Jay520 said:
Slimebeast said:
Yes, because Sony thought they were the masters of the universe and thought people would actually pay $600 and they'd still dominate. That plan failed after a few months of horrible sales. After that they have been desperately trying to undercut Microsoft by
Now ask yourself. How can Microsoft ask a $100 premium for its console? If I can get a PS3 with a 250GB for $229 I shouldnt have to pay $299 for a 250GB X360. It should cost $199 because Xbox was the underdog, has no Blu-ray, has no free-online and has fewer xclusives. And yet they can over-charge because they secured the online echo-system with core gamers earlier.
The main X360 SKU has cost $299 for 4 years now (it went from $349 to $299 in Summer 2008). That's a $0 drop.
In the same time PS3 went from $399 to $249 and soon down to $229. That's a $170 drop and loss of revenue.
|
You've misunderstood me. It wasn't the lack of sales that made Sony lose so much money. It was the fact that every time they sold a console, they lost hundreds of dollars. A Ps3 cost a few hundred dollars more than $600 if I remember correctly. |
This is probably half-ish of the reasons why Sony flushed money down the toilet for years. I remember people saying the R&D costs for the PS3 were insanely high, and their massive investments into the CELL tech has not given them much back.
