• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

News TheVerge: After Xbox testimony, Apple tells Microsoft to put up or shut up

Jan 29, 2019
6,041
6,565
495
Don’t know if you noticed but Silicon Valley has basically changed the rules of the game. Only companies that need to make profit are the smaller ones, the big ones can go a decade losing billions while draining the competition out of the market. Said losses are used to explain low wages and poor working conditions, while extreme revenue and growth leads to huge paydays for shareholders.
What is considered a low wage? Debelopers I know all make pretty good money, just like engineers, and other professionals.

That's like the journalists who claim they don't make enough money, then you find out they make a 6 figure salary.
 
Last edited:

Clear

Member
Feb 2, 2009
12,712
7,780
1,365
The documents reveal, only reason Sony enabled crossplay is they got a payment for it. They had no interest this was pro customer. Sweeney even admitted Microsoft has not asked for extra money to put crossplay on its system. Sony got greedy fingers.

Why should they foot the bill serving files/data purchased on other storefronts as opposed to their own?

That's what they are charging for, and the reason why they were antagonistic is because with them having the largest install-base they would otherwise end up with the heaviest burden for the least gain.

Its a decent solution, everyone gets what they want.
 
Last edited:

Old Empire.

Member
May 8, 2017
417
723
490
Why should they foot the bill serving files/data purchased on other storefronts as opposed to their own?

That's what they are charging for, and the reason why they were antagonistic is because with them having the largest install-base they would otherwise end up with the heaviest burden for the least gain.

Its a decent solution, everyone gets what they want.

That makes zero sense when Fortnite a third party game. People complain multiplayer should be free. What about the burden there? Sony hardly losing money by having a free to play a game with crossplay on Playstation. They saw an extra way to milk Epic for money, and Epic paid up. It not surprise me if Sweeney leaked this intentionally to see some blowback. Microsoft could have done the same, but they did not.
 
Last edited:

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
2,363
2,231
340
Their own numbers clearly indicate that they are operating on a loss basis in the gaming division right now.

They report the operating profit for a division that consists of Windows, Advertisement, Surface Pro and Gaming/Xbox. We know that Advertismenet and Surface Pro are profitable but not by how much - so lets for this discussion assume it is +/- zero which is being nice to the Xbox/Gaming division. For many years MS reported the Windows business separately with a fairly consistent range of operating profit margins. They also report how much revenue they have from the Windows part.

If you do the simple math of historical operating profit margin numbers on the Windows business, assume zero contribution from ads and Surface Pro (which is the best case for Xbox/Gaming), Xbox/Gaming is in the red by quite a margin and has been over the last two years.
You think that a publicly traded company is outright lying to its shareholders?
 
Last edited:

JLB

Member
Dec 6, 2018
2,747
3,734
465
There's no evidence that Epic filed this lawsuit thinking they would actually win. All of settled antitrust case law goes against it's premise. Epic seems happy to try and make Apple look bad and force amusing disclosures in a court of law.
no sense. This gives a strong precedence for Apple if win. Specially for other trials, like the future one in EU. Let alone the bags of cash that epic is losing with fortnite out of the store.
This is a lose-lose situation for epic.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
2,363
2,231
340
Well that even more odd seeing MS don’t sell games anymore on the first party side so they’re eating all that dev costs and marketing for subs!

I been smelling something fishy going on with regards to there gaming division financials and I fear when the shit hits the fans the gamers gonna lose especially the die hard ones at that
They do sell xbox games, not all xbox users have xbox gamepass and their games do pretty well on steam, they also sell shit tonnes of minecraft and all the dlc attached to that. Can we at least try and be accurate with our comments?
 

Smoke6

Member
Nov 26, 2017
548
605
345
They do sell xbox games, not all xbox users have xbox gamepass and their games do pretty well on steam, they also sell shit tonnes of minecraft and all the dlc attached to that. Can we at least try and be accurate with our comments?
I am quite accurate with my statement let’s not forget that costed them $2 bil to acquire Minecraft right.

what did I say that was wrong or are you personally vested in the company or defending them for other reasons?

never since 360 they stopped sharing the real sells data and games haven’t been charting on the console at all. I think gears 5 came and went so quietly it wasn’t even funny!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PharaoTutAnchAmun
Jan 21, 2019
3,648
4,368
460
I know but the Microsoft CFO has said it publicly before and they then said it again to Tom Warren at The Verge this week. The more controversial position to me personally, is that a publicly traded company is outright lying to the market.

Fools think the sale of a console is the end all be all. But it's not console sales that matter, it's software and service.
 

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
14,732
25,115
1,200
That makes zero sense when Fortnite a third party game. People complain multiplayer should be free. What about the burden there? Sony hardly losing money by having a free to play a game with crossplay on Playstation. They saw an extra way to milk Epic for money, and Epic paid up. It not surprise me if Sweeney leaked this intentionally to see some blowback. Microsoft could have done the same, but they did not.
They wouldn’t pay if they weren’t getting something in return. Obviously it is worth the cost for them, and more importantly, who cares? We don’t foot the bill so it’s a non-issue.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Jan 30, 2020
981
2,420
445
Oxfordshire, England
That makes zero sense when Fortnite a third party game. People complain multiplayer should be free. What about the burden there? Sony hardly losing money by having a free to play a game with crossplay on Playstation. They saw an extra way to milk Epic for money, and Epic paid up. It not surprise me if Sweeney leaked this intentionally to see some blowback. Microsoft could have done the same, but they did not.
I guess it depends where the "dedicated server" is hosted when a crossplay game - say between PS4's, X1's, Switch and PC - is in play. The non-crossplay solution on PS4 is likely one hypervisor-ed dedicated core of the Jaguar's 8 on a customer's console.

The PC serving is too likely to be a potential security breach for the consoles, the switch is too weak to serve more than P2P, so it was probably an issue of who was cheaper between Xbox and PlayStation. The price Epic paid was probably less than what Xbox wanted. Or maybe the price is just worked out on a percentage of the potential cost to PlayStation of losing MTX revenue from their userbase if they buy items direct from Epic - or on Xbox or Switch - and then use those items on PlayStation.

Epic's game is effectively leveraging PlayStation's greater userbase to engage players on smaller userbases - which seems semantically no different to a company selling on user data to a third party and being rewarded for it. Xbox and Switch's player base get leveraged too, but as they bring a lot less in hardware or userbase they probably earn less for it, or nothing, as they've got more to gain from crossplay, and earn indirectly
 
Last edited:

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,206
3,210
375
It’s a court room where a lawyer is calling a company for lying… how can not that be ridiculous?
isn't their process they can show the middle finger and go ahead ...i don't think they give a fuck
 
Last edited:

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,206
3,210
375
We are going on circles! Then why go there in the first place if it’s “to not give a f.”
Pointless and ridiculous still!!!
yes who hate Ms will think this..in reality, however, everything is very normal ..they just said their points and will not share their data with one of their main rivals (and I'm not taking about Sony lol) w
 
  • Empathy
Reactions: PharaoTutAnchAmun

laynelane

Member
Aug 21, 2019
410
662
330
yes who hate Ms will think this..in reality, however, everything is very normal ..they just said their points and will not share their data with one of their main rivals (and I'm not taking about Sony lol) w

Apple is asking the court for an Adverse Credibility Finding. It means that if MS doesn't substantiate their testimony with documents, their testimony will be thrown out. If they truly want to support Epic then "everything is very normal" is not how this is going at the moment.
 
Last edited:

onesvenus

Member
Aug 26, 2004
1,261
1,708
1,625
The mess I am taking about is trying to spin all this into consoles don’t make profits as an argument
But the argument wasn't that. The argument is that they didn't make profits when selling hardware, which might be true depending if R&D is factored into it.

MS said that they have never made any profit selling hardware and have always sold consoles at a loss. I don't think that's true
Again, if they factor R&D costs into the equation I don't see why you are so sure
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: PaintTinJr

Zeroing

Member
Sep 19, 2019
1,141
1,578
365
yes who hate Ms will think this..in reality, however, everything is very normal ..they just said their points and will not share their data with one of their main rivals (and I'm not taking about Sony lol) w
Wtf !? Like I said in the thread if anything MS gains more from getting access to Apple information not the other way around

who cares about Sony!? We are talking about MS who goes guns blazing and just shoots blanks at Apple.
 

PaintTinJr

Member
Jan 30, 2020
981
2,420
445
Oxfordshire, England
Could you imagine the fallout if this is actually a trap that Microsoft's lawyers have set? Apple are making a big issue about whether Xbox is sold at a profit or loss, which is surely the point Microsoft and Epic want to drive home themselves as a distinction between idevices and other walled gardens.

Even if it turns out Microsoft's protection over their data gets their witness removed from the case, surely Apple have now made the case for hardware profitability being at least a partially determining factor for justification of a 30% tariff for a store in a walled garden, no? Which considering they mark-up their hardware so heavily, despite huge volume selling, feels like they aren't helping themselves IMHO.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
2,363
2,231
340
Wtf !? Like I said in the thread if anything MS gains more from getting access to Apple information not the other way around

who cares about Sony!? We are talking about MS who goes guns blazing and just shoots blanks at Apple.
It's not blank yet, the judge hasn't decided whether Wrights testimony needs to be backed by additional documentation.

Cause you asked again, the reason that Microsoft is in this case is to get a native xcloud app and possibly one that users can buy mtx without giving 30% away
 

bitbydeath

Member
Nov 25, 2015
14,732
25,115
1,200
But the argument wasn't that. The argument is that they didn't make profits when selling hardware, which might be true depending if R&D is factored into it.


Again, if they factor R&D costs into the equation I don't see why you are so sure
Yep, RROD cost Microsoft over a billion dollars too which may be an including factor.
 

laynelane

Member
Aug 21, 2019
410
662
330
It's not blank yet, the judge hasn't decided whether Wrights testimony needs to be backed by additional documentation.

Cause you asked again, the reason that Microsoft is in this case is to get a native xcloud app and possibly one that users can buy mtx without giving 30% awa

I was looking for more info. and found another update on what's happening. This part was interesting:

Lori Wright’s trial testimony on May 5, 2021 made it very clear that neither Microsoft nor Epic heeded the Court’s warning that “the trial is not an opportunity for surprises.” Dkt. 437 at 3. The Court has already issued an order expressing its expectation that Microsoft “will produce in an adequate and timely manner [relevant] documents before [Ms. Wright’s] statement[], “and warning that” fail[ure] to make a sufficient production of relevant documents for both parties “would” be of weight. . . against [her] credibility “and” may warrant acknowledgment of testimony. “Id. at 4 (footnote omitted). However, Ms. Wright’s documents were not presented to Apple prior to her testimony or testimony at trial. Apple asserts respectfully that an adverse credibility finding is warranted.

If this is accurate, then MS was required to provide documentation to back up their testimony. To be frank, it would be unusual if they weren't.
 
Jan 16, 2020
5,074
18,576
775
But the argument wasn't that. The argument is that they didn't make profits when selling hardware, which might be true depending if R&D is factored into it.


Again, if they factor R&D costs into the equation I don't see why you are so sure

The reason this was even brought up was to distinguish between a general purpose and and special purpose device

R&D costs apply to general purpose devices too, so I doubt they're being factored, and if so, then the Wright is an idiot
 
Last edited:

MonarchJT

Member
Sep 25, 2020
2,206
3,210
375
Apple is asking the court for an Adverse Credibility Finding. It means that if MS doesn't substantiate their testimony with documents, their testimony will be thrown out. If they truly want to support Epic then "everything is very normal" is not how this is going at the moment.
they will....and if they don't (and they can even refuse) it mean they don't care enough about this trial and how is going ..... anyone who thinks that a lawyer defending a trillion-dollar corporation doesn't know the ABCs of how the trials work is out of is mind....it was clear that the court would ask for substantial evidence. And honestly Apple isn't giving Ms headache with their request
 
Last edited:
  • Empathy
Reactions: PharaoTutAnchAmun

laynelane

Member
Aug 21, 2019
410
662
330
they will....and if they don't (and they can even refuse) it mean they don't care enough about this trial and how is going ..... anyone who thinks that a lawyer defending a trillion-dollar corporation doesn't know the ABCs of how the trials work is out of is mind....it was clear that the court would ask for substantial evidence. And honestly Apple isn't giving Ms headache with their request

If they knew, and still didn't provide the relevant documentation, perhaps you're right - they don't care about the trial and how it's going. Maybe something changed between the point where they filed to support Epic and now. It's hard to tell, isn't it? I suppose we'll have to wait to see how this resolves.
 
Jan 16, 2020
5,074
18,576
775
they will....and if they don't (and they can even refuse) it mean they don't care enough about this trial and how is going ..... anyone who thinks that a lawyer defending a trillion-dollar corporation doesn't know the ABCs of how the trials work is out of is mind....it was clear that the court would ask for substantial evidence. And honestly Apple isn't giving Ms headache with their request

Microsoft doesn't have a lawyer here
 

jroc74

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights
Jun 1, 2013
8,987
3,987
850
I was looking for more info. and found another update on what's happening. This part was interesting:

Lori Wright’s trial testimony on May 5, 2021 made it very clear that neither Microsoft nor Epic heeded the Court’s warning that “the trial is not an opportunity for surprises.” Dkt. 437 at 3. The Court has already issued an order expressing its expectation that Microsoft “will produce in an adequate and timely manner [relevant] documents before [Ms. Wright’s] statement[], “and warning that” fail[ure] to make a sufficient production of relevant documents for both parties “would” be of weight. . . against [her] credibility “and” may warrant acknowledgment of testimony. “Id. at 4 (footnote omitted). However, Ms. Wright’s documents were not presented to Apple prior to her testimony or testimony at trial. Apple asserts respectfully that an adverse credibility finding is warranted.

If this is accurate, then MS was required to provide documentation to back up their testimony. To be frank, it would be unusual if they weren't.
Well shit....things are about to get even more interesting then.
 

demigod

Member
Apr 17, 2007
8,640
7,796
1,605
It's not blank yet, the judge hasn't decided whether Wrights testimony needs to be backed by additional documentation.

Cause you asked again, the reason that Microsoft is in this case is to get a native xcloud app and possibly one that users can buy mtx without giving 30% away
Please keep up instead of making assumptions. They were supposed to provide documents beforehand, now they are claiming they didn’t know.

Epic and MS are getting roasted by Apple.
 

Shelookdlvl18

Banned
Nov 8, 2020
492
943
320
I agree with you that they want their services on competitors platforms. However, the very argument MS attorneys are making, that consoles rely on software and services to turn a profit, would actually help Sony and Nintendo if they were to go up against them in court trying to get into their marketplaces. I felt it was a mistake for MS to get involved when this whole thing started and still do. They are making statements in court that they might have to maneuver around in the future. The only way it makes sense (IMO) for MS to get involved is if they really think Game Pass is going to generate enough income on iOS to make it worthwhile.
Consider for a moment that MS is telling the truth. Just for a second. If that were the case, then this would only help MS's argument in that future hypothetical case against Sony and Nintendo. Assuming they both make a profit on their hardware.
Part of the ”Embrace, extend, extinguish” motto they had going?
No, he's completely off base. Microsoft propped up Apple when they were on the verge of bankruptcy. Because at that precise moment in time, Microsoft was getting dragged over the coals for being a monopoly.
Government; "You're a monopoly!"
MS; "How? We just gave our competitor $150M."
Government; "Valid point." *Looks the other way.
They wanted to take over Apple but iPod happened and Apple saved themselves!
The more and more you post, the less and less your age appears to be.
Not an extraordinary statement from Microsoft. Every new console box arrives with a new CPU, GPU, controller, hard drive, audio plug ins, motherboard, cooling fan, package holds everything together, contact interface UI none of that cheap.

Apple overcharging for Phones, don’t understand the model or just dance around it and playing dumb here. It’s well known for decades Sony and Microsoft reasoning to continue making consoles is the compensation payouts are large enough to make it profitable. Big developers have to give 30 percent of game sales to both companies.

. Plus there is manufacturing costs to consider as no company will build consoles for free.
While someone else touched on it previously, this is the second post out of all the ones here that has it right, which speaks volumes as to the combined intelligence of the GAF community as a whole.
I recall MS stating that they didn't want to lose money on the one hardware sales... That may have changed after release, but that what their intention was.

I'm sure that the PS4 was profitable not too long after release as well.

The only console manufacturer that I am sure they always made money on hardware sales alone was Nintendo since the Wii.

Sometimes that kind of move forces companies to release information that they did not intend, if wonder if that could happen here, we might end up with actual console sales figures!
Despite their claim to want exactly that... The last thing the majority of GAF wants is for MS to reveal their hardware numbers.
Why should they foot the bill serving files/data purchased on other storefronts as opposed to their own?

That's what they are charging for, and the reason why they were antagonistic is because with them having the largest install-base they would otherwise end up with the heaviest burden for the least gain.

Its a decent solution, everyone gets what they want.
Good God. Is there a place you to shop for all these shill statements, or do you simply take massive amounts of hallucinogenic drugs and make it up on your own?


I'll break this down as simply as possible as it relates specifically to MS's statement.

Epic claims Apple is being monopolistic by taking a 30% cut from app developers, and not allowing those developers to provide links that go outside of Apple's walled garden which would circumvent them getting their 30%.

Apple claims that they have a legitimate right to that 30%, as it's their ecosystem, with their devices, on their OS, and as such. They deserve the right to operate it and charge accordingly as they see fit.

MS sides with Epic due to their own interest in putting Gamepass on other devices and platforms. Relevent specifically in this case with them putting Gamepass on IOS.

Sound good so far?

MS states that they don't make a profit on hardware specifically for this reason...

Apple is certain to point to other platform holders such as Microsoft and Sony and claim "Why are they any different?" and question what them different from either Sony or MS. If done so convincingly it effectively kills the case, at least temporarily. Seeing as MS and Sony aren't defending parties, the judge can't force Apple to change, while knowingly allowing MS and Sony to continue as they currently are. So Apple would win at least temporarily. Until at some point down the road a proper practice ruling is made for the entire industry, which gives Apple time to pull strings as well as not be hindered while MS and Sony run free.

Microsoft is essentially saying "Yes, while we do charge 30% exactly like Apple does, we have to do so in order to make any money, as we don't make on hardware.". That gives MS a pass for having the exact same policy as Apple on their own console platform, because as everybody already knows. Apple makes plenty of profit from their hardware. Thus, they don't have the excuse that they need that 30% in order to make money like MS does.

And if you've been paying attention, perfectly explains why MS just last week reduced their cut from developers from 30%.
 

jigglet

Member
May 18, 2020
2,077
4,064
585
Xbox is a profitable division, the issue apple has is with the statement that Xbox console hardware has never been sold at a profit.

This.

The Xbox 360 was designed from the get-go to be super cost effective after the cost blowout after the OG xbox. I mean that was the whole reason they abandoned the OG xbox early...so they could reset and focus on cost. There's no doubt in my mind that they rode the cost curve down hard after just a few years. Obviously the RROD probably destroyed most of the profits but it's disingenuous to hide behind that bit of incompetence by saying the model they chose is fundamentally not profitable (on the HW side).
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
3,967
5,309
540
The reason this was even brought up was to distinguish between a general purpose and and special purpose device

R&D costs apply to general purpose devices too, so I doubt they're being factored, and if so, then the Wright is an idiot

R&D costs should be factored into the cost of any product. It doesn't come free, and the funds will need to be replaced if you ever want to develop another product.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kuncol02
Jan 29, 2019
6,041
6,565
495
Despite their claim to want exactly that... The last thing the majority of GAF wants is for MS to reveal their hardware numbers.
Did they secretly sold 160million xbox ones? or is the Series S secretly the best selling console of all times?

I would be surprised if we learned something we don't already know.
MS sides with Epic due to their own interest in putting Gamepass on other devices and platforms. Relevent specifically in this case with them putting Gamepass on IOS.
I can see that.
Microsoft is essentially saying "Yes, while we do charge 30% exactly like Apple does, we have to do so in order to make any money, as we don't make on hardware.". That gives MS a pass for having the exact same policy as Apple on their own console platform, because as everybody already knows. Apple makes plenty of profit from their hardware. Thus, they don't have the excuse that they need that 30% in order to make money like MS does.
I think if that came to pass like that it would only raise console prices so that they make at least 1$ per unit and the argument is defeated? I don't think that this is even relevant how much (if any) the console manufacturer make or lose per unit, loss leaders aren't new, they're an old marketing tool that allows sellers to bring people in hoping that it will entice their clients to make them money, you don't have to use them.

While it's nice to concentrate on Sony and MS, they are not alone and Nintendo has not lost money on their consoles for (at least the Wii or Switch, I believe the Wii U was losing money on hardware sales)... Either way, as technology advances during the generation the manufacturers come to a point where they make money on the units they sell, or at least they break even.
 
Last edited:
Dec 14, 2008
33,853
2,368
1,360
Please keep up instead of making assumptions. They were supposed to provide documents beforehand, now they are claiming they didn’t know.

Epic and MS are getting roasted by Apple.
Knowing MS, they probably just pretended they didn't know and were checking to see if the judge noticed. If it comes down to it, MS will more than happily just walk away without submitting documents. If the judge strikes their testimony from the record, then so be it. No one seriously thinks Epic is going to win, MS was just stopping by to see if they could get something out of this dumb trial. Same with the other witnesses who are being summoned. If nothing happens, then oh well. Back to making billions of dollars a quarter from Windows, Office, and Azure.

Literally no one serving as Epic witnesses actually cares about Epic, Tencent, or China. They are here because hey why not, worst thing that happens is Epic loses and the status quo prevails. But maybe something good happens, so might as well show up and spout a bunch of bullshit. It costs them nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MonarchJT

onesvenus

Member
Aug 26, 2004
1,261
1,708
1,625
R&D costs apply to general purpose devices too
Obviously, I wasn't saying they don't. But Apple devices in contrast to Xbox devices might be recouping their R&D costs, and then doing some money, during the time each device is being sold only taking into account hardware sales.

The argument here is that as Xbox doesn't ever recoup R&D costs selling hardware it needs to take a 30% cut on software to make it even
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,935
6,591
445
Again, if they factor R&D costs into the equation I don't see why you are so sure
  1. I never said that I was sure. I literally said, "I don't think that's true." :)
  2. While that may be the case, Sony reported that PS4 was profitable in 2014. I'd assume that both companies will use similar types of metrics and data points to make these calls.
Besides, it's difficult to imagine that Microsoft could never amortize their supposedly $1-$2 billion console R&D costs over the entire generation -- not even once.
 

Neo_game

Member
Mar 19, 2020
710
712
315
Microsoft is lying that’s what. Revisions should be profitable, that’s the whole purpose. And I guarantee the One X was profitable day 1 at that outrageous price.

I don't think so. Last gen X IMO was their best console. It looked great and ran cooler, quieter as well inspite of running higher clock speed than the Pro. It had 12gig of RAM, almost 50% faster BW as well as gpu. It was a premium console so 100$ more than Pro was a good idea, as it was meant for hardcore only. I was really surprised last year when they were getting rid of stock for 300$.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,643
2,656
405
Fools think the sale of a console is the end all be all. But it's not console sales that matter, it's software and service.
And from the Playstation profitrability reveal, we know that hardware is the cornerstone of software and service. The more hardware out there, the more of a multiplier it is to the expansion of software and service.

And if it matters so little, maybe they should tell us what it is anyway?
 
Last edited:

JerryinSoCal

Member
Apr 11, 2020
909
1,482
380
Fools think the sale of a console is the end all be all. But it's not console sales that matter, it's software and service.
You don't get the other two without the console sale though, it's literally the most important piece of the puzzle, it's what makes those other things possible and until streaming takes over that's how it will remain.
 

JerryinSoCal

Member
Apr 11, 2020
909
1,482
380
I don't think so. Last gen X IMO was their best console. It looked great and ran cooler, quieter as well inspite of running higher clock speed than the Pro. It had 12gig of RAM, almost 50% faster BW as well as gpu. It was a premium console so 100$ more than Pro was a good idea, as it was meant for hardcore only. I was really surprised last year when they were getting rid of stock for 300$.
It didn't sell well and for that extra $100 over the pro all we got was a higher native res and better texture filtering. I had a pro and a one x (have a PS5 and XSX now) and I have to say if it weren't for DF's constant flaming of the console wars by zooming 400% to show us miniscule differences that don't even matter while actually playing the game I wouldn't have been able to point out the improvements the One X versions of games had.
 
Feb 27, 2013
4,614
4,662
1,010
Ohio
Can't wait! Gonna be comedic!

Bill Hader Popcorn GIF by Saturday Night Live
more like MS legal representative needs a medic after they heard apple's response
 

Heisenberg007

Member
Nov 16, 2020
1,935
6,591
445
And from the Playstation profitrability reveal, we know that hardware is the cornerstone of software and service. The more hardware out there, the more of a multiplier it is to the expansion of software and service.

And if it matters so little, maybe they should tell us what it is anyway?
True. Even Microsoft said as much during this testimony. MS called hardware console sales "critical" to the success and potential profitability of the business.
 

supernova8

Member
Jun 2, 2020
2,046
2,984
430
Could it be that Microsoft's loss on hardware is actually compensated by some form of commission (somewhere in the range of 29 to 31 per cent of the amount) they would take on sales generated on their marketplace? Which would make their business overall profitable to an extent they would not want to disclose to a potential competitor, or to the general public?

Seems a bit of a stretch but who knows...
I guess the point is that Apple thinks Microsoft should have to disclose that information (whether they like it or not) if they want enter it as part of their testimony.
 

supernova8

Member
Jun 2, 2020
2,046
2,984
430
Why should they foot the bill serving files/data purchased on other storefronts as opposed to their own?

That's what they are charging for, and the reason why they were antagonistic is because with them having the largest install-base they would otherwise end up with the heaviest burden for the least gain.

Its a decent solution, everyone gets what they want.

I don't remember Microsoft being all uppity about cross-play back in the 360 era when they were neck and neck with PS3. It's only now that their consoles have been massively outsold by PS4 (and potentially the same will happen this generation) that they suddenly love the idea so much.

I could be wrong........ but why would the market leader (or joint leader if we concede that Nintendo is doing extremely well with Switch) bend over backwards to placate Microsoft on that front?
 

hlm666

Member
Feb 25, 2021
174
199
200
  1. I never said that I was sure. I literally said, "I don't think that's true." :)
  2. While that may be the case, Sony reported that PS4 was profitable in 2014. I'd assume that both companies will use similar types of metrics and data points to make these calls.
Besides, it's difficult to imagine that Microsoft could never amortize their supposedly $1-$2 billion console R&D costs over the entire generation -- not even once.
Looks like their console r&d costs are way smaller than apples.

https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/r_and_d_expense

Apple have to recover double to 5 times the cost in 1 quarter what ms/sony spent over 7+ years if that 1-2 billion over the generation is right.
 

kuncol02

Member
Apr 4, 2020
1,552
1,765
455
Either way, as technology advances during the generation the manufacturers come to a point where they make money on the units they sell, or at least they break even.
No, they are sold for more than they cost to manufacture. That still don't means that they make money. You still need to account R&D and customer service. MS spend $1.15 billion to fix RRoD alone. That's more than 10mln xboxes sold with 100$ profit (which never happened) just to pay for that.
 

reksveks

Member
Jun 4, 2020
2,363
2,231
340
Looks like their console r&d costs are way smaller than apples.

https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/r_and_d_expense

Apple have to recover double to 5 times the cost in 1 quarter what ms/sony spent over 7+ years if that 1-2 billion over the generation is right.
Yeah, doing the maths, xbox R&D is tiny in comparison to apple and the larger Microsoft budget (Microsoft spent 20bn last year)
 
Jan 21, 2019
3,648
4,368
460
You don't get the other two without the console sale though, it's literally the most important piece of the puzzle, it's what makes those other things possible and until streaming takes over that's how it will remain.
Not really. I’m sure it doesn’t mean a lot right now but phones and TVs are getting gamepass/xcloud. PC is currently getting Xbox exclusives, plus gamepass, along with xcloud. They’re also trying to get these services on other devices as well.

i don’t own an Xbox, but I play Xbox games on PC through purchased games and gamepass.
 
Last edited:
Oct 16, 2017
1,643
2,656
405
Not really. I’m sure it doesn’t mean a lot right now but phones and TVs are getting gamepass/xcloud. PC is currently getting Xbox exclusives, plus gamepass, along with xcloud. They’re also trying to get these services on other devices as well.

i don’t own an Xbox, but I play Xbox games on PC through purchased games and gamepass.
Good luck, because PC gaming market is less profitable than consoles. It is a big market, but there is so many games there that it is hard to dominate. People who think PC gaming has untapped money, has no idea what they are talking about. Bethesda basically abandoned PC gaming once they realised Sony And MS pay them much more for console games.

One thing is for sure, Xbox customers have no idea hoe hard it is to make money in the PC market.
 
Last edited: