Quantcast
Top 25 companies by game Revenue - Microsoft over Sony and Nintendo a distant 12th

Forums - Sales Discussion - Top 25 companies by game Revenue - Microsoft over Sony and Nintendo a distant 12th

Are any of those charts trustful?
We can´t even know accurate software sales...... how could we trust revenues charts?

Anyway... mobile games, mobile games everywhere



Around the Network
ktay95 said:
DonFerrari said:
I have a hard time believing this chart. Ea and activision smaller than ms and sony on sw Sales?

Sony and MS take a piece of every game sold on thier respective systems, so yeah. Thats also why Apple and Goggle are high up.


If we are going to include royalties, subscriptions and things not releases why leave hw out but keep stores?

 

this seems like a very bizare metric.

 

 

thus



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

3sexty said:
KungKras said:
Revenue means nothing.


So making money means nothing then.. Umm yeh whatever you say boss.

Revenue is not profit.



I LOVE ICELAND!

Well this chart offers some good news Ubisoft is paying for all their shitty practices.



Pretty meaningless until we see the actuall profit.

I remember Sony few years agofor example having huge revenue in the billions yet in the end ended up losing money.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

Around the Network

If that includes revenue from third party licensing fees then yeah it would make sense since Nintendo has lost basically all their console 3rd party revenue and Western devs don't support the 3DS for shit.

It kinda shows too that the whole "Nintendo doesn't need third parties" thing isn't really even smart business.

That crappy version of Barbie's Dream House sitting in a clearance bin in Wal-Mart still nets Nintendo $6-$10 for doing nothing the moment it's printed.



3sexty said:
KungKras said:
Revenue means nothing.


So making money means nothing then.. Umm yeh whatever you say boss.


Profit is more important that revenue. You can make millions in revenue but if you still end up in the red what does it amount to? 

T



Xxain said:
3sexty said:


So making money means nothing then.. Umm yeh whatever you say boss.


Profit is more important that revenue. You can make millions in revenue but if you still end up in the red what does it amount to? 

T

Read below my earlier post...there is a difference between 'meaning nothing' and thinking about it within the full context...

'But that was not qualified in the above statement which was a very broad sweeping statement to start with. Also as you would appreciate revenue is the foremost important precursor to making a profit. And then still some corporations are prepared go tolerate high revenues at a loss for a little while to secure growth. '



Xbox 360 and Xbox One

Gamertag:  GamertagOz70