Comment Re:So... (Score 1) 87
Did you notice how he used gross profit instead of net profit to add his numbers up? The sale price of a piece of hardware or a game is a very poor metric for how much money is actually made from the sale.
The upshot is that if Sony loses money on each PSP sold (which I've heard is the case), then each of their 1.5 million hardware units is actually multiplied by a negative number, not by $250. How do you think the numbers would look if the GGP had taken that into account? Or let's do the same math, but add in the sales of Mario 64 DS (which the article said had been omitted from the sales count). What do you think the numbers would look like then?
The false logic you're talking about has been used all over the place. In the case of the PS2, Sony claims market domination because they claim the largest number of units shipped. This should mean that Sony has the largest installed user base, but in reality, many of those sales occured because of faulty or broken PS2 hardware. Despite the large sales numbers, Nintendo has posted significantly more profit than Sony's game division, and I suspect more profit than the entire company itself.
My point is that if the GGP wants to use "money made" as the metric for domination for the PSP, then he must also admit that the Gamecube is trouncing the PS2 in the home console market (although admittedly, the actual PSP profits are likely much, much lower than the number quoted, even in the US). On the other hand, if he wishes to say that the PS2 is beating the Gamecube because of high sales numbers, then he must also admit that since the DS has higher sales numbers, it is beating the PSP in the handheld market. I suspect that he actually was trying to take sides, and he was certainly excersizing bad logic. The point was to try to make Sony look good, but reality is reality. Things appear to be pretty bleak for the PSP.
The upshot is that if Sony loses money on each PSP sold (which I've heard is the case), then each of their 1.5 million hardware units is actually multiplied by a negative number, not by $250. How do you think the numbers would look if the GGP had taken that into account? Or let's do the same math, but add in the sales of Mario 64 DS (which the article said had been omitted from the sales count). What do you think the numbers would look like then?
The false logic you're talking about has been used all over the place. In the case of the PS2, Sony claims market domination because they claim the largest number of units shipped. This should mean that Sony has the largest installed user base, but in reality, many of those sales occured because of faulty or broken PS2 hardware. Despite the large sales numbers, Nintendo has posted significantly more profit than Sony's game division, and I suspect more profit than the entire company itself.
My point is that if the GGP wants to use "money made" as the metric for domination for the PSP, then he must also admit that the Gamecube is trouncing the PS2 in the home console market (although admittedly, the actual PSP profits are likely much, much lower than the number quoted, even in the US). On the other hand, if he wishes to say that the PS2 is beating the Gamecube because of high sales numbers, then he must also admit that since the DS has higher sales numbers, it is beating the PSP in the handheld market. I suspect that he actually was trying to take sides, and he was certainly excersizing bad logic. The point was to try to make Sony look good, but reality is reality. Things appear to be pretty bleak for the PSP.
