Scisca said:
I'm gonna repeat. Add all the BR profits to PS3. Sony would never earn that money had it not invested extra into PS3. If you include the costs of BR, ignoring the profit it brought is unfair. And when it comes to marketshare, last gen is very, very deceiving due to the anomaly that was the Wii. You can't just add the consoles sold like you could earlier and say "this is the market", cause Wii gained a completely new market that didn't exist before and no longer exists. That's why only fools like Pachter believe this gen will sell like the previous one. It won't, cause we're back to the regular market, as Nintendo is learning the hard way. And Sony's marketshare in this market remained strong. Not as strong as earlier, but strong enough, as PS4 proves. Yup, it will. Is this really news to you? Games will become a service very soon, all companies are getting ready to this. Heard of PS Now? Get used to it. Next gen will possibly be the last generation of consoles as we know them. Handhelds are first, home consoles will die later on. You know what, get serious, cause such conversations make no sense. Calling something a "failure" is different than calling it a "big fat failure". Vita isn't meeting expectations, just like Wii U. But since it remains mildly profitable, it's not a "big fat failure". Especially since it's not damaging the PS brand and its result doesn't pose any risk for the future of PlayStation. When it comes to PS3, it was much more than just a gaming console. It was a medium for worldwide introduction of BR. And it achieved that. It also defended itself against a very strong move from MS and set the table for a more successful gen. When everything was up in the air when it comes to PS4 and Xbone the argument of PS having more, better studios and supporting their console for much longer was among the most important ones. That's strictly PS3 heritage. |
And let's not forget that Samus pic. I mean, that was the real clincher for me.