WereKitten said:
I don't understand your logic here. We know that Sony is still losing money on each PS3 they sell, so how come you're saying that they expected to make money out of it by selling more of them because of the name? How can a "misunderstood demand" cost them money in this case? The less sold, the less money lost. Could it be that they expect to make money out of it in the next 6-7 years - as they always said - and that right now they are not after marketshare - as they also said - if not for the amount necessary to have at least parity of treatment with the 360 among developers? I'm no businessman, but that's very reasonable and it's what I would expect to do if I wanted to market a console selling it at a loss for the inital part of its lifecycle. Maybe the truth is simple in this case? |
Judging by your illogical post I must say you are the living embodiment of the mark twain quote on your tag.
Ignorance is rife on vgchartz these days.
Let me break this down for you in simple terms. Sony expected the ps3 based on playstation name, to sell at for 599$ when it was realeased.
Reality - the ps3 did not sell well at the $599 price and it was consistently beaten by the gameboy advance. This is why sony lowered the price faster than any console in history in 2007. This led to massive annual billion dollar losses.
In Sony's financial statements they openly admit that the debt incurred due to the ps3 will likely never be recovered.
So let's recap - Sony dropped from 70% to 20% market share and they have incurred over 4 billion dollars of debt. Sony lost all of the money the ps2 made on the ps3 fiasco.
This is a horrible business strategy any way you look at it.
