high profitable company
but i think they need to do more to remain competitive
Azzanation said:
From how you posted it, it sounded like you were saying there were 45m PS+ members. And you also forgot i said almost 2 thirds, i never said it was 2 thirds. Having accounts is easy since every XB and PS4 require an account to use the system. Its all about turning those accounts into paid members. Well for MS anyway hence the heavy focus on there inline features and games. PS3 was the worst profitable console in History not the 360. Do the maths, $60 x 20m Gold accounts x 7 years. Now there just low rough figures. The 360 at some point had over 40m Gold accounts. Now add those profits from Live into your Destructiod link which is just an assumption not actual fact and remember the 360 also sold more software than the PS3 aswell. Strange how hardware means everything to you yet the console that technically sold the least last gen actually sold more SW and made more money. Point proven. Also you dont need them to disclose there making money on a department to actually think there not. MS never claimes how much money they make from there Subs. Sneaky little MS. Where does all that Sub money go? Isnt it funny that one of the greatest and wealthiest video game companies around in Blizzard also dont tell us how much they make from there subscriptions? They leave it all up to us to estimate. |
You then need to learn how to read. You said 35M PS+ subs on 80M and that meant 2/3 of the userbase didn't had subs (two false claims in one), so I showed that the 45M that wouldn't have is closer to 1/2 than to 2/3. 56% is almost 2/3 or almost 1/2?
MS doesn't disclose Gold subs anymore, they talk about the whole number of active subs. So where are you getting their gold? From the numbers we have the most you can be accertain is that PS+ subs is about equal total XBL (Gold+Silver+PC users+Minecraft on Switch). Also you claimed that selling HW doesn't secure subs. I provided you that yes it doesn't secure, but when MP was under the PS+ then we have had at least 1PSN account per PS4 sold and almost 1 PSN+ account for each 2 PS4 sold from release of PS4 until now. So there is a very strong relation between selling the HW and getting subs.
Sure Destructoid may be assumptions, so is yours. MS never disclosed the profit of Xbox alone, you claim they have made a lot of profit, where is your source?
Blizzard may do whatever they want, we aren't discussing them. You are claiming X360 made a lot of money, that X1 is making a lot of money, but you have no source. You say that subs is more important than HW and that selling HW doesn't bring money or subs (got disproven) but can't provide any evidence.
LudicrousSpeed said:
No offense, but do you really believe this? I shouldn't even be asking that, because literally right there where I just quoted you, you're speaking about it factually. This was debunked in numerous places, including GAF, and this was back in 2013 when GAF was a complete Playstation hive mind. Earlier you made a big stink about some cuckoo Xbots believing crazy stuff like Xbone and PS4 actually being very close in sales. Well, believing Microsoft was losing 2 BILLION per year on Xbox is just as insane. Remember, this is the same analyst who just months earlier claimed Xbox as a business was doing very well, and had also multiple times championed the idea that MS should sell off the division. He predicted it multiple times, was wrong, and also predicted multiple Ballmer replacements, wrong on all of them. So because he predicts some percentage of a loss in the E&D division is attributed to Xbox, doesn't make it factual. Especially when all logic and evidence points to that idea being complete nonsense. Kind of like.. idk, believing PS4 and Xbone are neck and neck in WW sales. |
I have talked about it factually? I have provided the link and said that if X360 was losing 2B per year than that would be 14B in 7 years which would be 3x what his source claimed for PS3 loss. But I didn't see you challenging the source for PS3 nor the fact that MS doesn't disclose profit for Xbox alone but he claims makes a lot of money to the point the HW sales are irrelevant.
Will you also ask for sources and evidences of Azzanation? Will you dispute the evidence that Xbox profit or loss can't be determined because the department always had other products with very big numbers mixed, so claiming Xbox made big profits or loses can't be proven?
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
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
| DonFerrari said: MS doesn't disclose Gold subs anymore, they talk about the whole number of active subs. So where are you getting their gold? From the numbers we have the most you can be accertain is that PS+ subs is about equal total XBL (Gold+Silver+PC users+Minecraft on Switch). Also you claimed that selling HW doesn't secure subs. I provided you that yes it doesn't secure, but when MP was under the PS+ then we have had at least 1PSN account per PS4 sold and almost 1 PSN+ account for each 2 PS4 sold from release of PS4 until now. So there is a very strong relation between selling the HW and getting subs. Sure Destructoid may be assumptions, so is yours. MS never disclosed the profit of Xbox alone, you claim they have made a lot of profit, where is your source? Blizzard may do whatever they want, we aren't discussing them. You are claiming X360 made a lot of money, that X1 is making a lot of money, but you have no source. You say that subs is more important than HW and that selling HW doesn't bring money or subs (got disproven) but can't provide any evidence. |
Don you are not understanding what is being said. Let me ask you afew questions and please answer them so i get a better understanding on your point.
1) Gold has been around for more than a decade, so where does all the Sub money go from all those Paid Gold members?
2) Why doesnt Blizzard announce how much they earn from there Subs?
3) Why is it okay for Blizzard not to disclose Sub profits but for MS they have to?
4) How was the 360 more profitable than the PS3 considering it sold less HW units?
5) Do you think Xbox is better off selling 100m Units and only having 10m Subs or them selling 50m Units and having 30m Subs?
I mean its not rocket science to work out the fortune Xbox is making behind the scenes
Forbes back in 2010, estimated Live was generating $1.25 billion annually, thats a good lump sum of cash yearly if you ask me.
Just because a company doesnt announce it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Like most big money making brands they dont announce there Sub profits. Both Blizzard one of the wealthiest gaming companies in the world and MS one of the wealthiest corporations in the world choose to hide these figures.
Yes 360 and PS3 lost money on the HW, but 360 managed to make that back in other ways hence my entire point of HW isnt as important as you make it out to be. Again more HW sold does help but gaining a higher percentage from subs from current owners is just as important.
MS is not a company to keep a brand around for many years that is leaking billions. There is a reason why they keep Xbox around and i think its pretty obvious.
Last edited by Azzanation - on 24 July 2018
Azzanation said:
Don you are not understanding what is being said. Let me ask you afew questions and please answer them so i get a better understanding on your point. 1) Gold has been around for more than a decade, so where does all the Sub money go from all those Paid Gold members? 2) Why doesnt Blizzard announce how much they earn from there Subs? 3) Why is it okay for Blizzard not to disclose Sub profits but for MS they have to? 4) How was the 360 more profitable than the PS3 considering it sold less HW units? 5) Do you think Xbox is better off selling 100m Units and only having 10m Subs or them selling 50m Units and having 30m Subs? I mean its not rocket science to work out the fortune Xbox is making behind the scenes Forbes back in 2010, estimated Live was generating $1.25 billion annually, thats a good lump sum of cash yearly if you ask me. Just because a company doesnt announce it, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. Like most big money making brands they dont announce there Sub profits. Both Blizzard one of the wealthiest gaming companies in the world and MS one of the wealthiest corporations in the world choose to hide these figures. Yes 360 and PS3 lost money on the HW, but 360 managed to make that back in other ways hence my entire point of HW isnt as important as you make it out to be. Again more HW sold does help but gaining a higher percentage from subs from current owners is just as important. MS is not a company to keep a brand around for many years that is leaking billions. There is a reason why they keep Xbox around and i think its pretty obvious. |
1) Goes in the department, we don't know how much profit was made since we don't know the costs. Also we don't know how much of the subs revenue was eaten by other costs on the department (even if subsiding the HW that is what is needed to sell the subs, that is basically cost of making business)
2) I don't know, do you? But they release the P&L of the company right? How many major departments are there? And what does it have to do with this discussion?
3) Who said it is ok? It is just out of topic, or do you want to enumerate every company that do or don't?
4) Please provide source X360 was more profitable. Because we do have the numbers for Playstation department and even if not having exact numbers for profit or loss of PS3 we can get a good enough estimative, compared to Xbox never disclosed numbers.
5) Pointless question since you were already proved that the subs are related to the HW sold. But please provide how many of the 30M XBL subs are gold.
Your points are all your own assumptions without any evidence used to defend MS not releasing their numbers and them you use the lack of numbers to affirm it is good. Funny enough Ludicrous Speed have no issue with that.
The funny thing is you keep asking questions and demanding sources, but fail to answer. Is that a tactic to deviate?
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
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
|
DonFerrari said: 1) Goes in the department, we don't know how much profit was made since we don't know the costs. Also we don't know how much of the subs revenue was eaten by other costs on the department (even if subsiding the HW that is what is needed to sell the subs, that is basically cost of making business) 2) I don't know, do you? But they release the P&L of the company right? How many major departments are there? And what does it have to do with this discussion? 3) Who said it is ok? It is just out of topic, or do you want to enumerate every company that do or don't? 4) Please provide source X360 was more profitable. Because we do have the numbers for Playstation department and even if not having exact numbers for profit or loss of PS3 we can get a good enough estimative, compared to Xbox never disclosed numbers. 5) Pointless question since you were already proved that the subs are related to the HW sold. But please provide how many of the 30M XBL subs are gold. Your points are all your own assumptions without any evidence used to defend MS not releasing their numbers and them you use the lack of numbers to affirm it is good. Funny enough Ludicrous Speed have no issue with that. The funny thing is you keep asking questions and demanding sources, but fail to answer. Is that a tactic to deviate? |
So you are saying that the paid memberships didn't profit Xbox and MS? Even posting a link from Forbes which I will do again for you.
The reason I use Blizzard as a prime example here is because even if you are a brand that makes a boat load of money, they don't have to announce it to the world, in this case, Subscriptions which both Blizzard and MS do and have the same method in not telling the world.
Its pretty obvious the 360 was more profitable. Lets start with these examples.
1) X360 was cheaper to produce and in RnD.
PS3 cost $805 to build compared to the 360s $470.
2) X360 sold more life time SW and digital content.
Software PS3 - 974.58m / X360 - 1,007,71m
Tie Ratio PS3 - 11.21 / X360 - 11.74
3) X360 had 7+ years of paid up members of free cash flow. PS3 had no income from other alternatives for there console.
4) $1.25b estimated from Fordes annually is a crap ton of money to not only cover the 360s RnD costs estimated to be at 3.5b but also the Red Ring of Death costs estimated at $1.5b. 10+ years of paid members has easily covered these expenses and we don't need MS to tell us this. Much like we don't need Blizzard to tell us there making money on World of Warcraft. Obvious is obvious.
5) Your Logic - PS3 HW sold 86.90m Units - X360 HW sold 85.80m Units. Guess PS3 wins and made more money because of HW sales. #DonFerrari
Tell me how you think the PS3 made more profit than the 360? I am very curious. Do you actually think PS3 made more money and is more successful because it sold more HW?
Last edited by Azzanation - on 24 July 2018
Azzanation said:
So you are saying that the paid memberships didn't profit Xbox and MS? Even posting a link from Forbes which I will do again for you. The reason I use Blizzard as a prime example here is because even if you are a brand that makes a boat load of money, they don't have to announce it to the world, in this case, Subscriptions which both Blizzard and MS do and have the same method in not telling the world. Its pretty obvious the 360 was more profitable. Lets start with these examples. 1) X360 was cheaper to produce and in RnD. PS3 cost $805 to build compared to the 360s $470. 2) X360 sold more life time SW and digital content. Software PS3 - 974.58m / X360 - 1,007,71m Tie Ratio PS3 - 11.21 / X360 - 11.74 3) X360 had 7+ years of paid up members of free cash flow. PS3 had no income from other alternatives for there console. 4) $1.25b estimated from Fordes annually is a crap ton of money to not only cover the 360s RnD costs estimated to be at 3.5b but also the Red Ring of Death costs estimated at $1.5b. 10+ years of paid members has easily covered these expenses and we don't need MS to tell us this. Much like we don't need Blizzard to tell us there making money on World of Warcraft. Obvious is obvious. 5) Your Logic - PS3 HW sold 86.90m Units - X360 HW sold 85.80m Units. Guess PS3 wins and made more money because of HW sales. #DonFerrari Tell me how you think the PS3 made more profit than the 360? I am very curious. Do you actually think PS3 made more money and is more successful because it sold more HW? |
No I'm not saying Live isn't profitable. I'm saying we don't know how much, and how much Xbox department is profitable. Not sure where you got confused though.
Any publicaly traded company have to disclose their P&L as company. Blizzard doesn't have multiple big departments (MS does) so even if they release a corporate one you know it is related to gaming even if you can't say which individual game done it. But please show us how much Xbox profits or loses, can you dig through MS corporate release to get it? Can you separate every year what is xbox and what isn't on its department?
We aren't discussing Blizzard, we mentioned that we don't know the sales of Xbox, XBL Gold, 1st party titles, etc... you have gone left and right saying MS look at what is important to bring revenue and that they are reaping a lot of profit, but can't show the profit.
1) Those are estimate costs for release of the consoles (in the case of PS3 60Gb), not the average cost during the generation (which you don't have). Plus you have what 2 or 3 Billion in losses for RROD?
2) Yes Xbox sold a little more SW, but Sony have sold a lot more 1st party due to the higher number of releases. So revenue was probably close.
3) Xbox 360 had to pay for a lot of exclusives and timed exclusives, total amount we don't know what was and with more servers on XBL it costed more, but sure we can safely assume XBL brought more money than PSN. THe amount? No one know.
4) So you are using 10+ year of revenue for the estimate of Forbes for a window time, even including years Xbox 360 wasn't released or was substituted?
5) Your assumption.
You don't have the numbers for the profit of the Xbox, so even if your estimates are reasonable (in some areas they aren't) you can't say for certain that X360 was more profitable, even more because from all that is know neither was even profitable to begin.
I'll keep waiting for your sources on X1 profits, that HW sales of PS4 didn't brought subs at about 50% rate, number of XBL Gold currently, saying that you made a bogus comparison between PS+ subs and total XBL accounts.
And of course you can also reread the posts and replied to the things you ignored and preferred to change subject.
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
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
|
DonFerrari said: No I'm not saying Live isn't profitable. I'm saying we don't know how much, and how much Xbox department is profitable. Not sure where you got confused though. Any publicaly traded company have to disclose their P&L as company. Blizzard doesn't have multiple big departments (MS does) so even if they release a corporate one you know it is related to gaming even if you can't say which individual game done it. But please show us how much Xbox profits or loses, can you dig through MS corporate release to get it? Can you separate every year what is xbox and what isn't on its department? We aren't discussing Blizzard, we mentioned that we don't know the sales of Xbox, XBL Gold, 1st party titles, etc... you have gone left and right saying MS look at what is important to bring revenue and that they are reaping a lot of profit, but can't show the profit. 1) Those are estimate costs for release of the consoles (in the case of PS3 60Gb), not the average cost during the generation (which you don't have). Plus you have what 2 or 3 Billion in losses for RROD? 2) Yes Xbox sold a little more SW, but Sony have sold a lot more 1st party due to the higher number of releases. So revenue was probably close. 3) Xbox 360 had to pay for a lot of exclusives and timed exclusives, total amount we don't know what was and with more servers on XBL it costed more, but sure we can safely assume XBL brought more money than PSN. THe amount? No one know. 4) So you are using 10+ year of revenue for the estimate of Forbes for a window time, even including years Xbox 360 wasn't released or was substituted? 5) Your assumption. You don't have the numbers for the profit of the Xbox, so even if your estimates are reasonable (in some areas they aren't) you can't say for certain that X360 was more profitable, even more because from all that is know neither was even profitable to begin. I'll keep waiting for your sources on X1 profits, that HW sales of PS4 didn't brought subs at about 50% rate, number of XBL Gold currently, saying that you made a bogus comparison between PS+ subs and total XBL accounts. And of course you can also reread the posts and replied to the things you ignored and preferred to change subject. |
Okay Don.
Its time to call you out on your posts.
Strike One!
#Donferrari *Those are estimate costs for release of the consoles (in the case of PS3 60Gb), not the average cost during the generation
360 lost $2,996b on HW and PS3 lost $4,951b on HW. Bottom line, 360 was cheaper to produce and PS3 lost $2b more. Plus 360 had revenue from Subs to further reduce the pain, Sony did not.
Strike Two!!
#Donferrari *but Sony have sold a lot more 1st party due to the higher number of releases.
Only 4 out of 10 Sony 1st Party games make profit. I would not say Sony make more money on the 1st party titles, since X360 had juggernauts. Halo 4 alone made $220m in 1 day.
Strike Three!!!
#Donferrari *Plus you have what 2 or 3 Billion in losses for RROD?*
RROD cost MS $1.15b, not 2b or 3b. Plus lets not pretend Sony didn't have there own fair share of faulty PS3s, Firmware Bricking, Yellow Light of Death plus there law case for lying about there OS where they owe $65 to every PS3 owner from that 4 year period. 10million customers are eligible for there claim which works out to be $650m to add to there already costly PS3. HW sales really makes the money doesn't it.
https://bgr.com/2018/03/19/sony-ps3-lawsuit-how-to-claim-eligibility/
Your facts are all over the place and your the one claiming others talk trash and mislead statistics. Not even one link of source material to back up your claims, instead you are just throwing out random numbers. 3 strikes! you are out. I am done with this thread and I am done with this debate with you.
Last edited by Azzanation - on 24 July 2018
Azzanation said:
Okay Don. Its time to call you out on your posts. Strike One! #Donferrari *Those are estimate costs for release of the consoles (in the case of PS3 60Gb), not the average cost during the generation 360 lost $2,996b on HW and PS3 lost $4,951b on HW. Bottom line, 360 was cheaper to produce and PS3 lost $2b more. Plus 360 had revenue from Subs to further reduce the pain, Sony did not. Strike Two!! #Donferrari *but Sony have sold a lot more 1st party due to the higher number of releases. Only 4 out of 10 Sony 1st Party games make profit. I would not say Sony make more money on the 1st party titles, since X360 had juggernauts. Halo 4 alone made $220m in 1 day. Strike Three!!! #Donferrari *Plus you have what 2 or 3 Billion in losses for RROD?* RROD cost MS $1.15b, not 2b or 3b. Plus lets not pretend Sony didn't have there own fair share of faulty PS3s, Firmware Bricking, Yellow Light of Death plus there law case for lying about there OS where they owe $65 to every PS3 owner from that 4 year period. 10million customers are eligible for there claim which works out to be $650m to add to there already costly PS3. HW sales really makes the money doesn't it. https://bgr.com/2018/03/19/sony-ps3-lawsuit-how-to-claim-eligibility/ Your facts are all over the place and your the one claiming others talk trash and mislead statistics. Not even one link of source material to back up your claims, instead you are just throwing out random numbers. 3 strikes! you are out. I am done with this thread and I am done with this debate with you. |
Strike One?
So you don't know that the 807 cost was an estimate for the 60GB launch PS3 and that cost decreased a lot with time. Or do you think Sony was selling PS3 for 199 while costing 807 to manufacture?
The guy you sourced also predicted end of consoles and people playing smartphones and PC. That now develop F2P games. That said 60 per game is exploitation. He wasn't someone working on X360 or PS3 so his numbers are his own guests, no solid evidence.
He also doesn't account for RROD. So even is we took his estimatives as right, the difference in loses wouldn't be 2B but about 800M.
So do you sustain that 807 was the average cost of production of PS3 during the gen?
Strike Two?
Yes I do know that during PS3 only 40% of the games made profit, considering the number of games that have been charted in VGC (almost 200) I'll get 70 titles, that sold 145M copies. Average price I'll set at 40 USD (even if most sales are done at full price) and since Sony won't pay royalties for another company will set profit on 15 (so we also get the R&D out) so that will get us 2.2B in profit for the 1st party games (probably more than that) on a 6B revenue.
At the same time MS 1st party would have been about 80-100M copies, using the same 15 profit we get to 1.2-1.5B.
This makes a 700M difference. This basically ties the losses between X360 and PS3 as I said.
And if you want to claim Halo 4, Gran Turismo 5 sold more than Halo 4.
Strike Three?
Yes I was wrong on the cost of RROD, and i fail to see how did I put as fact when I ended it with question mark asking if it was 2 or 3B not claiming it was neither.
Accuses me of mislead... but claim the group lawsuit costed Sony 650M... you didn't even read your own source in your rashness I'll post for you
That decision — to quickly kill off a feature that owners paid for — has cost Sony dearly ever since. The company recently agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $3.75 million, with anyone who bought a PlayStation 3 within the time period and used the Other OS feature eligible to claim a maximum of $65. If more than 25,000 people claim the settlement, the amount disbursed per person will decrease.
I do think that I asking if it costed 2 or 3B to MS to fix RROD is misleading, what is to make 3.75M become 650M (I was wrong in guessing 1,73-2,6 over the estimate) you affirmed 173 times over a disclosed and know value mentioned in your own source. So in the end of the day this is almost neglible.
I gave you sources, but if you preffer to ignore it that is on you, but good that you decide by yourself that you won the dispute.
While you go with your chest up full of pride, do you mind to share with us the profits of Xbox1?
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
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
39% increase over Q4 FY2017 is a great result, I wonder how much gamepass has contributed to that increase (service started in Q4 FY2018, right?). It's an excellent idea for a service.
| Lafiel said: 39% increase over Q4 FY2017 is a great result, I wonder how much gamepass has contributed to that increase (service started in Q4 FY2018, right?). It's an excellent idea for a service. |
I would say that gamepass probably contributed a lot.
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
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
