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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - I feel a MASSIVE change in the gaming industry

jlrx on 27 December 2007
facher83 said:
jlrx said:
You are looking at simple numbers, instead you need to be looking at the health of these companies. EA for example has had shrinking profits quarter after quarter. It costs more for them to make the games, they get less returns on their investment.

Further, 400 dollars is not entering mass market appeal. How quick do you think the system will see $250 dollars? They are already bleeding money as is, do you think they can sustain even more loss?

Im not sure if it's against the rules to mention other sites, but check out here
http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=11760

There is a good example of the profits of Sony/MS/Nintendo. What is most disturbing for Sony is that their games department loss so much money it shrunk their profits overall considerably. EA also suffered losses.

Many companies are seeing declining profits, or suffering losses, they bet on the wrong systems, invested their assets incorrectly and are paying for it.

Keeping those things in mind, you have to realise that what is a multiplatform PS3/360 game can very likely become a multiplatform PS3/360/Wii game. It's all about money, no matter how many millions of this or that they sell.

 Video Game industry productions are highly based on investment companies or previous profits - if a company fails to produce good profits on their 'latest' game then their cash flow for their next  game is considerably lower, and offers less money to pay people to work on it.

I also don't find that thread very helpful, as it shows overall statistics, but not gaming-specific. 


I dont know how you could say it shows overall statistics

Games: ($841) loss (sony)

Entertainment and Devices: $165 (MS games, first profit ever on 360 I believe, timed with halo 3)

Profit: ¥52,170 ($452) (nintendo, only games obviously)

 Loss: $195 (EA, games only)

all numbers in the millions, ie $195 loss is a loss of $195,000,000 dollars

 all that info is there, but for companies like Sony and MS it also includes their other departments (which were profitable) and we can note overall that Sony's games division loss so much money it decreased the companies overall profits to >>Profit: $641 (sony)<<



Around the Network
facher83 on 27 December 2007

The point is a thread is not the same as a source-site. It has a lot of random data from non-official sources, and even then you could have data presented in different pages, responses, etc etc. It's not consistent. It's like someone from here going to another forum and quoting data presented in mine or your responses - if it doesn't include a source, it doesn't matter - and for that matter, most people try and link the last article used (not a thread topic found).

Anyway, I'm a big preacher on the idea that PS1 funded the PS2, and PS2 gained back the losses within a year.

And we have the PS2 making great money at the end of its life, and funding the PS3.... except the PS3 still hasn't returned on that previous profit and investment, making the PS2's life completely and utterly USELESS as far as the company goes financially. Still in the hole, in the red zone, by almost a billion, while the PS2 at least came out even after one year.

That is NOT good money investment.



Numbers: Checker Players > Halo Players

Checkers Age and replayability > Halo Age and replayability

Therefore, Checkers > Halo

So, Checkers is a better game than Halo.

jlrx on 27 December 2007
facher83 said:
The point is a thread is not the same as a source-site. It has a lot of random data from non-official sources, and even then you could have data presented in different pages, responses, etc etc. It's not consistent. It's like someone from here going to another forum and quoting data presented in mine or your responses - if it doesn't include a source, it doesn't matter - and for that matter, most people try and link the last article used (not a thread topic found).

Anyway, I'm a big preacher on the idea that PS1 funded the PS2, and PS2 gained back the losses within a year.

And we have the PS2 making great money at the end of its life, and funding the PS3.... except the PS3 still hasn't returned on that previous profit and investment, making the PS2's life completely and utterly USELESS as far as the company goes financially. Still in the hole, in the red zone, by almost a billion, while the PS2 at least came out even after one year.

That is NOT good money investment.

Simply in regards to the numbers, they are publicly released company data (ie; to investors) this is all factual, not from unofficial sources, it is simply tracking sales/profits/losses.

On your point about the successor being funded by the previous model, yes it is almost always the case.

 edit: actually I see now clicking the link takes you to the first page, where it is just general nonspecific - go to the last page for the most current and detailed info. sorry.



facher83 on 27 December 2007
jlrx said:
facher83 said:
...

Simply in regards to the numbers, they are publicly released company data (ie; to investors) this is all factual, not from unofficial sources, it is simply tracking sales/profits/losses.

On your point about the successor being funded by the previous model, yes it is almost always the case.

edit: actually I see now clicking the link takes you to the first page, where it is just general nonspecific - go to the last page for the most current and detailed info. sorry.


 It's just that posting sources gives the ability to check and critisize any false or misleading data numbers.

 I'm only pushing users around here to attempt a more academic-type sourcing procedure.  Got to the last credible article/source, and don't quote or reference middle-men without that source containing an explicit reference source itself.



Numbers: Checker Players > Halo Players

Checkers Age and replayability > Halo Age and replayability

Therefore, Checkers > Halo

So, Checkers is a better game than Halo.

mesoteto on 27 December 2007

@ zac are you seriously trying to say that right now there is one system that is making something or offers somethign that the others couldnt do if they wanted to?--b/c that was his argument--yeah teh wii is great but my 360 could do it if they wanted to--
all i am saying is , that is a coop out--not a real argument--and yes i own a 360 i am not overly impressed with it--sure its shiny but since when does everythign have to look shiny to be good graphicly?



 

Around the Network
MrPickles on 27 December 2007
zackblue said:
mesoteto said:
@jan--that is some of the dumbest logic i have seen yet--"The Wii does NOTHING the other consoles couldn't do if they wanted to"--just like the 360 and the Ps3 dont do anythign the wii couldnt do if nintendo wanted --just cop out why dont ya

You dont make sense my friend.

Guys you dont understand, coming from a wiiS360 owner I dont think you understand. The wii is not a revolution, its not(This is called an 'opinion'.  You're entitled to one, but, as I keep saying, only if you don't state it as fact.). Your just saying that because its the only console you own and your human instincts keep saying anything you buy is the best.(So you're assuming that everyone who owns and enjoys the Wii has no other systems?  I must be an anomaly then--I own all three and have the most fun with the Wii) 

I dont want to be the one to say this but.. the wii isnt that great compared to the other consoles(Like I said--opinion.)..


In short, completely flawed statement.

 

EDIT: Sorry, I just realized what you were actually trying to say.



GhaleonUnlimited on 27 December 2007

I (unfortunetely) got stuck with a Playstation 3 and also bought a Wii at launch. I've been gaming and playing popular + obscure stuff on all platforms since Atari.

Nintendo is suceeding now because it went back to what it started on (and what originally made videogames fun AND popular): simplicity.

People who whine that "Wii is only for casuals" don't seem to be remembering history at all, just 20 years ago. Kids and adults bought the NES, just like now with Wii, because it was simple, fun, user-friendly and accessible.

There's nothing inherently wrong with complicated controls and 40-hr games, but some gamers assume that because it's hard to learn a game and it was expensive to produce, it's more worthy of your $$ or something.

Most PS360 games now are trying to be movies -- lavish, high production value, formulaic, linear. That just doesn't appeal to me, and I think it was the wrong direction to emphasize for the powerful publishers, because obviously a lot of people agree with me.



*~Onna76~* on 27 December 2007
PS3 and 360 are going no-where, sure they'll keep selling, bit by bit by it's loyal followers, but that's where it ends, don't expect this amazing turn-over for PS3 or 360 next year, they just had the best Christmas they'll ever get, if Wii wasn't so supply constrained the competition would of even sold less this Christmas and Wii would of sold more, don't argue that, that's just obvious.
ArtofAngels said:


And this ain't trolling??  



PLAYSTATION®3 is the future.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

Supporter of PlayStation and Nintendo

facher83 on 27 December 2007
*~Onna76~* said:
PS3 and 360 are going no-where, sure they'll keep selling, bit by bit by it's loyal followers, but that's where it ends, don't expect this amazing turn-over for PS3 or 360 next year, they just had the best Christmas they'll ever get, if Wii wasn't so supply constrained the competition would of even sold less this Christmas and Wii would of sold more, don't argue that, that's just obvious.
ArtofAngels said:


And this ain't trolling??


 You can just guess the next gen names:

PS4

XBox4000



Numbers: Checker Players > Halo Players

Checkers Age and replayability > Halo Age and replayability

Therefore, Checkers > Halo

So, Checkers is a better game than Halo.

Borkachev on 27 December 2007

This argument is ridiculous. There aren't X numbers of consumers out there who each have to choose one system. Wii is growing the market, and it's inventing a new kind of gaming (well, really the DS pioneered it). New casual gamers and old hardcore gamers may both be drawn to the Wii, but in the end the latter will have to turn to PS3/360 to find the types of games they've been enjoying until now. As long as these people exist, there will be a market for "hardcore" consoles. Wii's success doesn't diminish them one bit. You can start the doomsaying when PS3/360 actually themselves sell poorly, not when they just fail to match the sales of an unprecedented success story like Wii.

and it is plausable that this could be the PS3's best year

Possible... extremely unlikely. PS3 is universally considered a failure this year (except for the holiday season) because of its high price and poor game selection. The price issue is now largely corrected, and virtually all the games that got people excited over it in the first place are scheduled for release in 2008/2009. It's really hard to see them going anywhere but up from here.