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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft Studios’ creative director defends always-online Xbox 720

J_Allard on 05 April 2013
pezus said:

Uhm, that's what you're doing. How do you prove that N64 didn't affect them negatively when there's a big positive force behind them? You should show us the numbers, since you're using the graph to prove a point.

That graph doesn't show PS3 crippling Sony either. 

Cool story but I already explained what I am doing. Here are some more numbers from Gamasutra, last updated a few years ago, but goes back enough to prove the point:


                                Sony             Nintendo               Microsoft                 Total

Y/E 1998     $902,811,090   $1,023,333,867                                            $1,926,144,957

Y/E 1999   $1,102,563,557   $1,301,350,000                                            $2,403,913,557

Y/E 2000     $722,738,949   $1,368,207,547                                            $2,090,946,497

Y/E 2001    -$449,776,290     $677,576,000                              $227,799,710

Y/E 2002     $629,101,056     $895,872,180   -$1,135,000,000      $389,973,237

Y/E 2003     $935,569,253     $834,333,333   -$1,191,000,000      $578,902,586

Y/E 2004     $627,195,212     $993,161,303   -$1,337,000,000      $283,356,515

Y/E 2005     $419,888,799   $1,056,056,202     -$539,000,000      $936,945,001

Y/E 2006      $69,129,058     $774,478,055   -$1,339,000,000     -$495,392,887

Y/E 2007  -$1,970,923,859   $1,914,666,388   -$1,969,000,000   -$2,025,257,471

Y/E 2008  -$1,079,994,103   $4,322,637,887      $426,000,000    $3,668,643,783

Y/E 2009    -$664,313,787   $5,691,428,301      $169,000,000    $5,196,114,515

 Y/E 10Q1    -$413,541,667     $420,843,750      $312,000,000      $319,302,083

Y/E 10Q2    -$653,333,333     $710,655,556      $375,000,000      $432,011,111

Y/E 10Q3     $210,629,750   $2,087,904,452               N/A               N/A

Total            $387,078,407  $24,072,504,822   -$6,157,000,000   $16,004,049,028


The N64 was sold at profit from the start and generated Nintendo a lot of money. Like I told the other guy, the only way it was cursed is if you're looking at it from some console war forum fodder. "lolz psone outsold it!" Well, that's not the game Nintendo plays. I do hope that helps. And I still see no link in your post regarding Gameboy vs N64 profits so I am going to assume the comment came out of your butthole and just bow out of this back and forth.



Around the Network
burninmylight on 05 April 2013
UltimateUnknown said:
If this is any indication of what the box could be then I honestly can't see how even the staunchest of Xbox supporters could still support the console. It feels like every gen MS tries to do something that can nickle and dime the consumer in the worst possible way. Last time it was pay for online gaming and this time it's always online.

They were lucky Sony screwed up big time with PS3 which propelled the 360 above and beyond what it would have been, but this time it doesn't seem they'll be so lucky. It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run.


Already happening: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=158225&page=1



MB1025 on 05 April 2013
pezus said:
M.U.G.E.N said:


Dat Kaz


Thats because he couldn't afford to pay his bills.



theprof00 on 05 April 2013
MB1025 said:
pezus said:
M.U.G.E.N said:

 


Dat Kaz


Thats because he couldn't offered to pay his bills.

>_> "he couldn't offered" 
<_<  *looks at sig below*



J_Allard on 05 April 2013
theprof00 said:
J, the n64 was not a tremendous success for Nintendo. Their profits during the n64 generation were coming directly from the gameboy color released in 1998 and pokemon. Looking at the graphs is misleading if you think n64 was massively successful for them.
Even if they made 100$ profit per console, that's only 3.3B in profit @33m consoles sold.....
The GBC sold 120m IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME.....
n64 1996-2002
GBC 1998-2002

Now look at the graph again, 1996FY, 1997FY Wompwomp
Now look at 1998FY up to 2002FY- where the graph starts leveling even again.

Do your research man.

lol @ "only 3.3 billion". Some of you are just precious. Only on this forum could someone say the N64 was a cursed console like the Saturn and PS3 and yet when presented with factual evidence that proves otherwise, still try to argue about it. The graph and numbers speak for themselves. You guys can create stipulations and theories about it all you want. Bottom line is Nintendo saw massive profits during its lifespan and you look at the graph, the couple years prior to GBC were just as good for them as the years after. Now look at the PS3 era Sony line. Clearly the same thing is going on LOL. Like I said, precious.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 05 April 2013
J_Allard said:
theprof00 said:
J, the n64 was not a tremendous success for Nintendo. Their profits during the n64 generation were coming directly from the gameboy color released in 1998 and pokemon. Looking at the graphs is misleading if you think n64 was massively successful for them.
Even if they made 100$ profit per console, that's only 3.3B in profit @33m consoles sold.....
The GBC sold 120m IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME.....
n64 1996-2002
GBC 1998-2002

Now look at the graph again, 1996FY, 1997FY Wompwomp
Now look at 1998FY up to 2002FY- where the graph starts leveling even again.

Do your research man.

lol @ "only 3.3 billion". Some of you are just precious. Only on this forum could someone say the N64 was a cursed console like the Saturn and PS3 and yet when presented with factual evidence that proves otherwise, still try to argue about it. The graph and numbers speak for themselves. You guys can create stipulations and theories about it all you want. Bottom line is Nintendo saw massive profits during its lifespan and you look at the graph, the couple years prior to GBC were just as good for them as the years after. Now look at the PS3 era Sony line. Clearly the same thing is going on LOL. Like I said, precious.

lol @ "only 3.3 billion".

Simple math proves you wrong. Have you considered that 3.3B seems a little high? I'd venture you haven't. And why not, for someone who cares nothing about the facts, it makes you happy. Let's take another look at what I was talking about before with the GBC and pokemon.

GBC released in 1998, selling 120m in 4 years.
n64 released in 1996, selling 33 million in 6 years.
Game boy advance released in 2001 (numbers are probably around 20-30m until end of fy02.
1998 saw the release of pokemon red and green, and then blue and yellow shortly after.
1999 saw pokemon gold and silver and crystal
2002 (the year n64 discontinued) saw pokemon ruby, sapphire.

Someone can find the numbers there for those games and the other spinoffs, but the total sales during this period is likely something around 70m+ games.

So we have 4 numbers:
120m gbc
33m n64
15m GBA
70m pokemon games

Nintendo made 6B between 1996 and 2002

Now tell me again how confident you are that n64 even contributes a drop toward that total.
Pokemon figuring in 5m per game cost (highballing that by quite a bit) @~10games 50m$ cost, at revenues of 25$ (lowballing that) per game, by itself, probably contributes about 1.7B of that 6.
Then we have GBC, even at 25$ profit per console would be 3B of the remaining 4.3.
1.3B left to split between GBA and n64, both sold similar numbers of consoles. The split is likely n64 900m, gba 400m,

 

Again, I'm not dissing nintendo. I'm dissing you're crazy ideas.



J_Allard on 05 April 2013

All those words and yet you miss the point. It's cute. Let me break it down in way less words:

Look at graph.
See FY 1996, 1997, 1998 Nintendo. See line up.
See PS3. Line go down. Line go way down.

I hope that was simple enough. Really the last post I will make on this matter. Thanks though LOL.



VGKing on 05 April 2013
BenVTrigger said:

Its sounding pretty much like Im going back to how I was last gen. Sony as my primary, MS as a distant secondary Halo box.

This gen I owned every console but only used PS3 for exclusives. Last gen I was straight up PS2 and basically used my Xbox for Halo.

This Nextbox sounds strait up anti consumer and they will have to blow me away to convince me otherwise

Make sure to unplug the Xbox or it'll spy on you with Kinect and it will be able to tell you're holding a PS4 controller! LMFAO



Somini on 05 April 2013
naruball said:
M.U.G.E.N said:


Hahaha! Trolling at its finest.

You know this guy?



VGKing on 05 April 2013
kungfuian said:
VGKing said:
Surprised no one has said this yet but WHAT IF THE NEXT XBOX REALLY IS JUST LIKE A CABLE BOX AND IS SOLD WITH A CONTRACT/SUBSCRIPTION? That's the only way that "always-on" makes sense.

This is probably even worse though as it means the only way to buy the next Xbox is to get into a contract with Microsoft.


I'm sure this is their plan. The only way I see it working though is if they've partnered with one of the big cable/net/phone providers (without net included it's a fing disaster).

For all it's potential problems (the main one i see is ownership rights to software/games) I actually see this as the direction the market is heading, just like phones, where hardware is directly subsidised by a fully service based model of consumption.

It just solves so many problems for the platform holder;  a service based/subsidised model means they don't have to loose their asses on hardware costs (typically sold at a loss early in a console cycle), and the low price of entry for the box has the potential for a sigificantly increased install base/market penetration. It's arguably a better business model than the 10 year hope we make our money back model that's currently in place.

The problems of this model; loosing customers if network stability is an issue, poorly implemented drm, overly intrusive online practices, and loss of potential customers who live in areas/countries without access good internet are solvable, but only if the always on/service based model is offered along side a traditional offline box/brick and mortar type model.

Until they reveal the system we can't know for sure, but the benfits verses problems of always online is not so simple. I'm sure microsoft has better info about all of these factors and is going to gamble it's dollars based on a lot more than the average customer or fan has access to...

But how many people will actually buy into a console contract when there are alternatives that don't?

We're already seeing carriers like T-Mobile moving away from contracts. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE BEING TIED DOWN TO 1 PHONE FOR 2 YEARS. Same goes for the Xbox, if someone only uses it on the weekends, is it worth that monthly bill? NO, IT"S NOT. 

CONSOLES ARE FOR PLAY, THEY ARE NOT A NECESSITY LIKE A MOBILE PHONE.