It doesn't necessarily have to. As I understand it Lexus loses money on every LFA they sell, but they still keep it around because it's their premium "state of the art car". Granted the American manufacturer mindset is a little different, but I'd think as long as you're not losing money on a car keeping one around as a "feather in the hat" kind of vehicle wouldn't be such a bad thing as long as you're making enough money in other venues.
Just to put this one to bed, Bugatti, Lexus, etc. only lose money on their halo cars because it's a numbers game-you're subsidizing their R&D for their bread and butter brands. Ever notice how alarmingly similar the Reventon interior/controls and the controls on the Aventador are? Or how the LFA's design language is now showing up in Toyota's new concept cars?
They use these cars to break new ground and push the research envelope, then they sell a small number of examples at obscene markup to cut back on their cost. They "lose" money on them, because they only count the research and the point-of-sale cost for the Veyron, and not the tens of thousands of other VW-Group cars that benefit from that technology and get a little bit better. Fat-cat buyers feel like they're practically stealing their new hypercar, the company looks like it cares about the brand so much that it's willing to sacrifice to push the envelope, and everyone wins. It's all fake. That's why cars like the One-77, LFA, Carrera GT, etc. exist, not out of some sort of empty "brand pride" or "brand status," but because their "loss" is actually amortized through the sale of hundreds or thousands of Vantage, Vanquish, IS, and 911 models.
The problem is that the Viper made its mark by being a Luddite car. It doesn't break new technological ground as a rule, so its usefulness as a tech-forward testbed is very limited, if it exists at all.