Was the xbox profitable to Microsoft, pre-kinect

[happydolphin]

crissindahouse said:

it wasn't profitable because it was sold with a loss and it had the rrod problem. ps3 was also not profitable the first years because of the expensive tech in the ps3 but i don't think the reason for the profit in the years with kinect was only kinect, it's a combination of lower costs, increasing xbox live revenue and obviously also kinect revenue. same with ps3 now with increasing ps+ revenue, psn sales, lower costs and other stuff.

sure many of the 360 sales were because of kinect and also subscriptions to live now because otherwise some wouldn't own the console but that's the reason why companies try to sell to casuals with dance/sing/whatever stuff and to core gamers.(whatever this is)

and even if it was the case isn't it good? if you need to have such a device to make overall profit nowadays with an  expensive to build console companies should use this option, otherwise gaming won't be profitable for a company and with that they would stop to make new consoles.

the reason why 2010 has 500m more profit as 2009 has many reasons, halo reach as example which brang revenue in 2010 but did cost a lot of development costs in 2009, kinect which did cost development costs in 2009 and decreased the profit in 2009 and that was the year when xbox consoles were free from rrod^^

This helps a lot. In my last thread, I estimated the cost of development for a Halo game at 60m$, assuming an average of 100k/year salary for 150 workers. Would you guys have any sources regarding estimates for the production costs of a game like Halo:Reach?

EDIT: Found my answers to that here ;) http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=150742&page=1#