By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
trunkswd said:
thismeintiel said:

If anything, history shows that Sony is the one willing to take the loss, not MS.  Even just as recently as this gen, MS wouldn't drop the price of the XBO, even though the $499 price was killing it, until they could get BOM to a point where they were breaking even without the Kinect.  Then, they could have ended this gen with a bang with a $399 XBO X, but chose not to lose money on the HW.  Xbox is just not as important to MS as PS is to Sony.  Sony NEEDS PS5 to succeed, even if it means taking a hit at the beginning.  MS could just drop Xbox HW tomorrow and not bat an eye.

The losses from the PS3 wiped out the profits from the PS1 and PS2. Even at $599 they were still losing money per console sold. Sure this generation Microsoft wasn't willing to lose money per console, but they certainly did for the OG Xbox and Xbox 360. Microsoft was nearly giving up on Xbox this generation until Phil Spencer convinced the current CEO of MS the importance of the brand and he was then given the money to acquire so many studios. 

Sony always started the gen selling for a loss even on PS4. To break even they needed a retail game and PS+ sub. And Sony knows that they make the money on the SW and subs so losing 100 on the start of the gen and ensuring more profit later is their choice. They were even direct on PS4 that their objective was to accelerate sales. They didn`t cut the PS4 price a second time because the sales curve was already fantastic, but expect PS5 to be priced agressively.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

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"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."