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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - So Nintendo Q2 profits > Sony gaming division Q2 profits

 

Which company will have better results come fiscal year end in 2015?

Sony 88 20.00%
 
Microsoft 82 18.64%
 
Nintendo 225 51.14%
 
Ouya 45 10.23%
 
Total:440
vkaraujo on 31 October 2014
Giggs_11 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Good for Nintendo seeing that they went cheap as always with their hardware but also good for Sony seeing as they took more risk on more powerful hardware and and are reaping the benefits.Also seeing that they are a year behind Nintendo it doesnt bother me at all.


Geez, what a bitter comment... :D Still, a few things not correct in it:

1) Cheap as always it's not entirely correct, I believe apart from Wii, previous consoles Nintendo always had the more expensive hardware, or at least toe-to-toe with the others (Nes, SNES, N64, Gamecube). With WiiU comes weaker hardware buit in the console but an expensive gamepad and a more expensive console structure than X1 and PS4. Don't think, all accounted for, WiiU is that more cheaper than PS4 and X1.

2) Sony didn't took more risk, building a machine which is only stronger than the previous one is the easy way to go. Kinect, motion controls (Wii), gamepad, those are examples of taking risks.

3) Being a year behind doesn't matter to the discussion at all. We're talking about quarter sales (3-month time frame) not ltd sales. Actually, generally being younger is even better cuz it's fresh, the new thing, and it gets people attention.


Point 1 and 2 are correct.

Point 3 not so much. 

 

There is one thing called Growth–share matrix that show this clearly. Since the PS4 is still young it demands a lot more of marketing and administrative costs, that affect their income statement, therefore, the point in the lyfe cycle the product is does affect it profitability.



Around the Network
Cream147 on 31 October 2014
Ka-pi96 said:
Cream147 said:
Profit is not just about sales. Nintendo now make a profit off each Wii U and 3DS sold, whereas I believe Sony make losses on PS4 and Vita hardware sales. Therefore they rely on software sales to generate the profit. Nintendo make profit from both hardware and software (and some of their first party software can be very profitable). Though I haven't looked at Sony's numbers in detail, I presume the point here is that Playstation are turning over significantly more than Nintendo but at a much lower profit margin.

I think Sony will edge Nintendo out but the fact that it's close at all shows that ultimately this business is about way more complicated than who's winning the sales war. I have no idea about Microsoft.

Dunno about the Vita but I think when the PS4 launched they said one game sale and a PS+ subscription will cover the loss on the hardware.


Right, whereas Nintendo make profit simply from the hardware sale alone, with any further software sales just adding to that. It should be noted that wasn't always the case for both 3DS and Wii U, but Nintendo have since optimised the production process on those consoles. I'm sure Sony will do the same though they'll probably also have to make price cuts along the way.



Giggs_11 on 31 October 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Giggs_11 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Good for Nintendo seeing that they went cheap as always with their hardware but also good for Sony seeing as they took more risk on more powerful hardware and and are reaping the benefits.Also seeing that they are a year behind Nintendo it doesnt bother me at all.


Geez, what a bitter comment... :D Still, a few things not correct in it:

1) Cheap as always it's not entirely correct, I believe apart from Wii, previous consoles Nintendo always had the more expensive hardware, or at least toe-to-toe with the others (Nes, SNES, N64, Gamecube). With WiiU comes weaker hardware buit in the console but an expensive gamepad and a more expensive console structure than X1 and PS4. Don't think, all accounted for, WiiU is that more cheaper than PS4 and X1.

2) Sony didn't took more risk, building a machine which is only stronger than the previous one is the easy way to go. Kinect, motion controls (Wii), gamepad, those are examples of taking risks.

3) Being a year behind doesn't matter to the discussion at all. We're talking about quarter sales (3-month time frame) not ltd sales. Actually, generally being younger is even better cuz it's fresh, the new thing, and it gets people attention.

Think man...think. Do you really think Nintendo's console would've profited as console at the rate they are going if it was as powerful as the PS4? It would've taken them much longer. The Wii U is borderline last gen tech. Its profitable and Nintendo reaped the benefits by staying true to their normal policies of making profits off of cheaper hardware. There is no bitterness in this. I've just learned to accept Nintendo as they are. I used to defend them from people I saw as haters, but once I educated myself I realized more often than not what they get is definitely what they deserve for better or for worse.

1) No. The Wii U was borderline last gen tech...they haven't been on the forefront of power since the 90's.

2) Of course Sony takes more risk with hardware with Nintendo, which is why they tend to take more losses Nintendo and its been this way since the beginning. I am talking about costliness of the product and parts involved. Nintendo is a wiz when creating the cheapest console possible to produce. This is how they survived the Gamecube generation. Its all about profitability. Despite having better graphics than the PS2 the PS2 had the Disc format that was sellings slowly at the time and Sony provided it and lowered its market price making it affordable for all. Microsoft followed suit soon after and the same goes for Blu Ray. Sony is the game changer when it comes to formats. There are a lot of companies that depend on their control over formats in the gaming industry especially since they spearhead it most of the time anyway.

3) Being a year behind does matter, because Sony had to make a profit off of the hardware and break even on the R&D before they can pull in more profit.

So again...Nintendo isn't doomed because Nintendo always plays it smart when it comes to developing a console they can quickly profit off of.

1) Gamecube was the most powerful console of its generation and was launced in this century so your 90s argument is debunked. Anyway being cheap is different from being powerful.  You said (quote "cheap as always"), you weren't talking about powerfulness, but price. And for that matter, Nintendo, aside from Wii which was pretty cheap to make, all other Nintendo consoles go toe-to-toe with their competitios, and that is a fact. Even Wii U costs a lot with its "weak" hardware inside, it has a controller expensive as hell. For reference wasn't WiiU sold at like 300 or 350$ at a cost when it 1st came out? And PS4 at 400$ with a profit? Well, that narrows the margin a little bit.

2) Well that's not taking risks. That's simple bad management/planning. So PS4 comes with outdated hardware for its time, is sold at a loss, and relies only on better graphics over its predecessor. Nintendo comes with even weaker hardware, sells at a cost, introduces a gamepad, which is new o gaming consoles, and you argue Sony takes the higher risk? Okeeeyyy...

Btw, Sony takes more losses because, like it has already been said in this thread, Sony's startegy relies on lots and lots of expending money outside of games and console development, like marketing, buying exclusive deals, most out of the money they make on games goes to 3rd parties, etc... Nintendo approach is completely different, reling heavily on their develoment teams and they sell mainly their own games. Sony's startegy needs tons of sales too be profitabe for the company, Nintendo's not so much.

3) I wont even try to explain to you why this is so wrong when talking about quarterly results...



uran10 on 31 October 2014

1 word: Amiibo

Nintendo will make more money for fiscal 2015 because amiibo.



Follow my Gaming and Graphics Business on facebook and on Twitter:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=101878997952596&ref=br_rs

https://twitter.com/KellyGGWD

Giggs_11 on 31 October 2014
vkaraujo said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Giggs_11 said:


Geez, what a bitter comment... :D Still, a few things not correct in it:

1) Cheap as always it's not entirely correct, I believe apart from Wii, previous consoles Nintendo always had the more expensive hardware, or at least toe-to-toe with the others (Nes, SNES, N64, Gamecube). With WiiU comes weaker hardware buit in the console but an expensive gamepad and a more expensive console structure than X1 and PS4. Don't think, all accounted for, WiiU is that more cheaper than PS4 and X1.

2) Sony didn't took more risk, building a machine which is only stronger than the previous one is the easy way to go. Kinect, motion controls (Wii), gamepad, those are examples of taking risks.

3) Being a year behind doesn't matter to the discussion at all. We're talking about quarter sales (3-month time frame) not ltd sales. Actually, generally being younger is even better cuz it's fresh, the new thing, and it gets people attention.

Think man...think. Do you really think Nintendo's console would've profited as console at the rate they are going if it was as powerful as the PS4? It would've taken them much longer. The Wii U is borderline last gen tech. Its profitable and Nintendo reaped the benefits by staying true to their normal policies of making profits off of cheaper hardware. There is no bitterness in this. I've just learned to accept Nintendo as they are. I used to defend them from people I saw as haters, but once I educated myself I realized more often than not what they get is definitely what they deserve for better or for worse.

1) No. The Wii U was borderline last gen tech...they haven't been on the forefront of power since the 90's.

2) Of course Sony takes more risk with hardware with Nintendo, which is why they tend to take more losses Nintendo and its been this way since the beginning. I am talking about costliness of the product and parts involved. Nintendo is a wiz when creating the cheapest console possible to produce. This is how they survived the Gabecube generation.

3) Being a year behind does matter, because Sony had to make a profit off of the hardware and break even on the R&D before they can pull in more profit.

So again...Nintendo isn't doomed because Nintendo always plays it smart when it comes to developing a console they can quickly profit off of.


No. Points 1 and 2 are wrong, point 3 is actually wrong too, but so is his statement.

1) Since it has a more expensive controller, in the end, Wii U is not that cheaper. Even if the console itself is weaker

2) There are 4 ways of product differentiation: price, performance, innovation and convenience. Sony always try to win by better performance, which is hard but not risky. Nintendo always try to win by innovation, which is the riskier strategy, by far.

3) R&D costs don't go into the Income Statement the way you think. While the time of a product on the market does matter, that is not reason. I will quote him and post more about this.

Thanks! An enlightened comment! Pretty rare these days.

I'd give a like if the site allowed me to and a kiss if I knew you personally. ;)



Around the Network
S.T.A.G.E. on 31 October 2014
vkaraujo said:
Giggs_11 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Good for Nintendo seeing that they went cheap as always with their hardware but also good for Sony seeing as they took more risk on more powerful hardware and and are reaping the benefits.Also seeing that they are a year behind Nintendo it doesnt bother me at all.


Geez, what a bitter comment... :D Still, a few things not correct in it:

1) Cheap as always it's not entirely correct, I believe apart from Wii, previous consoles Nintendo always had the more expensive hardware, or at least toe-to-toe with the others (Nes, SNES, N64, Gamecube). With WiiU comes weaker hardware buit in the console but an expensive gamepad and a more expensive console structure than X1 and PS4. Don't think, all accounted for, WiiU is that more cheaper than PS4 and X1.

2) Sony didn't took more risk, building a machine which is only stronger than the previous one is the easy way to go. Kinect, motion controls (Wii), gamepad, those are examples of taking risks.

3) Being a year behind doesn't matter to the discussion at all. We're talking about quarter sales (3-month time frame) not ltd sales. Actually, generally being younger is even better cuz it's fresh, the new thing, and it gets people attention.


Point 1 and 2 are correct.

Point 3 not so much. 

 

There is one thing called Growth–share matrix that show this clearly. Since the PS4 is still young it demands a lot more of marketing and administrative costs, that affect their income statement, therefore, the point in the lyfe cycle the product is does affect it profitability.


In the case of point 2 Sony took risk with the Eyetoy (which is already out) as well. Sony will cotninue to add peripherals and when morpheus launches the investments. Sony is only offering the product to the audience that wants them. Its about philosophy...so in essence Sony is still taking more risk.



Tachikoma on 31 October 2014

Nintendo's arcade hardware is also factored in fyi.



Giggs_11 on 31 October 2014
vkaraujo said:
Giggs_11 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Good for Nintendo seeing that they went cheap as always with their hardware but also good for Sony seeing as they took more risk on more powerful hardware and and are reaping the benefits.Also seeing that they are a year behind Nintendo it doesnt bother me at all.


Geez, what a bitter comment... :D Still, a few things not correct in it:

1) Cheap as always it's not entirely correct, I believe apart from Wii, previous consoles Nintendo always had the more expensive hardware, or at least toe-to-toe with the others (Nes, SNES, N64, Gamecube). With WiiU comes weaker hardware buit in the console but an expensive gamepad and a more expensive console structure than X1 and PS4. Don't think, all accounted for, WiiU is that more cheaper than PS4 and X1.

2) Sony didn't took more risk, building a machine which is only stronger than the previous one is the easy way to go. Kinect, motion controls (Wii), gamepad, those are examples of taking risks.

3) Being a year behind doesn't matter to the discussion at all. We're talking about quarter sales (3-month time frame) not ltd sales. Actually, generally being younger is even better cuz it's fresh, the new thing, and it gets people attention.


Point 1 and 2 are correct.

Point 3 not so much. 

 

There is one thing called Growth–share matrix that show this clearly. Since the PS4 is still young it demands a lot more of marketing and administrative costs, that affect their income statement, therefore, the point in the lyfe cycle the product is does affect it profitability.

Ok I can agree with that. But there's also others factors to blend in: the PS brand is already very well known on itself, doesn't need all that marketing to sell. That brand marketing you're talking about comes before the product is released, and a bit after. Not almost a year later on a product everyone knows aout like PS brand. After that the marketing goes almos exclusively for games. What I'm saying is, this was 3rd or 4th quarter
of PS4's life right? I haven't seen PS4 only advertisement for quite some time, now you see mainly games related adetisement, and this kind of marketing will continue through the console's lifespan. I dont't think what you're talking about still applies at the current financial quarter, or at least has that heavy impact on it.



Giggs_11 on 31 October 2014
S.T.A.G.E. said:
vkaraujo said:
Giggs_11 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Good for Nintendo seeing that they went cheap as always with their hardware but also good for Sony seeing as they took more risk on more powerful hardware and and are reaping the benefits.Also seeing that they are a year behind Nintendo it doesnt bother me at all.


Geez, what a bitter comment... :D Still, a few things not correct in it:

1) Cheap as always it's not entirely correct, I believe apart from Wii, previous consoles Nintendo always had the more expensive hardware, or at least toe-to-toe with the others (Nes, SNES, N64, Gamecube). With WiiU comes weaker hardware buit in the console but an expensive gamepad and a more expensive console structure than X1 and PS4. Don't think, all accounted for, WiiU is that more cheaper than PS4 and X1.

2) Sony didn't took more risk, building a machine which is only stronger than the previous one is the easy way to go. Kinect, motion controls (Wii), gamepad, those are examples of taking risks.

3) Being a year behind doesn't matter to the discussion at all. We're talking about quarter sales (3-month time frame) not ltd sales. Actually, generally being younger is even better cuz it's fresh, the new thing, and it gets people attention.


Point 1 and 2 are correct.

Point 3 not so much. 

 

There is one thing called Growth–share matrix that show this clearly. Since the PS4 is still young it demands a lot more of marketing and administrative costs, that affect their income statement, therefore, the point in the lyfe cycle the product is does affect it profitability.


In the case of point 2 Sony took risk with the Eyetoy (which is already out) as well. Sony will cotninue to add peripherals and when morpheus launches the investments. Sony is only offering the product to the audience that wants them. Its about philosophy...so in essence Sony is still taking more risk.

Underlined 1: I'd say that's correct, although not as heavy of an investment as motion controls and gamepad, which are of core importance to Nintendo's 2 last consoles, eye toy... is just "add-on" of smaller significance. but still a  risk, though.

Underlinde 2: lol now ur jus reaching...



Raven on 31 October 2014
Tachikoma said:
Nintendo's arcade hardware is also factored in fyi.

Should that not be counted or something? It's still video game hardware.



VGShare: Screenshot/Gameplay Sharing Thread | Club Nintendo | Official VGC Discord