures are not that far off where the 360 was when it was that “young” and the 360 is in a strong position then isn’t that your answer?

As for the profit, here are those facts you asked for.

Source? Just because it doesn’t drop the price it doesn’t mean it’s making it loss – just that it can’t afford to.

“Also, if you look at the numbers, 360 software sells by the bucketload, which recoups at least some of the loss. How is Sony recouping its loss? What’s selling?”

Those the same numbers which say that at the same point in it’s life the 360 had an attach rate of 6.5 to the PS3′s 5.3. Not a massive difference. How about some facts? http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=285295

LOL!

You are close…

Close to the dark side of gaming…

Here’s an example: Let’s say that Microsoft’s biggest seller is the Arcade model, that goes on average for about £100 compared to the PS3′s £300. So they say that they’re selling on a 2:1 ratio? They’re still not meeting Sony’s profit margin. 2 Xbox 360 units would equal to £200, whereas one PS3 unit is still £300.

Basically, even though they’re selling 2:1, Sony is still making a greater profit. If they were selling 5:1, now that would be something, they’d actually be making more money than Sony then, but they’re not selling 5:1.