By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
outlawauron said:
jcp234 said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
DarkNight_DS said:
@SpartanFX: I didn't disagree but if you don't make profit off what you are doing. What's the point? If the PS3 is their biggest revenue generator and it's where most of their games were bought for. This means the PS3 was also the biggest reason they lost money.

Um... how can PS3 be both the biggest generator of revenue and the biggest contributor  to their losses? For that to make sense, they'd have to be losing money on each game they sold :S

 

This tickled me. Revenues do not equate to profits.

If I sell 1 million units of a product for $100, that's $100,000,000 in revenue (100 * 1,000,000).

If the cost to produce each unit is $200, that's $200,000,000 in cost of goods sold (200 * 1,00,000).

$100,000,000  - $200,000,000 = <$100,000,000>

That's a loss.

I'd recomment some basic finance and accounting classes.

 

And I'd reccomend common sense being that the money brought in from the PS3 sales more than covers the expenses. And the fact that the discs do not cost more than $60 to produce.

EDIT: That came across a lot ruder than intended. Treat it as a quip, not an insult or any that crap.

Lots of tangible and intangible factors determine the overall cost of a product. Not just the physical media.

And I do not understand how your comment is applicable to me. The poster I originially quoted seemed skeptical of an item being responsible for losses when it generates revenues. I was just illustrating how a product can generate revenue and losses. I never made a specific comment about the PS3 or its revenues/expenses.

 

But I appreciate your input.



I'm not a fanboy, I just try to tip the balance in favor of logic and common sense.