[QUOTE="SUD123456"]Profit is tied to a yearly cycle. What you made or lost last year is irrelevant. What matters is what are you currently making/losing and what are your expectations about future profit. Adding up gains and losses across multiple generations/multiple years is irrelevant. No one makes business decisions that way. If they did there would never have been an X360.What you are sort of attempting to do is project lifecycle economics on a return on equity or return on invested capital basis. But even then, you cannot add up gains/losses across different projects (Xbox vs 360) as they are independent investments and everything about the original Xbox is sunk and therefore irrelevant to the economics of the 360.
This is why the PS2 is an amazing success. The original Xbox an amazing failure. The PS3 a borderline dud. And the 360 a pretty good success (with a stunningly bad RROD subplot). ***Note my descriptors are based solely on the financials***
tormentos
So if sony report profits this year the almost 5 billion loss are magically erase.? No it doesn't work that way,if it was like that sega would still be here,all companies are expected to loss some dollars but the long term one is about making them,the xbox brand hasn't turn a true profit in 11 years,not true profits because the cost of operations and stuff like that far surpass what the company has win,if the xbox 720 start with huge losses like the 360 did is possible that MS would not see a cent in more than 15 years in the gaming market.. The PS2 loss money the first year it was not huge and they were made back by the PS2 on the long run,the PS2 profits by far surpass the PS2 losses,the PS1 profits by far surpass then PS1 losses,the PS3 has been all losses.. The xbox was all losses,the xbox 360 break even this last year out of the 3.1 billions they loss in just 2 short years,it has take MS almost 6 years to break even out of the xbox 360 initials losses,but still 4 billions of the original xbox still are there as loss money on a product that has not return it,much like the Zune the xbox brand has been a money pit for MS. And all that while the nickel and dime their user base,make millions on advertising on the dashboard,charge you a yearly fee for online play,and selling since day 1 over priced peripherals,imagine if the xbox 360 would have come 1 sku,with wifi build in like the PS3 from day one,with free online play,and without over priced proprietary crap,the xbox 360 would have bleed until 2011.. No one can deny that the xbox 360 is the most expensive console for gaming period,regardless of not having blu-ray or free online play,it has pretty much is since day 1. The PS2 is a incredible success even compare to the wii that won,in fact the xbox 360 is a fiasco that hasn't sell half of what the PS2 sold,it took them almost 5 year to sell 40 million units,the PS2 sold 100 million in its first 5. Sony and MS are tied basically hardware wise,so if the PS3 is a dud so is the xbox 360,who has force millions to rebuy units and still failed to achieve even PS1 numbers,let alone PS2 ones.I did always somewhat suspect you were just yet another deluded cow; I wasn't sure since you sometimes make good points. However, this post does indeed confirm that you are yet another deluded cow. The last sentence says it all; baselessly pulling numbers out of your arse to suit your argument...I guess that's the cow way.
Dang, there were actually some decent cows around before this HD generation kickstarted. Skektek was one of the few knowing what he was talking about, but he's hardly around.
The board is now flooded with deluded cows that flood the forums with their tripe fanboyism. Lemmings aren't much better, but hell, there are a couple of decent and level-headed lemmings around still.
Log in to comment