This XBox analysis is more difficult compared to PS3 analysis, due to the fact that they lump all kinds of other divisions together.

The first 9 months of the Games Division, look very positive at first glance.

However, keep this analysis in mind. Remember, to have a more critical look of the division numbers, we have to strip out the Zune and Windows Embedded departments.

It is quite possible that Windows Embedded make some money.
Though I really am not sure about Zune/IPTV/Consumer Hardware and Software department - due to Zune's (lack of?? success??) and the high costs of launching, introducing and marketing that product.

@ PooperScooper

You have to make assumptions when analysing with incomplete information.

Unless you have the actual numbers, what would you be basing your opinion or position on?

If you disagree with the analyis, then come up with your own ASSUMPTIONS or actual numbers then calculate the way I did it.

That is, if you want to come up with a certain position.

This is the method you would use to analyze numbers, financial statements, etc.

Again, I NEVER claim that I am absolutely correct. I show my work and let people see where they can change or improve on it.

Thread title: "Microsoft Game Division 2007 Financials - XBox Loss, not as Big?"

- not as big as what??????????????????????????

- WTH is "Revenue Up"? What significance does it bear in this context? 

- Why do I see a bunch of FY 2006 numbers? What significance?

- What relevance does this all have in regards to MS Gaming division profits today and the X360 profitability today?

Will MS have to offer the 3 year warranty for the rest of the 360's lifetime? How much do they allocate on the cost side for the 3 year warranty, $60 per xbox?

@ PooperScooper

I would really like to see how you would do an analysis then.
Unless you're related to Microsoft financial officers, I don't even know how you would make an analyis WITHOUT assumptions.

 I assume your assumptions are whack

I assume you don't know what you are talking about

I assume assuming makes an ass out of you and me

I assume if you assume 1 number and its off then all numbers will be off

I assume all these assumptions being a little off would make whatever you are proving completely off.

I assume I am assuming correctly.

@ Slimebeast
I don't know how to make tables while posting therefore, it might be a bit confusing.

To answer your questions:
The Revenue Increase and FY 2006 numbers are the base information and copied directly from the Financial Statements.

It has no specific relevance to MS gaming profits for FY 2008.
However, it shows you that the same method of analysis will be used when analysing the FY 2008.

Currently, 9 months of financials are already available and therefore we can do a similar analysis on it already.

I hope that answers some of your questions.

The point of the post is to see what kind of insight we can pick up, if we do a break down and analysis.

For example:
1. Was XBox Live profitable in FY2007? If yes, then XBox Consoles as a business segment LOST money as a whole.
2. Xbox games and development - lost or made money in 2007? Again, the implications are there for Live, Consoles, etc.

Any analysis with incomplete information and assumptions usually raises more questions.
Then hopefully we can dig out / figure out more information as you go along OR make reasonable assumptions (that may be the public consensus) to solidify your analysis.

@ PooperScooper

Then I don't assume.... I know you have no contributions to this post and therefore you should not even comment here.

Again, I challenge you to show me your analysis.

Of course, if 1 number changes, everything changes - but that's why you can do a scenario analysis. Ever hear of spreadsheets? It can quickly calculate any changes and how it will affect the other numbers.

If you don't know how to do that, then I don't know what else to say.

 My contribution to this thread is pointing out that it's bull shit.

Your last thread got locked because it was false information you were spreading because it was just based on assumption.

You even admitted in this thread it was harder. This thread should go the same way your other one did.

Down the drain.

You can't correctly assume in this position.

Just look at how many times you assumed in here already. No way your numbers are right.

So how much did they lose?