Azzanation said:
The difference is your terms of winning compared to mine. Winning in Hardware sales does not mean winning in Software sales or winning in general. Whats more importent? Uncharted and GT are the only 2 Sony franchises that actrually compete with the big boys when it comes to Software sales, everything else doesnt. Sure Sony can sell more Hardware units but that doesnt mean they win. Remember the PS2 was also sold for a loss for many years. For example - If you sell 1 million PS2s at a loss of $1 that doesnt mean you win. Same went for PS3, it was sold at a loss because Sony were losing heaps due to price cuts. 360 was also sold for a loss however Xbox had Live Subscritions to counter the Hardware losses hence why Sony followed MS with the paywall. Uncharted is the Face of Playstation, ending the series will mean Sony doesnt have a mascot. Its not that importent but as a company your profits are in the Software sales not the Hardware sales. Uncharted, like Mario and Halo sell millions, unlike Hardware sales which the more consoles they sell the more money they lose unless your paying for there online services. Nintendo broke out even on the gamecube considering it only sold 24milion consoles, why? because its Software sold extremly well. Same went for the N64, it only sold 40million units yet was profitable because Nintendo games make the difference for the company not the Hardware. These are the reasons why i dont care for hardware sales. it does nothing for anybody unless your a shareholder. A high selling console and no one is playing the same games as you it means nothing, compared to a low selling console yet everyone is playing the same games as you means alot more. |
As far as I know it's Naughty Dog, not Uncharted that matters... they were record sellers with Crash, Jake, Uncharted and TLOU (which sold better than any uncharted)... so you are talking non-sense.
Sony doesn't relly on some franchise from several gens, besides GT because there is no point in changing name because it will be racing anyway.
Nintendo were profitable because of Handhelds not the consoles on those 2 generations. MS have lost a lot of money because of several issues on the gen. And PS2 had very health profits because of royalties... you don't need your 1st parties selling 20M if you can sell 7M and have several 3rds selling 5-25M paying you royalties...
I don't care about sales in this regard, I just play one console and 1 copy of the game so why should someone care about sales of SW and not HW? You either care about both or none... I don't get a cent of it, so as long as it's healthy and keeps getting releases to please me I'm ok.

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."







