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

Forums - Sales Discussion - When will Wii surpass 360 (if ever)?

mitran on 16 February 2007

Wii will surpassl Xbox 360 befor 31 decmber 2007 and Ps3 will 2008 no later then 2008 september



Around the Network
celine on 18 February 2007

staticneuron said: celine said: staticneuron said: catofellow said: Sound logic at first.... but then .... I do see Sony hitting 14million tho. Kwaad you are completely useless. Using logic Kwaad might be right. Sony is the largest electronics manufactureres in the world. They are among the Worldwide Top 20 Semiconductor Sales Leaders. Added to their stature they are contracting manufacturing of the PS3 to other factories. What do the numbers say? In 2006 MS revenue was 44 billion while sony's was 68 billion. I would probably go out on the limb here to say, maybe they can achieve these numbers. Static, Do you know the difference between revenue and net income ? Revenue is "gross" income. When you deduct the various production costs to revenue you obtain "net" income. Well Sony has huge revenue but how many of this money they really "put in bank" ? Very few ... Here 2006 fiscal year ( actually early 3 fiscal quarters ) : Microsoft MSFT ( whole company not only MGS ) : $44.3 billion revenue, $12.6 billion income Sony SNY( whole company not only SCE ) : $63.9 billion revenue, $0.001 billion income Nintendo NTDOY : $4.3 billion revenue, $0.84 billion income Sony is a giant with weak legs. Sony puts money in the bank in cycles. It spends money and expects returns. The revenue paints a better picture for a company like sony because they spend billions and often make it all back plus profit (thats why sony seems to be growing). Think about it this way, Sony's "revenue" was made. It didn't fall out of the sky. With the management of electronics company in which they only did one thing maybe their "net income" would be higher. Between windows and windows based software, business solutions and thier gaming division, this is pretty much all MS does. Sony subsidiaries are comprised of not only electronics but movie, music, financial and chemical corporations. You may not realize how good this is but in the business world revenue (earned revenue) is looked favorably on. Sony's top line has been between 60 to 70 billion each year while MS has been 35 to 35. Thats why you hear stories about how Sony spend billions on R&D and billions to aquire other companies such as MGM. A giant with weak legs indeed.
Static, do you realize that if Sony has $1 trillion ( in a fiscal year ) in revenue but they spend $2 trillion to earns that revenue then they go bankrupt ? This is the same idea behind the difference between revenue of PS3's sales and Wii's sales ( hardware sales, of course I know that software sales are the most important ). PS3's revenue may be higher than Wii's but Nintendo take profit from every unit sold whereas Sony take a huge loss. Sony's gamble ( Ps3 convergence ) is very risky ( and potentially can bring a lot of money ) because is not so easy obtain huge net income ( and PS3 marketshare will be smaller than PS2's marketshare, for sure ). Do you know what is most funny about Sony ? Sony's market cap (basically, how much the company is worth) is only $44.86 billion. That means, sony makes $62.7 billion dollars a year, but is only worth $44.86 billion. Relatively little nintendo? market cap of $32.7 billion. Big monster microsoft? $291.4 billion. on revenue of $44.3 billion a year. And speak about cashflow ( money in bank ) : Do you know that little Nintendo has a bigger cashflow than Sony ? Why ? Because revenue and net income are two different things ( obviously MS has the biggest cashflow in the world ... ). A giant with weak legs, indeed



 “In the entertainment business, there are only heaven and hell, and nothing in between and as soon as our customers bore of our products, we will crash.”  Hiroshi Yamauchi

TAG:  Like a Yamauchi pimp slap delivered by Il Maelstrom; serving it up with style.

stewacide on 18 February 2007

Nintendo is well in he leagues of companies that are obscenely profitable, and have the market-multiple to prove it: MS used to be in this same club but their margins have been taking a beating over the past few years. The strange thing about Nintendo is that they never seem to leverage their worth, or even their cash, in acquisitions. I suppose this is how they stay so profitable, but you'd think it'd be AWFULLY tempting to go on a buying spree...



reverie on 18 February 2007

Viper said: reverie said:What I do think is weird that while everybody who thinks he's in the know can tell you in general that software is where Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft make their moneyWhile largely true for Sony and MS, this it's not as accurate for Nintendo. Historically, Nintendo has always sold hardware for profit. The GC was the first exception as they took an initial $9.00 loss on hardware for the first year. Profit was made from that point on. With the DS and Wii, profit is rather sizable from the onset.
That's not quite true. What you are referring to is the fact that Nintendo (according to their statements in recent years) does not sell hardware below manufacturing cost. But they still have R&D cost for each new system up front, be it $0.5 Bio, $1.0 Bio or even $2.0 Bio. They could never recoup this investment without software revenues. And those $9 on the DS you mentioned are speculation, or did you get them from Nintendo's financial report? There is no other way to find out the real numbers unless you become an executive at Nintendo. Just forget analyst's predictions. They have been proven wrong time and again. Analysts are analysts for their big mouth and their inability to get a real job in the industry.
Sony is taking the largest loss per console ever for any console right now but expect to make profit in 2-3 years time (I don't agree with them on that though).
Where did Sony state that? All they said is that it's an expensive system to manufacture and that they are trying to reduce cost (something everybody does) without necessarily dropping the price anytime soon. No numbers or historic relations or future announcements have been made available.
MS never made hardware profit on Xbox but has stated they now make profit on X360 hardware. I don't know how accurate that is but it can't be much nor will it erase the debt they've established anytime soon.
Sorry, this is pure speculation. Microsoft said that they want to stop losing more money with the XBox project in 2008 (they will hit $6 Bio in total net losses this year). This includes consoles and software sales. They did not say anything about manufacturing cost for the console, neither for the old system nor for the new system. It has been speculated that the 360 might be cheaper to manufacture and cost-cut over its lifetime then the original XBox because the original XBox had very little custom chips, rather looking like a bland Windows PC inside. However for the same reason (customization) the R&D was probably much higher for the 360 than for the XBox. Again, there are no numbers on manufacturing cost from any of the 3 players now. If you want to see a console that wasn't developed as a loss leader look at the 3DO.



Hardcore gaming is a bubble economy blown up by Microsoft's $7 $6 billion losses.

HappySqurriel on 18 February 2007

staticneuron said: catofellow said: Using logic Kwaad might be right. Sony is the largest electronics manufactureres in the world. They are among the Worldwide Top 20 Semiconductor Sales Leaders. Added to their stature they are contracting manufacturing of the PS3 to other factories.
I could be wrong but (if I remember correctly) Nintendo has worked closely with Panasonic's parent company since the fallout between Sony/Nintendo over the SNES CD; in fact the CAV-optical disc the Gamecube used was based off of a technology that Panasonic pushed for the DVD standard. Hypothetically speaking, Nintendo should have access to whatever facilities it needs inorder to ramp production up to 1.5 to 2 Million units per month. I personally suspect that Nintendo's current production was designed to meet demand for the system without building up inventory and they estimated a need for (about) 750,000 units per month worldwide outside of the christmas season; remember that ~45% of all consoles are sold in November and December, so 750,000/month is a lot of systems. Now, the risk Sony faces is building up inventory because the PS3 is dramatically more expensive to produce today as it will be in 6 months.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel on 18 February 2007

stewacide said: Nintendo is well in he leagues of companies that are obscenely profitable, and have the market-multiple to prove it: MS used to be in this same club but their margins have been taking a beating over the past few years. The strange thing about Nintendo is that they never seem to leverage their worth, or even their cash, in acquisitions. I suppose this is how they stay so profitable, but you'd think it'd be AWFULLY tempting to go on a buying spree...
"Back in the day" (about 2001) I saw someone do a rough analysis using financial data that demonstrated that Nintendo had the cash to buy Sega based on Sega's projected net worth at the time; one thing that was pointed out is that Nintendo never buys large companies (which explains much of the Rare situation). People don't notice Nintendo's strategy but I'll explain it to you ... Nintendo finds reasonably small developers that have potential (Silicone Knights, n-Space, Retro, Factor 5, Rare) and "Woos" them into becoming a second party developer (or in the case of Factor 5 a close third party developer) and attempts to develop their talent. The reason for this is simple, Nintendo is controlled by one family who wants to make money and the return on investment of buying a portion of Retro for (as a guess) 10 Million and developing them into a studio that can produce a game a year that sells 2 Million + copies is much better than buying Sega for $8 Billion (as a guess) and getting a studio that develops 10 games/year that sell less than a million copies.



staticneuron on 18 February 2007

Market value determines how much a company is woth on the market. That worth is determined by shares. So if Sony has 1 billion shares at a price of 53 dollars and and microsoft has 10 billion ( actually 9.79) shares at 28 bucks that means the market value is as such: SNE: 58 billion MSFT: 281 billion Hey, thats nifty.... these are the current numbers as we speak. Keep in mind this means sony is worth more per share than MS. But here is a more relevent break down. SNE Sales: $68.58 billion Profits: $1.08 billion Assets: $100.34 billion MSFT Sales: $46.06 billion Profits: $11.91 billion Assets: $66.37 billion What also helps MS's "profits is a higher equity on thier stocks. But the numbers do not paint a whole picture. Sony's sales and assets are higher and right now sany is going through the launch of the PS3, the concurrent production of several movies and ongoing R&D at remanufacturing the PS3 (and possibly PSP). Like I said thier profits are constantly fluctuating but sony is "worth" quite a bit and has enough "assets" to burn in every industry they dip thier hands in. and HappySqurriel , Sony has been talking about thier planned losses since last year. So sony knows how much thier going to lose and obviously have been planning for it. What is the point you are trying to get at?



Games make me happy! PSN ID: Staticneuron Gamertag: Staticneuron Wii Code: Static Wii - 3055 0871 5802 1723

Viper on 18 February 2007

reverie said: Viper said: reverie said:What I do think is weird that while everybody who thinks he's in the know can tell you in general that software is where Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft make their moneyWhile largely true for Sony and MS, this it's not as accurate for Nintendo. Historically, Nintendo has always sold hardware for profit. The GC was the first exception as they took an initial $9.00 loss on hardware for the first year. Profit was made from that point on. With the DS and Wii, profit is rather sizable from the onset. reverie said: That's not quite true. What you are referring to is the fact that Nintendo (according to their statements in recent years) does not sell hardware below manufacturing cost. But they still have R&D cost for each new system up front, be it $0.5 Bio, $1.0 Bio or even $2.0 Bio. They could never recoup this investment without software revenues. And those $9 on the DS you mentioned are speculation, or did you get them from Nintendo's financial report? There is no other way to find out the real numbers unless you become an executive at Nintendo. Just forget analyst's predictions. They have been proven wrong time and again. Analysts are analysts for their big mouth and their inability to get a real job in the industry.
First, The debate is not about R&D costs but loss on hardware production. Second, I said GC, not DS. If you can't reply in the context of the original post then your argument is irrelevant. Nintendo themselves have stated this. I already know the first four letters in analyst are anal so spare me the drivel.
Viper said: Sony is taking the largest loss per console ever for any console right now but expect to make profit in 2-3 years time (I don't agree with them on that though). reverie said: Where did Sony state that? All they said is that it's an expensive system to manufacture and that they are trying to reduce cost (something everybody does) without necessarily dropping the price anytime soon. No numbers or historic relations or future announcements have been made available.
They've said it several times. This can't be the only place you get your news from?
Viper said: MS never made hardware profit on Xbox but has stated they now make profit on X360 hardware. I don't know how accurate that is but it can't be much nor will it erase the debt they've established anytime soon. reverie said: Sorry, this is pure speculation. Microsoft said that they want to stop losing more money with the XBox project in 2008 (they will hit $6 Bio in total net losses this year). This includes consoles and software sales. They did not say anything about manufacturing cost for the console, neither for the old system nor for the new system. It has been speculated that the 360 might be cheaper to manufacture and cost-cut over its lifetime then the original XBox because the original XBox had very little custom chips, rather looking like a bland Windows PC inside. However for the same reason (customization) the R&D was probably much higher for the 360 than for the XBox. Again, there are no numbers on manufacturing cost from any of the 3 players now. If you want to see a console that wasn't developed as a loss leader look at the 3DO.
This is no speculation. MS has said before they never made profit per hardware sale on Xbox because of a poorly accorded contract between them and nVidia and they hope that they will be able to gain profit on hardware in a few years time on X360 because of better contracts and console design. Do you follow the industry as well as you lead on? Seriously, the info I allude to has been well reported on numerous publications of merit and respectability.



noendz_noskinz on 18 February 2007

i think that by the end of 2007, the wii will have sold more units than the 360



WII > PS3 > 360

 

http://tinyurl.com/24xfsn              http://tinyurl.com/34l3fq

reverie on 18 February 2007

@Viper Ok, so I had a typo, writing DS instead of GC. That's no reason to dismiss my main points as "irrelevant". 1. Manufactoring cost is not the only cost involved in building a videogame system. R&D is huge (not to mention marketing and other business expenses) and has to be recovered by software sales. Even Nintendo requires software royalties to make up for this cost. 2. Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony don't give specific figure for their manufacturing cost. Mostly numbers are estimated by 3rd parties. Now you said Nintendo at one point publicly announced a $9 loss per GameCube manufactured. Where and when was that? Any links? That would really surprise me. On the 360 I just found a quote from Oct 06 at Gamasutra: "[Chris Liddell] also reaffirmed that, while initial costs were a bit more than Microsoft expected, the company expected the Xbox 360 to be "cost neutral over the console's life"". So MS said something about the cost of the 360, I have to retreat my former claim. Still, this is not a specific figure. Anyway, sorry for pissing you off. I did not intend on attacking you, just picked up one subject in your post. I just wanted to drop in my idea that ultimately software sales should be monitored more than hardware sales because that's were most of the money is.



Hardcore gaming is a bubble economy blown up by Microsoft's $7 $6 billion losses.