Support NeoGAF

vanguardian1 · Feb 3, 2008

Psychotext said:
They had plenty to lose. Thanks to poor contracts with Nvidia and Intel they were losing money on the console right up until they killed it, which is why they ended up $5bn in the red. The 360 is a completely different story as they own all the tech and are quite capable of price reducing it (though obviously not as fast as Sony). You seem to be calling the war before it's even begun (the 360 has had one pathetic sized price drop)...

While it's done wonders for MS's hardware costs, it's been at the price of reliability/quality. Not a trade-off I'm willing to accept for a console, personally.

Psychotext · Feb 3, 2008

vanguardian1 said:
While it's done wonders for MS's hardware costs, it's been at the price of reliability/quality. Not a trade-off I'm willing to accept for a console, personally.

In initial machines, yes... but it's clear to me that they've got a handle on it now. Hardly surprising that they had a lot of things to learn.

shpankey · Feb 3, 2008

sakuragi said:
[...]
Microsoft has no choice but to launch a new console early or get booted out of the gaming industry by the competition. Whether it will change the situation is entirely up to them and how they could "fix" their brand image in countries outside of America.

wait... what? :lol

I think you're a bit premature there.

MWS Natural · Feb 3, 2008

sakuragi said:
In 5 years? Are you talking about Microsoft's next console or the one after that? I really doubt that Microsoft could hold on to the Xbox 360 for 5 years. It has already reached its peak in Japan and its starting to reach the summit in Europe as well. The Xbox 360 is now in its third year of its life cycle and I'd say Microsoft will have to make another console in within the next two years in order to compete with Sony and Nintendo. That is, if they want to stay in the market.

So if they were to release a console after 2 years, I don't think 1 terabite flash drives would be affordable by then, or whether a DD only console would be a viable means of distributing games without cutting off a huge segment of the market that still depends on physical formats.

Well I definitely think Microsoft will attempt to keep ahead of Sony and Nintendo by beating them to market with a new console but not by that many years. I don't think Sony will be ready to release the PS3 for another 5-6 years so I would expect the next 360 in about 4 actually. For them to release a new console in only 2 years from now would hurt their brand name even moreso, no one would buy the new Xbox thinking they would only have 3-4 years to enjoy it before the next one.

I don't think the US market alone can carry the 360 but if they can make some strides in 08 in Europe I wouldn't count them out just yet. You never know Alan Wake could possibly do for 360 in Europe what Gears did for it in the US.

bycha · Feb 3, 2008

Neo C. said:
How about this scenario:
Microsoft release XBox 1080 in the end of 2011, with a modest upgrade of three to four times the performance of 360. This means signifikant better performance than the PS3. If they include 2GB RAM (not that much for 2011), 1080p shouldn't be a problem. And the console would still only cost 300$ or less.

Graphic doesn't matter? Well, I think so. Still developers could port any PS3 game easily.
Though the real advantage is the overall package: Microsoft could add an improved gamepad or several different controllers (wiimote-likes included?) to define a new standard.

Whenever you bring a new console on the market, you can define your product in a new way. I don't think Microsoft and Sony would let Nintendo reign more than 5 years, 6 years max.

From this i don't see why MS would make 1080 in 2011.

3-4 times better? That's close to Crysis on max settings. People who need that already play it )

I mean, seriously who would even care about 360 with 3-4x more power? Couple of millions graphics junkies? Nobody will be able to explain to mass consumer the need to pay money for this.

I see the opposite -- i see the need to make a new console when performance will increase 100x times at least. When nobody will even care about polygons, textures etc and the need to get stable framerate. When technology will reach the point when to make extraordinary graphics would only be the point of budget but not technology. That day ain't close.

And control options -- no way. Wii is successful only because Nintendo made console COMPLETELY around new controls. They sent clear message to everyone that there is a new way to play games and it is accessible to everyone. They made games for this controls and market them and the new control method.

If Sony or MS would be able to add waggle and emulate Nintendo's success they would do so, but they can't because it requires a lot of resources that need to be spent on their consumer.

Now people who think that we will see ps4 console in 2011...
I mean... how do you justify that?

That does not make sense from any point.
PS3 emerged 6.5 years after ps2. Sony listened only to themselves and released console at the point when they were able to update every single component inside.

CPU/GPU with high-end 1080p capability/physical format of media/HDD/wireless communication/internet/controller.

Current price, current state of technology when at least 3/4 of consumers cant even see/hear what ps3 is capable of leads only to longer cycle not shorter.
Maybe even more important than price are difficulties in reducing it. Mandatory HDD for next-gen experience at this point is simply impossible to reduce in price. You can't throw a lot of other things like wireless communication and HDMI.

And that's 8 years at the absolute minimum. That's 2014.

Now who would release a console in 2011? For what? To tell developers to do games for that console and not ps3/360/wiiHD/pc when all of the consoles enjoy their (sub)$199 mass consumer friendly price? I just don't see that.

MS/Sony new exactly this was a long haul. That's why they built $500-800 consoles to reach point when consumer will not care for anything else. And I think it is better for anybody. Nobody will fear emerging next-gen to just throw away everything they know when only they started to get a hand of current technology and making really great games.

360/ps3 are at least $3B (that's $5B for ps3) investments. And both companies will see the point when this investments will generate profit for them. Releasing new console will only axe that plan.

stotch · Feb 3, 2008

bycha said:
3-4 times better? That's close to Crysis on max settings. People who need that already play it )

I mean, seriously who would even care about 360 with 3-4x more power? Couple of millions graphics junkies? Nobody will be able to explain to mass consumer the need to pay money for this.

Crysis is way more than just graphics. The Physics, the massive size of the world, the open missions. Think Halo 3 but non-linear, completely open world where you can interact with everything in the environment.

Tyrone Slothrop · Feb 3, 2008

one thing the ms, nintendo and sony can all relax about is that all have nothing to gain by cutting any of their respective console's lives short.

unless MS has some idea that'd cause a wii-like industry disturbance, cutting the 360's life short would be stupid. nintendo may be edging up there but the 360 still has an install base that trumps sony by a long shot. its comparitive to the sega genesis. it got there early and there's no reason it can't keep going. i don't think ms would want to have another console that lasts only 4 years and then to have another that rests on the laurels of bungie. they'd just tap out of the race altogether

Psychotext · Feb 3, 2008

stotch said:
Think Halo 3 but non-linear, completely open world where you can interact with everything in the environment.

Sounds mind numbingly boring. :lol

Neo C. · Feb 3, 2008

bycha said:
*awesome text*

Ya know, it would be the first time a generation having such a long cycle. And it would be fun to watch the Wii having a 200 Million userbase because of the long cycle.:lol

Didn't Peter Moore (when he was still a MS-employer) say that they are looking for processors in 2011 and 2012?

spwolf · Feb 4, 2008

i somehow missed that Sony game division was profitable Q3...wow. Way earlier than I thought, especially since then was the big price cut.

Snah · Feb 4, 2008

Can someone explain the chart? I don't understand how it already has a figure for 2008.

Atreides · Feb 4, 2008

Snah said:
Can someone explain the chart? I don't understand how it already has a figure for 2008.

The fiscal year that starts at april 2007 and ends at march 2008 is fiscal year 2008.

Snah · Feb 4, 2008

The OP is doing something with the numbers though.

"* -- it's fiscal year for both Microsoft and Nintendo
** -- it's FY+1 for Sony for comparison reasons"

? Why is he doing that?

Atreides · Feb 4, 2008

Snah said:
The OP is doing something with the numbers though.

"* -- it's fiscal year for both Microsoft and Nintendo
** -- it's FY+1 for Sony for comparison reasons"

? Why is he doing that?

I think Sony calls the fiscal year that ends at march 2008 fiscal year 2007, so actually FY 2007 for Sony is the same that FY 2008 for Nintendo and Microsoft.

Snah · Feb 4, 2008

I see.

A few years that don't make much sense to me for Sony are:

2006 75,000,00

So Sony only made, what I'm assuming is, 75,000,000 the fiscal year of 2006 (most of 2005)? Were they losing a lot of money on the PSP? I wasn't aware that they were taking a loss on the units back then.

2007 -1,969,000,000

So most of 2006 was a losing year as well? I know they just launched the PS3, and Q3 of that year should have been negative, but the rest of the year was that negative? Nearly 2 billion?

Atreides · Feb 4, 2008

The cost of developing the PS3, I think.

toxk_02 · Feb 4, 2008

Snah said:
I see.

A few years that don't make much sense to me for Sony are:

2006 75,000,00

So Sony only made, what I'm assuming is, 75,000,000 the fiscal year of 2006 (most of 2005)? Were they losing a lot of money on the PSP? I wasn't aware that they were taking a loss on the units back then.

2007 -1,969,000,000

So most of 2006 was a losing year as well? I know they just launched the PS3, and Q3 of that year should have been negative, but the rest of the year was that negative? Nearly 2 billion?

It's more than just sales money. Look at 2005, they went from 404 million to 75 million to -1,969 million. What happened in '05 and '06? Massive development and production costs for the PS3. R&D isn't cheap.

Snah · Feb 4, 2008

toxk_02 said:
It's more than just sales money. Look at 2005, they went from 404 million to 75 million to -1,969 million. What happened in '05 and '06? Massive development and production costs for the PS3. R&D isn't cheap.

I realize that. The PS3 R&D and production costs seem excessive compared to the PS2 figures.

bycha · Feb 4, 2008

Snah said:
The OP is doing something with the numbers though.

"* -- it's fiscal year for both Microsoft and Nintendo
** -- it's FY+1 for Sony for comparison reasons"

? Why is he doing that?

.

Snah said:
I realize that. The PS3 R&D and production costs seem excessive compared to the PS2 figures.

It is mind-boggling.

It is more than $5B. Cell R&D and plants to produce Cell, blu-ray, RSX, several hundreds components to build. It was hurting Sony even in 2004.

I don't think that psp at $250-300 was really hurting Sony.

Neo C. said:
Ya know, it would be the first time a generation having such a long cycle. And it would be fun to watch the Wii having a 200 Million userbase because of the long cycle.:lol

We will see WiiHD in 2010-2011. Same power as ps3 same price as wii initially. By that time HD penetration will be massive, ps3/360 will be selling at their peak and it will be perfect time for Nintendo to do that. WiiHD will only cement 360/ps3 generation.

tanod · Feb 4, 2008

Atreides said:
I think Sony calls the fiscal year that ends at march 2008 fiscal year 2007, so actually FY 2007 for Sony is the same that FY 2008 for Nintendo and Microsoft.

So is bycha accounting for the difference in MS's year-end, which is June, as opposed to Nintendo's and Sony's which is March?

BTW, thanks for compiling all this, bycha.

jarrod · Feb 4, 2008

Onix said:
What does having a 1GB flash drive have to do with whether or not it will have BD? :lol

A 1GB flash drive would do nothing for the next Xbox. A 512GB flash drive, no optical drive and an expanded dd-only next gen XBL model could be interesting... might be too soon though, and I'd expect we'll start seeing dd-only handhelds (where it makes almost too much sense, even now) well before it moves to the home market.

Version 3.0 · Feb 4, 2008

Snah said:
I see.

A few years that don't make much sense to me for Sony are:

2006 75,000,00

So Sony only made, what I'm assuming is, 75,000,000 the fiscal year of 2006 (most of 2005)? Were they losing a lot of money on the PSP? I wasn't aware that they were taking a loss on the units back then.

2007 -1,969,000,000

So most of 2006 was a losing year as well? I know they just launched the PS3, and Q3 of that year should have been negative, but the rest of the year was that negative? Nearly 2 billion?

The numbers are straight from Sony. It's not up to the OP to explain them. I know it hurts you, personally, to see a negative number next to the word "Sony", but chin up, man. These are the facts. You'll live, and Sony will be fine.

Dragon · Feb 4, 2008

Leondexter said:
The numbers are straight from Sony. It's not up to the OP to explain them. I know it hurts you, personally, to see a negative number next to the word "Sony", but chin up, man. These are the facts. You'll live, and Sony will be fine.

This post is pointless. Just like mine

Version 3.0 · Feb 4, 2008

TheBranca18 said:
This post is pointless. Just like mine

No, you're right. I shouldn't give him a hard time. I always try to stay civil, and most of the time, it doesn't even register to me who's posting, just what they say. He's one of the exceptions 'cause he's so out there.

Raistlin · Feb 4, 2008

jarrod said:
A 1GB flash drive would do nothing for the next Xbox. A 512GB flash drive, no optical drive and an expanded dd-only next gen XBL model could be interesting... might be too soon though, and I'd expect we'll start seeing dd-only handhelds (where it makes almost too much sense, even now) well before it moves to the home market.

no ... chance ... in ... hell ...

spwolf · Feb 4, 2008

bycha said:
.

It is mind-boggling.

It is more than $5B. Cell R&D and plants to produce Cell, blu-ray, RSX, several hundreds components to build. It was hurting Sony even in 2004.

I don't think that psp at $250-300 was really hurting Sony.

yes. But you also have to figure out that all of their gaming studios that are coming out with games right now, took 3 years to get to the release point. So that was initial drain as well for sure. Probably good bit of a reason that gaming division posted profit for Q3 was Sony game sales as well. Having massive first/2nd party studios has its good and bad points...

Azelover · Feb 5, 2008

bycha said:
WiiHD will only cement 360/ps3 generation.

Or get rid of them.

I think it will happen in 2009, but not as a full replacement. Remember the GBC had games in color that would still run in b&w on old models? I think they're gonna apply that system but for all games, as an upgrade but not quite a "Wii 2" type of deal. That way they can do it earlier without compromising the installed base they have already conquered.

Even down the road I don't think they would just reset it completely.

jarrod · Feb 5, 2008

Onix said:
no ... chance ... in ... hell ...

Oh I agree, download only for next gen consoles would be too soon (though not for next gen handhelds imo). But you'll see a download only console well before you'd see a console with any sort of rewritable optical drive (ie: never).

donny2112 · May 26, 2008

Is there a more up-to-date version of this thread? Nintendo's put up their profit numbers going back to FY1981. Here are the numbers since the PSX was released.

Code:

FY*       Sony**        Nintendo        Microsoft
1994                   509,000,000
1995                   403,000,000
1996                   579,000,000
1997                   633,000,000

Converted using current rates (1 USD = 103.447 JPY), so the actual conversion using exchange rates at the time would be lower.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_pl_e0803.pdf

davepoobond · May 26, 2008

bycha said:
Maybe even more important than price are difficulties in reducing it. Mandatory HDD for next-gen experience at this point is simply impossible to reduce in price. You can't throw a lot of other things like wireless communication and HDMI.

i know this is an old post, but as far as HDDs go, they could replace it with a solid state drive. You might not be able to replace the drive (unless they make something proprietary), but that'd help in cutting costs for the HDD. Its actually pretty viable now since technology has gotten pretty good for flash drives and stuff.

but, the reason why the thread was bumped, that's pretty cool Nintendo released that info.

AniHawk · May 26, 2008

Using current conversion rates, then adjusted for inflation (so costs appear how they would in each year). Not accurate, but it gives a general idea.

1981: $6.7 million
1982: $46 million
1983 (Introduction of the Famicom): $46.83 million
1984 (video game crash): $44 million
1985 (video game crash): $47.5 million
1986 (Introduction of NES, Nintendo saves gaming): $82.55 million
1987: $128.8 million
1988: $160 million
1989: $191 million
1990 (Game Boy launches): $193 million
1991: $422 million
1992 (SNES launches): $549.9 million
1993: $576.32 million
1994 (heyday of the Sega Genesis): $351 million
1995 (Sony betrays Nintendo, vows to destroy known video game industry, NES dies): $285.8 million
1996 (Virtual Boy launches and dies): $422.7 million
1997 (N64 launches, revolutionizes gaming forever): $472.9 million
1998: $613.8 million
1999 (Nintendo releases best game of all-time until 2008, Pokemon saves handheld gaming, SNES dies, GBC launches): $643.5$ million
2000 (Sony begins the second phase of their plan): $434 million
2001: $785.7 million
2002 (Gamecube released, GBA released): $861.7 million
2003 (N64 dies): $556.7 million
2004 (Gamecube fails to save gaming): $282 million
2005 (DS launches, Sony launches phase 3 of their plan): $768 million
2006 (DS saves handheld gaming like Pokemon before it): $892 million
2007 (Wii launches, Sony launches phase 4): $1.626 billion
2008 (Nintendo saves gaming): $2.488 billion

davepoobond · May 26, 2008

so they've never actually lost money?

Opiate · May 26, 2008

donny2112 said:
Is there a more up-to-date version of this thread? Nintendo's put up their profit numbers going back to FY1981. Here are the numbers since the PSX was released.

Code:

FY* Sony** Nintendo Microsoft 1994 509,000,000 1995 403,000,000 1996 579,000,000 1997 633,000,000

Converted using current rates (1 USD = 103.447 JPY), so the actual conversion using exchange rates at the time would be lower.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_pl_e0803.pdf

It's not completely analogus, but I have been trying to keep tabs on the industry as a whole here:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=296161

This includes Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, SCi/Eidos, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, THQ, SE, Capcom, and others, but I've only managed to piece together the last year's worth of data.

Any help in that thread would be appreciated.

duderon · May 26, 2008

Nintendo is going to have 30 years of profitability, completely mental. 1990's FY was only 7 months, as well.

titiklabingapat · May 26, 2008

davepoobond said:
i know this is an old post, but as far as HDDs go, they could replace it with a solid state drive. You might not be able to replace the drive (unless they make something proprietary), but that'd help in cutting costs for the HDD. Its actually pretty viable now since technology has gotten pretty good for flash drives and stuff.

but, the reason why the thread was bumped, that's pretty cool Nintendo released that info.

FWIW, there is a rumour on a no-name websited saying that the current Wii Sku will be phased out within 90 days.

This could mean many things provided the rumour is true. Last time they had an "SKU change" was with the Wiimote jacket back in December 07 so don't hold your hopes up.\

Interestingly, E3 is within 90 days as well so who knows. It might mean an increase in flash drive space for all succeeding Wii consoles.

Raistlin · May 26, 2008

Snah said:
I realize that. The PS3 R&D and production costs seem excessive compared to the PS2 figures.

If the tech they were R&Ding is only used in PS3, then yes, it was excessive.

Sony's expectation however, is that it will be used in successive generations.

Shinz Kicker · May 26, 2008

bycha said:
.We will see WiiHD in 2010-2011. Same power as ps3 same price as wii initially. By that time HD penetration will be massive, ps3/360 will be selling at their peak and it will be perfect time for Nintendo to do that. WiiHD will only cement 360/ps3 generation.

.if a new wii is released in 2010. preproduction would proabably be using the new 4870 and gt200 architecture for their gpu. it they continue using ati and go with the new dual core 4870X2 the graphics on the wii will be much more than double. i would be think graphically it would closer 3-5 the prowess of the current machines. the current 8800gt and gtx walk away from these machines without breaking a sweat. nintendo is going to be jumping 2 and half generations graphically with their new console. it would be like going from playstation to 360 in one jump since the stuff thats in the wii is less than 2 gamecubes bootstapped together. i dont see nintendo every needing an upgrade past that within conventional console means.

davepoobond · May 26, 2008

titiklabingapat said:
FWIW, there is a rumour on a no-name websited saying that the current Wii Sku will be phased out within 90 days.

This could mean many things provided the rumour is true. Last time they had an "SKU change" was with the Wiimote jacket back in December 07 so don't hold your hopes up.\

Interestingly, E3 is within 90 days as well so who knows. It might mean an increase in flash drive space for all succeeding Wii consoles.

well, it would be an opportune time to announce it.

it would actually be really smart for Nintendo to revise the storage capabilities in the Wii and somehow make it the only version available everywhere. hello rebuys.

Kilrogg · May 26, 2008

Shinz Kicker said:
.if a new wii is released in 2010. preproduction would proabably be using the new 4870 and gt200 architecture for their gpu. it they continue using ati and go with the new dual core 4870X2 the graphics on the wii will be much more than double. i would be think graphically it would closer 3-5 the prowess of the current machines. the current 8800gt and gtx walk away from these machines without breaking a sweat. nintendo is going to be jumping 2 and half generations graphically with their new console. it would be like going from playstation to 360 in one jump since the stuff thats in the wii is less than 2 gamecubes bootstapped together. i dont see nintendo every needing an upgrade past that within conventional console means.

But they won't come up with a WiiHD or a new console by 2010, so no need to think about that, right?

Haunted · May 26, 2008

AniHawk said:
Using current conversion rates, then adjusted for inflation (so costs appear how they would in each year). Not accurate, but it gives a general idea.

1981: $6.7 million
1982: $46 million
1983 (Introduction of the Famicom): $46.83 million
1984 (video game crash): $44 million
1985 (video game crash): $47.5 million
1986 (Introduction of NES, Nintendo saves gaming): $82.55 million
1987: $128.8 million
1988: $160 million
1989: $191 million
1990 (Game Boy launches): $193 million
1991: $422 million
1992 (SNES launches): $549.9 million
1993: $576.32 million
1994 (heyday of the Sega Genesis): $351 million
1995 (Sony betrays Nintendo, vows to destroy known video game industry, NES dies): $285.8 million
1996 (Virtual Boy launches and dies): $422.7 million
1997 (N64 launches, revolutionizes gaming forever): $472.9 million
1998: $613.8 million
1999 (Nintendo releases best game of all-time until 2008, Pokemon saves handheld gaming, SNES dies, GBC launches): $643.5$ million
2000 (Sony begins the second phase of their plan): $434 million
2001: $785.7 million
2002 (Gamecube released, GBA released): $861.7 billion
2003 (N64 dies): $556.7 million
2004 (Gamecube fails to save gaming): $282 million
2005 (DS launches, Sony launches phase 3 of their plan): $768 million
2006 (DS saves handheld gaming like Pokemon before it): $892 million
2007 (Wii launches, Sony launches phase 4): $1.626 billion
2008 (Nintendo saves gaming): $2.488 million

Holy FUCK at the numbers from 2005 onwards.

As impressive is the fact that they've never lost money regardless of their position in the marketplace. Nintendo knows how to make money.

edit: it seems appropriate:

NolbertoS · May 26, 2008

Nintendo should write a book on "How to jumpstart the videogame industry from barely a pulse to a Heavyweight Behemoth that rivals Hollywood in sales and revenue". Makes want to write a marketing thesis on how Nintendo is literally the "Toyota" of videogaming going for "lean" products, compared to Sony which would be "Honda" and MS would be "Ford" who have all the fancy "technology" in there consoles, but haven't produced the revenues that Nintendo enjoys.

ComputerNerd · May 26, 2008

AniHawk said:
Using current conversion rates, then adjusted for inflation (so costs appear how they would in each year). Not accurate, but it gives a general idea.

1981: $6.7 million
1982: $46 million
1983 (Introduction of the Famicom): $46.83 million
1984 (video game crash): $44 million
1985 (video game crash): $47.5 million
1986 (Introduction of NES, Nintendo saves gaming): $82.55 million
1987: $128.8 million
1988: $160 million
1989: $191 million
1990 (Game Boy launches): $193 million
1991: $422 million
1992 (SNES launches): $549.9 million
1993: $576.32 million
1994 (heyday of the Sega Genesis): $351 million
1995 (Sony betrays Nintendo, vows to destroy known video game industry, NES dies): $285.8 million
1996 (Virtual Boy launches and dies): $422.7 million
1997 (N64 launches, revolutionizes gaming forever): $472.9 million
1998: $613.8 million
1999 (Nintendo releases best game of all-time until 2008, Pokemon saves handheld gaming, SNES dies, GBC launches): $643.5$ million
2000 (Sony begins the second phase of their plan): $434 million
2001: $785.7 million
2002 (Gamecube released, GBA released): $861.7 billion
2003 (N64 dies): $556.7 million
2004 (Gamecube fails to save gaming): $282 million
2005 (DS launches, Sony launches phase 3 of their plan): $768 million
2006 (DS saves handheld gaming like Pokemon before it): $892 million
2007 (Wii launches, Sony launches phase 4): $1.626 billion
2008 (Nintendo saves gaming): $2.488 million

Good work. might wanna fix this though:
2002 (Gamecube released, GBA released): $861.7 billion

swerve · May 26, 2008

2008 (Nintendo saves gaming): $2.488 million

Yeah, there's another one to fix.

Mithos Yggdrasill · May 26, 2008

donny2112 said:
Is there a more up-to-date version of this thread? Nintendo's put up their profit numbers going back to FY1981. Here are the numbers since the PSX was released.

Code:

FY* Sony** Nintendo Microsoft 1994 509,000,000 1995 403,000,000 1996 579,000,000 1997 633,000,000

Converted using current rates (1 USD = 103.447 JPY), so the actual conversion using exchange rates at the time would be lower.

http://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/library/historical_data/pdf/consolidated_pl_e0803.pdf

Holy crap. Nintendo has always been profitable in its history since 1981. And holy crap to the foreign exchange losses of 2008.

davepoobond said:
so they've never actually lost money?

Never since 1981.

AniHawk said:
Using current conversion rates, then adjusted for inflation (so costs appear how they would in each year). Not accurate, but it gives a general idea.

1981: $6.7 million
1982: $46 million
1983 (Introduction of the Famicom): $46.83 million
1984 (video game crash): $44 million
1985 (video game crash): $47.5 million
1986 (Introduction of NES, Nintendo saves gaming): $82.55 million
1987: $128.8 million
1988: $160 million
1989: $191 million
1990 (Game Boy launches): $193 million
1991: $422 million
1992 (SNES launches): $549.9 million
1993: $576.32 million
1994 (heyday of the Sega Genesis): $351 million
1995 (Sony betrays Nintendo, vows to destroy known video game industry, NES dies): $285.8 million
1996 (Virtual Boy launches and dies): $422.7 million
1997 (N64 launches, revolutionizes gaming forever): $472.9 million
1998: $613.8 million
1999 (Nintendo releases best game of all-time until 2008, Pokemon saves handheld gaming, SNES dies, GBC launches): $643.5$ million
2000 (Sony begins the second phase of their plan): $434 million
2001: $785.7 million
2002 (Gamecube released, GBA released): $861.7 billion
2003 (N64 dies): $556.7 million
2004 (Gamecube fails to save gaming): $282 million
2005 (DS launches, Sony launches phase 3 of their plan): $768 million
2006 (DS saves handheld gaming like Pokemon before it): $892 million
2007 (Wii launches, Sony launches phase 4): $1.626 billion
2008 (Nintendo saves gaming): $2.488 million

I agree about Ocarina of Time's statement.

Golden Darkness · May 26, 2008

Shinz Kicker said:
.if a new wii is released in 2010. preproduction would proabably be using the new 4870 and gt200 architecture for their gpu. it they continue using ati and go with the new dual core 4870X2 the graphics on the wii will be much more than double. i would be think graphically it would closer 3-5 the prowess of the current machines. the current 8800gt and gtx walk away from these machines without breaking a sweat. nintendo is going to be jumping 2 and half generations graphically with their new console. it would be like going from playstation to 360 in one jump since the stuff thats in the wii is less than 2 gamecubes bootstapped together. i dont see nintendo every needing an upgrade past that within conventional console means.

Question, will it be even feasible in a machine the size of the Wii or slightly larger?

Saint Gregory · May 26, 2008

AniHawk said:
Using current conversion rates, then adjusted for inflation (so costs appear how they would in each year). Not accurate, but it gives a general idea.

1981: $6.7 million
1982: $46 million
1983 (Introduction of the Famicom): $46.83 million
1984 (video game crash): $44 million
1985 (video game crash): $47.5 million
1986 (Introduction of NES, Nintendo saves gaming): $82.55 million
1987: $128.8 million
1988: $160 million
1989: $191 million
1990 (Game Boy launches): $193 million
1991: $422 million
1992 (SNES launches): $549.9 million
1993: $576.32 million
1994 (heyday of the Sega Genesis): $351 million
1995 (Sony betrays Nintendo, vows to destroy known video game industry, NES dies): $285.8 million
1996 (Virtual Boy launches and dies): $422.7 million
1997 (N64 launches, revolutionizes gaming forever): $472.9 million
1998: $613.8 million
1999 (Nintendo releases best game of all-time until 2008, Pokemon saves handheld gaming, SNES dies, GBC launches): $643.5$ million
2000 (Sony begins the second phase of their plan): $434 million
2001: (Gamecube released, GBA released): $785.7 million
2002 $861.7 million
2003 (N64 dies): $556.7 million
2004 (Gamecube fails to save gaming): $282 million
2005 (DS launches, Sony launches phase 3 of their plan): $768 million
2006 (DS saves handheld gaming like Pokemon before it): $892 million
2007 (Wii launches, Sony launches phase 4): $1.626 billion
2008 (Nintendo saves gaming): $2.488 billion

Fixed the bolded stuff... I think?

Datschge · May 26, 2008

davepoobond said:
so they've never actually lost money?

They had a single quarter with losses (not for the fy as a whole though), the first in their over 100 years of existence. Don't recall which quarter it was, but it was late into the GC era before DS was released.

Edit: Looks like it was the fourth quarter of 2004.

AniHawk · May 26, 2008

ComputerNerd said:
Good work. might wanna fix this though:
2002 (Gamecube released, GBA released): $861.7 billion

Well this is currently the FY 2009. So FY 2002 would've been April 2001-March 2002.

Shinz Kicker · May 26, 2008

Golden Darkness said:
Question, will it be even feasible in a machine the size of the Wii or slightly larger?

i bet it could work the chipset have cooling on them and are not larger than the wii. the new ati chip has 2 core on the board itself rather that using sli or crossfire. i was just speculating i hope they would pick a gpu for whats coming out next. because the 8800gt is on par+ the consoles (singe cards can run crysis on mid to high at had resolution 1080p excluded... actually i dont really know). the new cards coming out are looking to be the next evolutionary jump in graphics much like the 9700 was back in the day. next year games announced for pc are gonna look beautiful lets just hope nintendo capitlizes on this.

Grampa Simpson · May 26, 2008

Damn. Nintendo is such a rockstar.

Support NeoGAF

Sony, Nintendo, & MS videogame profitability numbers through June 30 2007

poor, homeless and tasteless

Member

not an idiot

Member

Junior Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Black Republican

Banned

Junior Member

when is my burrito

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Post Count: 9999

Member

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.

Banned

Member

you can't put a price on sparks

Member

you can't put a price on sparks

Member

rollin' in the gutter

Member

Post Count: 9999

Banned

you can't put a price on sparks

paid requisite penance

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Similar threads