By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
kowenicki said:
DonFerrari said


Yes and it could be 1 cent profit per sold console then...

My point, which I thought was obvious, was that the reason for the turn around in profit is largely due to uptake in PS+ subscriptions, whatever Sony may say.  This is also obvious.  A few million extra subscribers sonce ps4 introduction is good money.  (PS+ up 200% since PS4, or rather, since paid for multiplayer introduced)

Your answer to him is still unrelated to his claim. Sure we can suppose that most of profit is from ps+ (ignoring cost and margin) and say they profit 1 cent on HW only, but that wasn't his point, sounds more like a dig against sony because when you said they only profit on hw because of ps+ you were spinning the point.


Well, it wasnt, I didnt even read his point that way, I didnt intend to respond directly to any point about hardware.  I was just saying that Game is profitable now due in large part to paid for multiplayer.  They should have done it years ago.  It wasnt a dig at them, far from it...  I am congratulating them for wising up and not listening to silly fanboys.

Ok I'll accept it was just reading different than me. And yes good sw sales, strong digital only and ps+ were the foundation of this profit. Myself I don't agree with paid MP but understand the reason. For me it's indiferent since I don't MP and like and subscribed for Ps+ because of the benefits.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."