Quantcast
MICROSOFT results Q4 and Full Year earnings. Huge.

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - MICROSOFT results Q4 and Full Year earnings. Huge.

KingofTrolls said:
What is " huge " if one is hidding sales numbers?

Which is more important? Money coming in or hardware going out?



Around the Network
KingofTrolls said:
What is " huge " if one is hidding sales numbers?

Huge is $110bn turnover and $35bn income coupled with a market cap of around $830bn.  

Not hard to understand.

Or maybe it is... 

This thread is about financial results and therefore demands a level of maturity to discuss properly.  Hard to find on this forum for the last few years, hence the lack of serious discussion now around the topics the site was originally based upon.



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Azzanation said:
Replicant said: 

Agreed. I think the Xbox community here too often "pays for the sins" of unrelated/extreme/ignorant Xbox fans in other communities.

That last sentence though. Are you honestly saying that Azzanation isn't part of those "typical people"? C'mon dude...

Mate I speak up when needed when it comes to these forums. I mainly game on PC.. like 90% of the time. But that has nothing to do with this thread. But if I see people downplaying something I will have my say. As for these forums, I wasn't on here much last generation so I have no idea what was going on. All I know is majority of the market brought a PS4 this gen so I am sure a lot of Xbox Fanboys jumped ship. I am talking the big picture not a few Users on this website.

COKTOE said:

You're a dumbass. You post ideas that are profoundly stupid. You sometimes, as with this particular one, attempt to propagate these ideas throughout multiple threads. Then, if somebody responds to you with with evidence that is in opposition to your post, and is irrefutable, you unflinchingly attempt to get blood from a stone, and end up with a post full of rock dust. How can you possibly believe that console sales mean nothing? That's literally the crux of your "argument". The XBO has almost 249 million worth of physical software sales. Which is DIRECTLY tied to the number of console sold. Does that mean nothing? Does it not contribute to profit/revenue? How about every digital game sold as a result of an XBO purchase? How many XBL subscriptions are there that are DIRECTLY tied to the XBO? How many millions? Does that also amount to nothing? And those subscriptions lead to more, ongoing profit/revenue in the form of microtransactions, ect, ect. I can't believe I'm having to type out this Duplo Block, Mud and Cookies response, essentially repeating myself with slightly more detail. I guess the next step will be breaking out the sock puppets and uploading a video to youtube.

 

Moderated by ~ PwerlvlAmy

Console sales does not sell subscriptions. PS4 has 80m+ Consoles sold and only 35m Subs, and I think you know when you look up 1st party titles that they don't sell anywhere near the amount of consoles sold. HW helps, I never said it didn't however HW isn't the Be all and End all in this industry. In fact HW for most part of the generation loses money. What looks better on paper, 50m Consoles sold with 30m Subs or 100m Consoles sold and 15m subs? The subs is the life blood of the company and when it comes to software sales, well lets look at Mario Kart 8 and Smash Bros on the WiiU.. Nintendo didn't need 100m consoles sold to sell there games. If companies can sell a shit ton of consoles than good for them but if they manage to sell okay but strive on the subs and software than its still okay.

EDITED- Just saw this user was Moderated, Ignore my post if need be.

PS4 sold 80M and have 35M of PSN+, much much much more PSN accounts or subs if you want to call.

The number of Subs and MAU MS reports include Silver accounts, Switch Minecraft, PC Silver and Gold, etc... so hardly a point for you to try and drive.

When I see almost half of PS4 userbase pay for the subs only to play multiplayer I'm very sad. In case you don't know PS3 had less than 10% (I believe even less than 3%) of it's userbase under PSN+ for the "free games" and discounts. Just putting MP under the paywall made it cross 50%. Also in case you don't know this have been a very stable metric, from 10M PS4 sold up to 80M the PSN+ have been 50% attach ratio, so the HW have drove the subs.



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

kowenicki said:
KingofTrolls said:
What is " huge " if one is hidding sales numbers?

Huge is $110bn turnover and $35bn income coupled with a market cap of around $830bn.  

Not hard to understand.

Or maybe it is... 

This thread is about financial results and therefore demands a level of maturity to discuss properly.  Hard to find on this forum for the last few years, hence the lack of serious discussion now around the topics the site was originally based upon.

I see where you're coming from. This community has far too much downplaying and gloating in general.

With that said, you can't be surprised that people aren't discussing things they haven't got a clue about. We got a few stock holders on the site but of those even fewer are fully educated on financials.

 

Besides, this site is clearly focussed on gaming related content and your OPs about Microsoft's earnings rarely have substantial and explanatory gaming related content. Don't be surprised when people are interested in more substantial gaming related numbers and are questioning the few given. That actually IS on topic discussion. If you want fewer questions you could start by including a source/link in the OP.

I understand that you're a Microsoft stock holder yourself but that shouldn't hinder you from helping to dig up more detailed numbers on the gaming division (that would result in less speculation as well). If the reason why that's difficult is due to Microsoft not providing additional numbers, it's only natural to question why they aren't (after all this is a forum). Microsoft just presented a phenomenal earnings report but considering they tend to lump their hugely profitable (~95%) Android royalties together with their gaming division, of course people speculate about the underlying numbers.

I understand that it's more fun to talk about the positive aspects of a company (especially for a stock holder) and now that Microsoft's gaming division isn't as dominant as it was a few years ago, it's more fun to focus on the overall company.

Last edited by Replicant - on 23 July 2018

kowenicki said:

This thread is about financial results and therefore demands a level of maturity to discuss properly.  Hard to find on this forum for the last few years, hence the lack of serious discussion now around the topics the site was originally based upon.

No one can discuss seriously about sales numbers or anything gaming related if you simply dont know these numbers. 



Around the Network

numbers don't lie!!



steve

DonFerrari said:

PS4 sold 80M and have 35M of PSN+, much much much more PSN accounts or subs if you want to call.

The number of Subs and MAU MS reports include Silver accounts, Switch Minecraft, PC Silver and Gold, etc... so hardly a point for you to try and drive.

When I see almost half of PS4 userbase pay for the subs only to play multiplayer I'm very sad. In case you don't know PS3 had less than 10% (I believe even less than 3%) of it's userbase under PSN+ for the "free games" and discounts. Just putting MP under the paywall made it cross 50%. Also in case you don't know this have been a very stable metric, from 10M PS4 sold up to 80M the PSN+ have been 50% attach ratio, so the HW have drove the subs.

The point you are missing is consoles dont just automatically win you subs. They help but they dont just generate the numbers, majority wont just Sub just because. Xbox could sell 100m consoles and still only have a third of there customers subscibe. 35m are paid PSN users in an environment of over 80m consoles sold. Theres almost 2 thirds of PS customers not paying for PS+.

My point is HW helps but even if Xbox went on to sell 50m consoles, it seems MS care about the real profits and thats the Subs. 50+ million Xboxes sold with a high attachment to paid members is better than a ton of consoles sold (little profit) and small amount of subscibers. All console HW numbers do is help measure whos dick is bigger, its been like that ever since the beginning of sales charts. 

Heck look at it like this, PS3 and 360 sold similar amount of HW numbers in there lifetime, yet PS3 lost more money than any other console in the industry because HW isnt where the profits are. Wii's were cheap to produce,  360s had Paid subscibers and PS3 only had HW and SW.. it was not enough to turn Sony's fortunes around that gen. They lost billions. That is just a simple example of HW numbers not meaning everything. Yes it helps but its not everything.

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/sony-lost-5-billion-on-ps3-losing-more-money-than--29131319/

Its time we start moving forward and look at the numbers that really matter rather than live in the past thinking HW numbers mean everything. 

Last edited by Azzanation - on 23 July 2018

Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

PS4 sold 80M and have 35M of PSN+, much much much more PSN accounts or subs if you want to call.

The number of Subs and MAU MS reports include Silver accounts, Switch Minecraft, PC Silver and Gold, etc... so hardly a point for you to try and drive.

When I see almost half of PS4 userbase pay for the subs only to play multiplayer I'm very sad. In case you don't know PS3 had less than 10% (I believe even less than 3%) of it's userbase under PSN+ for the "free games" and discounts. Just putting MP under the paywall made it cross 50%. Also in case you don't know this have been a very stable metric, from 10M PS4 sold up to 80M the PSN+ have been 50% attach ratio, so the HW have drove the subs.

The point you are missing is consoles dont just automatically win you subs. They help but they dont just generate the numbers, majority wont just Sub just because. Xbox could sell 100m consoles and still only have a third of there customers subscibe. 35m are paid PSN users in an environment of over 80m consoles sold. Theres almost 2 thirds of PS customers not paying for PS+.

My point is HW helps but even if Xbox went on to sell 50m consoles, it seems MS care about the real profits and thats the Subs. 50+ million Xboxes sold with a high attachment to paid members is better than a ton of consoles sold (little profit) and small amount of subscibers. All console HW numbers do is help measure whos dick is bigger, its been like that ever since the beginning of sales charts. 

Heck look at it like this, PS3 and 360 sold similar amount of HW numbers in there lifetime, yet PS3 lost more money than any other console in the industry because HW isnt where the profits are. Wii's were cheap to produce,  360s had Paid subscibers and PS3 only had HW and SW.. it was not enough to turn Sony's fortunes around that gen. They lost billions. That is just a simple example of HW numbers not meaning everything. Yes it helps but its not everything.

https://www.gamespot.com/forums/system-wars-314159282/sony-lost-5-billion-on-ps3-losing-more-money-than--29131319/

Its time we start moving forward and look at the numbers that really matter rather than live in the past thinking HW numbers mean everything. 

You really are king of exaggeration.

2/3 is 66% while 45/80 (and those aren't the exact numbers) is 56% so it's closer to 1/2 than 2/3 but let's use something more exaggerated. Nothing really grants anything. But if you have a strong correlation between HW sold and PSN+ (besides the PSN) that have shown for 4 years that there is almost 50% attach ratio (this has been almost constant) then yes selling more HW granted more subs.

Sure majority won't sub just cause. I even provided you that it took Sony putting MP behind paywall (very bad move for customers, but was wonderful for their revenue) to increase from less than 5% attach ratio to almost 50%.

MS doesn't disclose the paid XBL numbers and also doesn't disclose the P&L of Xbox, so you are saying they care more about it but doesn't show the results, so what would we discuss in this subject?

You do know that from what can be gathered on the internet Xbox never profited since the first release right? And that we can't infer the numbers because the department always had other stuff put together that would distort the numbers. But sure most would know PS3 was a major money loss for Sony. But since you were so kind to provide Sony loses on PS3, please provide MS profit on Xbox alone for any of the 3 gens.



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

DonFerrari said:

You really are king of exaggeration.

2/3 is 66% while 45/80 (and those aren't the exact numbers) is 56% so it's closer to 1/2 than 2/3 but let's use something more exaggerated. Nothing really grants anything. But if you have a strong correlation between HW sold and PSN+ (besides the PSN) that have shown for 4 years that there is almost 50% attach ratio (this has been almost constant) then yes selling more HW granted more subs.

Sure majority won't sub just cause. I even provided you that it took Sony putting MP behind paywall (very bad move for customers, but was wonderful for their revenue) to increase from less than 5% attach ratio to almost 50%.

MS doesn't disclose the paid XBL numbers and also doesn't disclose the P&L of Xbox, so you are saying they care more about it but doesn't show the results, so what would we discuss in this subject?

You do know that from what can be gathered on the internet Xbox never profited since the first release right? And that we can't infer the numbers because the department always had other stuff put together that would distort the numbers. But sure most would know PS3 was a major money loss for Sony. But since you were so kind to provide Sony loses on PS3, please provide MS profit on Xbox alone for any of the 3 gens.

Where do you source your numbers from? 

As of March 2018 it claims 35.2m PS+ members.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/532431/playstation-plus-subscribers-global/

Can you link your source so i can atleast base your debate on?

I also gave you a good example of why HW sales never tell the true story. Again many would claim the PS3 a success because all they go by is HW sales. But the real picture is that PS3 lost Sony 5Billion dollars. 

And to anwser your question on Xbox profiting. Has MS ever disclosed the profits they made from Live Gold Members in the past? Your answer awaits.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 23 July 2018

Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

You really are king of exaggeration.

2/3 is 66% while 45/80 (and those aren't the exact numbers) is 56% so it's closer to 1/2 than 2/3 but let's use something more exaggerated. Nothing really grants anything. But if you have a strong correlation between HW sold and PSN+ (besides the PSN) that have shown for 4 years that there is almost 50% attach ratio (this has been almost constant) then yes selling more HW granted more subs.

Sure majority won't sub just cause. I even provided you that it took Sony putting MP behind paywall (very bad move for customers, but was wonderful for their revenue) to increase from less than 5% attach ratio to almost 50%.

MS doesn't disclose the paid XBL numbers and also doesn't disclose the P&L of Xbox, so you are saying they care more about it but doesn't show the results, so what would we discuss in this subject?

You do know that from what can be gathered on the internet Xbox never profited since the first release right? And that we can't infer the numbers because the department always had other stuff put together that would distort the numbers. But sure most would know PS3 was a major money loss for Sony. But since you were so kind to provide Sony loses on PS3, please provide MS profit on Xbox alone for any of the 3 gens.

Where do you source your numbers from? 

As of March 2018 it claims 35.2m PS+ members.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/532431/playstation-plus-subscribers-global/

Can you link your source so i can atleast base your debate on?

I also gave you a good example of why HW sales never tell the true story. Again many would claim the PS3 a success because all they go by is HW sales. But the real picture is that PS3 lost Sony 5Billion dollars. 

And to anwser your question on Xbox profiting. Has MS ever disclosed the profits they made from Live Gold Members in the past? Your answer awaits.

Do you need a source to prove 45/80 (which is the complement of 35/80)? 45/80 would be the number of people that doesn't have PSN+ (but guess what at least 80M PSN accounts exist, and Sony MAU is higher than MS). So it is like this 45/80 or 56% doesn't have PS+ which is closer to 50% (1/2) than to 66% (2/3) but you choose 2/3 for what reason?

But to help you out https://segmentnext.com/2018/05/22/sony-ir-psn-ps-plus/ so PS4 MAU is 80M or about the number of PS4 sold. Which is more than double the MAU of MS, also more than double subs of XBL. With PS+ (paid) about equal to total XBL (including silver).

Many perhaps would (many more would say the opposite). On HW and SW it was a success, in bringing money it was a failure, but at least kept Sony in the fight for PS4.

MS have never disclosed their profit for Xbox at all (but you are claiming it is making money, so you should provide source instead of asking). We have had during X360 disclosure of HW sold and also the number of gold members. Both stopped being shown this gen when they were to much behind so now they give total number of Live accounts (that  for some crazy reason you compare PSN+ to Total Live accounts instead of Gold).

So please give us the showing that Xbox by itself ever profited.

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-07-huge-xbox-losses-hidden-by-patent-royalties-says-analyst

https://www.destructoid.com/analyst-microsoft-losing-2-billion-on-xbox-annually-265273.phtml (so X360 gen took 7 years... that would make 14 Billion in loses, almost 3 times as much as the one reported for Sony)



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