Support NeoGAF

[TBiddy]

I'm responding to your initial claim (which I quoted above) that Microsoft stopped reporting hardware shipments because they only care about revenue and profit.

What? I never wrote that. I wrote that MS and their investors care primarily about revenue and profit.

Except that they didn't share total revenue for Xbox. The only information they provided was comparative percentage: software revenue up (both Minecraft and other titles), and hardware revenue down (both 360 and One).

It is literally impossible for an investor to tell how the Xbox business is doing. But it's now such a small part of Microsoft's overall business that no investors care.

As I've written in the other thread, if you're an investor and you're interested in how the Xbox business is doing, down to the detailed shipment numbers, I'm sure you can get in touch with Microsoft, sign an NDA, get the numbers and then form your educated opinion if it's worth it.

 

[Liabe Brave]

What? I never wrote that. I wrote that MS and their investors care primarily about revenue and profit.

In that same post you also said "They only care about the bottom line", but okay I'll concede this. That still doesn't change my point: MAU doesn't have any strong correlation with revenue (indeed, though unlikely, it might not represent any revenue at all). And it certainly says zero about profits.

Therefore, the switched measure was not motivated by an interest in revenue and profit.

As I've written in the other thread, if you're an investor and you're interested in how the Xbox business is doing, down to the detailed shipment numbers, I'm sure you can get in touch with Microsoft, sign an NDA, get the numbers and then form your educated opinion if it's worth it.

Say what?! This is not at all how investor relations works. And even if it was, it destroys your entire previous argument! An NDA situation would mean Microsoft feared public perception if the number got out, rather than having switched for reasons of precision.

 

[TBiddy]

Therefore, the switched measure was not motivated by an interest in revenue and profit.

I don't think I've ever said that. I've said that Microsoft cares primarily about revenue and profit. Putting shipment numbers in a quarterly report is only useful for fueling console wars and not much else.

Say what?! This is not at all how investor relations works. And even if it was, it destroys your entire previous argument! An NDA situation would mean Microsoft feared public perception if the number got out, rather than having switched for reasons of precision.

I'm quite positive, that if you contact Microsoft and tell them that you're interested in becoming a major shareholder, but you need to see detailed shipment numbers for their hardware, they will allow you to do so if you sign an NDA.

 

[jryi]

I'm quite positive, that if you contact Microsoft and tell them that you're interested in becoming a major shareholder, but you need to see detailed shipment numbers for their hardware, they will allow you to do so if you sign an NDA.

No. All investors need to be given the same information at the same time using generally accepted channels. Anything more than that, you may be accused of possessing insider information which puts limits on how to you are allowed to trade shares.

 

[Liabe Brave]

I don't think I've ever said that. I've said that Microsoft cares primarily about revenue and profit.

Why would you say that unless you were proposing a reason for the metric change? Otherwise it's just a trivial non sequitur: "By the way guys, businesses care about making money."

Putting shipment numbers in a quarterly report is only useful for fueling console wars and not much else.

So the fact that every manufacturer has done this for decades indicates that all video game companies are nothing but console warriors? That the financial departments of these big corporations have never been anything but incompetent, ignorant, or malicious? That all investors and analysts are blinkered dupes or biased fans? It's only Microsft in one quarter, and you, TBiddy, who are looking at things in the correct and level-headed way.

...Yeah, checks out.

 

[TBiddy]

Why would you say that unless you were proposing a reason for the metric change? Otherwise it's just a trivial non sequitur: "By the way guys, businesses care about making money."

Because it seemed like people felt entitled to know the numbers and that it was very important for Microsoft to show everyone how many consoles had been shipped.

Newsflash: it isn't.

So the fact that every manufacturer has done this for decades indicates that all video game companies are nothing but console warriors? That the financial departments of these big corporations have never been anything but incompetent, ignorant, or malicious? That all investors and analysts are blinkered dupes or biased fans? It's only Microsft in one quarter, and you, TBiddy, who are looking at things in the correct and level-headed way.

...Yeah, checks out.

I think you just set a new record in strawman-arguments-per-paragraph. Highly impressive.

If you're unable to argue your point, feel free to say so, instead of using strawman arguments to attack me.

 

[Liabe Brave]

Because it seemed like people felt entitled to know the numbers and that it was very important for Microsoft to show everyone how many consoles had been shipped.

So in other words, you were explaining to everyone why Microsoft switched.

I think you just set a new record in strawman-arguments-per-paragraph.

It's only a strawman if you didn't say it. But you did:

Putting shipment numbers in a quarterly report is only useful for fueling console wars and not much else.

Everything I said follows directly from that ridiculous statement. You're claiming that the manufacturers have been providing meaningless data to investors for decades. Which would make the creators of the reports, and the people who buy stock based on them, either idiots or console warriors.

My argument wasn't against a strawman, it was a reductio ad absurdum.