Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="reanjr" data-source="post: 1705155" data-attributes="member: 20740">Nonetheless, just because it wasn't as much of a success as something else still does not constitute a failure.  Being profitable on a product does not ensure that the company is successful as there are many mitigating factors, but it doesn't mean the product wasn't a success.  Just that the product needed to be a bigger success to make the company a success.Using your example, MS has huge overhead and oversight on all of its projects to maintain the brand and for several other reasons.  A small product cannot generate the revenue to be proifitable over and above the overhead.  That product would be a failure.On the other hand, XBox currently an economic failure.  Microsoft netted 5% loss on it (by last statistics I heard).  Microsoft has other goals in mind than gaining profit from XBox (like profits from XBox 2) but I still wouldn't consider XBox a success. (Actually of the 5 groups at MS only 2 are profitable).Wizards of the Coasts may consider it a failure, for instance, if Planescape had a 5% margin but was drawing half the sales away from the 10% margin Forgotten Realms.  Both are profitable.  In my opinion, both are successes.  It just doesn't make the company successful.And that's what I was trying to get at.  Saying Planescape is a failure implies that TSR did not reach some overarching goal.  That's not the case.  The case is that TSR didn't have a goal in mind in the first place.  They were horribly mismanaged up and down.  That doesn't make Planescape a failure.Of course, I'm just conjecturing.  I can't guarentee Planescape was profitable.  But I just can't see it as unprofitable.  Especially given the number of products put into it.  If it wasn't profitable, they would not have supported it.</blockquote>

Verification