StevieP said:
you're dreaming, son. high costs killed both sony and ms this gen, they won't make that mistake again
Microsoft, one of the most important technology-oriented companies in the world, has announced that its video game business has contributed significantly to one of its best ever quarters, when it comes to financial results, with revenue going up to about 20 billion dollars just as profits went down a bit to somewhere around 8 billion.
The Entertainment and Devices Division at Microsoft, which mostly deals with the Xbox 360 centered gaming business but is also in charge of the Zune player, has seen revenue going up by 55 percent to reach 3.6 billion dollars during the quarter that has ended on December 31, 2010.
Only the Business division from Microsoft has performed better than the gaming based one, with the Windows division seeing a 30 percent revenue drop.
fizzelopeguss said:Are you an nvidia employee? this shilling is fucking ridiculous now.
I'd think that the inevitable Kinect 2 would be in a better position if it were available for the next Xbox from the outset.mrklaw said:Who is Kinect sellign to though? If its the mainstream/casual market, they can still launch a new console for enthusiasts etc. Combine with a lower price for the kinect/Xbox bundle, might work well
StevieP said:Jokeropedia can provide you with actual figures, but the Wii sold the most 3rd party software of all 3 platforms. Which puts your software argument away.
StevieP said:Both consoles (despite the newness of unified shaders) use weaker parts than the topof the line at the time of release. This is true of both MS and Sony for this generation of consoles (moreso Sony). And the next round of consoles will be the same, if not weaker relative to the top of the line power-sucking monster PC part at time of release.
Stephen Colbert said:Even the PS3 is pulling in huge profits from their gaming division. The initial losses they took were largely due to their use of Blu Ray, which has nothing whatsoever to do with graphics (though it did help them win the format war and thus indirectly made them a ton of cash). But there's no reason for Sony to skimp on the gpu next gen.
MS sank a ton of cash into developing a cutting edge gpu that uses tech that won't show up in PC gpus for years, and it panned out for them and led to multiplatform games that consistently look better.
There's no way they'll go with Krishna, maybe something using the CPU tech but the GPU part of those AMD Fusion chips are as of yet mainly build for low power consumption and are designed to rival Intel's on-board solutions.Marco1 said:If this means that MS are going with Krishna in their next console then does this make the xbox360 successor a slight upgrade or a next gen technological marvel?
Stephen Colbert said:Like your claim about the 360's high cost killing MS, wrong again.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/new...its-Its-Third-Party-Sales-Are-Pretty-Terrible
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ce_Promises_Closer_Developer_Ties_For_3DS.php
This was from Iwata's presentation late last year where even he admitted that overall third party sales are well behind the competition.
Iwata did acknowledge that third-party software represents a smaller portion of the total software market on Nintendo systems, when compared to other platforms.
Gorgon said:Link please? I agree with most of what you have been saying, but Sony just recently stated that they plan to make the PS3 profitable this year. The PS3 is still, to my knowledge, quite unprofitable overall.
Synth_floyd said:MS and Sony wasted money developing the latest hardware to put in the 360 and PS3 when Nintendo basically put old off the shelf parts into the Wii and made gang busters off of it. I assume when the next gen Xbox and PS consoles come out they will of course be a lot better than the current gen ones but they won't put nearly as much emphasis on graphics and hardware as last time, because IT DOESN"T MATTER.
Microsoft? Perhaps. Sony? Absolutely not. Sony loves pushing out strong hardware and always has. The NGP is a proof of that they haven't changed their minds yet, even after the PS3.Synth_floyd said:MS and Sony wasted money developing the latest hardware to put in the 360 and PS3 when Nintendo basically put old off the shelf parts into the Wii and made gang busters off of it. I assume when the next gen Xbox and PS consoles come out they will of course be a lot better than the current gen ones but they won't put nearly as much emphasis on graphics and hardware as last time, because IT DOESN"T MATTER.
Marco1 said:But it does matter.
Look at third party sales such as call of duty on the wii.
They look and play terrible all because of out-dated hardware.
Cyborg said:Nvidia Maxwell looks fcking powerful........if this is the NEXT gen than count me in. But wont this cost more than 600 bucks!?
amstradcpc said:That graphic chart is related to double precission improvement. Not very important for gaming...
Synth_floyd said:MS and Sony wasted money developing the latest hardware to put in the 360 and PS3 when Nintendo basically put old off the shelf parts into the Wii and made gang busters off of it. I assume when the next gen Xbox and PS consoles come out they will of course be a lot better than the current gen ones but they won't put nearly as much emphasis on graphics and hardware as last time, because IT DOESN"T MATTER.
Gorgon said:Link please? I agree with most of what you have been saying, but Sony just recently stated that they plan to make the PS3 profitable this year. The PS3 is still, to my knowledge, quite unprofitable overall.
Gorgon said:This is really not correct too, as I've stated in this thread. The GPU in the 360 did have tech not available to PC GPUs at the time of realease (although it wasn't anywhere near as powerful as the high-end PC GPUs) but it took less than a year for the tech to be realsed (unified shaders, etc) on the PC market.
Just sayin', for the sake of correctness.
Cipherr said:Its a good idea to actually read the information your linking to.
Percentage wise, the first party titles have a larger share of the whole on the Wii versus the other consoles. We however know as a fact that in total software units moved, Wii leads, first and third party overall. And thats what he was referring to. Slow down enough to actually read mate.
Really?Stephen Colbert said:The 360 was a massive success for Microsoft, it's making them more money than their entire software division (Windows and Office combined) for cripes sake.
godhandiscen said:The Entertainment and devices division just had to eat the losses from the WP7 launch along with the constant losses that Zune gives, NVM the 500M allocated for Kinect marketing. It is incredibly hard to get an estimate of how much the Xbox is really netting MS, but the only thing clear is that it is the only profitable business in that division.
Only the Business division from Microsoft has performed better than the gaming based one, with the Windows division seeing a 30 percent revenue drop.
Microsoft, one of the most important technology-oriented companies in the world, has announced that its video game business has contributed significantly to one of its best ever quarters, when it comes to financial results, with revenue going up to about 20 billion dollars just as profits went down a bit to somewhere around 8 billion.
The Entertainment and Devices Division at Microsoft, which mostly deals with the Xbox 360 centered gaming business but is also in charge of the Zune player, has seen revenue going up by 55 percent to reach 3.6 billion dollars during the quarter that has ended on December 31, 2010.
Jesus.Stephen Colbert said:Look at your own chart. They are netting more profit from their gaming division.
Zabka said:This is a troll right? Windows plus Office (Business Division) revenue was $11 billion. Profits were ten times higher than the Entertainment Division.
bigtroyjon said:Operating Income is the profit, it's on the chart. See if you can read that.
Stephen Colbert said:Jesus, what's wrong with you guys. Operating Income is costs, not profit.
Revenue - Operating Income = Profit.
There's a reason why it says losses in bold in parenthesis right next to where it says Operating Income.
Stephen Colbert said:Jesus, what's wrong with you guys. Operating Income is costs, not profit.
Revenue - Operating Income = Profit.
There's a reason why it says losses in bold in parenthesis right next to where it says Operating Income.
Stephen Colbert said:Jesus, what's wrong with you guys. Operating Income is costs, not profit.
Revenue - Operating Income = Profit.
There's a reason why it says losses in bold in parenthesis right next to where it says Operating Income.
Because the numbers shown in parentheses are losses.Stephen Colbert said:Nevermind, I'm wrong. I have no idea why they put Losses in parenthesis next to Operating Income.
Regardless, the point stands. It was ludicrious to claim that Xbox 360 was costing Microsoft money or was not profitable as the original poster did. It's earning money hand over foot.
Zabka said:Because the numbers shown in parentheses are losses.
Zabka said:You should really be wondering why you bother to debate things like profits and cost when you have no idea what you are talking about.
The windows division saw a 30 percent drop but it still does better than gaming. The quote is saying that the gaming division has a higher increase over the previous year, not that it made more.Stephen Colbert said:Okay, that makes sense.
Regardless, I don't know why you chose to take one sentence out of my whole post out of context. The context being that I was responding to a posters claim that "High costs killed MS" in reference to the Xbox 360.
That was a nonsensical claim as your numbers showed.
As for my statement that the 360 was making them more money than Windows, I was going off a direct quote from softpedia's article...
"Only the Business division from Microsoft has performed better than the gaming based one, with the Windows division seeing a 30 percent revenue drop."
Log4Girlz said:Ok my demands:
4 GB ram
1 TB HDD
32 GB good speed flash to help loading
Monstrously powerful stand-alone GPU
6 core minimum main CPU
Packed-in Kinect and a "normal" controller
1-1.5 GB of ramLog4Girlz said:Ok my demands:
4 GB ram
1 TB HDD
32 GB good speed flash to help loading
Monstrously powerful stand-alone GPU
6 core minimum main CPU
Packed-in Kinect and a "normal" controller
His avatar is fellating a banana.Zabka said:You should really be wondering why you bother to debate things like profits and cost when you have no idea what you are talking about.
BMF said:1-1.5 GB of ram
no HDD (but a slot for one instead in the base unit - ANY HD! Do you hear me MS?)
8GB flash (for games saves and minor DLC)
75 watt peak TPD GPU at 22nm sharing ram with the processor and acting as the memory controller
3 core ppc CPU with out-of-order processing.
packed in motion and classic controller
$300 for the base unit - $400 for one with a hard drive