Do you think Sony will ever make a net profit from the PS3?

[CrashMan]

rukusa said:

NJ5 said:

1) The core was replaced by the arcade with a $20 drop from $300 to $280. The Elite had a single price drop too, of $70 if I remember correctly (don't feel like checking, I'm sure you can use google too).

2) I will if/when you prove I was wrong regarding the unprofitabillity of many of PS3's first party games.

4) How many times do I have to repeat that I was talking about subscription fees? It's very specifically written in my original post, including all the letters of the expression "subscription fees". Sure, they both have DLC, so what? That doesn't change a thing about my original point.

The point here is not about opinions, You're trying to compare two situations which are very different, and you don't even know what you're talking about as you have demonstrated with your lack of knowledge (and unwillingness to search your own sources) about 360's pricing strategy as compared to the PS3's. At the same time, you write in an insulting tone which is absolutely unnecessary here.

 

(2) I wasn't ignoring your initial statement about the first party games. You must see this from a long term view. And I was speaking as in general, meaning including Sony's first party effort. Like I said, you don't seem to initerest in making an appropriate statement to what Im asking. Well, regardless you dont have to, its your choice. Its alright. ;)

(4) How many times do I have to repeat those belong within the same category. Which it ultimately makes it related. They don't have to use subscription fees to gain the similiar profit as Microsoft's game division. Sony doesn't need to promote the same kind of move that Microsoft proposes to achieve similiar profit. Let's agree to disagree then. We stand on two different side then.

 

In general it is about opinions. I see it from an alternative angle of optimism for the PS3 platform, while you prefer strictly to hold onto there being an overall equal similiarity for it happen (the PS3 being able to get profit). I don't believe they both have to take advantage of the same business model to drive profit.

 I dont take it from you wether I am knowledgable or not. I have no need or desire to prove anything to. I asked if you could show me sources, to support your arguements. I didn't feel obligated to do it myself. If you believe I write in an insulting tone then you probably haven't been experienced some one who does so. This is just a fierce debate. Don't you enjoy it?

2) How can you view 1st party game sales from a long term view?  Once they stop selling its the end of income for the title.  Hence you have a solid figure for profit/loss.  Its not a long term issue unless the title sells LONG TERM.  What low selling 1st party PS3 titles are still selling at a meaningful level?  Do you understand?

4) His point is that BOTH have DLC, but MS is the only company bringing in revinue from subscription fees.  It is not comparable at all.  The DLC for MS and Sony are comparable yes, thats true.  But you can't compare MS' subscription fees to anything Sony is doing.