Bfriedli said:
|
It's not just about having a lot of money.
For Sony, the Playstation was one of the most profitable business, and after quite a fail on the PS3 launch and product, they had to take the loss to save the PS3 and continue this business. They don't have so many profitable divisions, and they can't really quickly drop the unprofitable divisions. Their PS strategy make sense, and the PS4 proves it to be somewhat successful.
For Microsoft, they are getting a lot of money from a lot of divisions, they are very profitable, and there is this one single dark little division, the XBox division, that made them loose 5 billions $. After 14 years dealing with it, it happens any hope they had for a very profitable xbox one swimming in its blue ocean are lost. And you can tell how much they wanted a solid profit on it just by watching the expensive launch price : 500$. And again, their strategy makes sense. You don't build a successful and profitable company like Microsoft just by thinking "our pocket are deep, let's bleed money forever on some division". They have a very tight profit management, and they can drop any division very quickly.
So, MS is a very profitable company, but it doesn't mean they give any division access to eat a part of this large profit. They could, but they should not, and they are not : tight cost management (xbox memory, number of exclusive, number of internal studio), and high launch price (again, 500$). If you were in charge, perhaps you would say something like "we are MS, we have so much money, let's loose 2 billions $ to make the launch price 400$ and have 5 more AAA games at launch". But that's not how it works.







