Bullshit.
The 360 was turning a profit in its third uear.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I recall the original introduction of the Xbox was - though not directly stated as such - as a bulwark for Microsoft against sonys stated intention to gain traction as a central computing device for your home - ie. stepping on MS' PC domination. In that way, it might be artificial to look at the lack of direct profit for the Xbox brand in isolation as a problem. The actual economic impact of keeping Sony at bay and potentially preventing them from turning PlayStation into a very different multimedia focused concept the PS3 years suggested is probably incalculable.
To say nothing of the very healthy efffect all of this has had on the market overall in terms of driving innovation. I love Sony but man I can't imagine how far their head would be up their own ass without Microsoft keeping them in check along the way (and vice versa it would seem)
But the entire 'set top box' future Microsoft was trying to stop Sony dominating never eventually. They've spent billions tilting at windmills. They could have spent zero dollars and achieved the same outcome because the smartphone was going to come along and destroy the very notion of the box under the TV controlling everything.
Meanwhile, they completely missed the market on the biggest innovation in computing (said smartphone) since the PC.
You think that's enough to make up for all the money they threw down the toilet on the Xbox brand?
He has more accurate info then Nadella? Sorry but this is quite ridiculous, CEO's, especially in companies like MS are fully up to date with profit/loss of its products.
There will be a demand for all-purpose set-top boxes for the forseeable future. There is a huge audience that is not interested in gaming with a desktop-class PC. Whether or not the Xbox remains a really rigid hardware standard is really the only question. I could see them building a platform around a minimum spec that all Windows machines could follow. Turn PCs into an Xbox, laptops into an Xbox.
Microsoft reportedly working on game console
Apr 27, 1998 Paul Thurrott | Windows IT Pro
Microsoft Corporation reportedly intends to allow its next-generation WebTV device to compete with the Nintendo 64 and Sony Playstation game consoles. The story is rather complicated, but it goes something like this: A few years ago, a company called 3DO was working its own next-generation game console, which was dubbed the M2. The M2 contained three key technologies which were pretty impressive for their day: DVD playback, MPEG3 decoding, and a new chipset called MX. When it became clear that 3DO was going to have to exit the hardware market for financial reasons, it sold the M2 technology to Samsung, which created a division called CagEnt that had two years to make money with it.
CagEnt's MX chipset from the M2 technology utilized two PowerPC 602 microprocessors at the time: the same CPU that powers Apple Macintosh computers. In late 1997, Nintendo visited CagEnt in search of a new 3D chipset since its relationship with Silicon Graphics had fallen apart and sales of the Nintendo 64 were slower than expected. In early 1998, Nintendo officially terminated its relationship with ailing Silicon Graphics and offered to buy CagEnt outright.
While details of the sale continued, Nintendo worked with CagEnt to wrap its MX chipset around a MiPS processor, as the company's consoles use NEC MiPS CPUs, not PowerPC. The plan was for the new MX-based machine, complete with hardware 3D, DVD-ROM, and cartridge capabilities to be ready in time for Christmas 1999. Unfortunately for Nintendo, talks with Samsung broke down within a few months.
That's where Microsoft stepped in.
In Early April, the company bought CagEnt through its WebTV division, acquiring all of the assets of CagEnt and its key personnel. Microsoft's plan is to use the MX technology as the core of its next WebTV device, which will clearly be used for more than Email and Web browsing. In fact, Microsoft has quietly been gaining the knowledge it needs to compete in the game console market through its parternship with Sega and it's likely that a Microsoft-backed, Windows CE-based WebTV device could even be co-created with that company.
All this puts Nintendo in a bind, of course, and the company will be unable to create a new console in time for Christmas 1999 now. Its current plan is for the next device to reach stores in late 2000 instead, though its unclear who they will be able to partner with to make such a goal.
Microsoft's X-Box: Fight for the future?
Summary: As rumors fly about a Microsoft game console, one thing's clear: It has the team to make it.
By Robert Lemos | September 27, 1999
This month's reports that Microsoft is working on a game console to rival Sony's PlayStation 2 came as little surprise to at least one industry executive.
"I guarantee you that if there's a group that knows how to build a video game machine, it's the one inside (Microsoft subsidiary) WebTV," said Hugh Martin, former CEO of 3DO Systems Inc., which challenged the established video game industry more than five years ago.
Martin, now CEO at Optical Networks Inc., should know. You see, those WebTV engineers used to work for him at 3DO.
If WebTV does produce the rumored console, it will mark the end of a long trek for those engineers.
Long journey
When Martin was at 3DO, it was a hot startup, bringing a 32-bit game console to market almost two years before Sony produced the PlayStation. But in 1996, 3DO faced the truth: It had lost the war, selling only a million units. It scrapped its plans for a 64-bit next-generation device, known as the M2, and sold its hardware division to Samsung, a Korean consumer electronics manufacturer.
Samsung had its new company, now called CagEnt, poised to excel in the PC graphics market, scoring deals with arcade machine maker Konami and semiconductor manufacturer Cirrus Logic. By spring 1997, however, both deals had crumbled and an ailing Samsung was looking to sell CagEnt.
After a near-miss with Nintendo, Samsung sold the group to WebTV, which was by then a Microsoft subsidiary. The engineers, and almost all of the advanced graphics technology -- moved with the company. "Those guys are still there," said Martin. "They are inside WebTV in Palo Alto (Calif.)."
WebTV is open about why they bought CagEnt.
"(CagEnt) had both the intellectual property and people that we were interested in," said Alan Yates, director of marketing at WebTV Networks. While he would not confirm the existence of the X-Box project, Yates admitted, "You will see future versions of WebTV that will use the video capabilities that we acquired, as well as the 3-D capabilities."
Yates added that, while the technology was there to make an X-Box device, "our strategy right now is very, very clear: to provide additional functionality for TV."
That may change, and quickly, analysts said. With Sony using the PlayStation 2 as a "Trojan horse" to become the center of home entertainment, Microsoft should be looking at games as well.
"For Microsoft to get plugged into (the gaming console market) would not be a big stretch for them," said Jae Kim, analyst with entertainment technology watcher Paul Kagan Associates. "At the very least, it would provide another gateway into the living room."
Game developers think so, too.
"Can you see 200 million connections to the Internet and Microsoft not being a part of it?" asked one gaming industry source on condition of anonymity.
What about Dreamcast?
Still, some analysts doubted the reports, questioning why Microsoft would pursue a new game machine when its partner, Sega, has created a successful one already.
"Dreamcast meets all the goals they would set for such a device," said Peter Glaskowsky, graphics guru at chip technology researcher MicroDesign Resources Inc.
And Sega stresses that the working relationship with Microsoft could not be better. "Microsoft has been extremely supportive," said Charles Bellfield, director of marketing for Sega of America Inc.
Bellfield could not confirm the rumors of the mysterious game device. "I am sure that Microsoft is developing a whole range of products that will never see the light of day."
But the entire 'set top box' future Microsoft was trying to stop Sony dominating never eventually. They've spent billions tilting at windmills. They could have spent zero dollars and achieved the same outcome because the smartphone was going to come along and destroy the very notion of the box under the TV controlling everything.
Meanwhile, they completely missed the market on the biggest innovation in computing (said smartphone) since the PC.
Sony should've never released the PS2, since you know the PS3 wiped its profits.You think that's enough to make up for all the money they threw down the toilet on the Xbox brand?
Ha good old Sony too.Sony should've never released the PS2, since you know the PS3 wiped its profits.
Well Sony aren't in it for the money, but M$ are remember.Ha good old Sony too.
There are a few articles out there stating that XBox was profitable. Amy Hood allegedly said it as reported here.
I get why everyone is confused about "growing profitably" of course.
And some people know, this is already a $110 billion market. Console games and the services that relate to them are growing really double digits. So when you think about us, we've got a multibillion dollar business that's profitable and growing profitably. And the foundation that lays to add on the new business models, whether, as Phil mentioned, ads, subscriptions, selling gaming in that direction, whether it's the ability to think about RPU editions through low value watchers, whether it's the video models that we have through assets like Beam, I think it really opens up the possibilities of that market far beyond the $100 billion that we're already able to compete very effectively in.
Well it's a good thing this topic is about Sony and instead of addressing the comment at hand it's better to deflect and move goalposts /s.Well Sony aren't in it for the money, but M$ are remember.
Well I'll just ignore the head of the company, and the financial reports, and the sun by covering it with my thumb.The transcript of the event where she made comments can be found here. This is what she actually said:
This was reported as though she said that XBox was profitable. Again, the quote is actually ambiguous. "Us" could in this context refer to either the Xbox business, or the gaming market in general.
Or you could learn a thing or two about how companies operate, Sony does like money too.Well it's a good thing this topic is about Sony and instead of addressing the comment at hand it's better to deflect and move goalposts /s.
You think that's enough to make up for all the money they threw down the toilet on the Xbox brand?
Except the OP is in denial about the consecutive years of profit.I thought it was relatively well known in tech that Microsoft loses money on all of their hardware. They're not devices aimed at making a profit, they're devices aimed at getting their software into people's hands and homes.
I thought it was relatively well known in tech that Microsoft loses money on all of their hardware. They're not devices aimed at making a profit, they're devices aimed at getting their software into people's hands and homes.
Except the OP is in denial about the consecutive years of profit.
Bullshit.
The 360 was turning a profit in its third uear.
The gaming division also includes other things like the Zune.This comment by Thurrott was about the entirety of Microsoft's gaming business, not about the hardware specifically
I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but I addressed data showing marginal positive operating income for a couple of years in post #175
They wrote those costs off in the second year of the 360. Since then, it's been profit ever since.Given the Xenon, Zepher and Falcon boards made up the 360's first three years and the failure rates of those boards, (particularly the Xenon) I find that very difficult to believe. The system, early on, had a ludicrously high failure rate.
Perhaps a profit on paper, but I doubt the refurbishment bill on those units has every really been talked about in concrete terms. not to mention the damage to the brands perceived value.
It has.Also, no one answered my question in post #175 about whether operating income include write-offs due to RROD or not
This comment by Thurrott was about the entirety of Microsoft's gaming business, not about the hardware specifically
It has.
Also 360 rebuys, don't forget that.
This is Microsoft though, the ones who spent over 100 million just on the XB1 controller which had barely changed from its predecessor.
Pretty much
I mean they're getting 30% cut of every game sold, xbl, EA access, game pass, digital taking over so more money from games, microtransactions, Minecraft, sold the console at a profit originally, released a billion controllers with insane profit margins and a 150 dollar controller
There is literally no way they aren't profiting since the Xbox one. Not to mention all the studio closures aswell which should increase profits.
Nothing at all points to them losing money this Gen as a whole. On the console at times? Sure but no way the Xbox division. It just doesn't line up in any way.
Go back and look at the financial repirts, it says it clearly.Do you have a source?
Or do you have sufficient understanding of financial terms to understand my questions about the difference between operating income and net income and how each would deal with large write-offs for RROD in post #175 (genuine question)
Go back and look at the financial repirts, it says it clearly.
tales from your ass? well at least you're admitting something because you seem like an expert in that department from what I've seen of your posts, admittance is the first stepTales from MY ASS AGAIN i see.
You can't Google MS quarterly financial reports?Can you quote the relevant text in these reports? Same way I've linked and quoted relevant sources throughout the thread
tales from your ass? well at least you're admitting something because you seem like an expert in that department from what I've seen of your posts, admittance is the first step
we really gonna sit here and pretend the xbox division isn't profitable since the xb1's release? lmao what exactly are they losing money on?
You can't Google MS quarterly financial reports?
But you can dig up all sorts of other BS.
Sounds legit.
It seems the most people do is think you're absolutely crazy for suggesting they aren't profitable, but they can never post the direct sources to this.Burden of proof lies in the people making the claim. If you are saying they are profitable, then show the proof please.
we really gonna sit here and pretend the xbox division isn't profitable since the xb1's release? lmao what exactly are they losing money on in such large amounts to offset all the money they gain?
Go back and look at the financial repirts, it says it clearly.
What? Layoffs are exactly that.. layoffs, they aren't getting paid any more lolAs I already told you in post #175, mass layoffs in Europe, due to closure of European studios, cause high costs up front (which will be paid off in the long term)
What? Layoffs are exactly that.. layoffs, they aren't getting paid any more lol
You mean the rent costs of the studio Lionhead was in? Assuming they're still in contract and own the building
If that's what's the decider between MS losing money and profiting.. What exactly were they developing the game in, buckingham palace? Shit, not even that would offset all the money they make from Xbox.