-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Xbox division down $4,000,000,000
- Thread starter Matlock
- Start date
Frankfurter
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
The SEGA example is a really shitty one. SEGA isn't independant anymore, most of SEGA's games are ... uhm ... more like average and there just aren't that many SEGA games released anymore.
Frankfurter
Member
Dr_Cogent said:
Uhm!?
I didn't miss the point. You used SEGA as an example of how a company can just drop their own hardware and only develop software as a third party. I said that this example is shitty, cause SEGA isn't independant anymore and cause they often develop ... average games. If you say that a company (=SEGA) has successfully gone third party, than you are just ignoring the fact that this company isn't really successful in what they are doing (anymore).
People are so nearsighted. It's not just about making money with Xbox. It's about having top brand name. Sure, M$ rules on the PC side, but everyone would love to knock them off. Supposely, the next big thing is multimedia device in the living room. They don't want Sony to have total control there and allow them to branching off into other areas, like PCs and etc. M$ will do anything to squash competitors to their core business. Loosing a little money, 4 billion is almost pocket change to M$, is nothing compare to loosing your empire. It's pretty much same reason Sony doesn't just leave consumer non-profitable electronic division and just stay with their game division. M$ may never make a penny with Xbox, but they aren't leaving until nobody else are either.
Frankfurter said:
Let me break it down for you so even you can understand.
Sega used to be in hardware
Sega got out of hardware.
Now all they do is develop software.
That's what I think Nintendo should do. I'm not commenting on Sega's success or how good their games are now. That's irrelevant. How Sega has turned out doesn't dictate how things would work out for Nintendo if they dropped hardware.
If you still don't get it after this, I can't help you. Keep your eyes closed and plug your ears.
Frankfurter
Member
@Dr_Cogent
I'm sorry, but I get the feeling that you wanna kid me. You are using a concrete example (SEGA) to say that it is possible to get a third party but then you are ignoring the circumstances of this concrete example (average games and also average sales on most games).
I would have no problem if you would say sth. like "they should just go third party, I think that's the best for them". But to call SEGA an example of how it is possible/good for a company to go third party is just crazy.
:lol :lol
I'm sorry, but I get the feeling that you wanna kid me. You are using a concrete example (SEGA) to say that it is possible to get a third party but then you are ignoring the circumstances of this concrete example (average games and also average sales on most games).
I would have no problem if you would say sth. like "they should just go third party, I think that's the best for them". But to call SEGA an example of how it is possible/good for a company to go third party is just crazy.
:lol :lol
Sure, Nintendo could just drop all their hardware R&D and become a third party publisher... but then their sales, image and company morale would likely drop like a rock too and they'd probably get bought out by a bigger fish (see: SEGA, SNK, Atari, etc). Really, Nintendo needs hardware to stay where they're at. Hell, they need hardware more than Sony or Microsoft's game divisions do, those two would have a much simpler shift to software only houses.
siamesedreamer
Banned
quetz67 said:
How?
So we can be stuck with shitty controllers and half assed online plans?
Is it so hard to see that MS has been a positive for the industry?
Beer Monkey
Member
Um, they don't have to make up the $4 billion. They write it off as the cost of entering the market, and move on. All eyes, including those of the shareholders, are looking forward at this point.
YES!siamesedreamer said:
They introduce a machine they pay an extra $200 for which is slightly superior to their competitors with a HD thats a must have for certain games. To get at least some money back they let you pay for playing online.
The next gen they release a machine without HD, probably the least powerful of the bunch. Games get released in a less than perfect statejust for the sake of having them ready at launch.
You still need to pay for online while Sony and Nintendo probably have an online plan ready without fees.
Instead of buying one or two machines to play all games you now have to buy three machines, besides paying more you need more space in your living room.
Sweedishrodeo
the smegma spreader
drop in the bucket
Reiterating a fact that may be true for other busineses doesnt automaticall makes it true for the video gaming market.Dr_Cogent said:
I was pretty happy lets say with the GBA. Sure with more competition it probably had only cost $99 instead of $129 or whatever, still less than paying 2x $99.
Maybe competition in the market pushes the technological boundaries a little faster. But even without competition we would see new generations of hardware, because the customers are willing to pay for it (like they pay for new PCs).
But without competing hardware the games on the one existing hardware could look much better, at least those third party games that go for the lowest common dominator in hardware.
quetz67 said:
It's true even for the video gaming market.
Without competition you would see less innovation and new hardware less often. Sony is supposedly (according to rumor) copying Xbox Live. If this is true, that alone was a good reason for MS to enter the fray. I think you discount the usefulness of competition here too easily.
I think we saw new gameboy models without compettition in regular intervals. And if xbox hadnt been Sony had still relesaed the PS2 and the PS3Dr_Cogent said:
And Sony copying Xbox live, how stupid can one be, xbox live is nothing special, it just did lots of stuff others did already, just that is was kind of a complete package and you have to pay for.
And only xbox users can play together, with only one console all gamers would be able to play the same games online, even the PC gamers because there wouldnt be any need to delay the PC ports just to sell more hardware to loose more money with.
Personally, I don't think having Hardware competition is a good thing. Competing hardware only encourages shorter console life which in turns mean we have to pay more just to even play games, and the developement costs increase each time there is a new generation.
Hardware competition has more negatives then postives, especially considering that new hardware won't be needed come next gen.
What I'm worried about is the software competition. That's the place where competition really helps and is needed.
But alas, it seems like the publishers don't give a crap anymore and release anything they want. The cosumers just buy anything EA, Ubisoft, etc. It's really bringing the quality of games down. And releaseing a $400+ console won't make the games better.
Hardware competition has more negatives then postives, especially considering that new hardware won't be needed come next gen.
What I'm worried about is the software competition. That's the place where competition really helps and is needed.
But alas, it seems like the publishers don't give a crap anymore and release anything they want. The cosumers just buy anything EA, Ubisoft, etc. It's really bringing the quality of games down. And releaseing a $400+ console won't make the games better.
Beer Monkey
Member
I hate to think of the huge royalties and manufacturing fees that would get charged to developers and publishers if we had a 'single console future'!
Competition exists at many levels. I suppose you think we'd be better off in the PC world if we only had one type of system instead of Wintel, Mac, Linux, etc.
JackFrost2012
Banned
STUDY QUESTIONS
1) The first Xbox was not profitable. Why will the Xbox 360 be profitable?
2) Imagine a world where Microsoft lost $4 billion on the Xbox and DIDN'T have the Halo franchise. Would Microsoft have still forged ahead with the Xbox 360?
1) The first Xbox was not profitable. Why will the Xbox 360 be profitable?
2) Imagine a world where Microsoft lost $4 billion on the Xbox and DIDN'T have the Halo franchise. Would Microsoft have still forged ahead with the Xbox 360?
DarienA said:
You don't think seeing the Xbox360 so soon is dissapointing? I got my Xbox last year and it's already dead. It only took MS 4 years to release their next system. Sega also released hardware early, not to mention the number of addons they had, and yet I can name a lot more games on the NES and SNES, and PS2 than I enjoyed than on the Genesis, Saturn, or Dreamcast.
The company in second always tries to push next generation too early and the customers who support them always get burned. It happened to Sega too many times, and it might happen to MS if they aren't careful.
I don't think having the Genesis or having the N64 around made games on the SNES and PSX any better, it only caused a number of stupid fanboy arguements and bannings on forums around the world.
From my understanding:JackFrost2012 said:
1) The hardware will be cheaper to make as time goes on, instead of MS having to pay out the same amount of cash for parts and licenses in year 4 than they did in year 1.
2) the Tree Sitty will RULE THE WORLD and leave the PS3 and the Revolution in the dust, shrinking their marketshares to zero and leaving it the sole winner, so all the game royalties will pay for all the money spent on marketing, R&D and manufacturing.
This is the plan, anyway.
I'm thinking yes - it would have been an even steeper climb, though, and they may have had to throw even MORE money at the next gen in order to keep their foothold.JackFrost2012 said:
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Kobun Heat said:
we also only know the numbers of the home and entertainment division as a whole, which actually has some profitable products that help offset the xbox losses..
i like the xbox, but i really dont want MS to gain control of the market, thats just asking for trouble.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
siamesedreamer said:
??? many people considered the dual shock the best controller this gen.. free online is just the right price.. and dont talk about the boomerang, because no one has tried it..
MidgarBlowedUp
Member
It seems to me all that has been accomplished with the XBox is taking some market share away from the Gamecube. Sony has sold over 90 million units so I can't see MS hurting them at all, but I'd bet a lot more GC's would have sold if MS wasn't in the race.
It's sort of like when 3 people run for president and one of them is just there to make your vote not count.
And why am I still posting here?
Why is anyone posting in this thread?
Where are my pills?
Nurse!!!
It's sort of like when 3 people run for president and one of them is just there to make your vote not count.
And why am I still posting here?
Why is anyone posting in this thread?
Where are my pills?
Nurse!!!
inpHilltr8r
Member
$4billion down the drain, and STILL THEY CANCELLED PSYCHONAUTS!!!!!
..and Stranger, but more people frothed over Psychonauts, and I'm, playing to the crowd here.
..and Stranger, but more people frothed over Psychonauts, and I'm, playing to the crowd here.
Legal Step
Member
financial news is console porn.
The losses say shit about MS giving anything to gamers. All it says is the Xbox business model was seriously broken. Even Sony lost money starting off, but they had a business model that made a huge profit over time. This is even before they started putting foot to ass. Nintendo makes a large profit despite coming in last.
MS's contributions haven't been any more/less significant than any other entry into the market. Everyone brings new ideas. Live is neat. Live is also a ripoff. Say what you will, but online gaming would have grown regardless. Sony talked of online plans for a long time. They just didn't push it that hard b/c it's honestly not that important. If it was, the Xbox and Live would be kings of the hill. Seganet didn't fair so well either. Online gaming STILL doesn't have enough market penetration to make a lick of difference. Say what you will, but come 2010, don't be suprised if online install bases are still paltry. Especially if it's a pay service. People don't want to pay twice to go online. You shouldn't have to pay your ISP and then a seperate access fee to play games on a console you technically just paid an access fee to use.
Competition in hardware serves no purpose beyond the first year IMO. Multiplatform titles bring nothing new to the table, and only serve to dilute the final product (what people continue to lambast EA for). A single console is fine. All the games in one place, so people like Itagaki can't pawn off shovelware on a system b/c he lacks competition. When 3rd parties compete, we all win. When hardware manufacturers compete...meh...who really fucking cares? Prices didn't change a whole lot this gen. Matter of fact, they're higher than before (no $99 price yet). PEACE.
MS's contributions haven't been any more/less significant than any other entry into the market. Everyone brings new ideas. Live is neat. Live is also a ripoff. Say what you will, but online gaming would have grown regardless. Sony talked of online plans for a long time. They just didn't push it that hard b/c it's honestly not that important. If it was, the Xbox and Live would be kings of the hill. Seganet didn't fair so well either. Online gaming STILL doesn't have enough market penetration to make a lick of difference. Say what you will, but come 2010, don't be suprised if online install bases are still paltry. Especially if it's a pay service. People don't want to pay twice to go online. You shouldn't have to pay your ISP and then a seperate access fee to play games on a console you technically just paid an access fee to use.
Competition in hardware serves no purpose beyond the first year IMO. Multiplatform titles bring nothing new to the table, and only serve to dilute the final product (what people continue to lambast EA for). A single console is fine. All the games in one place, so people like Itagaki can't pawn off shovelware on a system b/c he lacks competition. When 3rd parties compete, we all win. When hardware manufacturers compete...meh...who really fucking cares? Prices didn't change a whole lot this gen. Matter of fact, they're higher than before (no $99 price yet). PEACE.
On another forum, someone translated something from a Japanese site saying developers are flocking from Sony's camp to the 360 because of development costs? The "source" is http://www.zakzak.co.jp/ - the "translation" -
Sounds like the same thing xbots were saying when people were hyping PS2 and XBox.
I dunno, I'm not believing it.
Sounds like the same thing xbots were saying when people were hyping PS2 and XBox.
I dunno, I'm not believing it.
As someone on another forum pointed out, the Xbox's division also includes all of the marketing and development costs of the Xbox 360, which hasn't yet been released (and has thus generated zero revenue). So that $4 billion figure isn't just money lost on the Xbox, it's also money lost getting their next gen console ready to roll.
Which isn't to say that the Xbox hasn't been a net loss for Microsoft--it has, and a large one. But probably not a $4 billion loss.
Which isn't to say that the Xbox hasn't been a net loss for Microsoft--it has, and a large one. But probably not a $4 billion loss.
Same applied to SCE since it was first formed. EE and GS costs were theirs. The same applies to Nintendo. The comparison is moot. Xbox business model was crap. It cost MS a lot more money than it's cost any company to date. They won't repeat the same mistake twice. PEACE.Ben Sones said: