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

Forums - Sales Discussion - THE definition of “Winning” these days...

ChichiriMuyo on 23 June 2007

I agree with most of what you say, Stickball, but I wanted to point out that winning for Microsoft is actually pushing Sony out of the business to maintain their much more profitable divisions.



You do not have the right to never be offended.

Around the Network
HALOOOOOOOO on 23 June 2007

I don't know. To me, winning would be how many good exclusive games you have on your console, in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd parties. It's also how much you improved on your marketshare; the amount of profit you've gained over the lifespan of your console; and finally, how well the industry and consumers have received the console (or in other words, how many consoles you've sold). I think all of those are equally important in deciding on if you've won.



rocketpig on 23 June 2007
mrstickball said:
Your going to get about 50 million answers, because each person has an idea of what winning is...Winning for the Wii might be sales of 30m, or 130m, who knows.

My opinion on winning is totally based on what system we're talking about.

For the Wii, I think winning is procuring a large marketshare, and keeping the Wii hardware profitable. Ultimately, Nintendo is the only true video game company, in the fact that 90% of their business comes from the sale of videogames. Nintendo wins by keeping profitable. I'd say if they can manage $250m/yr in profits every year between DS and Wii divisions, they've won. $250m a year is good no matter what kind of business your in. I'd say good # goals to "win" would be 50m h/w for the Wii (basically a major next-gen contender, and obviously very profitable), and 100m for the DS (GB-like levels of sales). This should keep Nintendo afloat for years to come.

For Sony, I would say winning (at this unfortunate stage of the game) is to make the Playstation 3 profitable at some point. I do feel that Blu-Ray will help keep the multimedia aspect of the company afloat (and I am now realizing that BR in the PS3 really did help push the format to beat HD-DVD quite a bit). Ultimately, the PS3 needs to make Sony money by 2012, by atleast making Sony around ~$50m over it's lifetime (after its massive losses for the PS3 are taken out of the equasion). It will also win by winning the format wars, as that should allow the entertainment divison (or whatever division controls BR players), to make money. 50m h/w should get them there, but barely.

For Microsoft, winning is to be (like Nintendo) profitable by 2012, on a major scale, and have themselves setup with atleast 40m h/w units sold to consumers, so when the NextBox comes out, it has a fairly large w/w fanbase, and can improve. Microsoft doesn't need the cash that the Xbox can provide, but it does need the system to start holding it's own, rather than Uncle Bill's Wallet holding the system up. Microsoft also needs some major software sales for it's 1st and 2nd party titles to start doing amazingly. Rare needs a few more 1m+ sellers. Lionhead, Bungie and Turn 10 all need major major sellers, and Bizzare needs alot too. Ultimately, if MS can make the hardware profitable, and start to churn out alot of great and profitable 1st/2nd party games, it'll nail that mark, and then they (like Nintendo) can move in for their end game in 2012-2020 and become the next Playstation 1/2's.

What he said. No need in repeating the same opinion. 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

ItsaMii on 24 June 2007

There is:
1) marketshare
2) profit
3) game library
Profit in my opinion is the biggest factor. Maybe not so much for us gamers, but no profit means death.
Getting a high marketshare without profits is only winning if you get the money back on games and royalties or you have other king of product to back you up. Kinda like Sony with the BR. Let`s say they lose so much money that they close their gaming division. Suppose that even without their gaming division that BR makes their way to most houses and Sony wins the format war getting back their money. Is this example the marletshare approach is a good one, but the long term objective is profit. Getting the biggest marketshare along with big profits is the ideal situation that every company seeks (too obvious).
Game library is a tough one. Taste on gaming is really subjective. I hate Halo, one of the best selling games ever. I love Chrono Trigger, the game sold 2 million, its sequel was shit and now the franchise is dead. What I am trying to say is that a good game library is always great for gamers but do not means profit to companies. Dreamcast is said to own a great and unique library. Gamecube IMO have some of the best last generation games. Even if a system has a great library (for their users) it may not survive in the long term without profits.



Satan said:

"You are for ever angry, all you care about is intelligence, but I repeat again that I would give away all this superstellar life, all the ranks and honours, simply to be transformed into the soul of a merchant's wife weighing eighteen stone and set candles at God's shrine."

z64dan on 24 June 2007

Each company has their own self-defined goals for "winning"

Nintendo wins if it makes profit and expands the market.
Sony wins if Blu-ray wins.
Microsoft wins if it controls your livingroom with the xbox 720 (or whatever)