mornelithe said:
Capulous said:
That's what you've been doing. Stating your opinion that the cost of the PS3 had nothing at all to do with the inclusion of blu-ray. I say it does. You have provided nothing to prove otherwise. Are you sure I'm the one with a reality problem? I do agree with the last part though. It is all good.
|
Never said the cost of the Ps3 had nothing to do with Blu Ray, also never said the cost of the PS3 didn't have to do with XDR or the Cell Processor. What I did say is defining 'transferring costs to the consumer' by absorbing between 28 and 38 percent of the products BOM, isn't accurate. The profit made from Blu Ray, came nowhere close to covering the losses on the PS3. Not even remotely close.
|
What you said is that saying Sony transferring costs to the consumers is false. The inclusion of bluray increased the price of the PS3. The consumers paid for that.
Sony banked on winning the format wars. They were hoping for a huge payoff from the royalites they would recieve because of it. It was probably projected to be similar to the amount that DVDs pulled it. Unfortunatly for them, it hasn't been that way so far.