Which isn't what you said at all, since you said things like "nintendo made money but it wasn't because of the gamecube." and "with all that nintendo made almost the same as the ps2." which may or may not be true since Gamecube had some of the best selling titles of last gen and most of which were made by Nintendo which means they brought in more money from that title, so they not only made money on the console but games as well, even then Sony had other things involved skewing things like PS1 still selling and selling software into the PS2's life and just like you said PS2 selling into PS3's life helping out those losses.

Now if you're going to settle on that point than saying things like Gamecube not bringing in that much in profit, then yes PS2 likely did bring in more profits than GC alone, the only issue the only facts to prove one way or the other is collective data, and that proves the point of this thread that a business model that doesn't sell at a loss is a better way to go, since MS still hasn't made a profit on their game division and the PS3 has almost eaten away at the entirety of the PS brand, but if they had went with the sell hardware for a profit model, they wouldn't be in that bind, period.

While that proves nothing, because the topic is the razor model being flawed and you point out it worked for them when they were the highest selling, its obvious it's majorly flawed because now they're not on top and lost billions.

As for what I highlighted, 360 has similar specs, followed the same razor concept, lower price point, but their company is making money now, so obviously it's not just a engineering problem more of they made it way too expensive to produce.

Usually those royalties only last for a certain number of years. Is there an up to date list of what each gets? (Not asking you to post one, just asking if you think there may be one.)

Maxwell's argument has some erroneous, simplistic assumptions -- namely he's ignoring the fact that Sony makes about $9 in royalties off each BD drive produced (which is $270M for PS3 drives alone) which are reported in another division as revenue, and that money is spent by the game division, in purchasing BD drives from 3rd parties (which is part of the reported expenses), and that the cost-of-goods for all of Sony's software is reported as losses in the games division, and as gains in the disc manufacturing division (again, hundreds of millions of dollars).

Still, he's fundamentally correct in his base assumption -- the same things I mention above were true during the "PS2 era" (except DVD royalties for Sony are far lesser per unit), and thus the PS2 was actually much more profitable than it appears from reading the games division reports directly, and the PS3 is not as profitable thusfar... at least not directly.  You might put forth that BD royalties will eventually sum to billions of USD for Sony alone (i.e. not inclusive of the rest of the BDA), during the format's lifetime.

The Wii is just plain a cash cow for Nintendo -- they have created a no-lose scenario for themselves, by creating hardware which is cheap enough for consumers to afford, and yet profitable enough for Nintendo to rake in money from hardware alone.  On top of that, the plethora of cheap software available for the platform ensures its continued existance, and although the profits are spread too thinly amongst 3rd parties to make them happy, Nintendo sees money from every single title licensed for their hardware -- DS and Wii alike.  Much like Apple's iStore, actually...

Maxwell's argument has some erroneous, simplistic assumptions -- namely he's ignoring the fact that Sony makes about $9 in royalties off each BD drive produced (which is $270M for PS3 drives alone) which are reported in another division as revenue, and that money is spent by the game division, in purchasing BD drives from 3rd parties (which is part of the reported expenses), and that the cost-of-goods for all of Sony's software is reported as losses in the games division, and as gains in the disc manufacturing division (again, hundreds of millions of dollars).

Still, he's fundamentally correct in his base assumption -- the same things I mention above were true during the "PS2 era" (except DVD royalties for Sony are far lesser per unit), and thus the PS2 was actually much more profitable than it appears from reading the games division reports directly, and the PS3 is not as profitable thusfar... at least not directly.  You might put forth that BD royalties will eventually sum to billions of USD for Sony alone (i.e. not inclusive of the rest of the BDA), during the format's lifetime.

The Wii is just plain a cash cow for Nintendo -- they have created a no-lose scenario for themselves, by creating hardware which is cheap enough for consumers to afford, and yet profitable enough for Nintendo to rake in money from hardware alone.  On top of that, the plethora of cheap software available for the platform ensures its continued existance, and although the profits are spread too thinly amongst 3rd parties to make them happy, Nintendo sees money from every single title licensed for their hardware -- DS and Wii alike.  Much like Apple's iStore, actually...

Maxwell's argument has some erroneous, simplistic assumptions -- namely he's ignoring the fact that Sony makes about $9 in royalties off each BD drive produced (which is $270M for PS3 drives alone) which are reported in another division as revenue, and that money is spent by the game division, in purchasing BD drives from 3rd parties (which is part of the reported expenses), and that the cost-of-goods for all of Sony's software is reported as losses in the games division, and as gains in the disc manufacturing division (again, hundreds of millions of dollars).

Still, he's fundamentally correct in his base assumption -- the same things I mention above were true during the "PS2 era" (except DVD royalties for Sony are far lesser per unit), and thus the PS2 was actually much more profitable than it appears from reading the games division reports directly, and the PS3 is not as profitable thusfar... at least not directly.  You might put forth that BD royalties will eventually sum to billions of USD for Sony alone (i.e. not inclusive of the rest of the BDA), during the format's lifetime.

The Wii is just plain a cash cow for Nintendo -- they have created a no-lose scenario for themselves, by creating hardware which is cheap enough for consumers to afford, and yet profitable enough for Nintendo to rake in money from hardware alone.  On top of that, the plethora of cheap software available for the platform ensures its continued existance, and although the profits are spread too thinly amongst 3rd parties to make them happy, Nintendo sees money from every single title licensed for their hardware -- DS and Wii alike.  Much like Apple's iStore, actually...

So I'm not saying Blu-ray was the smart move cause it might not pay off until next gen which may be a gamble but if the next Xbox and new Nintendo console start using blu-ray discs that could be good for Sony, if HD DVD had won all investments into blu-ray for Sony would have been a loss.  Personally I think Sony should have kept the PS3 with just DVD tech made a cheaper console, made blu-ray players really in demand by bringing a lot of studios over to make movies for it and beating HD-DVD without having to drag the PS3 into it.  Then save Blu-ray tech for next gen when games will need it more, plus the tech becomes better so they can load faster without installs.