By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - Big 3 Gaming Divisions Profits since 2000

famousringo on 01 February 2011

Good stuff, Seece! I recently had to go digging for Liquidninja's old threads to answer a question somebody asked in another forum. Nice to see somebody keeping this stuff up to date.

If you're feeling extra ambitious, I think a cumulative profit/loss graph would be pretty spiffy.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Around the Network
Kynes on 01 February 2011
famousringo said:

Good stuff, Seece! I recently had to go digging for Liquidninja's old threads to answer a question somebody asked in another forum. Nice to see somebody keeping this stuff up to date.

If you're feeling extra ambitious, I think a cumulative profit/loss graph would be pretty spiffy.


Maybe this can help:



Slimebeast on 01 February 2011

Beautiful chart Seece.

How much in the red are we now?



Squilliam on 01 February 2011

Pachter will be very pleased Seece, you have done well.

Anyway I think it is pretty obvious that current generation profits and overall profitability are in console manufacturer terms telling us who the fittest and unfittest console makers are. So at this point arguably Sony would be the weakest console manufacturer and the most likely to exit if the times get rough.



Tease.

pitzy272 on 01 February 2011

This can't include game sales. Is this just profit (or lack thereof) of the systems themselves?



Around the Network
Seece on 01 February 2011
Kynes said:
famousringo said:

Good stuff, Seece! I recently had to go digging for Liquidninja's old threads to answer a question somebody asked in another forum. Nice to see somebody keeping this stuff up to date.

If you're feeling extra ambitious, I think a cumulative profit/loss graph would be pretty spiffy.


Maybe this can help:

in FY 2001 MS were researching ect, but that wouldn't have come close to $1 billion surely. I think counting from FY 2002 is better.

Edit - my mistake it already does



 

Squilliam on 01 February 2011
RolStoppable said:

It does include game sales. So...

Sony sold more than 300 million video game systems and about 3 billion games (rough estimate), that means on average they profited about half a cent on every hardware and software unit they sold (generous rounding).

EDIT: Half a dollar, of course.

They do it because they wanted to save the industry from Nintendo and Microsoft. They already saved us from Sega, and for that Sega are thankful to them. When Sony finally saves the industry, we'll all see how wrong we all were about them.



Tease.

scottie on 01 February 2011
Munkeh111 said:

What are the Sony and M$ figures then? I thought Sony did release figures for just Gaming, but it is EED for M$ or something like that? which includes Zune and WP7?


Plus keyboards/mice/joysticks



Squilliam on 01 February 2011
landguy1 said:

I disagree with the notion that Nintendo was aggressive at all with the Wii.  Clearly, the Wii's general success was hoped for, but in no way planned for.  If they had ANY idea that it would have hit this big, they would have had twice the production planned during its first 18 months.

They would have  charged $299 for the priviledge of owning one and wouldn't have given their biggest ever game away for free had they had any idea.

landguy1 said:

  I can't call Nintendo smart for what was obviously lightning in a bottle, they could have killed the PS3 and 360 completely had they been ready for it.  The reality is, that no company can plan for such a cultural phenomenon that is/was the Wii.  Just ask Apple about their ipods.  When they came out originally, the same thing happened about 6-7 months after they launched.  The lemmings decided that they had found the standard for mobile music devices and voted with their wallets.

Bottom line :  It can't hurt to be in the right place at the right time!

I did feel there was a suspicious lack of investment in the Wii. It's really as if they thought 'if it fails we can come up with something conventional in a few years'. Since they still pay royalties to ATI and IBM it would have only meant that they would have had to front up a larger quantity of money up front for a new architecture. It wouldn't have made any difference to the long term cost had they started this generation with something a little more up to date.



Tease.

Khuutra on 01 February 2011
Squilliam said:
landguy1 said:

I disagree with the notion that Nintendo was aggressive at all with the Wii.  Clearly, the Wii's general success was hoped for, but in no way planned for.  If they had ANY idea that it would have hit this big, they would have had twice the production planned during its first 18 months.

They would have  charged $299 for the priviledge of owning one and wouldn't have given their biggest ever game away for free had they had any idea.

I disagree; based on Iwata Asks interviews, the idea behind it was that the packed-in software was going to drive sales, and the take-away inside of Nintendo is that Wii Sports worked as a pack-in.