DonFerrari said:
There won't be any official numbers to give you. The profits estimative comes more from similar earnings, but PSN alone costing less than whole of Nintendo. So if earning are close but costs are lower then profits are higher. You may dispute if they are really higher, equal or lower. But the main factor remains that it is still very close. |
My point from the beginning is that stating that PSN makes as much money (which I've defined as profit) is a statement that cannot be made as we have zero evidence - and no, an estimate made on a forum has never, nor ever will be, counted as evidence. Maybe it makes more, maybe it makes less, maybe it makes the same - the bottom line is that we don't know, so stating a possibility as fact is wrong!
PSN costs will be massive as the majority of games sales will be paid out to devs. I'd even imagine that only a slice of 1st party games will be attributed PSN with the majority of the sale being attributed to the the development division (after all, they done most of the work). It's essentially a store - and like any store, costs are going to be high relative to revenue as they have to pay the suppliers (or in this case the devs). So I'm really not sure where you're getting this notion that costs will be low... By the way, I've made this point about PSN costs multiple times now, which you seem to completely ignore and instead repeat your knuckle-headed position of 'PSN costs are low'.
If you could pay attention to what I'm writing rather than just trying to win the argument at all costs in the most smug way possible then we might actually get somewhere.
I'm not disputing anything - you are the one disputing my position of 'we don't have the evidence to arrive at a conclusion'.
So unless you can provide this evidence I'm not really sure what you want from me??
Last edited by Biggerboat1 - on 22 April 2019
