Azzanation said:
Mate you sound a little defensive and a little uneducated in this.
Selling more does not make something more successful.
e.g. If MS decide to undercut the PS4 by $300 and in the long run over took and beat PS4 in sales. Does that make the X1 a more successful console? Haha if you think yes because (It sold more) than I’ll be a little worried.
You notice MS never include the income of Live subscribers in any of these reports? Interesting indeed. Maybe to avoid business tax in the division? Maybe so gamers won’t ask to lower their prices since they are racking in the profits. Shady but effective in business terms.
Sony's PS3 was a disaster at launch and cost the company billions. Sure Xbox had the Red Ring of Death which was paid off by Live Subs. PS3 had to get butchered to compete with the 360 similar to how the X1 had to be cut down to compete with the PS4 however not as extreme. PS3 also didn’t have Subs for PSN so their income only came from games which 360 sold more software than the PS3. If you think PS3 is a more successful console than the 360 than that would make me laugh on the inside.
You don’t win a war by selling more hardware, the real profits rely on Software sales and Subscribers. Hardware in many cases earn little gain and in some cases companies lose money on hardware sold.
Also note that the PS3 had a much higher R&D compared to the cheaper 360
https://www.geek.com/games/playstation-3-cost-sony-332-billion-it-may-not-recoup-576005/
PS3 from the get go cost Sony $3.3b in R&D compared to the rumoured $2.5b 360. Do the maths, PS3 sold slightly more hardware than the 360 in the end, however it cost almost a whopping $1b more than the 360 with less Software sales and no Subs over the course of the Generation.
360 killed it last gen for MS.
|
Essay Pro
