Analyzing the console subsidization strategy

Xbox will never see black.

The X-Box wasn't replaced early, it just showed up to the party late. However, the 360 stepped on the dance floor at the right time, a time when a proposed PS3 launch was just months away, but Sony bumbles gave the 360 more and more time to dazzle us with its features. Microsoft may have dropped the ball on the previous generation, but as for this generation, they did the right thing. And the math says that MS will start turning a profit around console # 10,000,000 which is coming closer and closer each day.

1. Xbox will never see black.

Posted at 5:45PM on Oct 12th 2006 by BMWM3P 0 stars

BTW, you are right, the XBOX will never see Black but the XBOX 360 will.

Xbox division will never see black.

Ha! MS basically has 2.5 months to move 4+ million units to reach their 10 million unit goal in 2006. Good luck..esp. with PS3 and Wii coming out and still zero presense in Japan.

And the orginal xbox did die prematurely; they were never able to make money on it (and had no hopes of ever making money). For the entire time that 360 has been out; PStwo has outsold it ..and rung up a profit for each unit sold.

Now nintendo is following Sony's strategy...repackaing the GameCube as the Wii; throw in a new controller and smart marketing, and sell it for massive profit.

hey BMWM3P,

shouldnt you be calling it xbox 1.5 or dreamcast 2?
i like when you sony guys say that.

btw why is sony rushing to launch the ps3 this nov, it couldnt be because they see xbox as a real threat right? i mean the ps2 is still doing well in sales why not release the ps3 next year?

Correction: the $1.26B figure is NOT the entire loss on the 360 to date, as is suggested above, but rather fiscal 2006 (only) numbers for that division.

Total losses to date on the 360 are FAR more than $1.26B, but M$ tries to obfuscate this number whenever possible. Personally, I think it's more informative to add the $4+B lost by the original Xbox, as this is all about trying to buy brand recognition, and is a cumulative effort that will continue to lose money for a long while yet.

I'm amazed more people don't realize this isn't charity, and M$ is gonna want its money back, and then some. All those on XBL should see that little red laser dot on their foreheads.

#2 - As far as 10M 360s coming closer to reality, there are no hard numbers to back this up. M$ once again is conspicuously silent on providing hard information, while continuing to release rosy projections. The latest reliable NPD data suggests that, after having the ENTIRE next-gen market to themselves for a whole year, they've SOLD maybe 6M worldwide (as opposed to "shipped"). That's a long way from the "10M by the time PS3 and Wii hit the market", or "13 to 15M by June 2007". I guess we'll see if/when actual numbers are released.

am i the only one who finds this funny:

"Now nintendo is following Sony's strategy...repackaing the GameCube as the Wii; throw in a new controller and smart marketing, and sell it for massive profit."

so, the ps3 is a repackaged ps2?

m3mnoch.

Xbox was a bad design from a business point of view, but it also was put together and shipped in 19 months from approval of the project to on shelves. Given that, and the fact that Microsoft had even less gaming and entertainment history than Sony did when it made the first Playstation, I think they did damn well. Just ask Nintendo -- the clear loser in the last gen war.

BUT the Xbox was never going to be able to be a profitable or even neutral piece of hardware. The Hard disk and the fact that MS didn't own the chips mad eit impossible. Especially as PS2 price came down and down.

360, on the other hand, is all custom silicon owned by MS, the hard drive is separate, and the hwole box is designed from teh get go to cost reduce over hte life of the system. Now Sony is in close to the same boat MS was in before -- over priced silicon, a hard disk in every bos, over-priced hardware (including the BD)and a very rocky path to cost reduction in the face of a competitor with install base and lower prices. And unlike Xbox against PS2, the PS3 doesn't even have hardware that is demonstrably more powerful to help their sales pitch.

They have set themselves up fora very hard fight. Add in the Wii to steal away casual gamers from PS2, and it looks even tougher. Sony has teh marketing know-how and the brand to pull it off, but I wonder if they have enough cash or stones to stick with it.

The inclusion of a Hard Dirve in XBOX 1 ensured that the system could never be sold at a profit. MS was loosing money on every unit right up until the end; launching the next gen early actually SAVED them money.

As your current gen console ages it becomes more profitable on a per unit basis; but, sales will eventually drop off to nothing...so you need to replace it at some point, but, you dont want to replace it at the end of its life.

With PS2, it launched halfway through PSone's life; this is whats happening to PS3..its launching halfway through PStwo's life.

The overlap allows lessens the burden of subsidising the next gen. console since the current gen is massively profitable. Essentially, each PStwo sold is subsidising the sale of a PS3...rather taking each hit directly as is the case with 360.

The only way nintendo is able to make money off Wii is simply because it is a repackaged gamecube. Its ridiculously cheap to manufacteur at this point.

>Correction: the $1.26B figure is NOT the entire loss on the 360 to date, as is suggested above, but rather fiscal 2006 (only) numbers for that division.

Total losses to date on the 360 are FAR more than $1.26B, but M$ tries to obfuscate this number whenever possible.<

This is a good argument to make for the Xbox, but now that the division has to factor in development costs/production of the Zune, it's possible that the numbers for the rest of the division are actually worse than the Xbox 360. Without individual products broken out in the earnings reports, it's hard to know what's going on here. So why try to pretend you're an expert?

to flashpoint zero:
the 360 was early to the party, and they killed the xbox to do it. The xbox was just enjoying one of its best years, but MS wanted to get out before the next Playstation did. That may give them an early console lead, but to just leave the xbox cold and not try to get some money from it due to software sales was just crazy. But when you are Microsoft, a loss here or there does not matter. Do they even manufacture the xbox anymore? will they support the 360 for more than 5 years if the PS3 or Wii take the lead? These are important questions that need to be answered. I would hate to see another Xbox in 2009 or 2010 just because MS hates to lose again.

"8. am i the only one who finds this funny:

"Now nintendo is following Sony's strategy...repackaing the GameCube as the Wii; throw in a new controller and smart marketing, and sell it for massive profit."

so, the ps3 is a repackaged ps2?"

I meant PS2 = PStwo .. they repackaged the PS2 into the fruity coloured and cute form factor PStwo (though in ethernet, etc.) .. this is what nintendo copied, so;

PS2 is to PStwo what GameCube is to Wii .. get it?

"Xbox division will never see black."

the funny part about that, is they are already building them for 15-20% less than when they started.

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20060726A1001.html

so, it costs $525 to manufacture a premium xbox: $525 * .8 = $420.

so, microsoft is twenty bucks away from breaking even on the 360 already. the wii is making money from the start. hell. the ps3 is looking pretty lonely out there with a $400 loss to the company for each one they sell.

anyone know what $400 * 10 million ps3's (in their dreams) sold in the first year is? $4 billion.

or, to put it another way, they are going to lose as much money in one year as the original xbox (the one everyone laughed at for losing so much money) did in its entire sales cycle -- all 4 years.

gooooooo sony!

m3mnoch.

So Optimus Prime you are claiming that the Wii uses the EXACT same CPU and GPU's? You are claiming that there are NO differences between clock speeds and memory sizes that would require redoing and retooling current production lines and require more R&D efforts? You are claiming all of this?

For all those people who lack knowledge of how computer hardware works:
Same architecture != same hardware

Ouch m3mnoch...the truth hurts! Way to stick a dagger in a fanboy's heart. >_

"Total losses to date on the 360 are FAR more than $1.26B, but M$ tries to obfuscate this number whenever possible."

Actually, the more I think about the idiocy of this statement, the more it bugs me. Companies generally don't break out financial information for specific products. At most, the most micro they're going to get is for a division. You don't hear about Mattel putting out information for how much money Barbie made in the last quarter. And when the PS3 and PS2 are on the market at the same time, Sony is going to release financial information for its games division, the way it always has. They're not going to say, "PS2 made a whole bunch of $$ and PS3 lost a whole bunch of $$." They're going to give you the combined number, because that's what the division made. I don't know that it's really an attempt to obfuscate or diguise anything. It's not like they're bundling sales of Windows into the same division as the Xbox and saying, "Look how much money Xbox made." The only ones I see extrapolating the "home entertainment division" into "Here's how Xbox 360 is doing" are video game websites. The company sure doesn't do this in their financial statements.

This needs to be looked at in the context of the larger MS strategy. Yeah, they're losing $ on the XBOX/XBOX360, but their goal is to take over the livingroom. MS is flush with cash - they can afford to lose some money ($1.26 B in a year is a drop in the bucket for them) on the 360 if it helps them sell media centers, Zune's and whatever else they have up their sleve for the future. The strategy is all about integration, and the 360 is just a small piece of the puzzle.

One of the reasons MS dropped the Xbox (too early IMO too) was to try a new approach into the Japanese market...which isn't going very well at all.

Wii will be a big problem for Xbox 360 this holiday season. Lots of available units, new system hype, and no requriement for HD. I don't own a 360 yet because I still have a SD set - like most households. You don't have to have one, but it seems like a waste to run a 360 without it.

Ouch m3mnoch - way to make up numbers out of this air: " a $400 loss to the company for each one they sell"

Have you considered a career with M$? Or are you already there? Some people just can't be bothered with trying to stick to facts.

"So Optimus Prime you are claiming that the Wii uses the EXACT same CPU and GPU's? You are claiming that there are NO differences between clock speeds and memory sizes that would require redoing and retooling current production lines and require more R&D efforts? You are claiming all of this?"

Im saying that there's basically no difference; of course there will never be 100% similarity. Dont take my word for it, even Nintendo execs have come out to say that Wii is basically a gamecube. And, yes, they are using overclocked GameCube CPU and GPUs which are manufacteured using new technologies. Thats why GC games will run with NO emulation at all.

Sorry, but, the PS2/PStwo --> GameCube/Wii analogy fits.

#16 - read a bit more carefully. The statement is in reference to M$'s obfuscation about number of units sold, not breaking out financials. (Hell, there's no mystery on the financials - we all know where the loss in the home entertainment division is coming from - Zune, LOL!)

But why not release hard sales data more often on the 360? You've got every spokesman out there making these projections before the fact, but rarely anything to say about actual sales.

@ m3mnoch,

"anyone know what $400 * 10 million ps3's (in their dreams) sold in the first year is? $4 billion."

But by the time they produce $10 million, I can almost 100% guarantee you that they will not lose $400 on each console. So what you describe is meaningless, but fun nonetheless.

"Ouch m3mnoch - way to make up numbers out of this air"

okay, okay. ya got me.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6144600.html

it should be $350ish loss on each console. i fudged the number a bit to make math easier and included lower prices in japan...

/sigh

i'm sorry. i stand corrected. sony won't lose $4 billion the first year... it'll take them 1 year and 3 months.... my bad.

m3mnoch.

Optimus you really do need to watch what you are saying. By your very own logic an average computer from 1996 that could run windows 95 is essentially the exact same computer as your top of the line PC of today. Both can run windows 95 natively, and both run with the exact same architecture with only increased clock speeds and memory sizes.

Well, they did kill off the xbox early. It was picking up steam, getting some good games for it and starting to be a great system, but then they pulled the plug months in advance to shift all development to the 360, and stopped making xbox machines, and basically told their consumers, "buy a 360 or we don't care about you".

Am I the only one that sees that that could easily happen again in 3 years? The xbox showed up late to the last party and left early... The PS2 is still going strong, despite its age. If the 360 continues the trend set by the original xbox, than expect a new system in 2-3 years. Subsidy and future-proof go hand in hand.

Mull, as i said, dont take my word for it. Shiggy himself has come out and said that Wii is bascially a gamecube. While you're googling that; also google the Wii CPU and GPUs .. they're the same thing as the GC.

And i just brought up the 'no emulation required' part to support my argument. Wii = GC because of the similarity of the CPU, GPU, etc......which, in turn, allows GC games to run with no emulation and allows developers to use GC dev kits and game assets.

@Optimus Prime

"And, yes, they are using overclocked GameCube CPU and GPUs which are manufacteured using new technologies"

Can you give a source for that ;), but really anyone that doesn't know the the Wii isn't a repackaged GC hasn't done their homework or is a blind fanboy. I'm going to assume that your just ill informed. There is a NEW CPU and GPU for the Wii. The quote you are talking about isn't talking about the hardwear of the Wii, but is talking about the architecture of the system. Its like saying A pentium 2 is the same as a pentium 4. It is when it comes to programing for it, but not at all when you talk about capability. There is my $.02 now I can say you've been informed. If you don't like it thats fine, just don't hate.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/04/wii-hardware-is-basically-a-gc-says-miyamoto/

"Subsidy and future-proof go hand in hand."

i'm afraid i don't understand that. those terms are certainly not mutually inclusive. look at the snes for all the proof you need.

it was impossible for the original xbox to make money. the shorter the lifespan, the better for microsoft. for us, tho? not as good. irritating even.

however, the 360 is going to be a cash cow for them as the ps2 is for sony. both have/are getting their hardware subsidy house in order and there's a clear line to profit ahead of them. (or behind for the ps2)

the ps2 was a badass workhorse for sony. lean and mean. the ps3? it's a bloated train wreck.

m3mnoch.

Optimus he said that it is BASED on gamecube hardware, the "it essentially is a gamecube" was believe it or not a mistranslation. BASED on gamecube hardware really is exactly the same as saying that all current PC CPU's are still based on the same old x86 architecture that was in existance long before even windows 95 was released. You obviously have missed the point I was making.

BTW, overclocked CPUs are much more powerful than their non-overclocked counterparts. If using that analogy, you should consider that since the Wii CPU is much more overclock friendly (because of it's low power usage, heat production, and etc, you do NOT want to try to overclock a 360, or likely the PS3 as well) it actually has a far greater potential power than it actually seems, if you're willing to overclock it.

Hey, that's my Xbox!

I'm glad people like my picture.

@m3mnoch: *YAWN* An 8-month old analyst prediction on PS3 manufacturing cost, that was shot down as soon as it was made, but nonetheless extrapolated by you across the first 10 million PS3s.

Versus actual loss statements from M$ financials.

Nicely done.

I don't think I'd agree that they replaced the first Xbox too quickly. On the contrary I'd say that Sony's notion of a "10-year console" is ludicrous given the rate at which technology advances these days. 4-5 years seems to me like a good balance between taking advantage of hardware advances as they come and keeping things competitive between rival companies.
The danger in doing thing so quickly that I see though is that developers need time to adjust to new hardware to truly use it to it's full potential and in unique ways. This may not have been as big of an issue if the Xbox 360's hardware weren't so completely different from the original xbox, but it was so they're it a bit of a tight spot there.

There most be something wrong with half of you that are posting on here. What do you really care how much the xbox360 division at Microsoft has lost? Is this in some way a shot at why Sony or Nintendo is better? Microsoft has more money in its "rainy day" fund than Sony and Nintendo are entirely worth. When you look at it that way, Microsoft can easily take WAY larger losses before it needs to worry about anything. Sony on the other hand, they need PS3 to be a huge hit or they're going to possibly face bankruptcy. Microsoft isn't going to back out of the console market even if they don't turn a profit on this version of the xbox (even if they said they'd pull the plug on it after this version) because their main goal is to become a major player in your family/living room. Just as they took over the PC market, they want to do the same with every other market that they can. Also, Microsoft "pulled the plug early" because they wanted to get what they saw as an advantage by being the first. I really don't think there would be as much ps2 support as there is right now if Sony released the ps3 a year ago. Just use your brains people.

I have 2 360's and will have 2 PS3's (one I will get rid of on ebay by auctioning my rare Pen and giving away the PS3 as a lovely gift). Plus I will have my Wii. My issue is why do people hate MS?

"An 8-month old analyst prediction on PS3 manufacturing cost, that was shot down as soon as it was made"

shot down where? by you? maybe. by sony? no.

maybe you're thinking the merril lynch report. "analysts" pricing things is bad. i'm talking about the cnet report where they solicited multiple, independent estimates from people whose jobs are to price semiconducter parts.

joe p, i'm sure in your little world, you know a lot more about pricing semiconductor parts than isuppli or the organizations in the microprocessor forum.

you'll forgive me if i forget to bow to your omniscience.

m3mnoch.

Indeed, the Xbox didn't die an early death so much as submit to a well timed mercy killing. It was never going to make money.

Outsourcing production is a legitimate way to cut costs by negotiating with suppliers for lower prices to keep them in the game (you can always go to someone else, it'll just take six months). The problem with Xbox that is not on 360 is, as noted above, that Microsoft didn't own the IP related to the chips in the system.

Microsoft has the full ability to merge chip components in the 360 and has an actual incentive to die shrink their chips as well (Intel and AMD are all about the latest and greatest, Intel wasn't too happy about keeping those old lines running for Xbox, and they would be damned if they'd go to the expense of die shrinking the sucker so that Microsoft could make money, or worse yet, allow the Pentium and the Nvidia chip to be merged.)

Microsoft is DEFINITELY in a position to make money on 30 million consoles this generation. They were NEVER in that position last time around.

And 30 million should be easy.

never say gamecube was the clear loser in the last gen. It was the only console that didnt lose money per console and at the moment, we can see there was no lost in fanbase as hype for the Wii is at an all time high. Plus it has some really great games (still playing ssbm = everyone)

thats a lot of losses xbox 1.5 FTL.

Ps3 will have a HUGE market loss to the 360 compaired to the ps2 vs xbox. And everything they're saying about the wii they said about the gamecube and look how that turned out. My prediction is 360 is a majority in the US, a huge majority in europe and AU, and a huge minority in japan, where ps3 also shares a good portion with the Wii. I'm not one of those whitenese anime nerds, so I dont really care what's popular in japan and it really doenst matter europe is more important this generation.

ms is not trying ot make loads of money off of the hardware. its all about software for them. thats what they do

they developed a native language to make games. then they made a tool set XNA so devs can lower the amount of time and money to make games. These games will run with no extra coding on a vista pc or xbox 360. Than live anywhere will merge the communities. U will see many games published under microsofts new Gmaes For Windows brand. Games that must meet certain requiremnts. Thos same games will than be on the 360 as well with cross platform online gaming. Shadowrun is the first live anywhere game incase u wnated to know

MS wants to sell tons of games. here is a link to my blog on the subject. most gaming sites have missed alot of MS's moves and focused on hardware and missed them position themselves to make boatloads of money and win the market share
enjoy the read

http://lefly420-gamers-unite.blogspot.com

some info on XNA and other stuff MS is doing. Most do not realise but this is what will win ms the next gen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_XNA
The XNA Framework is based on the .NET Framework 2.0. It has been designed with an extensive set of class libraries, specific to game development exercises, to promote maximal code reuse across target platforms. It will also include a version of the Common Language Runtime, which is optimized for gaming requirements, to provide a managed execution environment to the XNA games. The runtime will be available for Windows XP, Windows Vista and the Xbox 360. Since XNA games will be written for the runtime, XNA games will run on any platform supporting the XNA framework, with minimal or no modification. Games targeting the XNA framework can be written using the C# language.
The XNA Framework thus encapsulates low-level technological details involved in coding a game, making sure that the framework itself takes care of the difference between platforms when games are ported from one compatible platform to another, and thereby allowing game developers to focus more on the content and gaming experience

http://msdn.microsoft.com/directx/xna/faq/
Q: Isn’t managed code in the XNA Framework interpreted and therefore slow? A: No, it is not interpreted. The IL is just-in-time (JIT) compiled into native code when it is initially loaded by a process, prior to execution. This allows hardware-specific optimizations unique to the PC and Xbox 360 architectures.

I have to agree that MS released the 360 too quick. However, I believe that was a well thought out solution to the problem of Sony's verry profitable PS2. At the end of the PSone generation, everyone jumped on the PS2 at lightning speed, which dramatically hurt Sony's PSone proffits. Sony ~was~ planning on delaying the PS3, that much is clear, but having been forced by 360 to start the next generation ahead of schedual, Sony's games devision is going to be losing money again this year paying for peoples next gen hardware.

It can't be understated - consoles make money only in their later years.

Nintendo seems to be breaking this rule right about now, but Sony doesn't want to change. I'm sure Sony wants to see store shelves stacked with incredibly proffitable PS2 games next christmas too. Listen to their '10 year' projectrions for the PS3...

once vista launches all pc's running vista will basicaly be xbox 360's. thats how u need to look at it

Gamers have the silliest, stupidest arguments sometimes.

So Optimus is claiming the GC->Wii is the same as PS2->PSSlim. Who cares? Yes, its a horrible comparison, but he probably just wants to hate on Wii just for the hell of it (especially since Nintendo did the 'redesign a game system' thing a loooooong time before Sony did, remember the Gameboy Pocket or Gameboy Color?). I mean, its fun to hate things, right? MS fans aren't any better, claiming Sony will go bankrupt with the PS3, or the reverse argument that MS will never profit from their XBox division.

Seriously, who gives a flying fling? As gamers, we should simply take a gander at all the consoles and what games are on them and decide what is a good price to purchase them at. A company's finances should have nothing to do with whether or not you wish to purchase a video game machine. Well, thats excluding Gizmondo and Tap Zodiac, but those were peculiar scenarios.

It's fun and all to predict things, but to proclaim a company's financial future as fact makes you a moron.

This is my prediction, without spinning half-truths, making up numbers, or calling people douchebags, fags, or bitches:

I predict 360 will turn some huge profits within its lifespan, but I'm not so sure it will be able to break even from the massive hole the original XBox dug MS into. I think 360 will see sales double, triple, or maybe even quadruple in Japan due to games like Blue Dragon and Lost Odysey, but even that is miniscule compared to what PS3 and Wii will likely sell, and MS will have a very long uphill struggle ahead if MS really wishes to succeed in Japan. Speaking of which, I think PS3 will still sell well in Japan and okay in Europe, but adoption in USA will be paltry compared to how well PS2 did because of the price and because USA is the XBox360's (along with the original's) strongest territory, creating fierce competition for Sony. I think PS3 will dig itself into a huge hole for its first few years, considering how much Sony will lose per console sold, and will have a very difficult time digging itself out, since it seems unlikely PS3 will be able to match its predecessor, judging my the massive hatred Sony has recieved by gamers who have felt betrayed from a lackluster E3, big price tag, and countless PR blunders. And as for Wii, I expect sales in Japan to be ginormous, and I expect Europe to have good adoption too, and I think USA sales will be good but not great, just because of how GC disappointed so many US gamers. Though ultimately, I expect Nintendo to make truckloads of cash on Wii even if it doesn't make the number 1 spot. Even if it doesn't make number 2, I expect it will likely be more profitable than PS3 and 360 combined by a long shot, since Nintendo will be MAKING money on every console, peripheral, and game sold from the very beginning, instead of incurring massive debts in the short term to (hopefully) make money in the long term. However, Wii's lack of processing muscle may force Nintendo to make a new gen console within only a few years, limiting its ultimate potential.

See, it is possible to have a nonbiased perspective and create a prediction without sounding like a retarded fanboy. Hopefully others will take after my awesomeness.

mercy killing or not, the xbox died prematurely, leaving the fans in the dark.

By my statement "Subsidy and future-proofing go hand in hand", what I was getting at is you need a system that can at least keep up with tech for 4-5 years to still remain profitable. If you subsidize a system, it better be bleeding edge so that in 4 years, it's just mediocre if you still want it to be viable.

Imagine spending $5,000 on a tip top of the line PC, with the best you name in the box. Let's say quad SLI, dual dual-core processors, 8GB of RAM, the works. That system will be amazing right now, but in about 5 years, it will be be comparable to a $800 system. If you go with an $800 system today, that will be obsolete next year and require upgrades to keep it going to remain top of the line (read: PC upgrading). So if you want a system to still keep up 5 years down the line, you're going to want the $5000 system.

The problem is, that system is costly, but future-proof (for 5 years). In order to put that tech in the hands of a normal user, you have to subsidize it so that it can compete price-wise with the $800 machine. Subsidy and future-proofing should go hand in hand if you want to remain competetive in 5 years.

OOOHHH bOOOYYY here we go again!!!! why are people sticking to this whole "xbox is dead" Dead means XBL is gone no more tech support and no new releases. And dont give me that "they arent making new ones" ish because if you went to any store to buy one (new) you could So stop hiding befind the crutch and stick to the facts only 1st party games are done.....and that means what exactly.......No new halo and forza and no one bought the other games anyway. so there 2 games arent on the xbox anymore, but then again i havent heard any new plan for a gran turismo release either. All the games coming i see are still for the Ps2 and xbox. So stop pretending you guys work for sony and stay in your place as a gamer, and as a gamer xbox isnt dead cause there are still releases XBL and tech support so give it a rest

never say gamecube was the clear loser in the last gen. It was the only console that didnt lose money per console and at the moment. To the "real" people that matters when it comes to gamers, I mean thats what and who this is all for right? The GC did lose last cycle and the cycle before Get a grip yea im their accountants eyes it was a victory, but im a assuming that neither you or the rest of the ninty fans are nintendos accountant. So to the rest of us it was a failure. People like myself in their early 20's who grew up with nintendo and have their own place couldnt proudly display a little purple or voilet or whatever da hell you wanna call it box in our house. As a person who grew up with them i feel like they abandoned myself and others like me. I felt good when sony crushed them with the PSx because it was made for nintendo and sony invested money in it and nintendo screwed them on it.....So basically the playstation brand is a big "UP YOURS!!!" to nintendo