44 replies to this topic

[MorbidGod]

Devs did jump on board....with shovelware


But as you can already see this gen is different. third parties like Ubisoft are already supporting the Wii U far more than the Wii. Other publishers have already said they're waiting for the install base to grow larger and thus more profitable before bringing games to the Wii U. A completely different bowl of eggs

Ubisoft should love the Wii U. It was named after them. Lol

But as long as I get Watch Dogs I don't care.

[Nollog]

Rubbish. Microsoft may be weak on the 1st party front and rely more on third party especially exclusives. Sony on the other hand has a lot of quality inhouse devs and software support. Not to mention they all need quality third party support to be successful in the long term even Nintendo. Third party games are in no way and should not be an after thought.

Sony, Microsoft.

Both confirmed to sell consoles at a loss to recoup money on first and third party game sales.

Nintendo, selling consoles for profit.

 

Simple.

They are more in danger than Nintendo, from third party sales being lack-lustre.

[Crispy Bacon]

the Wii had a large install base did developers jump on that? HELL NO

 

That's different though. We're talking about a console that was very underpowered and featured different architecture compared to the HD twins. Third-party games built around the PS3 and 360 hardware would've had to have been stripped down to almost nothing in order to run on the Wii, assuming they'd still be able to salvage the game and keep it playable at that point. Games like Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect and Elder Scrolls would not have been possible in their current state on the Wii hardware. However, we did have companies like Activision that actually went to the trouble to build Call of Duty games for Wii from the ground up. It was an admirable effort by Activision, but very few third-parties followed in their steps. I would imagine it's a very costly and time-consuming endeavor to do that.

 

With Wii U, we have a very capable system that has had a rough start out of the gate. I won't sit here and predict how third-parties will react as the install base grows, but power should not be a factor like it was before. Even compared to PS4, the Wii U will be somewhat similar in architecture as well. Not raw power, but architecture and that's what's key.

[Cyanotic]

Both confirmed to sell consoles at a loss to recoup money on first and third party game sales.

Nintendo, selling consoles for profit.

 

Simple.

They are more in danger than Nintendo, from third party sales being lack-lustre.

 

You do know the Wii U was sold at a loss... right?

[Nollog]

You do know the Wii U was sold at a loss... right?

Yes I do.

It will be profitable very shortly though, and a single game makes it profitable.

 

MEANWHILE!

PS3 put sony in the hole to the tune of billions for 2-3 years

360 put MS in the hole even deeper for 3-4 years.

[Cyanotic]

Yes I do.

It will be profitable very shortly though, and a single game makes it profitable.

 

MEANWHILE!

PS3 put sony in the hole to the tune of billions for 2-3 years

360 put MS in the hole even deeper for 3-4 years.

 

Of course introducing a new console will hurt any company financially as they develop and build them. Microsoft got hit for billions in just warranty issues alone, but soon fixed the issue and it honestly didn't hurt them a bit.

 

Microsofts earnings in the last 5 years:

 

60.42B  57.55B  62.48B  69.94B   73.7B

 

 2008     2009     2010     2011      2012

 

Does that look like a company that is struggling?

 

Microsoft has sold more than 100 million games for the 360 than Sony has sold for the PS3. That is where you will find profit.

 

Nintendo has no games to sell, so that is why they things are looking shakey. Also pair that up with selling at a loss and yeah...

Edited by Cyanotic, 10 April 2013 - 09:05 AM.

[Nollog]

Of course introducing a new console will hurt any company financially as they develop and build them. Microsoft got hit for billions in just warranty issues alone, but soon fixed the issue and it honestly didn't hurt them a bit.

 

Microsofts earnings in the last 5 years:

 

60.42B  57.55B  62.48B  69.94B   73.7B

 

 2008     2009     2010     2011      2012

 

Does that look like a company that is struggling?

 

Microsoft has sold more than 100 million games for the 360 than Sony has sold for the PS3. That is where you will find profit.

 

Nintendo has no games to sell, so that is why they things are looking shakey. Also pair that up with selling at a loss and yeah...

Good thing they have subscript charges for online.

And get all the third party support.

When was their last big first party game? Halo4, and before that?

All I've heard from ms studios is marketplace games, ms as a whole spend their money on DLC timed-exclusives.

Therefore, heavily reliant on third party.

 

That's what I was trying to prove, what are you?

[Cyanotic]

Good thing they have subscript charges for online.

And get all the third party support.

When was their last big first party game? Halo4, and before that?

All I've heard from ms studios is marketplace games, ms as a whole spend their money on DLC timed-exclusives.

Therefore, heavily reliant on third party.

 

That's what I was trying to prove, what are you?

Originally, I was pointing out you were wrong when you said that Nintendo was selling the Wii U for profit. Then you said that the 360 put Microsoft in a hole for 4 years, and that was also wrong.

 

So I guess I'm trying to prove YOU wrong and have done so successfully.

 

I know Microsoft is lacking on 1st party support... but you know what? I don't care. I don't care who develops the game, as long as it's good. I can look back on this past gaming generation and think of about 10 of my favorites. I'd say 8/10 were Multi-Platform releases. The good thing is Microsoft, for example, can have great 1st party and 3rd party games. And the kicker is the 3rd party titles always have always ran better on the 360 than PS3.

 

And the reason Microsoft can acquire all those timed exclusives and marketplace games is because of the yearly subscription. So those with a PS3 who cry that they don't get DLC first... boo hoo... us 360 players PAY for that privilege.

[Nollog]

Originally, I was pointing out you were wrong when you said that Nintendo was selling the Wii U for profit. Then you said that the 360 put Microsoft in a hole for 4 years, and that was also wrong.

 

So I guess I'm trying to prove YOU wrong and have done so successfully.

 

I know Microsoft is lacking on 1st party support... but you know what? I don't care. I don't care who develops the game, as long as it's good. I can look back on this past gaming generation and think of about 10 of my favorites. I'd say 8/10 were Multi-Platform releases. The good thing is Microsoft, for example, can have great 1st party and 3rd party games. And the kicker is the 3rd party titles always have always ran better on the 360 than PS3.

 

And the reason Microsoft can acquire all those timed exclusives and marketplace games is because of the yearly subscription. So those with a PS3 who cry that they don't get DLC first... boo hoo... us 360 players PAY for that privilege.

I didn't exactly say nintendo were selling wii u for a profit.

I was commenting on the last gen, how 360 and ps3 were sold for a loss, and wii was not, meaning nintendo had much less reliance on outside parties for profit.

I believe it was a good strategy, better than sony and ms' one.

 

As for your figures, are they the numbers for microsoft as a whole or just the gaming division?

 

I can't find a cute image to show the losses Sony endured, but here's an article:

http://www.vg247.com...-launching-ps3/

[Cyanotic]

I believe it's Microsoft as a whole... but that's all that matters since it's one giant pot of never ending money.

 

As far as Sony goes... I could care less to be honest. Never liked any of their products and I am well aware of their ridiculous 4 billion dollar loss. How they even managed to develop the PS4 is beyond me... and they better hope they sell ALOT of them to recoup all that money back.

[routerbad]

Originally, I was pointing out you were wrong when you said that Nintendo was selling the Wii U for profit. Then you said that the 360 put Microsoft in a hole for 4 years, and that was also wrong.

 

So I guess I'm trying to prove YOU wrong and have done so successfully.

 

I know Microsoft is lacking on 1st party support... but you know what? I don't care. I don't care who develops the game, as long as it's good. I can look back on this past gaming generation and think of about 10 of my favorites. I'd say 8/10 were Multi-Platform releases. The good thing is Microsoft, for example, can have great 1st party and 3rd party games. And the kicker is the 3rd party titles always have always ran better on the 360 than PS3.

 

And the reason Microsoft can acquire all those timed exclusives and marketplace games is because of the yearly subscription. So those with a PS3 who cry that they don't get DLC first... boo hoo... us 360 players PAY for that privilege.

Awesome, then you probably game on PC then, right?

 

360 owners don't pay Microsoft for a 3rd party publisher to release DLC sooner.  LIVE has nothing to do with that.  Microsoft relies primarily on 3rd party games, and therefore is the most aggressive at attracting those third parties to make deals.  Something I think Sony is trying to change.

[Cyanotic]

Awesome, then you probably game on PC then, right?

 

360 owners don't pay Microsoft for a 3rd party publisher to release DLC sooner.  LIVE has nothing to do with that.  Microsoft relies primarily on 3rd party games, and therefore is the most aggressive at attracting those third parties to make deals.  Something I think Sony is trying to change.

 

I mainly game on PC, but sometimes 360 when I want to play on the couch.

 

How do you know that my LIVE subscription doesn't help pay developers to release timed DLC content? Wouldn't it make sense that the company who charges for online play will get timed exclusives first?

 

I think it has a lot to do with it

[Crispy Bacon]

How they even managed to develop the PS4 is beyond me...

 

Off-the-shelf parts, no heavy R&D costs which hurt them with the Cell processor, and Blu-ray drives are much cheaper than they were when PS3 launched. Having said that, they COULD still sell at a loss, but I don't think it will be anywhere near as bad as it was with PS3. We'll have to wait and see.

[routerbad]

I mainly game on PC, but sometimes 360 when I want to play on the couch.

 

How do you know that my LIVE subscription doesn't help pay developers to release timed DLC content? Wouldn't it make sense that the company who charges for online play will get timed exclusives first?

 

I think it has a lot to do with it

You pay for Microsoft to maintain their servers for multiplayer and for the Microsoft services included in LIVE.  The way that they were able to include integrated matchmaking for every game, regardless of the publisher, was thanks to those of us that paid for LIVE.  I've been paying for 10 years now, too.

[Nollog]

I believe it's Microsoft as a whole... but that's all that matters since it's one giant pot of never ending money.

 

As far as Sony goes... I could care less to be honest. Never liked any of their products and I am well aware of their ridiculous 4 billion dollar loss. How they even managed to develop the PS4 is beyond me... and they better hope they sell ALOT of them to recoup all that money back.

Oh yeah of course.

It's a decent strategy when your company can attack it from several avenues.

 

Sony tried to use PS3 to push 3DTV, Blu-Ray and their movies.

I think the TV part of their business is the part that's really failing badly.

 

MS have a lot of pies too.

[routerbad]

Off-the-shelf parts, no heavy R&D costs which hurt them with the Cell processor, and Blu-ray drives are much cheaper than they were when PS3 launched. Having said that, they COULD still sell at a loss, but I don't think it will be anywhere near as bad as it was with PS3. We'll have to wait and see.

Even still, They carry a .8133 debt ratio, meaning around 81 cents of the every dollar the company has in total assets would cover their debts.  All of their divisions are bleeding money, their content divisions don't talk to their engineering divisions.  The PS4, even with off the shelf parts, will cost probably ~600 USD for manufacturing per console, if they sell it for profit, they will get abysmal sales and uptake, no amount of hype can cover that.  If they sell it for a loss, they will sell better, but not gangbusters, and will cause them even more losses.

 

Sony's debt is currently carries junk status, and they are a very bad bet on the market.  They won't be able to continue if they don't pull a magic trick out.  I'm not sure where they are going, but I doubt they will be able to continue in this race.  Nintendo is always the company people like to label as "stuck in the past" and "doomed to failure" but Nintendo is still in great financial shape, their debt ratio is low, they have plenty of operating assets (money in the bank) and are able to focus on what is important to them, great games.

 

Sony is still carrying a mindset that worked in the 90s for them, when world economies were in great shape, people had plenty of disposable income, and could afford the commonly overpriced Sony products.  Sony is basically Apple stretched too thin.  When Apple moved into the mobile device business, it was a calculated risk, based on new technologies and high quality software that worked seamlessly with their other platforms.  They haven't been moving into different industries since then, they have only been expanding their role within the mobile devices market.  Sony has divisions that reach into both electronics and content, and none of it has been giving any solid returns for a very long time.

[Crispy Bacon]

They won't be able to continue if they don't pull a magic trick out.

 

This is probably what they are relying on. What this magic trick is is the big question. Surely, they have something up their sleeves. Otherwise, why take the suicidal route with this hardware and reap even more losses? Sony can't be stupid enough to think that another $599 console is in the cards this time. If they do that, yes, they will crumble and burn and they will deserve every bit of it. There has to be more to this than we know.

Edited by Crispy Bacon, 10 April 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[routerbad]

This is probably what they are relying on. What this magic trick is is the big question. Surely, they have something up their sleeves. Otherwise, why take the suicidal route with this hardware and reap even more losses? Sony can't be stupid enough to think that another $599 console is in the cards this time. If they do that, yes, they will crumble and burn and they will deserve every bit of it. There has to be more to this than we know.

The problem is that Sony leadership has little control within the company, the engineers run the show, and deliver a product that the number cruncher's have to sell.  The PS3 was sold at more than a $300 loss per console, because engineers kept the costs of the project away from management.  Such is Sony's corporate culture.

[Crispy Bacon]

The problem is that Sony leadership has little control within the company, the engineers run the show, and deliver a product that the number cruncher's have to sell.  The PS3 was sold at more than a $300 loss per console, because engineers kept the costs of the project away from management.  Such is Sony's corporate culture.

 

Wow. That's pretty messed up. I had no idea. Sorry, but if I were in a leadership role, I would absolutely demand to know the costs going into my products. Good Lord... no wonder they're in such bad shape. Have they always operated like this?

[routerbad]

Wow. That's pretty messed up. I had no idea. Sorry, but if I were in a leadership role, I would absolutely demand to know the costs going into my products. Good Lord... no wonder they're in such bad shape. Have they always operated like this?

They've always treated their engineers like Rockstars, but Microsoft treats their programmers the same way, Google is similar.  The difference is that Sony doesn't have a solid money maker to fall back on, everything they do is losing them money.  Microsoft has the Windows division, most notably Windows Server, which makes them lots of money in enterprise agreements that reach into the tens of millions.

 

Google has their advertising, which gives them a lot of flexibility to try their hand at several different markets.

 

Sony doesn't have anything that makes them money, and they are drowning.