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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - MICROSOFT: Q2Results - 3.9m ONE and 3.5m 360's. Qtr Rev up 14% !! to $24bn. Qtr profits up to $6.56bn. HUGE!

jlmurph2 on 24 January 2014
TimCliveroller said:
Excuse my ignorance, but are there any perceivable adjustments?


360 undertracked on VGChartz. by about 1.5 million.



Around the Network
Dark_Feanor on 24 January 2014
jlmurph2 said:
TimCliveroller said:
Excuse my ignorance, but are there any perceivable adjustments?


360 undertracked on VGChartz. by about 1.5 million.

And XOne by about 200k?



Somini on 24 January 2014
jlmurph2 said:
TimCliveroller said:
Excuse my ignorance, but are there any perceivable adjustments?


360 undertracked on VGChartz. by about 1.5 million.

No, your number is wrong. It's 1443574 to be precise.

Yes your source just contacted me with updated numbers.



jlmurph2 on 24 January 2014
Somini said:
jlmurph2 said:
TimCliveroller said:
Excuse my ignorance, but are there any perceivable adjustments?


360 undertracked on VGChartz. by about 1.5 million.

No, your number is wrong. It's 1443574 to be precise.

Yes your source just contacted me with updated numbers.

Oh god, time to backtrack/spin. 



selnor1983 on 24 January 2014
2008ProchargedGT said:
selnor1983 said:
2008ProchargedGT said:
selnor1983 said:
Carl2291 said:
selnor1983 said:
thx1139 said:
With the profit created by the Xbox business this launch quarter I believe this sets up Microsoft to be very aggressive moving forward with the Xbox One. If they see the PS4 lead start growing considerably they can easily counter with a lower price or add value with free games in the box, etc. This is what I suspected all along with the $500 price. It will end up giving them flexibility and it did not matter at launch. It may matter year 2, but the extra revenue from a $500 launch is already in the bank.

Yeah good points.

I think although Sony is selling well, Financially they made a bad call. MArketshare is to important to them. But then they are a poor Business company in comparison.


Debatable. While Microsoft have more room for cuts, Sony have the more favorable pricepoint that they will be able to maintain.

Look at the Wii and how long it stayed at $250 for the best example here. While Microsoft may be forced to cut/add value 12 months down the line, Sony will likely be sitting happy at current pricing into late 2015 (if not later). Assuming they will be making money on every PS4 sold pretty damn soon, this is good for them.

Arguably theyre in a better position HW-wise, until MS decide to do a Kinectless bundle that is.

While they are posting record profits I dont think MS will change anything. And Xbox is still profitable since 2008. Not 1 year with non profit since then. I reckon they are happy.

While what you said may be true, why do you care so much? do you own stock in microsoft? I dont undersand why you are so happy MS is getting rich for charging and extra $100 for what IMO is an inferior console.  

Thats a really simple answer.

I like Xbox. I like WP annd Windows. I enjoy using the products. If they are financially sound then I will continue to be ABLE to enjoy their products. Xbox wont be going anywhere soon whilst posting a profit.

Would I like it cheaper? Yes. At the expense of them making a loss and exiting the market? No.

Would I like a less features for this new gen cconsole to make it cheaper? No. Kinectless,, so less studios make family games for my family? No.

It matters greatly that Microsoft do good business so ass to keep making great consoles for me to buy.

Fair 'nuff @ bolded

@underlined you really think taking a loss on the console would force them to exit the market? Sony was able to take a much greater loss on the PS3 with much less of a cushion. I think the can competively price thier product with out stressing thier pockets too much.

Yeah but look at sonys current situation. Financially. If they had sold at $500 they would still have sold all their consoles at launch. Theres enough hardcore fans who will buy ps4 at $500 Iin the first 6 months. After that start dropping. Sony need finance right now not marketshare. Microsofg arent in that position on the xbox side because they have found a profitable solutionin the last gen and this one. The marketshare will come with the games and pricedrops. In time when its profitable.



Around the Network
Darth Tigris on 24 January 2014
2008ProchargedGT said:

Fair 'nuff @ bolded

@underlined you really think taking a loss on the console would force them to exit the market? Sony was able to take a much greater loss on the PS3 with much less of a cushion. I think the can competively price thier product with out stressing thier pockets too much.

Sony did do that.  And it was a bad business move.  They were insistent on including Blu Ray with the PS3, insistent on the Cell, insistent on a difficult-to-get-at-first architecture and the result was an overly expensive system that wasn't selling enough that didn't have a library of games to justify the price.  The entire profits of the previous two generations were lost and the once profitable Playstation Division went from being the crown jewel of the company to yet another division that was causing losses.

There are stockholders that have been saying that MS needs to sell of the Xbox business for years, all because it's not as profitable as the evergreen ones of the company.  What do you think they would say if it was even less profitable because of what you are proposing?

Listen, if the Xbox One and PS4 were $99 at launch, I'd still be looking for 10% off coupon.  We always want to pay less if possible.  But these company's are trying to make money too.  That ultimately IS the point of a business.



2008ProchargedGT on 24 January 2014
Darth Tigris said:
2008ProchargedGT said:

Fair 'nuff @ bolded

@underlined you really think taking a loss on the console would force them to exit the market? Sony was able to take a much greater loss on the PS3 with much less of a cushion. I think the can competively price thier product with out stressing thier pockets too much.

Sony did do that.  And it was a bad business move.  They were insistent on including Blu Ray with the PS3, insistent on the Cell, insistent on a difficult-to-get-at-first architecture and the result was an overly expensive system that wasn't selling enough that didn't have a library of games to justify the price.  The entire profits of the previous two generations were lost and the once profitable Playstation Division went from being the crown jewel of the company to yet another division that was causing losses.

There are stockholders that have been saying that MS needs to sell of the Xbox business for years, all because it's not as profitable as the evergreen ones of the company.  What do you think they would say if it was even less profitable because of what you are proposing?

Listen, if the Xbox One and PS4 were $99 at launch, I'd still be looking for 10% off coupon.  We always want to pay less if possible.  But these company's are trying to make money too.  That ultimately IS the point of a business.

The diff with that scenario is Sony provided the IMO "superior" product to justify that cost at least hardware related. in this case MS has the IMO"inferior" product but are trying to price it at a premium which is kinda arrogant. Anyway i dont wanna get in to the this vs that. I feel in MS current situartion they could afford to take a loss per sale, gain marketshare in the process and gain the 20% loss back in gold subscriptions and software. Or lose the Kinect and stop trying to force that on the consumer sell at a more competitive price point. Im sure with a decent game library (which looks encuroging at the moment) a Kinectless version would sell for  ~425 maybe even ~450 if they bundle Gold



DirtyP2002 on 24 January 2014
drkohler said:
DirtyP2002 said:


@ bolded:

No.

Xbox Revenue increased 1.2 billion USD YOY.
cost of goods sold increaesd 1.6 billion USD YOY.

This does not mean that the difference between revenue and cost of goods is minus 400 million.

Xbox One launch mode means: We are profitable with the Xbox One,

Auf Deutsch: Einnahmen durch Verkauf von Ware X : 1.2mia. Kosten durch Produktion von Ware X: 1.6mia => Differenz: -400mio. Ist das jetzt klar, dass 400mio WENIGER reinkamen als durch Produktionskosten ausgegeben wurden?


Das steht da doch gar nicht.

Du sagst, die Differenz zwischen Umsatz und Herstellungskosten ist Minus 400 Millionen USD und das ist nicht korrekt. Du sagst, MS sagt, sie würden aktuell Geld mit der Xbox One verlieren, was auch nicht korrekt ist.

 

Ich rechne dir das jetzt an einem einfachen Beispiel vor. Wenn du es verstehst, bitte ich dich ernsthaft die Eier zu haben und einzugestehen, dass du das verkehrt gelesen hast. Auf gehts!

 

Da steht, dass der Umsatz um 1.2 Milliarden gestiegen (achte auf dieses Wort, es bedeutet, dass es vorher schon einen Wert gab) ist.
Die Herstellungskosten sind um 1.6 Milliarden gestiegen.

Das bedeutet NICHT, dass die Xbox One Geld verliert!

Beispiel:
Letztes Jahr gab es einen Umsatz von 2 Milliarden, jetzt 3.2 Milliarden.
Letztes Jahr gab es Herstellungskosten von 1.4 Milliarden, jetzt 3 Milliarden.

Das heißt, der Gewinn ist von 600 Millionen auf 200 Millionen geschrumpft. Alles klar soweit?

Das liegt daran, dass man weniger von der HOCH-profitablen Xbox 360 verkauft hat und mehr von der weniger profitablen Xbox One. Dennoch ist die Xbox One profitabel, allerdings (noch) nicht auf dem Niveau wie es die Xbox 360 war / ist.

 

Um es noch deutlicher zu machen, noch ein Beispiel. Die Zahlen sind aus dem Hut gezaubert, aber du wirst den Punkt dahinter verstehen.

Xbox 360 verkauft sich für $250 (ich nehme jetzt der Einfachheit halber nur einen Preis und Währung) und kostet in der Herstellung $150.
Microsoft macht also mit jeder verkauften Xbox 360 $100 Gewinn.

Xbox One verkauft sich für $500 und kostet in der Herstellung $475.
Microsoft macht also mit jeder verkauften Xbox One $25 Gewinn.

Im Weihnachtsquartal 2012 verkauft MS 5 Millionen Xbox 360. Sie machen also einen Umsatz von  $1.250.000.000 (5 Mio * 250), Kosten von  $750.000.000 (5 Mio * 150) und demnach einen Gewinn von $500.000.000 (1.250.000.000 - 750.000.000).

Im Weihnachtsquartal 2013 verkauft MS 2 Millionen Xbox 360 und 3 Millionen Xbox Ones. Der Umsatz steigt um $750.000.000 auf $2.000.000.000 (2Mio * 250 + 3Mio * 500), die Kosten steigen um $975.000.000 auf $1.725.000.000 (2Mio * 150 + 3Mio * 475). Der Gewinn fällt demnach auf $250.000.000 (2.000.000.000 - 1.725.000.000).

 

Die Herstellungskosten sind also um 975 Mio gestiegen und der Umsatz nur um 750 Mio. Genau wie dieses Quartal bei MS. Dennoch war die Xbox One profitabel!

 

Und MS sagt auch ganz deutlich, dass man sich im Launch-Modus befindet. Das heißt jetzt in diesem Quartal sind Kosten angefallen, die mit dem Launch einer Konsole einhergehen (Logistik, erhöhtes Marketing, Vertriebspartner finden, Entwickler gewinnen, SDKs rausballern etc.)  Das kostet Geld und man geht davon aus, dass das auch im nächsten Quartal noch so sein wird, wenn auch abgeschwächt. Man sieht das aber als Investition für die komplette Generation. All diese Kostenfaktoren sind Punkte, die die "cost of goods" in die Höhe treiben und darin auch beinhaltet sind. 

 

 

Das sollte jetzt nicht doof von oben herab klingen. Hoffe, dass du es verstanden hast.

---

Sorry for switching to German, we just had to use our 1st language to avoid any misunderstandings this time.



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

TheSource on 24 January 2014

What are we all thinking for lifetime X360 figures? For calendar 2013 (Jan-Dec), Microsoft shipped 7m systems, and the holiday quarter (with Xbox 1 competing against it) pushed X360 down 40%. I think best case sceanrio for 2014 is ~4m X360s, and then another ~2m in 2015, ~0.5m in 2016. That would put X360 right around 90m lifetime, in 11 years on the market. Probably would have done ~70m without Kinect.



People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.

When there are more laws, there are more criminals.

- Lao Tzu

Darth Tigris on 25 January 2014
2008ProchargedGT said:
Darth Tigris said:

Sony did do that.  And it was a bad business move.  They were insistent on including Blu Ray with the PS3, insistent on the Cell, insistent on a difficult-to-get-at-first architecture and the result was an overly expensive system that wasn't selling enough that didn't have a library of games to justify the price.  The entire profits of the previous two generations were lost and the once profitable Playstation Division went from being the crown jewel of the company to yet another division that was causing losses.

There are stockholders that have been saying that MS needs to sell of the Xbox business for years, all because it's not as profitable as the evergreen ones of the company.  What do you think they would say if it was even less profitable because of what you are proposing?

Listen, if the Xbox One and PS4 were $99 at launch, I'd still be looking for 10% off coupon.  We always want to pay less if possible.  But these company's are trying to make money too.  That ultimately IS the point of a business.

The diff with that scenario is Sony provided the IMO "superior" product to justify that cost at least hardware related. in this case MS has the IMO"inferior" product but are trying to price it at a premium which is kinda arrogant. Anyway i dont wanna get in to the this vs that. I feel in MS current situartion they could afford to take a loss per sale, gain marketshare in the process and gain the 20% loss back in gold subscriptions and software. Or lose the Kinect and stop trying to force that on the consumer sell at a more competitive price point. Im sure with a decent game library (which looks encuroging at the moment) a Kinectless version would sell for  ~425 maybe even ~450 if they bundle Gold

In an effort to not change the goalpost, we're talking about making financially sound business decisions here.  What Sony did with the PS3 was the equivalent of sticking a fork permanently into the loss leader strategy.  MS adopted it too with the 360 initially but they both left last gen looking at Nintendo and saying "there has to be a better way".  This gen both of them came in to make money at jump and they are (well, should be; have to wait on Sony's financials to be sure).  It's a better strategy long term, especially for stockholders who are watching things closer this gen.  For MS to go back to a loss leader strategy in order to gain marketshare that will likely come in time anyway would be regressive.  Manufacturing cost will go down and the consumer price of the XBO will too.   No reason to panic about anything this early, especially with the kind of numbers that they've sold at already in limited countries.