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

Forums - Sales Discussion - PSN still makes more money than the entirety of Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Rab on 03 November 2017

We did it to ourselves



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 03 November 2017
torok said:
DonFerrari said:

Yep it was written on the floor.

Pretty much. And now people seem to think that flooding the PS Blog will change anything. Before making online mandatory, PS+ had around 1M subscribers. Now it is arouns 40 to 50% of the PS4 sales numbers, so we can guess they have a good 30M paying subscribers. People voting with the wallet.

The next stuff that people will vote with the wallet is microtransactions. Fifa Ultimate Team makes 1 billion dollars every year.

Yep, when offering great games doesn't move the needle but blocking online instead of riot generate heaps of sales the wallet talked clear. I do have PSN+ but I don't play online. It still offers value on the discounts, free games and some platinum demand online play. But I wouldn't buy it for the multiplayer.

I hope the microtransaction and lootboxes don't infest Sony games in the near future because of how much the other companies are making with it. But we know it will, if there is profit to be made then companies will go there.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

maxleresistant on 03 November 2017

I'm still wondering if the switch really is increasing Nintendo's userbase and sales or is it just replacing the 3DS?



DonFerrari on 03 November 2017
maxleresistant said:
I'm still wondering if the switch really is increasing Nintendo's userbase and sales or is it just replacing the 3DS?

Both, but the proportion is anyone guess.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Wright on 03 November 2017
Kyuu said:

Your kitten paws got nothing on me pleb! Let me reiterate:

"The launch 20 GB SKU ($499) was fully backwards compatible with PS1 AND PS2. "Fully" as in capable of playing 99%~ of both systems' libraries. The $499 model was every bit as backwards compatible as the $599 model you're referring to because they both contained PS2's chipset"

Sony discontinued the cheaper model because it sold much worse. You disappoint me, Wright. 

Tsk. Fine, then.



Around the Network
V-r0cK on 03 November 2017

This just reminds me of the time last gen when Xbox360 fanboys were bragging about XBL being better and making more money than PSN, but only because PSN was free for the PS3 lol ah good times xD



Lawlight on 03 November 2017
Azzanation said:
Lawlight said:

I don’t think the gaming division of MS was printing money.

Thats what MS want you to think.

Honestly Xbox Live has been going on for more than a decade. The amount of income Live would have created by itself is through the roof. Plus the software sold more on 360 and to add the 360 sold extremly well at its prime while PS3 only started to sell well when price drops started to happen. 360 was a huge success compared to the PS3. Doesn't matter who sold more in the end.

Sony would rather forget the PS3

MS would be placing the 360 on a pedestal.

That’s some revisionist history right there.



Azzanation on 03 November 2017
SpokenTruth said:
Azzanation said:

Thats what MS want you to think.

Honestly Xbox Live has been going on for more than a decade. The amount of income Live would have created by itself is through the roof. Plus the software sold more on 360 and to add the 360 sold extremly well at its prime while PS3 only started to sell well when price drops started to happen. 360 was a huge success compared to the PS3. Doesn't matter who sold more in the end.

Sony would rather forget the PS3

MS would be placing the 360 on a pedestal.

MS wants you to think their gaming division was not printing money? 

As for comparing the 2 consoles success, while Sony would rather forget their first year, they pulled off one of the greatest turnarounds in video game history.  Launched a year later and ate hundres in losses per console and still caught up AND passed X360 and began making profits AND set them up for the PS4. As for pedestals, MS needs to put the X360 on one because the Xbox One certainly won't be.

Mate you sound a little defensive and a little uneducated in this.

Selling more does not make something more successful.

e.g. If MS decide to undercut the PS4 by $300 and in the long run over took and beat PS4 in sales. Does that make the X1 a more successful console? Haha if you think yes because (It sold more) than I’ll be a little worried.

You notice MS never include the income of Live subscribers in any of these reports? Interesting indeed. Maybe to avoid business tax in the division? Maybe so gamers won’t ask to lower their prices since they are racking in the profits. Shady but effective in business terms.

Sony's PS3 was a disaster at launch and cost the company billions. Sure Xbox had the Red Ring of Death which was paid off by Live Subs. PS3 had to get butchered to compete with the 360 similar to how the X1 had to be cut down to compete with the PS4 however not as extreme. PS3 also didn’t have Subs for PSN so their income only came from games which 360 sold more software than the PS3. If you think PS3 is a more successful console than the 360 than that would make me laugh on the inside.

You don’t win a war by selling more hardware, the real profits rely on Software sales and Subscribers. Hardware in many cases earn little gain and in some cases companies lose money on hardware sold.

Also note that the PS3 had a much higher R&D compared to the cheaper 360

https://www.geek.com/games/playstation-3-cost-sony-332-billion-it-may-not-recoup-576005/

PS3 from the get go cost Sony $3.3b in R&D compared to the rumoured $2.5b 360. Do the maths, PS3 sold slightly more hardware than the 360 in the end, however it cost almost a whopping $1b more than the 360 with less Software sales and no Subs over the course of the Generation.

360 killed it last gen for MS.



mizzou_guy on 03 November 2017
SpokenTruth said:
Azzanation said:

Mate you sound a little defensive and a little uneducated in this.

Selling more does not make something more successful.

e.g. If MS decide to undercut the PS4 by $300 and in the long run over took and beat PS4 in sales. Does that make the X1 a more successful console? Haha if you think yes because (It sold more) than I’ll be a little worried.

You notice MS never include the income of Live subscribers in any of these reports? Interesting indeed. Maybe to avoid business tax in the division? Maybe so gamers won’t ask to lower their prices since they are racking in the profits. Shady but effective in business terms.

Sony's PS3 was a disaster at launch and cost the company billions. Sure Xbox had the Red Ring of Death which was paid off by Live Subs. PS3 had to get butchered to compete with the 360 similar to how the X1 had to be cut down to compete with the PS4 however not as extreme. PS3 also didn’t have Subs for PSN so their income only came from games which 360 sold more software than the PS3. If you think PS3 is a more successful console than the 360 than that would make me laugh on the inside.

You don’t win a war by selling more hardware, the real profits rely on Software sales and Subscribers. Hardware in many cases earn little gain and in some cases companies lose money on hardware sold.

Also note that the PS3 had a much higher R&D compared to the cheaper 360

https://www.geek.com/games/playstation-3-cost-sony-332-billion-it-may-not-recoup-576005/

PS3 from the get go cost Sony $3.3b in R&D compared to the rumoured $2.5b 360. Do the maths, PS3 sold slightly more hardware than the 360 in the end, however it cost almost a whopping $1b more than the 360 with less Software sales and no Subs over the course of the Generation.

360 killed it last gen for MS.

You realize that you just suggested MS committed SEC fraud for nearly a decade?

What about MS losing ~$2 billion per year on Xbox?
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-11-07-huge-xbox-losses-hidden-by-patent-royalties-says-analyst

 

I think Azzanation is also forgetting about the profit the PS3 brought to them by pushing Blu-ray as the dominant format over HD DVD.  Sony brings in royalties (I believe) for Blu-ray sales.



Metroid33slayer on 03 November 2017

Not surprising since digital game sales on a home console with over 65 million users are going to be huge.