Mr Puggsly said:
Well you said that the PS3 might be linked to profit. But lets be honest, that's highly unlikely. And you end it with other charges not being included. Ultimately, the PS3 is still very deep in the red. They spent years losing money and they may never earn it back. Maybe if they break even in 2015, I'll change my tune and consider them a huge success. I'm sure that was Sony's goal, break even. Good, we are in agreement that MS has a bigger following than Sega ever did. I don't know why that even came up.
|
You misunderstand me. I said it was very likely linked, but I just have no proof. Look, if you sell lemons, apples, and oranges, and you expect to sell 10 of each, and you charge 1$ per fruit. You will make 30$.
If, unexpectedly, you sell twice the amount of lemons, and you profit/revenue goes up by double (also unexpectedly) one can safely extrapolate that the two are linked. However, they have not released any numbers, so it's hard to say with 100% confidence. Additionally, you also must understand that if they sold MORE consoles than expected at a LOSS, then profit should have been down unexpectedly. That did not happen, which is further evidence that they indeed ARE profitable. However, it is not proof, it is conjecture.
Again, like I said in the post which you've obviously only been reading half of a sentence at a time, if you're going to include costs that are now part of another division, which in all fairness are direcly linked to console sales, then you should EQUALLY do the same for profits hidden in other divisions, like BR royalties, manufacturing profits (from making PS3s), and the intangible benefit of ensuring BD as the DVD successor. The last one is probably impossible to quantify by any means, but the cost per shipment of a console is probably 4$ per console, and the profit from royalties and manufacturing is probably near equal to that. It becomes difficult once you try to include BD in the mix because that revenue stream is priceless.
