jlrx on 27 December 2007
| facher83 said: The point is a thread is not the same as a source-site. It has a lot of random data from non-official sources, and even then you could have data presented in different pages, responses, etc etc. It's not consistent. It's like someone from here going to another forum and quoting data presented in mine or your responses - if it doesn't include a source, it doesn't matter - and for that matter, most people try and link the last article used (not a thread topic found). Anyway, I'm a big preacher on the idea that PS1 funded the PS2, and PS2 gained back the losses within a year. And we have the PS2 making great money at the end of its life, and funding the PS3.... except the PS3 still hasn't returned on that previous profit and investment, making the PS2's life completely and utterly USELESS as far as the company goes financially. Still in the hole, in the red zone, by almost a billion, while the PS2 at least came out even after one year. That is NOT good money investment. |
Simply in regards to the numbers, they are publicly released company data (ie; to investors) this is all factual, not from unofficial sources, it is simply tracking sales/profits/losses.
On your point about the successor being funded by the previous model, yes it is almost always the case.
edit: actually I see now clicking the link takes you to the first page, where it is just general nonspecific - go to the last page for the most current and detailed info. sorry.
