dunno001 said:
Well, I'll take this paragraph by paragraph again. For the first one, the initial deal between Nintendo and Sony, was actually a verbal agreement; no contract was actually signed at the time. Sony was already making some internal components for the SNES, so it would make sense to work with someone who already knows part of the inside. Work started on the prototype, and then the actual paper contract was created. It was in this where Sony had put the clause of property ownership of all items on the CD-ROM format. Nintendo, of course, did not agree to this clause, and refused to sign the contract. I imagine there were attempts at negotiation about this clause, but we don't have the details on this. When it came clear to Nintendo that Sony wouldn't budge, they approached Philips, leading to what we know of today. Regarding the second bolded part, my wording does indicate that it is speculation on my part. With Sony being in the hardware market in other things, I think that they would want to "push forward" with these new properties that they would now own. For Sony, adding another piece of hardware would not be a tough task, and thus I think that they would have actually designed the PS2, and required Nintendo to use their properties to develop for it. Obviously Nintendo would not have been restricted from making another system, but with all their big titles by that point being controlled by Sony, it would be a very hard sell. Which is why I think that Nintendo would have been relegated to a Sony studio, leading to my statement. And your last part... logic?? How's about I look at it with facts? It's already been mentioned that the attach rates of the Gamecube and N64 were quite good. In the N64 days, Nintendo was still the only authorized cartridge maker, even making a decent profit off the sales of 3rd party games, since Nintendo was making them. (I heard that was also true for Gamecube, but I can not confirm that.) As for the systems, they were sold at a profit continuously. (I, like Galaki, would like a source on Gamecubes sold at a loss.) As for the $99 price, sure, it was fast. But Nintendo is not in this to lose money, like Sony did on the PS1 and PS2 (and PS3) hardware for years. It may've been a slimmer margin than Nintendo would have liked, but it was not a loss-leader. Sony would have to sell enough more systems later at profit to get back to zero, before actually showing profit. Of course, itemizing everything isn't possible with how Sony does their financials now, so it's all speculation. Oh, and where are your numbers for Sony coming from? Per Sony's page, at the end of FY2009, PS2 software sales were barely over 1.5 billion, nowhere near the 2 billion you claim. (1.5312 billion, to be precise- source at http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps2soft_e.html ; I've also added in the post-3/2007 items from the unit sales link.) |
i wont argue on the 1st paragraph because i didnt know the Sony created the contract after they created the prototype.
i wont argue on your 2nd paragraph because its just your speculation.
but your 3rd paragraph is pure bullshit.How much money you think Sony lost on PS1 and PS2? And for how long??? You said ''for years'' thats pure bullshit. PS1 and PS2 were losing money on their launch year, but they earnd all the money back and earnd millions of more dollars in the matter of months.As for the link
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/nov/14/business/fi-nintendo14
And Sorry for 2 billion software part, i must have made spelling mistake or something when i typed 2 instead of 1.5 billion software. But still, PS2 alone sold more software than N64,GC and even wii did combined. And attach rate doesnt mean anything really.
Just please explain me how can CG be more profitable than PS2 when PS2 sold 7 times GC did????? And lets say first 10 million PS2s were unprofitable. Lets say first 30 million PS2s were unprofitable. I still cant see how GC be more profitable alone.
