-
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.
Gamecube + GBASP = $$$$$$$$$
- Thread starter Leviathan
- Start date
Supposedly Sony makes a profit on every PS2 sold right now and has for awhile. They held onto that $299 price point for a LONG time. I think they only dropped when it was viable that they weren't going to lose money by dropping the price. And the emergence of the PSTWO at $149 = profit.
Leviathan said:
As opposed to the other systems, which folks are obviously buying strictly for the DVD player function. No, wait, that's not putting enough spin on it. Let's see...
How much money do Sony and Microsoft make from selling DVD player remote controls for their consoles?
How much money does Sony make from people buying Sony Pictures films on DVD and playing them on a PlayStation 2?
Sony distributes the Spider-Man movies on DVD, and everyone knows people who own video game consoles are really big fanboys, so that's at least 2 Spider-Man DVDs sold with every PS2. More if folks are suckered into buying multiple special editions.
HOW MUCH? HOW MUCH, OH LORD, HOW MUCH?
FnordChan
gamecube makes $300 profit per console
ps2 breaks even
xbox loses $650,000 per system
hey, my numbers are just as reliable as anyone else's
If I learned one thing it's that anyone who tries to theorize how much each company makes or loses per console ends up just talking through their ass.. none of us know.
play the games, debate the sales figures, but never EVER try to guess how much each console costs to make. you'll just look stupid.
ps2 breaks even
xbox loses $650,000 per system
hey, my numbers are just as reliable as anyone else's
If I learned one thing it's that anyone who tries to theorize how much each company makes or loses per console ends up just talking through their ass.. none of us know.
play the games, debate the sales figures, but never EVER try to guess how much each console costs to make. you'll just look stupid.
Alcibiades
Member
memory cards are pure margin for Nintendo
Microsoft doesn't sell practically any compared to Nintendo...
BTW, the figure going around for Microsoft XBox losses at launch were $150 ($450 to manufacture, sold at $300). They lost even more months later when they dropped the price just a little after launch.
Surely an XBox doesn't cost $450 now, but I'd wager to say the losses for Microsoft are more than $100 per console...
Microsoft doesn't sell practically any compared to Nintendo...
BTW, the figure going around for Microsoft XBox losses at launch were $150 ($450 to manufacture, sold at $300). They lost even more months later when they dropped the price just a little after launch.
Surely an XBox doesn't cost $450 now, but I'd wager to say the losses for Microsoft are more than $100 per console...
PS2 is supposedly sold at a profit these days ($20-30 or so)... though that might change with the PS2 model (it adds the Network Adapter but has other cost cutting reviosions like losing the HDD bay). Xbox has always taken a notable loss though I doubt it's $100, more likely around $30-60 I'd imagine. GameCube's always turned a profit except at launch (where it was an estimated $20 loss) and around the $99 price drop (again estimated $10-20 loss). I'm not sure today though if it's a loss taker or not, we really haven't heard anything concerning that since last year.
Teddman said:
They were making a small profit on it until the cut to $99. I'm not sure how the excising of the digital output affects things.
pilonv1 said:
I hate this. A lot. It's endemic of people who, honestly, want something to bitch about. Nintendo ports older games to their newer systems because - newsflash - they sell by the truckload. You can bet your entire life that if Activision or Midway could get away with selling each game in their anthologies for $20 each, they wouldn't hesitate for a moment. And what's good about this - yes, there is a good - is that they're not straight ports. Nintendo often steps up the graphics a bit, throws a few minigames in, and just by the nature of the GBA port, you can now have a legit copy of the game that's portable.
Unless lugging a 20-year-old system with some juryrigged LCD and battery setup is your idea of fun.
To the point that they have "one first party GC release a month," feh. Nintendo's damned either way. If they don't shove out several games a month from NCL, they're obviously not supporting the system; if they release too many, 3rd parties and armchair analysts bitch that Nintendo's just proving that nobody ever buys anything buy Nintendo games for their systems.
Look at the NPDs that were just released. Most of the sales were from 3rd parties, that's the way it should be. Keeping them happy is more important than Nintendo dominating the software sales.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Not that it matters, as posters have already said, but as I can remember:
Perrin Kaplan said (after the price drop to $99, before the digital out removal), that the Cube was now (implying it wasn't before) making a negligable loss. Even if it was higher than $20, the attach rate and peripheral uptake is as such that they'd easily be making money on it anyway. I don't know why that's so hard to believe for some people here. Their annual reports have said implied such with GC software revenue for the past two years, if any of you are really counting.
I agree that this guys numbers are purely assumptive, but the formula extrapolation made in the title of this thread is almost certainly correct.
Perrin Kaplan said (after the price drop to $99, before the digital out removal), that the Cube was now (implying it wasn't before) making a negligable loss. Even if it was higher than $20, the attach rate and peripheral uptake is as such that they'd easily be making money on it anyway. I don't know why that's so hard to believe for some people here. Their annual reports have said implied such with GC software revenue for the past two years, if any of you are really counting.
I agree that this guys numbers are purely assumptive, but the formula extrapolation made in the title of this thread is almost certainly correct.
thorns said:
As a company, absolutely. MS, overall, is a profit monster. Very well run business. Steps outside of the law at times, but does wonderful charity work to diminish guilt. +1 MS for MS profitabililty
As a gaming company they are losing $$ big time. -1 MS for Xbox profitability.
jarrod said:
Will you read that fucking report already? The latest analyst numbers estimate that Sony makes $20 per console, Xbox loses $25 per console sold, and GC loses $20 per console sold.
Actually, these numbers don't mean much of anything... there is so much more involved. Royalties change from developer to developer, there's marketing costs, and then there's the fact that these are sold through numbers not shipped.
I remember... but I find those numbers questionable. Nintendo's estimated loss is pretty big considering the savings from outsourcing manufacturing to China which brought the console production costs to under $100... reportedly in January 2003. For Nintendo to still be losing $20 per console in October 2004, after cutting out digital connectors even... well, you can see where the skepticism comes in, right?jedimike said:
Also given Microsoft's past troubles with the Xbox hardware (overpaying for small capacity HDDs, nVidia royalty fiasco, etc), Only a $25 loss seems almost best case scenario imo. Especially for a unit that was estimated at over $400 for production at launch (compared to GameCube's $220). So in the past 3 years, Xbox production costs dropped $225 while GameCube only dropped $100, despite Xbox using more (aging) off the shelf parts, having a track record of supplier difficulties and GC unloading production risks to hardware partners through profit sharing? How's that work?
jarrod said:
Fair enough... they are just estimates.
I think the difference is that Microsoft is using open standard equipment. The cost of the DVD player & media, GPU, CPU, and memory decrease exponentially because the product is a universal standard so manufacturers can and will use the same products in other equipment.
GC, on the other hand uses proprietary equipment. The DVD media and player, and GPU is only useful in the GC. Therefore the prices won't drop as fast as they would for MS.
Actually Xbox's NV2A GPU and intel CPU aren't exactly standard, they're customized revisions (like GC's gekko & flipper actually). Also Nintendo has profit sharing in place with their hardware partners in exchange for helping burden costs (meaning IBM, NEC, Matsushita & ATi are likely giving Nintendo things much closer to cost in comparison to Microsoft's contracted suppliers). Still, I find it hard to believe Microsoft's driven down costs more than twice as fast as Nintendo, especially given that they've decided to ape Nintendo's hardware strategy for Xenon...jedimike said:
Alcibiades
Member
So Microsoft cut down the cost of the XBox from $450 to $180 in 3 years?
Somehow I doubt that, as it was basically an outsourced machine...
If the GCN costs $120 to make according to those assertions, that would mean the XBox and all it's features would cost just $60 more (and that's not taking into account cost-cutting measures Nintendo took from the very beginning to make sure the price per unit would continue to fall...
you've got a broadband adaptor, a hard drive, a better processor and graphics chip, everything is just more expensive, plus the size of the thing and fans needed I'm sure add to the cost, not to mention the cirtuitry involved for the controller included is probably much more expensive that Nintendo's...
I have a hard time believing Nintendo could have had all those XBox features for $60 more per machine...
There was a $230 estimated cost difference when they were both released (XBox losing $150 @ $300, Nintendo losing $20 @ $200, and even that's doubtful), no way Microsoft got that down to $60 3 years later...
Somehow I doubt that, as it was basically an outsourced machine...
If the GCN costs $120 to make according to those assertions, that would mean the XBox and all it's features would cost just $60 more (and that's not taking into account cost-cutting measures Nintendo took from the very beginning to make sure the price per unit would continue to fall...
you've got a broadband adaptor, a hard drive, a better processor and graphics chip, everything is just more expensive, plus the size of the thing and fans needed I'm sure add to the cost, not to mention the cirtuitry involved for the controller included is probably much more expensive that Nintendo's...
I have a hard time believing Nintendo could have had all those XBox features for $60 more per machine...
There was a $230 estimated cost difference when they were both released (XBox losing $150 @ $300, Nintendo losing $20 @ $200, and even that's doubtful), no way Microsoft got that down to $60 3 years later...
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll