I think Sony is just on damage control right now. Put the PS3 in as many homes as possible and forget about profit. Only that way can the PS4 be a success.
I think Sony is just on damage control right now. Put the PS3 in as many homes as possible and forget about profit. Only that way can the PS4 be a success.
You';re doing it wrong. Its more... and less. But I can't right now.
How did I get home....?
> but even if it's as little as $10 (just a guess), that means
$5,000,000 lost this week
--
For a company owning
$230,500,000,000 in assets, you're not talking about a big amount of money there.
Of course PS3 owners also buy software (games and Blu-Ray movies) and peripherals (including HDTVs and surround sound equipment). In fact PS3 owners on average buy more games than 360 gamers.
LordTheNightKnight said:
The entire funds for SCE, I would presume. R&D on a new system alone can take millions. Redesigning the PS3 itself didn't come free. |
Still, this goes against your OP, where you were talking about the per-unit profit or loss. The profit that comes from controllers, other accessories and software licensing fees scales with the units sold, whereas R&D for the PS3 slim was a fixed cost.
Thus the more they sell the better because a profit that scales goes to cover fixed costs. Wasn't this the matter in your OP? The doubt that increased sales were actually a damage to their finances?
Smashchu2 said:
I doubt that. On the console front, Sony doesn't have a lot of revenue avenues besides hardware sales. The PSP could met the difference, but I doubt it's making enough money to level out the PS3's losses. |
There profiting off the PS2 aswell, and it's not just from hardware this is from hardware, software, peripherals, and services.
WereKitten said:
Still, this goes against your OP, where you were talking about the per-unit profit or loss. The profit that comes from controllers, other accessories and software licensing fees scales with the units sold, whereas R&D for the PS3 slim was a fixed cost. Thus the more they sell the better because a profit that scales goes to cover fixed costs. Wasn't this the matter in your OP? The doubt that increased sales were actually a damage to their finances? |
No, it doesn't. It's to show why revenue from game sales aren't always enough to offset those losses. You have to remember what I was replying to.
MikeB, if I wrote it was just a guess, it was a guess. And that was a hopeful minimum guess at that.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
Well it didin't take long for certain som1 to find something bad about Ps3 slim.
I thought it would take at least 2 days but I was wrong.
Well I dunno if they would have dropped price just -50 and got new Slim model, it would have been enough for Sony to be back in fight.
Take my love, take my land..
Simulacrum said: Well it didin't take long for certain som1 to find something bad about Ps3 slim. I thought it would take at least 2 days but I was wrong. Well I dunno if they would have dropped price just -50 and got new Slim model, it would have been enough for Sony to be back in fight. |
I hope you don't mean me. I've actually defended the system in a few threads.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs
Lets just pretend the X BOX project hasn't netted Microsoft 10billion losses.
inverted3reality said: Lets just pretend the X BOX project hasn't netted Microsoft 10billion losses. |
Oh, just because I didn't mention it doesn't mean I'm ignoring that either. It's just their system has been profitable for a while (and if they're smart, the next one will be profitable from day one), and I was hoping Sony would follow suit, but I don't know if that will even happen by the end of next year.
A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.
Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs