CChaos said: I've read the article twice now and...I think the biggest problem is I don't think I'm able to figure out what he's getting at. Sure, the games would sell if they were all made multi-platform, but I can't really see them making as much money as would offset the loss of hardware income. I mean, even thinking about that doesn't make a tonne of sense, especially with the Super Slim and what I imagine is a better margin for the PS3.
Is he trying to say that if Sony cut hardware out of the mix, it'd somehow make the company profitable again directly through games? Cause, if so, that's one of the most bizarre things I've heard in a while.
Sony has traditionally been using the razor and blades model (selling hardware at a loss, making the money back on software), so there isn't much hardware income to speak of. The PS3 lost billions on hardware over its lifetime, so that's what the suggestion to go software-only is based on.
You are wrong. Sony dont make consoles so that they can make back money on the software. They sell a defective console at launch at a loss and make that money back by selling the later SKUs at a profit (since the price of parts falls considerably over the years). They did this very successfully for both the psx and ps2. However, with the ps3 they lost so much money in the initial launch years that they probably wont make back the money they lost by the end of the ps3's lifetime. But this is slightly different from them selling hardware and just expecting software to cover for it.
Also, considering the position sony are in, the ps4 will probably be sold at a profit or very close to manufacture cost to reduce/eliminate any losses from the get-go (or at least that is what indications are). So I dont think they will do as badly as this gen.
Look at the reliability of the consoles sold at loss and those that aren't. And don't mention the words "more powerful" or the Gamecube will destroy you.
Not sure I follow you. Neither the article or the clip mentioned a difference in the reliability of the initial fat or the later "slim" consoles. And even if there is a greater reliability in the slim consoles, this could just be from sony learning from their mistakes (though I understand from your article that the point was that the same problem occurred with both the psx and ps2). Personally I find it hard to believe that sony would be deliberately making defective consoles since they have a reputation for solid products though I guess its a possibility. Either way, Im sure that most of their sales were probably NOT due to replacement psx or ps2s like you are suggesting... unless you have some proof?
And im not sure where your "more powerful" or Gamecube comments come from since they are irrelevant and fairly silly to boot.
