Sony has lost over $3 billion on the PS3

[RabidDog]

Yes But NASA also loses Billions every year .. WHy the MARs rovers have made no profit whatsoever! and those damn Moon missions ate my tax refund.

Ps3 sold below cost (as nearly all consoles were)
a) to create mass market
b) To create Blu-ray market.
How much profit is Msoofy making when they have to sell 1.5 machines for every sale (50% get RROD)?
Profit is made on sales of Games
Profit is made on licensing of Blu-ray system
Profit is made on cross-advertising Sony Pictures become Sony Games.
ALso cost of Hardware declines over time

ALso Sony knows, get em when they're young and you've got em hooked for life (Hi-def graphics, hi def TV) and there we go, more sales of expensive Hi-def SonY Tv's and SonY recorders.
Vertical integration Peeps.. you live in a Sony World.

Bring on UHD not this half-assed FullHD

[PuzZLeR]

RapidDog makes a good point.

Too many times companies report losses on a venture only to "cook the books" somewhat. The reported losses on the PS3 may be real, but they are only the direct loss, and only when talking about the PS3 directly.

The true overall loss should also include the indirect "losses" of the PS3's presence, which includes the indirect "losses" from sales of games, movies, blu-ray market penetration, etc which can easily be a negative number.

Negative Overall Losses = Overall Positive Profits

This is similar to sports team owners who were whining about how much they were losing money on rising player salaries when attendance and ticket revenues weren't justifying these costs. Sure they had a point, directly, but what's ironic is that they themselves started the trend of "overpaying" the players for the indirect beneficial result, which they refrain from mentioning as best as possible, and that is gains in: merchandise sales, concession sales, advertising revenues, television revenues, etc.

Sony did have it easier with the PS2, but I believe the PS3 just needs a bit more time in its tougher market to succeed, if they haven't already indirectly.