mrstickball said:
They aren't the only company based on simple economics. Microsoft and Sony are in the video game markets for reasons far bigger than just videogames, therefor just using "they are losing money" as an excuse is dumb.
For Sony, they've almost always made a profit until they decided to push more online functions and Blu-Ray technology. As I've said, and will say again, Sony is pushing a machine to push Blu-Ray, therefore the actual benefit of the PS3 to Sony (as a corporation) isn't entirely in gaming. Therefore, their true profits off of videogames isn't entirely disclosed in mere P&L statements for the PS3, nor console losses. So what if the PS3 looses $200? The PS2 lost $120 per system @ launch (give or take), and ended up making Sony billions of dollars.
For Microsoft, they are taking the route of pushing alot of DLC, addons, content upgrades, and such. Consoles aren't their bread and butter, which is why they lose so much. However, their bread and butter are from vista/office sales, and software. Secondarily, they make lots off of servers, to which MS is using their servers for XBL content. For all we know, profits for the H&E division are less because sales of MS Points and XBL Gold subscripts. aren't included.
Nintendo is the only game company because thats all they are. For them, if Nintendo ever lost money, they'd go bankrupt. Sony and MS have the advantage of being able to lose money, and being able to recoup it.
You can extrapolate "oh, if Sony/MS were just videogame companies, they'd be bankrupt" thats just faulty logic. Your assuming that if both companies just made videogame systems, they'd pursue the same stratagies, but they wouldn't. They wouldn't have the massive bits of cash to invest in things that Nintendo can't even invest in. Theres a reason the Wii uses rehashed GC technology - it's cheap. Theres a reason Nintendo can't invest in a fully functioning online network - it costs money Nintendo is unwilling to pony up for quickly, as its alot of money. This is a plus and minus.
For consumers though, the Sony/MS is better in the fact that we gain where they lose. We get systems that are far more powerful for the dollar than the Wii. Which might mean, or not mean anything to various gamers (to me it does though).
Ultimately, your trying to make a hypothetical point thats totally invalid. MS and Sony aren't video game companies. Thats why they sell systems, and what they do works for them. |
Pink: Your Display pic typically matches the content in your post.
Red: Make's no sense as is, however makes a little sense if you take Microsoft out.
Blue: Makes even lese sense then the red zone, If I lost $5 in a poker machine do I declare bankruptcy?
Green: I agree, but don't believe it will pay off.
Purple: It's not really working for them at the moment now is it?
Their Bread and Butter is elsewhere, fair enough that's true, but you've gone and said that if video games was all they had they would take different strategies, okay, so basically they don't care if they lose money, "Hey we have so much money lets make a supreme console just for shits and giggles"
I think your wording was just a tad off.
They want to win this War as much as Nintendo are, Profit wise.
