By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
crissindahouse on 21 September 2012
Edit Thread
Crono141 said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
 

The PS3 was expensive not because it used a GPU from 2006, but because it used a blu-ray drive and CELL processor. If the PS3 used a similar CPU to the 360 and DVD drive it would of been just as powerful and $200 cheaper. I actually don't even need to speculate here, just look at the Xbox 360. If anything it's only marginally less powerful than the PS3, but it launched at $300-400 a year earlier.

Yes, but both consoles took heavy losses at their respective launch price.  While Microsoft can do this again, Sony just doesn't have the financials this time around to absorb that much loss per console.  Sony is looking to make the Game division profitable to help save the company.  Yes, it is that bad.  The only way Sony is putting these chips in their console is if its a 500 dollar launch with a very small loss or breaking even.

 

EDIT: If they do put these chips in and launch at 400 dollars with a 100 dollar loss, it will be the last generation Sony participates in.

if they would sell the console with $100 loss first, they could sell it without loss not so much later and with all the royalties/psn+ and everything else i think it could be a profitable gen for sony. what did they lose with ps3 first? $300 or something? now imagine $200 loss less per console for the first millions of consoles. with $100 loss first they could sell the console for a profit after a while which they couldn't so fast with ps3 and i think those profitable sales would bring back the losses of the first sales and the console alone would be at least lossless when we would get a ps5 (who know if we will even get that with all the streaming stuff and so on in 2020 or so)

sure we have no clue how much consoles sony will sell next gen and yeah, in reality we know almost nothing but i don't believe $100 loss would be as bad as you might think.