More pricing speculation. X360 loses $126?

B

Bill

Banned
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2005/tc20051122_410710.htm

But dont get too excited PS3 ******s. They claim PS3 may cost $600 by todays standards!

This is indisputable proof of the importance of power by the way.

Power is worth losing billions of dollars on hardware for.

This article is major wonky though.

For instance, they claim Xbox1 only lost $23. That's WAYYYY low as everybody knows.

Also as someone at GAF pointed out, 65 for the RAM sounds awfully high as well. Almost like they are using retail prices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually they claim the system could cost $600 to make, cell to be potentially around $159.

Its of course possible, however remember that Sony and IBM are making money elsewhere on the Cell chips so pushing these should quickly make the PS3 loses less for the companies where as MS have to shoulder the Xenon on their own.

The XBox may have only lost $23 to start with, its later in the gaming cycle with cost reductions that MS started to suffer, the price of many of their components was fixed so did not scale well with time, when you have a $150 console being made at $333 then you start to have a problem...
 
Sony stands to make too much money from BluRay domination, which is driving all this. They will make money from every player sold, as well as from rereleased content from their studioes.
 
DemoCoder said:
Sony stands to make too much money from BluRay domination, which is driving all this. They will make money from every player sold, as well as from rereleased content from their studioes.
Click to expand...

DemoCoder I'm sorry, but this is one statement that we here at B3D can't understand. Of course I've been saying something like this for months so who knows.
 
DemoCoder said:
Sony stands to make too much money from BluRay domination, which is driving all this. They will make money from every player sold, as well as from rereleased content from their studioes.
Click to expand...

If BR becomes the standard...
 
Bill said:
For instance, they claim Xbox1 only lost $23. That's WAYYYY low as everybody knows.
Click to expand...
only $23?

That doesnt sound right.If that was the case they wouldnt have been making losses.One game per console sold would have been enough to cover the loss.
 
Don't know what a Console maker receives in royalties for each game sale, but i doubt it being beyond 10$. 126$ per console seems way to high for me, as that would require quite a tie-in ratio (something like 20 games per console if you consider interest rates and capital costs) to ever be profitable...
 
License takings at something like $10 per game printed, not sold. That increases earnings beyond game-sales. I think fo rthe initial console sales tie-in ratio has to be high to cover costs. Once the hardware becomes cheaper the software becomes profitable. That's why XB did so badly financially - they couldn't get the price down so software takings were too small to offset losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top