They arent making any profit. The assembly costs is 381 dollar.
You must then add:
Storage Costs
Shipping Costs
Retailers Cut
Promotion prices
Indirect costs
Static costs
Research and developement costs
And in the end its probably costing them 600 dollars to sell one 400 dollar console and they are hoping they are going to make it back by holding a monopoly on games and taking their cut from every developer.
omega 616 said:
I assume it was also people like you saying that "current gen consoles are holding back gaming 'cos they are running on 8 year old hardware" ... they simply can't win.
Yeah they could start releasing top of the line gaming pc's packaged as consoles but people started shouting at Sony at the cost of the PS3.
Simple fact is most people wont even notice the difference between the resolutions, even in a side by side, which most people will never do in there homes.
Last-gen (yes, lets get used to that one, it was as hard to type for me as it will be for you) consoles was holding gaming back. In fact, current gen consoles already ARE holding gaming back thanks to their inability to run 1080p properly.
Heck, next year there will be a PHONE that is as powerful as this console.
And i think we have already been over the fallacy of "you cant see reslution dur durr"
Adam Jensen said:
People keep saying that but it isn't true. There's more to the console hardware than which series of GPU it uses. It isn't outdated. The way the unified memory architecture within the PS4 works is quite novel and won't be available to PC gamers until 2014.
What people were saying is that last gen was outdated - it was true, it had a frigging 512 mb of ram to begin with.
What they are saying about current gen (yes time to get used to that.... ech) is that it is underpowered. and that is also true - the 16 cores of AMD monstrocity even if utilized with maximum efifcinecy (we already saw what hell it is to program for many slow cores before, developers wont be jumping on this) still get beat by a now quite old 4 core i5. Noone was expecting miracles with consoles, they were expecting them to be at least on part with mid-high range PCs though. I mean, in the past consoles were always up there with high-end PCs during the launch at least.
vxicepickxv said:
Sony is losing money on these, probably. I say probably because of a few factors. First, no console is worth a profit margin of less than ten dollars. Second, labor is still a cost. Of course, Sony is buying these chips in bulk, and isn't paying full retail for any part at all. It might actually be close to profit neutral for Sony.
Sony definitely is loosing money. no matter how many units you ship the shipping, storage, static and research costs are going to be more than 18 dollars per unit. I mean technically i guess if they got magic gnomes working for them and they bought all those advertisements for a steal.
J Tyran said:
The Wii U can do 1080p, in fact the Wii U probably has more games in native 1080p than either of them. The shiny games like Battlefield 4? Neither the Xbone or the PS4 can manage native 1080p for games like that.
Though if you look at WiiU games that do native 1080p youll soon realize that your grandads PC could do them in 1080p as they arent more complex than your average flash game nowadays.
mysecondlife said:
If what Sony says on taking loss for PS4 is true, they should really talk to those "analysts". Maybe they can figure something out to make it more profitable
Yes, like making analysts account for other things than just raw assembly price (part of changing costs only).
DracoSuave said:
IF consoles are being released with no margin going to the retailer, then digital distribution for consoles fail because there's no reason for retailers to stock a unit that makes them no money in game sales.
Which is the real reason XBone gave up on their digital only dreams.
which is why you see more consoles sold in places like WallMart than specialized retailers.