@Arcturus I already mentioned why: It's an expanding industry and they are the market leader. Nintendo had a 15-20 % operating income in the same timeframe.

@alacrist: Sure they have more money on the bank, but Microsoft is a public company, and their investors expect them not to waste the money but to put it into promising ventures. After losses of $6 billion so far (compared with earnings of $2 billion at SCE in the same timeframe) Microsoft has to show that the 360 can make money or they have to leave the business.

 Are the figures you gave for Sony's Computer Entertainment division or for the overall company?

@Arcturus Operating income of Sony Computer Entertainment.

 Are you sure those numbers are correct?

From Sony's 2006 annual report they mention that their gaming division had sales of only ¥958.6 billion, not ¥5089 billion. 

Alacrist said: Arcturus said: Alacrist said: Microsoft: Revenue US$44.2 billion (2006) Operating income US$16.4 billion (2006) Net income US$12.6 billion (2006)   Sony: Revenue $63.980 billion USD (2006) Operating income $1,604 million USD (2006) Net income $1,058 million USD (2006)   Nuff said. What exactly are you trying to show with these figures? People were talking about how much money each company was making, and how revenue is nothing profit is what matters, meaning even though Sony makes alot of money they don't have as much to spend. And they don't make as much profit. They brought in more money than Microsoft by 20billion dollars but Microsoft a made 11billion dollars more profit than Sony did. Meaning that they have more money even though Sony made more revenue.

I'm still not sure what you are trying to conclude though. Are you saying that Mircosoft is more successful than Sony because they earned a higher percentage of net income to overall revenue then Sony did?

Arcturus said: Alacrist said: Arcturus said: Alacrist said: Microsoft: Revenue US$44.2 billion (2006) Operating income US$16.4 billion (2006) Net income US$12.6 billion (2006)   Sony: Revenue $63.980 billion USD (2006) Operating income $1,604 million USD (2006) Net income $1,058 million USD (2006)   Nuff said. What exactly are you trying to show with these figures? People were talking about how much money each company was making, and how revenue is nothing profit is what matters, meaning even though Sony makes alot of money they don't have as much to spend. And they don't make as much profit. They brought in more money than Microsoft by 20billion dollars but Microsoft a made 11billion dollars more profit than Sony did. Meaning that they have more money even though Sony made more revenue. I'm still not sure what you are trying to conclude though. Are you saying that Mircosoft is more successful than Sony because they earned a higher percentage of net income to overall revenue then Sony did?

I wasn't trying to conclude anything, some people were debating about who made more or who could put more money into gaming, I was putting facts to help them debate their points I have nothing to say about that way I put Nuff said.

@Arcturus I was adding the numbers for SCE's fiscal 01 to fiscal 06 which is roughly the PS2 era. But I think that was stated in my post.

  My apology. I must have overlooked that part of your previous post.

Hilarious!

Ya know, I've said this many times.  Super Mario 64 & Zelda: Ocarina of Time were some of the greatest games of all time...

...and THEY STILL didn't save Nintendo. What makes people think 1st party can save anyone else if it didn't save the Kings of 1st party, Nintendo?

Games are not simple to make anymore like back in the 1970's & early 80's. Not as cheap to make either and both of these qualities make gamemaking costly and untimely.

The gamesbusiness is costly. Bruno Bonnell leaving his own company Infogrames, the company he founded, the company trying to resurrect the name & reputation of the genesis of the videogame business Atari, him leaving at the crux of Infogrames/Atari's finance woes demonstrates the difficulty in maintaining this business.

http://www.popzart.com/?page=view&topic=596

Microsoft losing so much just to make a videogame machine??? Who loses 4 billion dollars on anything?! Sega, Atari, Coleco, Mattel, SNK, NEC, every hardware maker who even TRIED to break into this field except Nintendo has had difficulty sustaining healthy profits over a decent period of time. And software makers are not much different. That's why we've had so many mergers & buyouts in recent years. It's really why what Wii's trying to do is smart. You can't maintain selling to the same relatively small set of people all the time while increasing costs of production of your goods. It makes no sense!

Life lesson: losing money is NEVER good. NEVER good—unless you don't have to worry paying that money back like identity thieves, Paris Hilton & the U.S. Government. If you ain't one of these groups, when you lose money it COUNTS literally. The way things are going I see Sony downsizing in the near future. If gaming is one of their few profitable sectors and it's going bad, then that means Sony will downsize & start cutting jobs very soon within the next few years. They MAY end their gaming division altogether. I know this sounds fatalist but it's in my eyes too strongly not to see. They may be forced to unless something changes.

It was so hard to make money when they were dominant. But can they even attempt to stay in this costly game if they have to be an Gamecubian underdog? Will Microsoft kick them when they're down knowing that the whole reason Microsoft is in this business to begin with started with Sony's existence in gaming. Will Microsoft go for the kill? Attack its weak point for massive damage? (yes I had to use it) Knowing Microsoft I'd have to say yes. Anyone willing to pursue this thing after blowing the equivalent of the GDP of most nations is in it to win it.

Sony is in trouble, don't fool yourself. They know they are & are hopefully trying to rectify the problem before it's too late.

John Lucas