Sony squeezes $18 out of each PS4 sold

[Tom Sawyer]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57612925-93/sony-ekes-little-to-no-profit-from-ps4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

[USB Connector]

Sure, it they make that much if you only count manufacturing. Now add in shipping and marketing costs. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo make their real money from software, not the consoles themselves.

[LedRush]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57612925-93/sony-ekes-little-to-no-profit-from-ps4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

 

PS3 sold for $600 for the 60 gig and $500 for the 20, if I remember correctly. The price was justified by the blu ray player.

 

And seeing as the Xbox One is a bit weaker than the PS3, it would have been cheaper if not for kinect.

[USB Connector]

http://news.cnet.com...s4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

 

PS3 sold for $600 for the 60 gig and $500 for the 20, if I remember correctly. The price was justified by the blu ray player.

 

And seeing as the Xbox One is a bit weaker than the PS3, it would have been cheaper if not for kinect.

 

It's actually not weaker. The architecture is on par with the PS4 but the way it loads information is in smaller but faster packets -- better for multitasking. The PS4 can load larger packets but in slower bursts -- better for loading games. The architectures reflect the features of the consoles. Whether or not this will impact the performance remains to be seen until developers get a hang of the consoles and start using their power. Remember early PS3 and Xbox 360 games? They looked like crap for the most part until the first party devs made their first current gen only game.

[LedRush]

http://news.cnet.com...s4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

 

PS3 sold for $600 for the 60 gig and $500 for the 20, if I remember correctly. The price was justified by the blu ray player.

 

And seeing as the Xbox One is a bit weaker than the PS3, it would have been cheaper if not for kinect.

 

It's actually not weaker. The architecture is on par with the PS4 but the way it loads information is in smaller but faster packets -- better for multitasking. The PS4 can load larger packets but in slower bursts -- better for loading games. The architectures reflect the features of the consoles. Whether or not this will impact the performance remains to be seen until developers get a hang of the consoles and start using their power. Remember early PS3 and Xbox 360 games? They looked like crap for the most part until the first party devs made their first current gen only game.

 

Every developer I've seen quoted says that the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbone. What you say about the architecture may be true as well.

 

I know that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, and games looked better on the 360 for a while until people figured out how to use the PS3's power because it was more difficult to make games on that platform. It seems that the PS4 is the easier console this time, and once people figure out the Xbone, I'd imagine the games will look about the same. Ryse and Forza prove that even now games can look as good or better than PS4 games, despite the power limitations and architecture.

[Lerxster]

Technology market watcher IHS estimates that each Xbox One console carries a hardware cost of $457 per unit and an additional manufacturing cost of $14, making the device a $471 machine to produce wholesale. An Xbox One costs $499 in the shops, so that's a $28 difference. (But then the retailer will want a cut, and there are other overheads to consider, so Microsoft's mileage may vary.)

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/27/xbox_one_price_brings_loss_to_microsoft/

[LedRush]

It's no secret that only Nintendo really makes money on their hardware, at least in the early stages of a generation.

[USB Connector]

http://news.cnet.com...s4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

 

PS3 sold for $600 for the 60 gig and $500 for the 20, if I remember correctly. The price was justified by the blu ray player.

 

And seeing as the Xbox One is a bit weaker than the PS3, it would have been cheaper if not for kinect.

 

It's actually not weaker. The architecture is on par with the PS4 but the way it loads information is in smaller but faster packets -- better for multitasking. The PS4 can load larger packets but in slower bursts -- better for loading games. The architectures reflect the features of the consoles. Whether or not this will impact the performance remains to be seen until developers get a hang of the consoles and start using their power. Remember early PS3 and Xbox 360 games? They looked like crap for the most part until the first party devs made their first current gen only game.

 

Every developer I've seen quoted says that the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbone. What you say about the architecture may be true as well.

 

I know that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, and games looked better on the 360 for a while until people figured out how to use the PS3's power because it was more difficult to make games on that platform. It seems that the PS4 is the easier console this time, and once people figure out the Xbone, I'd imagine the games will look about the same. Ryse and Forza prove that even now games can look as good or better than PS4 games, despite the power limitations and architecture.

 

I read an article where a dev said the same thing. An anonymous dev....so I'm taking that with a bag of salt. As I understand it MS reserves 10% of memory at all times for kinect. That might account for it, it might not. Anyway, I'd give it a year for devs to learn how to use these machines before jumping to conclusions. However the absurd load times on current xbone titles is not promising.

 

No company makes real money off of selling the systems. They make it primarily off of the software. Nintendo, sadly usually has to cut prices to the point where they break even or take a loss (like the 3DS) to compete with the other systems when selling hardware. Once you have a system in the house then the likelihood of people buying your products skyrockets.

[LedRush]

http://news.cnet.com...s4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

 

PS3 sold for $600 for the 60 gig and $500 for the 20, if I remember correctly. The price was justified by the blu ray player.

 

And seeing as the Xbox One is a bit weaker than the PS3, it would have been cheaper if not for kinect.

 

It's actually not weaker. The architecture is on par with the PS4 but the way it loads information is in smaller but faster packets -- better for multitasking. The PS4 can load larger packets but in slower bursts -- better for loading games. The architectures reflect the features of the consoles. Whether or not this will impact the performance remains to be seen until developers get a hang of the consoles and start using their power. Remember early PS3 and Xbox 360 games? They looked like crap for the most part until the first party devs made their first current gen only game.

 

Every developer I've seen quoted says that the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbone. What you say about the architecture may be true as well.

 

I know that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, and games looked better on the 360 for a while until people figured out how to use the PS3's power because it was more difficult to make games on that platform. It seems that the PS4 is the easier console this time, and once people figure out the Xbone, I'd imagine the games will look about the same. Ryse and Forza prove that even now games can look as good or better than PS4 games, despite the power limitations and architecture.

 

I read an article where a dev said the same thing. An anonymous dev....so I'm taking that with a bag of salt. As I understand it MS reserves 10% of memory at all times for kinect. That might account for it, it might not. Anyway, I'd give it a year for devs to learn how to use these machines before jumping to conclusions. However the absurd load times on current xbone titles is not promising.

 

No company makes real money off of selling the systems. They make it primarily off of the software. Nintendo, sadly usually has to cut prices to the point where they break even or take a loss (like the 3DS) to compete with the other systems when selling hardware. Once you have a system in the house then the likelihood of people buying your products skyrockets.

 

Nintendo traditionally makes money on their hardware, while the others don't. The reason the 3DS price cut was so shocking is because it was so out of character (so early and so deep). That's why even the Xbox sold slightly more than the Gamecube, the Gamecube was at least a profit center for Nintendo, while the Xbox has been a money pit.

[USB Connector]

http://news.cnet.com...s4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

 

PS3 sold for $600 for the 60 gig and $500 for the 20, if I remember correctly. The price was justified by the blu ray player.

 

And seeing as the Xbox One is a bit weaker than the PS3, it would have been cheaper if not for kinect.

 

It's actually not weaker. The architecture is on par with the PS4 but the way it loads information is in smaller but faster packets -- better for multitasking. The PS4 can load larger packets but in slower bursts -- better for loading games. The architectures reflect the features of the consoles. Whether or not this will impact the performance remains to be seen until developers get a hang of the consoles and start using their power. Remember early PS3 and Xbox 360 games? They looked like crap for the most part until the first party devs made their first current gen only game.

 

Every developer I've seen quoted says that the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbone. What you say about the architecture may be true as well.

 

I know that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, and games looked better on the 360 for a while until people figured out how to use the PS3's power because it was more difficult to make games on that platform. It seems that the PS4 is the easier console this time, and once people figure out the Xbone, I'd imagine the games will look about the same. Ryse and Forza prove that even now games can look as good or better than PS4 games, despite the power limitations and architecture.

 

I read an article where a dev said the same thing. An anonymous dev....so I'm taking that with a bag of salt. As I understand it MS reserves 10% of memory at all times for kinect. That might account for it, it might not. Anyway, I'd give it a year for devs to learn how to use these machines before jumping to conclusions. However the absurd load times on current xbone titles is not promising.

 

No company makes real money off of selling the systems. They make it primarily off of the software. Nintendo, sadly usually has to cut prices to the point where they break even or take a loss (like the 3DS) to compete with the other systems when selling hardware. Once you have a system in the house then the likelihood of people buying your products skyrockets.

 

Nintendo traditionally makes money on their hardware, while the others don't. The reason the 3DS price cut was so shocking is because it was so out of character (so early and so deep). That's why even the Xbox sold slightly more than the Gamecube, the Gamecube was at least a profit center for Nintendo, while the Xbox has been a money pit.

 

It's not a money pit if you're gaining money from it.

[LedRush]

http://news.cnet.com...s4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

 

PS3 sold for $600 for the 60 gig and $500 for the 20, if I remember correctly. The price was justified by the blu ray player.

 

And seeing as the Xbox One is a bit weaker than the PS3, it would have been cheaper if not for kinect.

 

It's actually not weaker. The architecture is on par with the PS4 but the way it loads information is in smaller but faster packets -- better for multitasking. The PS4 can load larger packets but in slower bursts -- better for loading games. The architectures reflect the features of the consoles. Whether or not this will impact the performance remains to be seen until developers get a hang of the consoles and start using their power. Remember early PS3 and Xbox 360 games? They looked like crap for the most part until the first party devs made their first current gen only game.

 

Every developer I've seen quoted says that the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbone. What you say about the architecture may be true as well.

 

I know that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, and games looked better on the 360 for a while until people figured out how to use the PS3's power because it was more difficult to make games on that platform. It seems that the PS4 is the easier console this time, and once people figure out the Xbone, I'd imagine the games will look about the same. Ryse and Forza prove that even now games can look as good or better than PS4 games, despite the power limitations and architecture.

 

I read an article where a dev said the same thing. An anonymous dev....so I'm taking that with a bag of salt. As I understand it MS reserves 10% of memory at all times for kinect. That might account for it, it might not. Anyway, I'd give it a year for devs to learn how to use these machines before jumping to conclusions. However the absurd load times on current xbone titles is not promising.

 

No company makes real money off of selling the systems. They make it primarily off of the software. Nintendo, sadly usually has to cut prices to the point where they break even or take a loss (like the 3DS) to compete with the other systems when selling hardware. Once you have a system in the house then the likelihood of people buying your products skyrockets.

 

Nintendo traditionally makes money on their hardware, while the others don't. The reason the 3DS price cut was so shocking is because it was so out of character (so early and so deep). That's why even the Xbox sold slightly more than the Gamecube, the Gamecube was at least a profit center for Nintendo, while the Xbox has been a money pit.

 

It's not a money pit if you're gaining money from it.

 

That's true. But MS is losing money, which is why analysts continually predict MS will sell the gaming division.

[USB Connector]

http://news.cnet.com...s4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

 

PS3 sold for $600 for the 60 gig and $500 for the 20, if I remember correctly. The price was justified by the blu ray player.

 

And seeing as the Xbox One is a bit weaker than the PS3, it would have been cheaper if not for kinect.

 

It's actually not weaker. The architecture is on par with the PS4 but the way it loads information is in smaller but faster packets -- better for multitasking. The PS4 can load larger packets but in slower bursts -- better for loading games. The architectures reflect the features of the consoles. Whether or not this will impact the performance remains to be seen until developers get a hang of the consoles and start using their power. Remember early PS3 and Xbox 360 games? They looked like crap for the most part until the first party devs made their first current gen only game.

 

Every developer I've seen quoted says that the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbone. What you say about the architecture may be true as well.

 

I know that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, and games looked better on the 360 for a while until people figured out how to use the PS3's power because it was more difficult to make games on that platform. It seems that the PS4 is the easier console this time, and once people figure out the Xbone, I'd imagine the games will look about the same. Ryse and Forza prove that even now games can look as good or better than PS4 games, despite the power limitations and architecture.

 

I read an article where a dev said the same thing. An anonymous dev....so I'm taking that with a bag of salt. As I understand it MS reserves 10% of memory at all times for kinect. That might account for it, it might not. Anyway, I'd give it a year for devs to learn how to use these machines before jumping to conclusions. However the absurd load times on current xbone titles is not promising.

 

No company makes real money off of selling the systems. They make it primarily off of the software. Nintendo, sadly usually has to cut prices to the point where they break even or take a loss (like the 3DS) to compete with the other systems when selling hardware. Once you have a system in the house then the likelihood of people buying your products skyrockets.

 

Nintendo traditionally makes money on their hardware, while the others don't. The reason the 3DS price cut was so shocking is because it was so out of character (so early and so deep). That's why even the Xbox sold slightly more than the Gamecube, the Gamecube was at least a profit center for Nintendo, while the Xbox has been a money pit.

 

It's not a money pit if you're gaining money from it.

 

That's true. But MS is losing money, which is why analysts continually predict MS will sell the gaming division.

 

I'd like to see a source on this. Every post I've seen has been someone taking apart the thing and estimateing the value. The only one we know for sure is Nintendo, who admitted they're losing money on 3DS consoles but make it back with the first game. If, assuming you are correct, that this is the case, then there is no money being lost. How many people do you know with a game console and no games?

[LedRush]

http://news.cnet.com...s4-says-report/

 

Compared to one source i read that Microsoft reports the Xbox one costing about a $400 so they are reportedly making about $100each.

 

On the PS3, evidently cost $800 to start, and sold for $300. :o

 

PS3 sold for $600 for the 60 gig and $500 for the 20, if I remember correctly. The price was justified by the blu ray player.

 

And seeing as the Xbox One is a bit weaker than the PS3, it would have been cheaper if not for kinect.

 

It's actually not weaker. The architecture is on par with the PS4 but the way it loads information is in smaller but faster packets -- better for multitasking. The PS4 can load larger packets but in slower bursts -- better for loading games. The architectures reflect the features of the consoles. Whether or not this will impact the performance remains to be seen until developers get a hang of the consoles and start using their power. Remember early PS3 and Xbox 360 games? They looked like crap for the most part until the first party devs made their first current gen only game.

 

Every developer I've seen quoted says that the PS4 is more powerful than the Xbone. What you say about the architecture may be true as well.

 

I know that the PS3 was more powerful than the 360, and games looked better on the 360 for a while until people figured out how to use the PS3's power because it was more difficult to make games on that platform. It seems that the PS4 is the easier console this time, and once people figure out the Xbone, I'd imagine the games will look about the same. Ryse and Forza prove that even now games can look as good or better than PS4 games, despite the power limitations and architecture.

 

I read an article where a dev said the same thing. An anonymous dev....so I'm taking that with a bag of salt. As I understand it MS reserves 10% of memory at all times for kinect. That might account for it, it might not. Anyway, I'd give it a year for devs to learn how to use these machines before jumping to conclusions. However the absurd load times on current xbone titles is not promising.

 

No company makes real money off of selling the systems. They make it primarily off of the software. Nintendo, sadly usually has to cut prices to the point where they break even or take a loss (like the 3DS) to compete with the other systems when selling hardware. Once you have a system in the house then the likelihood of people buying your products skyrockets.

 

Nintendo traditionally makes money on their hardware, while the others don't. The reason the 3DS price cut was so shocking is because it was so out of character (so early and so deep). That's why even the Xbox sold slightly more than the Gamecube, the Gamecube was at least a profit center for Nintendo, while the Xbox has been a money pit.

 

It's not a money pit if you're gaining money from it.

 

That's true. But MS is losing money, which is why analysts continually predict MS will sell the gaming division.

 

I'd like to see a source on this. Every post I've seen has been someone taking apart the thing and estimateing the value. The only one we know for sure is Nintendo, who admitted they're losing money on 3DS consoles but make it back with the first game. If, assuming you are correct, that this is the case, then there is no money being lost. How many people do you know with a game console and no games?

 

I think there are a few questions: 1. does a console make money at launch; 2. does a console make money over it's lifespan; 3. Does the company make money overall on it's gaming activities.

 

As far as I know, traditionally, Nintendo is the only console maker that makes money out of the gate. That's why the 3DS price drop was so shocking (that and the size and timing of the drop). The amount of the losses out of the gate are usually estimates, like the ones we've seen that show that Sony and MS are losing money on each PS4/XB1 they are selling. Over time, annual reports often explain the effect of the console price. Similarly, you can see the hundreds of millions MS loses in its gaming division quarterly in the 10-Qs they file. Nintendo, which was the most profitable for a long time, has seen losses in the last two years, but I believe that as the 3DS has been more popular, this trend has recently reversed.

[USB Connector]

If microsoft were losing money they wouldn't have made the XBone. I can see them losing money after all of the idiotic moves they had to backtrack through but I wouldn't want them out of the game. More competitors is ultimately better.

[LedRush]

If microsoft were losing money they wouldn't have made the XBone. I can see them losing money after all of the idiotic moves they had to backtrack through but I wouldn't want them out of the game. More competitors is ultimately better.

 

They not only lose money, they hemorrhage it. But I'm glad they stay in it for the same reason you don't want them out.

[USB Connector]

If microsoft were losing money they wouldn't have made the XBone. I can see them losing money after all of the idiotic moves they had to backtrack through but I wouldn't want them out of the game. More competitors is ultimately better.

 

They not only lose money, they hemorrhage it. But I'm glad they stay in it for the same reason you don't want them out.

 

You know...I decided to look this up.

 

http://www.digitalspy.ca/gaming/news/a512543/microsoft-backing-incredibly-profitable-xbox-360-for-3-more-years.html

http://www.vgchartz.com/article/250907/microsoft-profits-up-xbox-division-up-55-13m-xbox-360s-shipped/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-19/microsoft-profit-tops-estimates-on-xbox-demand.html

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/01/09/xbox-360-now-at-66-million-worldwide-kinect-at-18-million/

http://www.tannerhelland.com/4273/microsoft-money-updated-2012/

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-07-19-xbox-completes-another-profitable-year-as-xbox-live-grows-15-percent

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36011/Microsofts_Xbox_360_Division_Sees_132_Billion_Profit_For_Fiscal_Year_2011.php

 

Oh yeah...hemorrhaging. 1.32 billion in profit in 2011 alone.

[LedRush]

If microsoft were losing money they wouldn't have made the XBone. I can see them losing money after all of the idiotic moves they had to backtrack through but I wouldn't want them out of the game. More competitors is ultimately better.

 

They not only lose money, they hemorrhage it. But I'm glad they stay in it for the same reason you don't want them out.

 

You know...I decided to look this up.

 

http://www.digitalsp...more-years.html

http://www.vgchartz....x-360s-shipped/

http://www.bloomberg...box-demand.html

http://www.joystiq.c...-at-18-million/

http://www.tannerhel...y-updated-2012/

http://www.gamesindu...rows-15-percent

http://www.gamasutra...l_Year_2011.php

 

Oh yeah...hemorrhaging. 1.32 billion in profit in 2011 alone.

 

IIRC that was the most profitable year for the division as they were actually selling well and had efficiencies in manufacturing, the first time both of those things were true for MS after loses billions of dollars. Those profits plummeted in the next year, and they don't break out xbox from android from Skype in those numbers (this is all from your sources). Also, it looks like 2011 was an outlier. And while the entertainment division as a whole has made money over the last 5 years, it is still down 3 billion in the last 10...and I'm confident they lost a lot more than that in the first 2/3 years they made the xbox.

 

I'm crushed at work and can't do deep dives, but one pretty well respected analyst (an oxymoron?) estimated that the xbox loses MS $2 billion and that the profits come from other areas of the entertainment division. http://www.businessi...yalties-2013-11

Edited December 4, 2013 by LedRush

[USB Connector]

See, your source is an analyst, my sources aren't analyzing, they're just posting the numbers as is. When it comes to video games I've learned that analysts tend to be horrible at being accurate in any aspect.

 

Hardly a deep dive for this info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360_sales

Despite the relatively strong sales figures, Microsoft's gaming division was losing money. Through 2005, the Xbox gaming division had lost over $4 billion,^[29] however, Microsoft expected the console to start making money in 2008^[30] due to a loss leader market strategy of selling consoles below cost in order to obtain market saturation and gain profits on software and peripherals with a much higher profit margin.^[31][32] Additionally, Microsoft took a charge of $1 billion on its June 2007 income statement to account for the cost of replacing bricked Xbox 360s.^[33]

 

Bonus 2010 because I found this before the wiki article:

http://www.forbes.co...quities-pc.html

http://www.microsoft...Q1/default.aspx

 

So yeah, they took a hit because of the early hardwre issues and a gamble they made to make back the loss with customers gained, but other than that, the 360 was profitable. The gamble ended up paying off considering how many people went from PS2 to Xbox 360. Short term loss, long term gain.

Edited December 4, 2013 by USB Connector

[LedRush]

See, your source is an analyst, my sources aren't analyzing, they're just posting the numbers as is. When it comes to video games I've learned that analysts tend to be horrible at being accurate in any aspect.

 

Hardly a deep dive for this info: http://en.wikipedia..../Xbox_360_sales

Despite the relatively strong sales figures, Microsoft's gaming division was losing money. Through 2005, the Xbox gaming division had lost over $4 billion,^[29] however, Microsoft expected the console to start making money in 2008^[30] due to a loss leader market strategy of selling consoles below cost in order to obtain market saturation and gain profits on software and peripherals with a much higher profit margin.^[31][32] Additionally, Microsoft took a charge of $1 billion on its June 2007 income statement to account for the cost of replacing bricked Xbox 360s.^[33]

 

Bonus 2010 because I found this before the wiki article:

http://www.forbes.co...quities-pc.html

http://www.microsoft...Q1/default.aspx

 

So yeah, they took a hit because of the early hardwre issues and a gamble they made to make back the loss with customers gained, but other than that, the 360 was profitable. The gamble ended up paying off considering how many people went from PS2 to Xbox 360. Short term loss, long term gain.

 

But MS doesn't release numbers separately on the profitable of just the xbox, do they? All the official numbers I've seen have a bundled look at the entertainment division, which includes skype and android apps (which are supposedly the profit center of the division).

[USB Connector]

The links I posted mention xbox specifically. The wiki article leads to articles which cite microsoft.

[LedRush]

The links I posted mention xbox specifically. The wiki article leads to articles which cite microsoft.

 

Unless I'm missing it, the underlying data doesn't break out xbox numbers.

Edited December 5, 2013 by LedRush

[USB Connector]

I skimmed over the articles quickly:

 

"Microsoft's Xbox 360 Division Sees $1.32 Billion Profit For Fiscal Year 2011"

 

Which would fall in line with the idea that Microsoft didn't expect to make money on the thing for it's expected 3 years and because of the hardware failure, it took a bit longer to get their money back.

[LedRush]

I skimmed over the articles quickly:

 

"Microsoft's Xbox 360 Division Sees $1.32 Billion Profit For Fiscal Year 2011"

 

Which would fall in line with the idea that Microsoft didn't expect to make money on the thing for it's expected 3 years and because of the hardware failure, it took a bit longer to get their money back.

 

But there is no XBox 360 division, is there? The article to which you seem to be quoting says: "The Entertainment and Devices Division of Microsoft, which includes the Xbox 360, PC games, and Windows Phone," and "The Entertainment and Devices Division covers the company's IPTV software Mediaroom in addition to Windows Phone and Xbox 360 products."

[USB Connector]

Point taken. Still if the 360 lost so much money, why would they make the Xbone?

[LedRush]

Point taken. Still if the 360 lost so much money, why would they make the Xbone?

 

I think the xbox lost a shit ton of money, the 360 probably lost a bit (but possibly broke even/gained a bit) and MS is thinking: (1) we're getting better at this; and (2) we're gonna dominate your living room, bitches.