Comment by johnnyanmac
3 months ago
The ps3 was certainly a unique case, because despite selling at a loss it still wasn't a competitive price. The infamous "599 USD" now translates to 950 dollars today, so that really shows you how utterly expensive it was (when the PS5 pro just needed to price hike to $800).so it coming down in price for consumers and manufacturers helped it immensely.
But I do believe that was a unique case. Consoles don't typically "come back" later in life. The vita later on didn't. The Wii U and Xbox one didn't. The dreamcast sure didn't. Sony's big turnaround should be praised, but not accepted as a norm of business.
Every console that sold over a hundred million consoles had over a decade of solid sales.
Those seven consoles significantly outnumber the 50 consoles that didn't.
Even the PS3 didn't sell 100 million units. Relative flops like the xbox one or the wii U are insignificant fractions of console sales.
So, 4 consoles?
Yes, I'm aware on how consoles are monetized. They take a loss in the first few years and make up for that with software sales, which they take a 30% cut on.
I'm not dispelling if the model isn't profitable, I'm simply stating that the hardware is historically sold at razor thin margins early on, if not outright a loss (until this generation)
> So, 4 consoles?
as I said, 7 consoles.
> They take a loss in the first few years and make up for that with software sales, which they take a 30% cut on.
Some consoles took a loss in the first 1-2 years.
> until this generation
Nope. The early generations didn't sell at a loss. Atari 2600, NES, et cetera weren't. That practice started with PS1 / XBox and ended with PS4/XBone.
1 reply →