torok said:
Indeed. PS3 was a impressively badly designed product. It got good games, but the hardware itself was almost as if it was intentionally built to not be profitable and piss off developers. I was just checking, Ps3 managed to hit 199 on BF 2011, so it took 5 years while the PS4 is there in 4. It's also notable that it did not managed to go lower than that, even with a new slimmer model releasing towards the end of the gen. I wonder if Sony can keep cutting down the price of the PS4 and if they can't even lower it more with a slimmer model in 2 years. |
Well PS3 5 years to go from 499-599 to 199, PS4 399 to 199 in 4 years... actually the first 50 and the second one where the slowest ever for a PS system.
but on the philosophy crazy Ken really wasn't much worried about price and profitability, and also he was looking to what he thought the dev environment should be so he didn't care about 3rd parties... that is why PS4 being so different approach was so much liked.
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."
