By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Captain_Tom on 30 July 2013
Edit Thread
sales2099 said:
Captain_Tom said:
sales2099 said:
the2real4mafol said:
 

No i mean sales. You can't profit without many sales and without that you won't get many games on the system, so sales are more important as they drive profits.

Except history from this very gen says otherwise. If sales mattered more then profit, MS wouldn't have been coasting on 2008 NA prices. By contrast, Sony went through $150 in price cuts since 2009 and not one but 2 slim redesigns. It is truly baffling how many missed opportunities MS missed with price cuts in the last 2-3 years.

MS profited and coasted on steady sales for almost 5, count 5 years.


They still have yet to break even with their total XBox losses from the original xbox and early 360 years...

Total Xbox losses? Thought we were just referring to this gen as an example that profit means sustainability.Why don't we just throw in that PS3 burned through all PS2 profits and it is likely PS3 itself will never break even? EDIT: Yet still we see a PS4 coming out. So in essense this thread is just wrong.

Oh and 360 in itself is in full profit.

Because obviously if the PS4 does well (It is looking like it will do more than ok), it shows the PS3 was a mistake after 2 generations of utter platform dominace followed by another great gen.  Playstation made a blunder, but overall proves it is still a market leader.

 

If the Xbox One bombs than it shows that two out of three Xbox generations were failures and the 360 only made a slight profit.  The Xbox division got lucky once and it is time to stop.

 

All I am saying is that if the Xbox One does terribly, the Xbox division has an awful track record with no signs of success.  That is not disputable (By people who live in reality).