KruzeS on 28 November 2007
DMeisterJ said:
I wouldn't say it like that. It was very drastic and daring but desperate makes it seem like there aren't any other reasons to not purchase a PS3 because of price. I do think it helped but quality games could have done the same thing. Both of those mixed however, would be awesome. |
Projecting a $500m loss is daring. Burning through it in one quarter is frightening. Burning through twice as much in two quarters in an attempt to stay relevant is desperate.
If your boss told you he had run out of money to pay you by April, would you stick with him till December because you think the company holds great promise? What if he then proceded to ask you for a loan to keep the company afloat? What would it take for you to stay, and when would you just decide to simply cut your losses?
I know this is a bad analogy, but you can't really qualify this simply as a bold decision.
Reality has a Nintendo bias.
KruzeS on 28 November 2007
DMeisterJ said:
That is a horrible analogy, and who knows what the next four months hold for the PS3 in terms of sales and releases before we say they lost 1 billion in a year. |
I know, I said so myself.
But, let me get this straight, you're assuming the PS3 is being sold at a healthy profit right now? And if you aren't, how else are they supposed to make a profit the following 2 quarters, when they haven't before? Are there significantly more games being sold per console?
Reality has a Nintendo bias.