Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Mar 2010 12:59 UTC, submitted by NiceGuyEddie
Thread beginning with comment 415888
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This concept of Sony losing money when a purchaser doesn't buy games really does my head in. They might be losing money on the sale of a console, yeah maybe.
- So does Sony prefer I don't by the console if I don't buy games?
- So does Sony prefer I don't by the console if I don't buy games?
Yes. If they lost money from the small number of machines that went into clusters, it's because they actively supported that market with both hardware and software - who do you think produced PS3 Linux? where do you think Yellow dog's PS3 cluster came from?
This concept of Sony losing money when a purchaser doesn't buy games really does my head in. They might be losing money on the sale of a console, yeah maybe.
Just to clarify - this was the way it worked for initially, and for several years thereafter. I believe this "problem" has mostly been resolved with cheaper parts and manufacturing costs now.
The idea was probably to lose money on each console initially, gain market share, and then make up for it in game licensing and peripherals later.
I still doubt they really consider console sales to be a huge benefit to their bottom line, it's really all about the games.
- Perhaps they should lock the firmware down to doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than playing PS3 games and sell the console for $10. Will that make us buy one and buy 1000 games?
Also remember that the PS3 was one of the first devices to offer Blu-ray playback... and was the *cheapest* way to get a bluray player for a while.
This was a combo move by Sony - they offered a major incentive to purchase a PS3, while at the same time making Bluray affordable when it wasn't otherwise (HD-DVD players were much cheaper).
Since Sony had a major investment in Bluray, it was to their advantage to bring this technology to consumers as cheaply and quickly as possible.
Without making the PS3 more enticing to consumers as a "media center" and "general computer", along with "backward compatible" (plays PS2 games), they really would have had a hard time getting it off the ground to compete with the cheaper consoles on the market.
Since then, they've removed backwards compatibility, and the OtherOS features from newer machines - sounds like they're doing exactly what you're suggesting they should do.
Edited 2010-03-30 00:29 UTC
RE[2]: Please explain
by Bringbackanonposting on Tue 30th Mar 2010 23:24
in reply to "RE: Please explain"




Member since:
2005-11-16
This concept of Sony losing money when a purchaser doesn't buy games really does my head in. They might be losing money on the sale of a console, yeah maybe.
- So does Sony prefer I don't by the console if I don't buy games?
- So all the consoles that didn't sell. Will Sony take them to the crusher when the PS4 comes out?
- Perhaps they should lock the firmware down to doing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than playing PS3 games and sell the console for $10. Will that make us buy one and buy 1000 games?
I would think that Sony wants to sell as much of anything with the brand Sony on it they can. Whatever the price.
I was waiting patiently to get a good deal on a PS3. Not anymore. Unless we get a russian hacker re-writing the firmware to let us do what we want with the PS3, I'll stick to saving money.