Support NeoGAF

[StevieP]

Spoiler

you're dreaming, son. high costs killed both sony and ms this gen, they won't make that mistake again

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Spoiler

you're dreaming, son. high costs killed both sony and ms this gen, they won't make that mistake again

High costs killed MS!? Really!? Who are you kidding?

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.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-Kinect-Are-Causes-for-Microsoft-Record-Quarter-181650.shtml

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.

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.

I know several hardcore console gamers that buy a new game every few weeks (~10-20 games every single year). And the multiplatform games are almost always bought on the 360 because that has the best looking version of multiplatform console games. I'm sure virtually ever gaffer knows several gamers like that, or are such gamers themselves. These people are Microsoft's bread and butter. They would be stupid to lose them by letting a competitor release the console with the better looking multiplatform games.

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.

Unlike the PS3, the 360 was no slouch in the gpu dept. It was a massive R&D investment for MS to get a cutting edge gpu into their console, and boy did it work out. They are consistently getting the best looking multiplatform games, and increased game sales as a result. Meanwhile Sony opted to use a dated off the shelf gpu and shot themselves in the foot.

Why wouldn't MS pursue that same strategy again? If you did something a certain way and it's now your most profitable venture, why wouldn't you want to repeat that strategy?

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Are you an nvidia employee? this shilling is fucking ridiculous now.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Are you an nvidia employee? this shilling is fucking ridiculous now.

Lol, no. Nvidia happened to unveil their roadmap a few years in advance. No one has any idea what AMD has planned though I'm willing to bet they have a similar roadmap they're working towards.

Assuming a 2014 release date, it makes sense that the PS4 sticks with Nvidia and uses something based around Maxwell and the 360 with AMD and it's Maxwell competitor, for the sake of retaining backwards compatibility, prexisting agreements, noncompete clauses and what not.

 

[StevieP]

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.

Second, the tech race has always lost the console race. Suggesting that going for the newest tech possible will drive the cost up quite a bit and drive up the TDP. Both consoles (despite the newness of unified shaders) use weaker parts than the top of 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.

 

[FoneBone]

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

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.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

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.

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. Even in the one region that third party sales on the Wii aren't completely dead (Japan thanks to games like Monster Hunter), they are still behind competitors with a fraction of the Wii's user base and a fraction of the number of third party games. When you look at the US or PAL regions, Wii's third party sales get absolutely trounced by competitors.

There's a massive amount of shovelware on the Wii, and yet, despite the glut of software, the overall third party sales for the console are well behind. There's a reason why third parties are for the most part, have learned to avoid the Wii like the plague. There's a reason why Street Fighter IV and Resident Evil 5 never made it to the Wii. Gamers don't want to buy graphically inferior versions of multiplatform console games.

That's what happens when you release a console that's signficantly weaker than it's competitors. Third party software sells like crap, and you drive away both third party developers and hardcore gamers in the process.

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.

True. The consoles gpus will likely be weaker than the top of the line PC gpus in 2014. They will be built using many of the same innovations as the top of the line PC gpus, but they won't be quite as powerful. The same was the case with the 360's gpu when it came out (though it had a few innovations that didn't even shot up in PC gpus for a few years).

What is patently ridiculously though are all the people here claiming that the next-gen console gpus will be weaker than even the top of the line gpus in 2011. Unless, the consoles are releasing within the next 12 months, that claim is laughable.

I don't think people realize just how rapidly gpu performance advances, or how much cost savings and powersavings you get by switching to 22nm as opposed to the 60nm and 45nm that most gpus are built on today.

 

[Gorgon]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Marco1]

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?

 

[[Nintex]]

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?

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.

 

[AiTM]

God I want a new console...I didn't think I did, but all of this hype I have for the 3DS and NGP made me realize how badly I want a new console, because Ive never cared about handhelds in terms of being excited about them.

This is my favorite time though, the announcement, the first E3 its shown, all of the screenshots and videos you see that help you imagination run wild in terms of what will be possible. Although the is the first generation that I'm a PC gamer also, so I worried some of the initial content wont wow me as much as previous generations.

 

[Marco1]

I agree, I was a PC gamer as well as a console gamer for the last 4 years and I know how good games can look at 1080P with 4XAA and 16XAF at 60fps. I know that the next gen will not amaze me as much as going from xbox to xbox360.
I am not a PC gamer anymore but I really do hope that Microsoft will go all out for the next xbox, it's been far to long even though I am still loving this gen of consoles.

 

[Cipherr]

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.

Its a good idea to actually read the information your linking to.

Iwata did acknowledge that third-party software represents a smaller portion of the total software market on Nintendo systems, when compared to other platforms.

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.

 

[Synth_floyd]

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.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

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.

I would like to see a link as well as Kaz himself just said a few months ago that they were still losing money on PSN.

http://www.1up.com/news/hirai-psn-losing-money-turn

 

[Marco1]

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.
Everyone knows that graphics sell games and if MS come out first with a mild upgrade and sony come out 6-12 months later with a console that produces far better multi-plats then I know were my money will go.

 

[Cyborg]

Nvidia Maxwell looks fcking powerful........if this is the NEXT gen than count me in. But wont this cost more than 600 bucks!?

 

[PSGames]

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.

The Wii had the benefit of motion controls. Unless they come up with something equally innovative graphics will be a very significant selling point next gen.

 

[Majine]

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.

 

[comedy bomb]

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.

Yep all 3rd party games on the Wii look and play terrible.

 

[amstradcpc]

Nvidia Maxwell looks fcking powerful........if this is the NEXT gen than count me in. But wont this cost more than 600 bucks!?

That graphic chart is related to double precission improvement. Not very important for gaming...

 

[Cyborg]

That graphic chart is related to double precission improvement. Not very important for gaming...

Thank you

 

[Jaagen]

Yeah, I wish people would stop quoting that Maxwell presentation. It was all about general computing performance for HPC's.

 

[Reallink]

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.

Can you really conclude that from a single console in a single generation though? How well would Wii have done if there were no Wiimote? Would it have sold 100 million units (or whatever) if it shipped with a modified Wavebird? Would PS2 have sold 150+ million units if it had been built on lightly modified PS1 hardware and no DVD? Realistically, it's impossible for all 3 manufacturers to hit a Wiimote level grand slam every generation. The manufacturers have to differentiate their consoles, and that's definitely not going to happen if they all focus on weak, cheap hardware and bet the farm on some single, crazy innovation. They will either all enjoy this back-and-forth middling success (similar to PS360 this gen), or 1-2 will fail spectacularly and risk driving themselves out of the console space for the entire generation--if not for good. Hardware and features are considered a safe bet, and it would be pretty ignorant for ALL 3 manufacturers to think they're going to bottle lightning with some crazy innovation at the expense of everything else.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

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.

No, you have his statement confused. He stated that they're losing money on PSN and hope to make it profitable this year. He was referring to PSN only, not the PS3 overall.

Before the Slim, Sony was making money on the software sales, but losing money on each PS3 sold. However, even in hardware, the PS3 has been turning in a profit ever since the Slim was introduced.

http://www.1up.com/news/sony-finally-profiting-ps3-sold

Right now, they're in a position where they make money on every console sold, on top of the money they make on every game they sell. So yes, they've been profitable.

You should also take a look at their earnings reports. They are actually making money on the gaming department these past two years, and have actually been counting on that to make up for losses in their cellphone division.

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.

You're correct. That was an error on my part. The 360s gpu had some aspects of it that were indeed ahead of even the PC market at the time of release, but as you point out, that edge didn't last very long.

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.

Nope, it sounds like you stopped reading after the first paragraph, keep reading mate, and look at the charts too. Both in terms of percentage AND in terms of total third party software sales, the Wii is behind it's competitors. The one exception is that it's overall third party software sales in Japan is ahead of the 360, but aside from that, it's behind in overall third party sales.

 

[Zabka]

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.

Really?

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Yes really. Revenue - Loss = Net Profit. 3,698-670 >> 5054-3251

Look at your own chart. They are netting more profit from their gaming division.


Also...

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.

However...

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.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Xbox-360-Kinect-Are-Causes-for-Microsoft-Record-Quarter-181650.shtml

 

[Zabka]

This is a troll right? Windows plus Office (Business Division) revenue was $11 billion. Profits were ten times higher than the Entertainment Division.

Look at your own chart. They are netting more profit from their gaming division.

Jesus.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

This is a troll right? Windows plus Office (Business Division) revenue was $11 billion. Profits were ten times higher than the Entertainment Division.

Sorry, I meant to say that it's making them a lot more money than Windows.

Microsoft Business division includes a lot more than office. It also includes their enterprise software and several other software aimed at businesses. And you are also screwing up by looking at Revenue only not taking into account the losses (aka. investments) in that same division.

Regardless, my point is that to call Xbox 360 a failure or a net loss for them is beyond stupid.

 

[Zabka]

You've got to be more subtle. If you're going to troll, pretending to have the math skills of a 1st grader makes it too obvious.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

What are you talking about. You do realize that net profit is calculated by subtracting losses from the overall revenue right?

Yes, Windows made 5054 million in revenue. But you can't shut your ears and ignore the fact that they spent 3251 million to fund that division. You have to subtract the second number from the first to calculate the net profit.

You are also combining two different divisions.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Operating Income is the profit, it's on the chart. See if you can read that.

 

[Zabka]

You should get some rest and come back to this later, reading your own links and then matching it to the chart.

Also look up all the words on the chart in a dictionary.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Operating Income is the profit, it's on the chart. See if you can read that.

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.

 

[Lynn616]

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.

Dude you are wrong.

Income is not cost. There is no way you are being serious.

 

[Zabka]

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]

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.

 

[ArtG]

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.

No.

 

[Zeal]

why did this thread turn into charts, graphs, and salesgaf bullshit.

 

[Zabka]

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.

Because the numbers shown in parentheses are losses.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Because the numbers shown in parentheses are losses.

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."

 

[Zeal]

microsoft is doing fine right now, and it's obvious that their next system will be a beast graphically.

 

[Zabka]

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.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

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.

Whatever. Like I said, my post was responding to a claim that High costs (of the Xbox 360) killed MS, a statement that you clearly disagree with as well.

The one sentence of my whole post that you picked out, I was going by 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."

 

[T-Matt]

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."

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.

 

[Log4Girlz]

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

 

[Stephen Colbert]

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

I would be pleased with that. Hell, as long as it comes with a 32gb flash drive for loading and game saves and XBL/PSN games, I don't even need the 1TB HDD, that can be an accesory you purchase seperately.

I would prefer a controller that effectively splits off into two move controllers than I would a packed in Kinect though. I know Kinect sells, but something that imprecise really holds zero appeal to me.

 

[Grampa Simpson]

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 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

 

[Grampa Simpson]

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.

His avatar is fellating a banana.

 

[Log4Girlz]

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

Get those Wii HD specs out of here lol