Wii U Speculation Thread The Third: Casting Dreams in The Castle of Miyamoto

Bolded quote!
I'd actually say the Eternal Darkness 2 rumor is most likely true. We have the recent statement, the video interview from two weeks ago ("Nintendo is a great partner", "Nintendo still owns part of Silicon Knights", "we can't talk about Eternal Darkness at this point"), and the recent leak (Silicon Knights was working on Wii U stuff in 2011).
 
Really? Luckily for MS, they have all the money in the world so pushing them out isn't the option. This is generation where MS will prevail.
what is prevailing, leading the console sales, or leading in profits. Remains to be seen on both fronts for next generation if they do end up going balls out, because they'll either bleed like mofos, or they'll have trouble selling at such a high price.
 
I'd actually say the Eternal Darkness 2 rumor is most likely true. We have the recent statement, the video interview from two weeks ago ("Nintendo is a great partner", "Nintendo still owns part of Silicon Knights", "we can't talk about Eternal Darkness at this point"), and the recent leak (Silicon Knights was working on Wii U stuff in 2011).

I would love, really. But I missed the leak about SK working on Wii U in 11. Have you any link, please?
About SK I was thinking that they are working on the Soul Reaver reboot (they developed Blood omen)
 
No, I'm saying because of the money they won't go out. I think they will prevail if they go good performance and price ratio, while packing Kinect and giving even better service than Live is now.
The money won't necessarily keep them in forever. Shareholder pressure and Ballmer's inevitable replacement could result in an eternally loss-leading Xbox no longer being seen as a good long term strategy.
It's a very strange situation they're in. If they become the market leader but once again lose billions of dollars, what then? Are they hoping to keep this up, generation after generation, until the gaming market is expanded to the point the console would be hugely profitable through software and online sales? Or do they plan to create profitable day-1 machines when the day comes that they feel Xbox is secure in its domination of the marketplace?
 
The money won't necessarily keep them in forever. Shareholder pressure and Ballmer's inevitable replacement could result in an eternally loss-leading Xbox no longer being seen as a good long term strategy.
It's a very strange situation they're in. If they become the market leader but once again lose billions of dollars, what then? Are they hoping to keep this up, generation after generation, until the gaming market is expanded to the point the console would be hugely profitable through software and online sales? Or do they plan to create profitable day-1 machines when the day comes that they feel Xbox is secure in its domination of the marketplace?
They lost money on 360 only because RROD, 360 was almost profitable from day one, yet it was technical marvel. They designed very very efficient and powerful console, but RROD fucked it all up.

MS has very good set up for next gen. Live and Kinect. I don't give a shit about Kinect, but many people do and new Kinect would surely spark alot of interest. Also, it would bring them alot of profit. As for Live, Live is the best on line service you can get in console and it brings them very nice revenue. I can't even think how will hardcore gamers go to Nintendo system to play COD or BF and not wait for new MS machine with best online infrastructure.

So, even if MS goes all out and prices a console ~400-500$ with Kinect it will sell. People are just used to Live, and its totally different case than last gen when 600$ Sony machine was on sale.
 
They lost money on 360 only because RROD, 360 was almost profitable from day one, yet it was technical marvel. They designed very very efficient and powerful console, but RROD fucked it all up.

MS has very good set up for next gen. Live and Kinect. I don't give a shit about Kinect, but many people do and new Kinect would surely spark alot of interest. Also, it would bring them alot of profit. As for Live, Live is the best on line service you can get in console and it brings them very nice revenue. I can't even think how will hardcore gamers go to Nintendo system to play COD or BF and not wait for new MS machine with best online infrastructure.

So, even if MS goes all out and prices a console ~400-500$ with Kinect it will sell. People are just used to Live, and its totally different case than last gen when 600$ Sony machine was on sale.

Source me up

Here is a very rough estimate commissioned by Business Week in 2005 stating that Microsoft was loosing over $120 per HD included XBOX360 unit
 
This is bullshit man. We get hyped over rumoured things to happen and it never bloody works out.

I bet we get caught with our trousers down by a ruddy surprise leak, too. It always happens.
 
They lost money on 360 only because RROD, 360 was almost profitable from day one, yet it was technical marvel. They designed very very efficient and powerful console, but RROD fucked it all up.

I believe you are mistaken, good chum

Specifically, the total cost for the Xbox 360 Premium reaches $525, which is well above the retail price of $399.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/80708/isuppli-reckoning-the-xbox-bill-of-materials#ixzz1qEkM6XTL

and that was just the BoM. Shipping + R&D + manufacturing + marketing added up to a lot more
 
Has ShockingAlberto been right on stuff before? That would be great news about MS going all out, but is there any reason we should believe Alberto other than him being perceived as one of the saner Nintendo fans? It would be music to my ears if true.

He''s got a long running series of hits from his contacts. There was another event related to the 3DS last year where he pretty much hit every target while people were still wondering what was even going to be presented.
 
They lost money on 360 only because RROD, 360 was almost profitable from day one, yet it was technical marvel. They designed very very efficient and powerful console, but RROD fucked it all up.

MS has very good set up for next gen. Live and Kinect. I don't give a shit about Kinect, but many people do and new Kinect would surely spark alot of interest. Also, it would bring them alot of profit. As for Live, Live is the best on line service you can get in console and it brings them very nice revenue. I can't even think how will hardcore gamers go to Nintendo system to play COD or BF and not wait for new MS machine with best online infrastructure.

So, even if MS goes all out and prices a console ~400-500$ with Kinect it will sell. People are just used to Live, and its totally different case than last gen when 600$ Sony machine was on sale.

From the top of my head the division Xbox 360 is under had operating losses of $3.1 billion in the first two years of 360s life of which $1.1 biillion was the RROD. I don't recall Zune having that big of an impact.
 
They lost money on 360 only because RROD, 360 was almost profitable from day one, yet it was technical marvel.
I've been beaten many times over because I was looking (unsuccessfully) for figures, but this is straight up bs.
Sony and Microsoft both created machines that racked up massive losses from day one. It was only so much worse for Sony because of their decision to use it as a Blu-Ray trojan, coupled with the expensive research and production costs for the Cell.
 
Specifically, the total cost for the Xbox 360 Premium reaches $525, which is well above the retail price of $399.

Late on this but I didn't know that. That's frightening.
No way sony can fight forever against that crazy microsoft.
 
I believe you are mistaken, good chum



and that was just the BoM. Shipping + R&D + manufacturing + marketing added up to a lot more
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2006/11/8239.ars

It's a gloomy picture, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. When iSuppli tore down an Xbox 360 around this time last year, the firm estimated that Microsoft was losing $126 on each 360 sold. Microsoft is whistling a much happier tune now. Revised component costs for the Xbox 360 indicate that costs have dropped to the point where each $399 Xbox 360 sold costs $323.30 to make—leaving Microsoft $75.70 in the black on each system, before marketing and other costs are figured into the equation.

The two biggest points of contrast between the PS3 and Xbox 360 in terms of component costs are what iSuppli calls the "motherboard"—CPU, GPU, memory, controllers, etc.—and the optical drive. The PS3's "motherboard" costs $500 for Sony, while the Xbox 360 motherboard is only $200—down from a $370 figure at launch. The Xbox 360's vanilla DVD optical drive is only $19.45, over $100 cheaper than the Blu-ray's price tag.

As we said in May, Sony's decision to use the PS3 to gain a Blu-ray beachhead is an expensive one. If the PS3 sells like gangbusters once the supply constraints evaporate sometime in the first half of 2007 and Blu-ray wins the battle against HD DVD, the decision will have been worth it.
 
I could believe an ARM / Windows 8 based TV device being prepared that plays casual games actually. If it brought together services like Sky Go, Netflix, Lovefilm, iPlayer etc. and had Android/iPhone/WinPhone7 style apps and games but tailored to the TV, it could even be a hit. There was an earlier rumour about two SKUs by the way, maybe where there's smoke there's fire. Didn't the earlier rumour say the lower end box would use Kinect too?

I think the actual video game part of the Xbox Brand is the least appealing to Microsoft these days, to be honest. Kinect integration, Operating System, LIVE services and the living room media hub are where the real dollar signs for MS are.

I think Kinect will be a stand alone brand very soon, integrated into all Microsoft products.
 
You are asking me what do manufacturing costs have to do with RROD. I said they lost money because RROD, not because they were in red for 3 year like Sony. I posted manufacturing costs from 2006 where they are in black 75$. Whats problem?

But you never backed up your statement, you know typically when someone states something, they usually have a source. But you just pull out the "common sense" bs.
Whatever though.
 
But you never backed up your statement, you know typically when someone states something, they usually have a source. But you just pull out the "common sense" bs.
Whatever though.
I said they lost money on RROD, not on hardware. Guess I was wrong, they lost 126$ in first half year of 360 cycle, only to cut costs and went to black next year(2006, 75$). Which is far and away from people describing 360 as being money hole like PS3 for 3-4 years.
 
First of all, that's not what you originally stated. Second of all, MS was still probably losing a considerable amount of money overall per 360 sold. The wii cost a measly $88 to manufacture and nintendo made a whopping $6 of pure operating profit after all other extraneous costs.
Remember when iSuppli put out the $108 3DS story and people thought Nintendo were making nearly $150 profit, but then it was revealed that they were making a loss at $169?

I said iSuppli was garbage earlier. Maybe that's unfair, but it presents only half the story.
 
iSupply's console BOM estimates are, erm, how shall I put it - gamechartz territory.
 
Why would they release a new $100 xbox lite when they are selling 14 million $300 old xbox heavy's a year.


If that rumour has any truth to it is more likely an apple TV competitor than something to compete with Nintendo and sony, with maybe XBL on it for DD games.

Because it's a bad rumor.
 
I was thinking: just imagine if Nintendo suddenly release just a screenshot of a new Wii U unannounced game. Something not easily recognizable as "mario-ish" or "zelda-ish" or "metroid-ish", something misterious, without any detail.

Probably Gaf-meltdown HAHA
 
So you give me iSuppli estimate of 126$ loss on every 360 sold in 2005, and when I post 2006 numbers where MS cuts costs and makes 75$ on it, its crap?

Obviously, 360 was no where near money hole like some of you like to describe it, and majority of money went in RROD fiasco. Thats why MS can go with same tactics next gen, loss is nothing.
 
Nintendo still owns stock iirc
Yup - they're a pretty sizeable minority shareholder in the company. Enough of a percentage to influence the direction in which the company goes.

Late on this but I didn't know that. That's frightening.
No way sony can fight forever against that crazy microsoft.
Yes, we all know that.. but do we think that they have realized this yet? For some odd reason, I think they don't get it yet. And Nintendo would seem content to let those two have their arms race..
 
Top Bottom