Correct me if im wrong but,xboxLive is the only reason the 360 is surviving

[Impulsivity]

seece said:

hatmoza 2.0 said:

think of it .....microsoft has been losing money on every console even b4 the price cut ! i can only imagine what its losing now ! they are losing money from RROD, yes software is outselling ps3s but not when u add sonys ps2! dont 4get microsoft cant compete with handhelds which widens the users base ! so it confuzzled me ,but then i thought about it (being an ex 360 owner)its XBOXLIVE ! not only do u hafe to pay a 50 dollar acount fee , but u also mindlesly purchase shii u dont even use more than a couple times ....and when u combine the 50 dollar fee plus say another 50 dollars on other stuff per console owner ( 20m * 100 = 2,000,000,000 dollars a year !!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and thats juss an assuming average .

conclusion ....as long as 360 owners are willing to pay , the 360 aint going nowhere!! so get over it people.

 

 I will correct you because you are wrong, on so many levels.

1) Microsoft HAVE posted profits this year in their entertainment division, a lot of people agree the 360 was making money before the pricecut.

2) They are not losing money from RROD, they paid out 1 billion to cover those costs.

3) You don't HAVE to get live, and not everybody has it.

4) Your figures are wrong ...

Microsoft do make a lot of money from live, I'd say the bulk of it, but it sells software like crazy and the consoles now I assume are only making a small loss.

 

   Microsoft only made a profit because they pulled a bush administration accounting move.  Every year the Iraq war costs us well over 100 billion and every year it is a "supplemental" meaning it isn't included in the budget when they determine the deficit so the deficit doesn't look as bad as it is.  

 

   In the same way Microsoft did NOT include the billion+ for RROD repairs in the entertainment division numbers so it looked like they made a small profit.  They did not in fact make a profit if those numbers were included, which is why the numbers were excluded.

 

   They don't make that much in software since unlike Nintendo and Sony they don't really own any developers other then Rare and Bungee (since they cut ensemble loose).  They own a stake in a few others, but nothing that substantial.  What that means is they don't have the profit centers of SOE or Nintendo published games so they are more dependent on things like Live.  

 

   Incidentally, the lack of a real development backbone is a big part of why Microsoft has such a hard time making money in video games.  Nintendo isn't making billions selling Wiis (not in profit anyway), its making billions selling Nintendo published games, ditto with Sony to a lesser extent.  Microsoft is in the same position in consoles it occupies in OSes.  It doesn't really make much in the way of content so gouging where they can (400 dollars for Vista, 1000 for office, 50 for live, 2 bucks for a dashboard theme) is all they can do.

 

   I'd much rather have my console maker of choice making money from software sales then price gouging on accessories and multiplayer but maybe that's just me.

    As to Sony needing to come up with a ton of money for PSN that is semi untrue.  After all PC gaming has been free for well over a decade and a half and with the exception of a small window where MS tried to gouge for PC online play as well, it has proven perfectly sustainable to not charge for online gaming.