(Sales Age) Earnings time again (Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, UBI)

dyls said:
OH. MY GOD.


Nintendo should seriously just stop allowing Ubisoft to make games for their systems. A couple of shovelware titles is one thing, this is a fucking deluge. It seriously can only hurt a console's perception, and really looks like predatory development. Seriously, what would we lose if Nintendo denied Ubisoft totally? A half-assed snowboarding game and a downgraded port of POP. I can live with that tradeoff.
u mad?
 
2/3 of all UBI sales come from Europe. Damn.

Also, with a 20/20 split between PS3 and 360 worlwide no wonder they are putting more focus on PS3 titles now.
 
Jackson said:
Imagine series makes boatloads of RoI

Nintendo gets a % of every game sold.

The only thing Ubisoft is hurting with Nintendo is making Nintendo's over bloated wallet even fatter
Have we not seen in the history of gaming a time when having a glut of low quality products confused customers and soured them on the entire hobby? Certainly sounds familiar to me.

The DS and Wii represent many people's first entry into gaming, or their first time back after a long break. If they are met with an overwhelmingly-high ratio of crap to good games, perhaps they will decide it's not worth bothering with. It's true that with the internet it is far easier to do a little research and find out which games are worth getting, but laziness often wins out over diligence.

Again, I have no problem with there being some shovelware on a system. Part of being the market leader means that everyone will try to make a quick buck on the back of your hard work. But for one of the largest publishers in the world—one who has, unsolicited, promised to make high-quality software for the Wii and DS—to create so much crap...I mean, how can that not bother you?
 
dyls said:
Have we not seen in the history of gaming a time when having a glut of low quality products confused customers and soured them on the entire hobby? Certainly sounds familiar to me.
No, this is entirely different. What actually caused the crash last time was that Atari started losing massive amounts of money. This time, Nintendo (and to a lesser extent Ubisoft) are making more money than any company in the industry's history.

You can say that the "glut of low quality products" caused Atari to start losing money, which caused the crash, which I agree with.

But this time, the "glut of low quality products" is causing Ubisoft to reach record profits. There is no crash. The hardcore gaming industry (EA, Sony, Microsoft, Take 2 being the main proponents) have lost billions over the last few years, and that side of the industry is much closer to crashing than the Wii/DS side.

The DS and Wii represent many people's first entry into gaming, or their first time back after a long break. If they are met with an overwhelmingly-high ratio of crap to good games, perhaps they will decide it's not worth bothering with. It's true that with the internet it is far easier to do a little research and find out which games are worth getting, but laziness often wins out over diligence.
It sounds like you agree that this highly profitable right now -- you're just arguing it may not be in the future. It's essentially calling the Wii and DS a fad, although I know you don't mean that in the typically insulting manner with which that phrase is usually presented.

I will just state again that empirical data suggests you're wrong. These casual games are, by far, the best profit earners for the industry, and have been for several years now. Companies that focused on more enthusiast oriented games for the PS3 and 360 (not the least of whom are Sony and Microsoft themselves) continue to struggle just to break even, while Ubisoft, Nintendo and Popcap rake in the cash year after year. If this trend lasts for another year, I'll consider it conclusive proof.
 
Opiate said:
It sounds like you agree that this highly profitable right now -- you're just arguing it may not be in the future. It's essentially calling the Wii and DS a fad, although I know you don't mean that in the typically insulting manner with which that phrase is usually presented.
I'm not saying they're fads, I'm saying their popularity could decline because of such an extreme influx of low-quality software.

Opiate said:
I will just state again that empirical data suggests you're wrong. These casual games are, by far, the best profit earners for the industry, and have been for several years now. Companies that focused on more enthusiast oriented games for the PS3 and 360 (not the least of whom are Sony and Microsoft themselves) continue to struggle just to break even, while Ubisoft, Nintendo and Popcap rake in the cash year after year. If this trend lasts for another year, I'll consider it conclusive proof.
But isn't there some sort of limit to what the market will absorb? If all of the major publishers decided to follow in Ubi's path and release 50 quick and dirty titles in one quarter across these two platforms, is there really no chance that it could cause negative sentiment and, in the long run, lessening sales?
 
dyls said:
But isn't there some sort of limit to what the market will absorb? If all of the major publishers decided to follow in Ubi's path and release 50 quick and dirty titles in one quarter across these two platforms, is there really no chance that it could cause negative sentiment and, in the long run, lessening sales?
If it stops selling, retailers stop buying, so publishers stop funding. In the immediate timeframe, you could have overcrowding on the video game shelves until the market corrects, though.
 
dyls said:
I'm not saying they're fads, I'm saying their popularity could decline because of such an extreme influx of low-quality software.



But isn't there some sort of limit to what the market will absorb? If all of the major publishers decided to follow in Ubi's path and release 50 quick and dirty titles in one quarter across these two platforms, is there really no chance that it could cause negative sentiment and, in the long run, lessening sales?
You're assuming that the market at large views these titles in the same way that the review community does. If this generation has taught us anything, it's that this certainly isn't true.
 
dyls said:
I'm not saying they're fads, I'm saying their popularity could decline because of such an extreme influx of low-quality software.



But isn't there some sort of limit to what the market will absorb? If all of the major publishers decided to follow in Ubi's path and release 50 quick and dirty titles in one quarter across these two platforms, is there really no chance that it could cause negative sentiment and, in the long run, lessening sales?

You have to know that there has always been a large kid market for video games. This is who Ubisoft is selling to mainly. All other publishers will not follow their path , because Ubisoft puts out so many titles that it would be very hard to compete. To me it seems that that are taking the market THQ use to cater to. THQ seems to be trying to up from that market a bit.

So my point is that there will always be games for kids that we will think are crappy. This gen people are calling most of them casual games for some reason and that just proves to me that people don't know what a casual game is.

Take carnival games and all mini game collections for example. This is a market that was carved out on Nintendo consoles by Mario Party for years and they appeal to wide age group, but I'm guessing the main target group is kids.For some reason people were surprised that mini games sell well on a Nintendo console without factoring in how well Mario Party sold for years.

Now apply that same theory to all the simple and/or crappy games that have come out last gen and the gen before that. Consolidate all those games to one main console this gen and you can understand how these games can sell. They have always sold, but the sales were spread out more on all the consoles on the market. Now we all know that is only one current gen console with the low development cost and user base to support these games. Add in the non-games like word coach (which can target all age groups) on top of those and you can began to understand that Ubisoft made a good business decision in same ways. I believe that ignoring the core market on the Wii will prove to be a mistake for them, but only because they are leaving that space open for devs like high voltage and THQ to step up into it.They are not losing money, but they are leaving it on the table.
 
C.T. said:
Ubisoft will release 7 imagine games in a span of three month. even for the short developing length its like flooding the market. What he wrote was an attempt to explain their reasoning.
To leave a development area where they make money doing quick pushouts and move on to bleeding money on the HD consoles with little return......Ubisoft wants to sabotage their own success. :O
WOT?
 
Jackson said:
Imagine series makes boatloads of RoI

Nintendo gets a % of every game sold.

The only thing Ubisoft is hurting with Nintendo is making Nintendo's over bloated wallet even fatter
I'd think all of this shit is hurting the Wii's reputation as well.

A majority of these shitty casual games are coming from them.
 
jrricky said:
To leave a development area where they make money doing quick pushouts and move on to bleeding money on the HD consoles with little return......Ubisoft wants to sabotage their own success. :O
WOT?
How are they bleeding money on the HD games? They made 40% of their sales between the PS3 and 360 across around 1/10 of the games they pushed out for the Wii and DS.
 
Eteric Rice said:
I'd think all of this shit is hurting the Wii's reputation as well.

A majority of these shitty casual games are coming from them.
Wiis reputation? Dunno. The only one caring about this stuff sit on internet forums and discuss game reviews...
Affecting Ubis reputation, however? In a way. I know I am starting to apply a pretty standoffish mindset when I hear that a Wii/DS game is somehow connected to Ubi (published/developed). Great games will still catch my attention - probably. I fear that I'll miss out on the occasional "only good" game though. Shame about that.
 
dyls said:
Have we not seen in the history of gaming a time when having a glut of low quality products confused customers and soured them on the entire hobby? Certainly sounds familiar to me.

The DS and Wii represent many people's first entry into gaming, or their first time back after a long break. If they are met with an overwhelmingly-high ratio of crap to good games, perhaps they will decide it's not worth bothering with. It's true that with the internet it is far easier to do a little research and find out which games are worth getting, but laziness often wins out over diligence.

Again, I have no problem with there being some shovelware on a system. Part of being the market leader means that everyone will try to make a quick buck on the back of your hard work. But for one of the largest publishers in the world—one who has, unsolicited, promised to make high-quality software for the Wii and DS—to create so much crap...I mean, how can that not bother you?
I'd still guess it's the case that more copies of New Super Mario Bros. have sold than the Imagine series combined. It's not like it's a completely overwhelming force, even if it does make for an ugly block of games on a store shelf.
 
Sony Japan decreased their profit forecasts by 57% btw.. don't know if anyone posted this. Saw it on Reuters. Not sure if it's 100% relevant but seeing as everyone's so interested in how much money who makes..
 
Microsoft delivered strong growth of 20% in sales of business software. And sales of its Xbox 360 video-game consoles also exceeded expectations. Microsoft shares had been down more than 6% at the open but had inched up 15 cents to $22.47 by late morning. (Microsoft is the publisher of MSN Money.)

Sony (SNE, news, msgs) on Thursday sharply lowered its outlook for its fiscal year ending March 30, citing a weakening global economy and a stronger yen.
The yen surged to a 13-year high today, a huge blow to Sony and other Japanese exporters -- darkening earnings prospects for the nation's big exporters and threatening to drag Japan into a recession.
Sony vowed to eliminate jobs, close plants and postpone some capital spending to bolster its balance sheet. Sony shares on the New York Stock Exchange were down 3.1% to $20.79 this morning.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches-102408.aspx?GT1=33009

sent this article to few friends who were expecting PS3 price drop this holiday season... :(
 
CaptainABAB said:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=2830

Sony has just slashed its earnings forecast for the 2008 fiscal year by almost $1 billion. Sony now predicts earnings to be in the region of 150 billion yen, or $1.5 billion, down from a forecast issued in July of 240 billion yen, or $2.4 billion.

Areas that Sony predict will be down include:

Flat-screen TVs
Digital cameras
Video cameras

Interestingly, the company doesn’t mention games consoles.
So they improved their worldwide game console numbers YoY?
 

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Ubisoft makes casual games because they sell. Why GAF Wii owners feel that games not made for them are somehow an insult to them is beyond me.

Disney makes all sorts of movies directed at different audiences.
 
Ether_Snake said:
Ubisoft makes casual games because they sell. Why GAF Wii owners feel that games not made for them are somehow an insult to them is beyond me.

Disney makes all sorts of movies directed at different audiences.
It wouldn't be as bad if they still supplied GAF Wii owners with games that they'd want.

<pathos>
Nonetheless, they've seemingly nearly abandoned that part of the Wiis (and DSs) gaming populace. I couldn't care less about this whole situation if I received a good non-imagine non-babiez game from them from time to time. Red Steel was pretty mediocre, but it sold pretty nicely, and a sequel was announced. We haven't heard of it since then, and it's been two years.
Meanwhile they barf out copious amounts of... uninteresting... software. They've gone on record for admitting to feed Wii gamers low effort hand-me-downs, they vowed to deliver better quality games... and did nothing. They've been deconstructing their brand on Nintendo consoles with a tenacity and thoroughness that leaves me in awe.
</pathos>

Anyway, you get my drift, I hope. Most of us aren't complaining about the non-game games per se, we're complaining that we only get those. They can push out enough shovelware to blot out the sun for all I care, as long as I get my games. Problem is, they don't. And that's the main problem here.
 
Not sure if it's been posted:
Microsoft Reports Record First-Quarter Revenue

Revenue surpasses $15 billion with healthy sales of enterprise software and Xbox 360 consoles
Code:
[B]Three Months Ended September 30, 2008[/B]

[B]Operating Income (Loss) 	[/B]			2008 	2007 	
Client 							$3,267 	$3,388 	
Server and Tools 					1,151 	959 	
Online Services Business 				(480) 	(267) 	
Microsoft Business Division 				3,311 	2,700 	
[B][U]Entertainment and Devices Division 			178 	167 	[/U][/B]
Corporate-level activity 				(1,428) (1,098)
Figures in $m
 
Psychotext said:
Not sure if it's been posted:
Microsoft Reports Record First-Quarter Revenue



Code:
[B]Three Months Ended September 30, 2008[/B]

[B]Operating Income (Loss) 	[/B]			2008 	2007 	
Client 							$3,267 	$3,388 	
Server and Tools 					1,151 	959 	
Online Services Business 				(480) 	(267) 	
Microsoft Business Division 				3,311 	2,700 	
[B][U]Entertainment and Devices Division 			178 	167 	[/U][/B]
Corporate-level activity 				(1,428) (1,098)
Figures in $m
Last year the consoles were a higher price and they had Halo 3 i that quarter so the revenue growth is impressive.
 

JJConrad

Sucks at viral marketing
PantherLotus said:
start a new thread dufus :|
How did no one notice that thread is already 2 quarters old and is completely missing any information from the previous quarter? This thread be should archived, and a new one started.
 

jetjevons

Bish loves my games!
Sir Fragula said:
Or Nintendo's innovative bucking of industrial trends...
I feel so dirty for saying that.

Actually that data just shows the correlation of each manufacturer's performance to the sum of all manufacturer's performance. I'm too busy with work spreadsheets to really put much time into thinking what use [if any] that is. I just like using the correlation function. I also like using a shit tonne of conditional if()s, countif()s, countsum()s and the like:

Code:
	[b]Sony		Nintendo		Microsoft		Industry[/b]
1998	1,253,000,000	809,000,000			2,062,000,000
1999	1,431,000,000	817,000,000			2,248,000,000
2000	900,000,000	519,000,000			1,419,000,000
2001	-488,000,000	866,000,000			378,000,000
2002	731,000,000	939,000,000	-880,000,000	790,000,000
2003	1,076,000,000	642,000,000	-1,365,000,000	353,000,000
2004	731,000,000	355,000,000	-1,367,000,000	-281,000,000
2005	440,000,000	846,000,000	-528,000,000	758,000,000
2006	79,000,000	942,000,000	-1,329,000,000	-308,000,000
2007	-1,969,000,000	1,489,000,000	-1,892,000,000	-2,372,000,000
2008	-1,254,000,000	2,480,000,000	532,000,000	1,758,000,000
				
Total	
	2,930,000,000	10,704,000,000	-6,829,000,000	6,805,000,000
Average	
	266,363,636	973,090,909	-975,571,429	618,636,364
Profitable Years	
	8		11		1		8
Non-Profitable Years	
	3		0		6		3
Average in Loss Year	
	-1,237,000,000	None		-1,226,833,333	-987,000,000
Average in Profit Year	
	830,125,000	973,090,909	532,000,000	1,220,750,000
What is the source for all this info?
 
jetjevons said:
What is the source for all this info?
The quarterly reports that each company issue to the market and shareholders, its difficult to judge MS's figures though as the E&D department includes lots of other products like Zune, media extenders etc and we don't know hoe profitable they are or not.
 
Ok... so I was going to go through and create a new version of that data based on yearly financial reports. It didn't take long to get utterly confused.

For some reason the Sony data I pulled from the financial reports differs to the data above by about $1bn in profit since 1998. Ignoring that, I looked at the MS financial reports and got even more confused when looking at how the profit figures changed over the years.

Code:
	2008	  2007	  2006	  2005	  2004	  2003	  2002
2008	0.426	-1.969	-1.339				
2007		-1.892	-1.284	-0.539			
2006			-1.262	-0.485	-1.337		
2005				-0.391	-1.220	-1.191	
2004					-1.215	-1.191	-1.135
2003						-0.924	-0.874
2002							-1.778
The numbers above are the figures for operating income for the E&D division in MS for each yearly financial report. In 2008 they give the 2007 / 2006 results for comparison and so on... except these numbers don't match up to what they reported in 2007 etc.

Why is that, and for the purpose of this usage... which is right? Oh, and if the original number for 2002 looks especially weird I think it's because it was before the E&D division was split out (I guess they accounted for that in later years?).
 
Psychotext said:
Ok... so I was going to go through and create a new version of that data based on yearly financial reports. It didn't take long to get utterly confused.
Unless I'm mistaken, MS moved different departments in and out of E&D over the past couple of years. And, in doing so, I think they retroactively move the income/profit around so that the total for the company remains constant. So if, say, widget coding tools was somewhere else in the company in FY06, then moved into E&D in FY07, then the money moved with them and the FY06 figures quoted in the FY07 report would retroactively adjust for that.

I could be wrong, but that's my recollection of what I figured they had to be doing.
 
So in theory that would mean that the most accurate / appropriate set of numbers to use would always be the last set given? So in this case:

2008 report: 2008, 2007, 2006
2007 report: 2005
2006 report: 2004
2005 report: 2003
2004 report: 2002
 
Psychotext said:
So in theory that would mean that the most accurate / appropriate set of numbers to use would always be the last set given? So in this case:

2008 report: 2008, 2007, 2006
2007 report: 2005
2006 report: 2004
2005 report: 2003
2004 report: 2002
Yep, and even that's dodgy, right? Since the 2008 concept of E&D won't necessarily jibe with the 2007 concept of E&D applied to 2005's data.

It's a bloody mess, I tell ya. I wish they'd just put gaming in its own section, but I understand why they don't.
 
jvm said:
Unless I'm mistaken, MS moved different departments in and out of E&D over the past couple of years. And, in doing so, I think they retroactively move the income/profit around so that the total for the company remains constant. So if, say, widget coding tools was somewhere else in the company in FY06, then moved into E&D in FY07, then the money moved with them and the FY06 figures quoted in the FY07 report would retroactively adjust for that.

I could be wrong, but that's my recollection of what I figured they had to be doing.
Yes i can confirm that's how they do it.
 
BLaZiN PRopHeT said:
Sony's financial statement is out.

Sony shipped 2.43 million PS3's, 2.5 million PS2's, and 3.18 million PSPs in the last 3 months (July to September)

Software sales for PS3 nearly doubled year on year, up to 21 million unit

Games division made a loss of $379 million



http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/08q2_sony.pdf
That's pretty impressive for PS2 sales, I'd never have imagined they continued doing so well after the PS3 release.

Anyone remember how long the original Playstation outsold the PS2 for after the PS2 was released?
 
Ok... I'm going to put together a new version of that table using data from yearly financial reports up to 2008, post it for discussion (including methods / data sources) and then update with the latest quarterly figures.
 
Minsc said:
That's pretty impressive for PS2 sales, I'd never have imagined they continued doing so well after the PS3 release.

Anyone remember how long the original Playstation outsold the PS2 for after the PS2 was released?
It did a couple quarters, but not the first ones. Here are worldwide PS1 and PS2 shipments (old "shipped to warehouse) for PS2's first eight quarters. Winner is bolded.

PS1 PS2
1.1 1.41
0.63 1.13
2.37 0.98
3.69 2.88
2.62 4.21
3.21 4.34
2.82 4.62
1.03 5.42
0.34 3.69
 
Psychotext said:
Ok... I'm going to put together a new version of that table using data from yearly financial reports up to 2008, post it for discussion (including methods / data sources) and then update with the latest quarterly figures.
Finished grabbing all the Sony data... however, on a couple of them the dollar figures aren't given. When they are given they use the exchange rate on the final day that the annual report covers. Is it better to use this single day exchange rate to convert the yen value, or is it better to use the average yearly rate that they provide in the report? (Same applies for Nintendo)

I'm guessing the former as that way it will tie better into what gets reported in the west.
 
Ok, lets give this a try.

For some reason there's a significant difference between the Sony figures I pulled from the annual reports and the ones in this thread (Around $1bn profit since 1998). Not sure where the original creator of that data got his numbers from though so I can't work out how it happened. Seems mostly to be because of the first few years (1998 - 2000)

Data / Sources below... feel free to tell me I've got it all wrong if I've screwed it up somehow. Everything can be fact checked using the links provided.

Code:
New version on next page
Data sources are...
Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division 2008, 2007, 2006 figures (2008 annual report, operating income)
Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division 2005 figures (2007 annual report, operating income)
Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division 2004 figures (2006 annual report, operating income)
Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division 2003 figures (2005 annual report, operating income)
Microsoft Entertainment and Devices Division 2002 figures (2004 annual report, operating income)

Sony Game Division 2008 figures (2008 annual report, operating income page 92)
Sony Game Division 2007 figures (2007 annual report, operating income page 67)
Sony Game Division 2006 figures (2006 annual report, operating income page 136)
Sony Game Division 2005 figures (2005 annual report, operating income page 128)
Sony Game Division 2004 figures (2004 annual report, operating income page 93)
Sony Game Division 2003 figures (2003 annual report, operating income page 144)
Sony Game Division 2002 figures (2002 annual report, operating income page 72)
Sony Game Division 2001 figures (2001 annual report, operating income page 132)
Sony Game Division 2000 figures (2000 annual report, operating income page 95)
Sony Game Division 1999 figures (1999 annual report, operating income page 74)
Sony Game Division 1998 figures (1998 annual report, operating income page 73)

All Nintendo figures (Consolidated Statements of Income)
 
Psychotext said:
Ok, lets give this a try.
Has anyone told you "you rock" lately, because you do. :D

Can you add in Nintendo's yearly data going back to 1983/4 (whenever the NES released), even if it's separate from the 1998 and forward data?