| DonXHill said: Succes as any comany jumping into a market that is Dominated By another company and still sell In good numbers say 1/5 the market share is still good i thx... I thx this is more of in opinion then just straight fact... xbox was a sucess it started from nothing and now has a strong Fan base, evan though they lost money they call it a sucess and many others call it a failure Same Goes with the PSP, I do thx Sony makes profit on these but i could be wrong so is making a profit from a First Gen console of that genra not a succes o well my openion, Just what level do you start calling it a failure becouse it does not sell 50 million? |
Not sure how you can say something is a success despite loosing money. If a company without the financial backing of Microsoft attempted the Xbox, they would be belly up. MS profits in other areas to counteract the losses in another. Sega is a company that did go belly up because of continually loosing money and not having any other ventures to make up for the losses. Some really bad business decisions did not help matters. The 360 also really didn't do much for having had a year head start, and since the 2006 holiday season, it's barely been selling. They should also really just give up the Japanese market and stop throwing money at Japanese developers to get exclusives that sell well in Japan compared to other 360 games, but in the end are still poor numbers. The hardware numbers in Japan actually show the 360 to be selling worse than its predecessor, too.
If a movie was made for $100 million but only made $80 million in theaters, would you consider it a success? On the otherhand, look at Cloverfield. It's budgeted at $30 million. If that only makes $40 million would you consider it not as much a success as the other movie because fewer people saw the movie even though it made a profit prior to DVD sales? For some reason, actual profit seems to be overlooked in some markets. Like how Toyota only just recently surpassing GM in sales was big news yet they had been making more money than GM for several years already. Meanwhile people were calling the gamecube a failure yet Nintendo had the best profit margin last generation at one point. I think Sony may have been able to pull ahead by the end of it, but MS was way in the black for just the gaming division. Having to give up their console just as they started turning a profit on it because of loosing the rights to the processor (I think it was that piece) certainly didn't help them out. It's one of the major reasons the 360 was rushed out ahead of everyone else.
The difference with the PS3 is that Sony is willing to take the losses on the hardware as long as it wins them the format war with HD-DVD as they stand to make MUCH more money in that area than video gaming. It's basically their sacrificial goat. Sony and many analysists expected the PSP to gain a significantly larger market segment because of the Sony/PS name. I would easily say that half of the ones sold thus far were probably because of that. Their major issue has always been a lack of worthwhile software and very few titles that aren't an offshoot (or outright port) of the PS1/2 version to warrant it. Even my boyfriend, who is way too much of a Final Fantasy/Sq-En fanboy, has no desire to rebuy a PSP for that upcoming FFVII game. He sold his old one to his roommate because he hardly touched the thing.
The PSP isn't a failure but I also wouldn't call it a success. It's just stuck somewhere between. Mostly because the expectations of the system are so drastically different from the reality.
To cash in my CC rewards points for $300 in Circuit City gift cards to purchase a 360 or not: That is the question.
