> To your point, it was briefly possible to buy them for under $100 until word spread that they make decent steam machines, so I'm guessing that Sony doesn't need to sell any games to turn a profit.

I don't follow your logic. If the BC-250 was made from PS5 quality control failures, then why would their pricing have any bearing on the PS5's profitability, except as an effort to increase margins? Does cost not remain independent of pricing?

As far as I cam infer from what you said, it could be that the PS5 was sold at a loss and still is even with the BC-250 helping, or that it was sold at a profit and is still is with the BC-250 helping. What am I missing?

▲

gunalx 17 hours ago | parent [-]

No it implies that å ps5 hardware wise wouldnt be ordets of magnitude of å bc250 to produce, and it therefore probably dosent have negative margins at least.

	▲	sourweasel 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly, that's what I was getting at. It's similar to Intel chip production and binning. Take Skylake for example: if a 4 core i7 chip had a core that didn't pass testing, they would disable the bad core and one more and process the chip as an i3. i5 chips were just i7 silicon with hyperthreading disabled. Same chip fab, same production cost, but the failed chips became a lower tier that sold for 35% and 70% of the top tier product. In the case of the PS5 chips, the performance difference between binned and pristine chips was even less, it still had 75% of the cores usable.