Hacker News Reader

Comment by 29athrowaway | Hacker News Reader

It has to be a good game because "software sells hardware".

Without good 1st party games from Nintendo, the consoles would not sell.

Note this strategy is mainly only being executed by Nintendo, who insists on selling their hardware at a profit. I still suspect they are making more money on their software though.

I believe Microsoft And Sony lose money per console sold

I thought they only lost money per console early in the builds, but as the production ramps up efficiencies are realized and the consoles themselves become profitable. Are they really sold at a loss throughout the product lifecycle?

I've heard that the turning point on the hardware profitability tends to occur around the halfway point of a given generation, but haven't seen anything to really substantiate that—just echoing what I've seen in past discussions.

I think MS might have been losing money throughout the lifecycle of the device. I'm pretty sure that was true for at least one of their console generations.

Sony has always made money on a per console basis after the first year or years. The PS3, I believe, was exceptional in how long it took Sony to start making money off the device, which might have been largely due to the high cost of including the Blu Ray player.

I would agree with you if didn't only include Nintendo. Without good games, the consoles would not sell.

But how is that insightful? Of course people buy game consoles for the games.

Yes but most people buy a Nintendo console to play their 1st party games or console exclusive games.

That is Mario, Metroid, Zelda, Pokemon, etc.

If you could play them on PC or Android very few consoles would be sold.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com