reviniente said:
There's a reason people 'happily traded it' for, but lower cost wasn't the reason. From the WSJ article: "There’s a catch to the lower price: The new $399 PlayStation model will not play games designed for the PlayStation 2, Sony’s popular older game console. Mr. Tretton conceded that removing that capability, along with a few other features, isn’t dramatically reducing Sony’s cost of manufacturing the console but will instead encourage buyers of the entry-level PlayStation 3 to purchase more games designed specifically for the new system." And you though Sony was looking out for your bottom line.
Warned (for multiple posts - Baiting, Flaming, Spamming, and Trolling) ~ CGI |
Don't know what you are trying to do on this... but if you read your own post you'll see that they dropped the price and people bought without caring to much about the loss of BC.
Sony only look at their own bottomline.
And since you forfeit the "BC have 0 cost, free lunch" discussion you tried to frame it in a different way?
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."