Rpruett said:
1. The attach ratio is skewed by being released a full year ahead of time and when you factor this in they are actually pretty comparable (Still better, but comparable and certainly not some night and day difference compared to other consoles).
2. Is the RROD paid off in those figures? Are you 100% positive? Are you sure those figures have assigned the RROD? I'm not sure, but I highly doubt you are either. You are just guessing. 3. That's entirely the point. The physical dollar amount being less on the 360s (Which is really the only thing that matters as it pertains to cost?). The PS3 doesn't need to reach as low as the costs of 360's hardware. At some point, both will be so low it's negligible in difference. 4. Again you aren't counting Sony's first party studios which most certainly make a profit. (Something Microsoft doesn't really have). Which adds profit to their bottom line.
5. The numbers speak for themselves as far as I'm concerned. Microsoft has managed one year of overall profit. We will see how many more they can manage.
|
1. Nope. The 360's attach rate regardless is still a 2-3 games per console sold higher. The PS3 only compares to the Wii in attach rate, and we all know that Wii owners only basically buy their limited main Nintendo games (Wii Fit, Wii Play, Wii Sports, Mario Kart Wii, etc.)
2. Yes. I am 100% positive. That is showing their entire entertainment division's losses. Why would they have reason to hide this figure? Because you say so? That's rediculous. If they have no problem listing the losses as they are, why would they hide just this one loss? MS is not some big conspiracy company bent on hiding losses of their gaming division like you seem to think.
3. By the time they would get close enough in price without Sony taking a major loss, the new generation would be under way and no one would care. The 360 will almost always maintain a considerable price difference of at least $100 until it is basically too late. The 360 took 2 years to drop the price $100 across SKU's. The PS3 on the other hand has already dropped $200 in the same time frame. That is mostly due to the higher starting price and the greater deal of loss leading by Sony. But realistically, by 2012 the 360 will cost around $129 for the Pro and the core will be $99 or discontinued. At the same time the PS3 will only be down to $199-229. At the same rate, Blu-Ray players will be dropping in price so it will almost always maintain a 360 + Blu-Ray player = PS3 cost, so the added incentive will not be there. The 360 will always be significantly cheaper, which is what will matter.
4. Where did I ever try to bring in studios? Sure the Sony studios make money off of software, but so far that has been no where near enough to offset the losses of the console. It seems almost every exclusive on the PS3 sells way to low compared to Microsoft exclusives. Sure Microsoft doesn't have a million studios, but that also means they don't need to support them with their funds, and can find much cheaper/easier ways of getting exclusives. Don't blame Microsoft for having the better/cost saving strategy here.
5. And the PS3 has managed how much profit? Oh that's right, none. The PS3 will not even post a profit this year unless they avoid all price cuts. Sure the original Xbox and Zune costs have lowered Microsofts profitability in the Entertainment division, but the Xbox launched much later than the PS2 and was never really able to compete on price and games, which is exactly why the PS3 is failing and will continue to fail this generation. The numbers seem to say that Microsoft is improving while Sony has only gotten worse over the years.
