| NJ5 said: Nice, but I'm not sure about your assumptions. You're assuming the PS3 isn't losing money now, which I don't think is the case (but we'll probably know on Thursday). I'm also not sure about the cost decrease assumption. |
As for the cost, the numbers stay the same whether the PS3 costs $400 or $300 its just the profit/loss which changes. Accounted for all the changes in revenue, not the change from profit to loss.
The cost decrease assumption is based on the fact that shipping 10 PS3s to a store or 15 PS3s costs about the same and keeping the factories at the ideal capacity is cheaper per unit than producing them at below or above the optimal rate.
The only issues are probably the quantity of money a PS3 makes in its lifetime and whether they need profit now or later. Since any profit not made may as well be called a loss in the overall Sony scheme of things, they would pay quite a price on any debt they acrue due to their bond status which is something to keep in mind.
@Kantor: You're not believing in the PS3? Well fine! I have to restrain Tim from hitting you, and its not a nice feeling getting in between the two of you.
But who knows how much the PS3 costs? Do you take production, end consumer costs, where do you put PSN costs or administrative costs? Its quite a mess really, and depending on how you look at it you'll get different answers.
Tease.
