kowenicki said:
Branko2166 said:
kowenicki said:
brendude13 said:
kowenicki said:
ha ha haaa.
"Paid off"
How?
The PS3 wiped out the entire profits from PS1 and PS2 and still hasnt made any money for itself.
Making some profits recently doesnt repay all those previous losses.
Your last bit is subjective and Off topic. this is about evenue and profits.
Thank you.
|
Looking at the OP, nothing was mentioned about profits, it was purely about revenue.
|
They go hand in hand in any intelligent conversation about financial success.
Games has nothing to do with this topic.
|
Especially when it can be used by you to show how badly Sony is doing financially and to show what a disaster the PS3 has been from a financial standpoint. Please continue to to enlighten us with thou mastery of economic knowledge and your ability to turn anything remotely positive about Sony into posts about Sony's financial futility.
@OP
The fact that Sony grossed the most is to be expected considering the launch price and it's all good I suppose though it is a shame that Sony had to lose so much money per unit sold. Could have been mitigated if they had just gone with a dvd drive however as we all know Sony was determined to push Blu-Ray.
Edit- To me it wasn't the revenue generated but the sales themselves that were impressive considering the very high launch price. To put things in perspective, they cost $1000 at launch in Australia and this was when the Australian dollar was slightly above or close to the value of the US dollar so I guess they didn't lose money in at least one region.
|
no... just because they do.
sorry if that upsets you.
|
No not really. It actually brings a smile to my face every time I see how quick you are to jump into a Sony thread and how you waste no time to either derail or spin threads toward a negative direction. More amusing than anything else :)
