The X1 has lost Microsoft 400 million

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
Strelok said:
Had a feeling they would be the first to bow out of consoles, who am I kidding, I couldn't wait for it. Though I didn't think we would start seeing the major signs this fast.
In total seriousness, this is nothing, Microsoft will keep the Xbone around for the long haul.

Microsoft had to write off almost $1billion on unsold Surface tablets last year, blew $7billion buying Nokia then immediately lost another $700million in operating losses since then.

Once all the subscription, licensing fees and game/accessory sales are added together it's usually touted that each games console sold generates about $1000 of income for the manufacturer over it's lifespan (except Nintendo). Since the Xbone has shifted 5 million and rising units I doubt Microsoft are losing too much sleep over $400million when they're expecting $5billion and rising in income over the next five years (although that's gross income not profit).

By way of comparison, Sony are rumoured to have lost as much as $5 billion on the PS3 in it's first three years (at one point PS3's were being sold at a loss of $300 each), whilst Microsoft lost around $3billion on hardware development of the 360, plus an unspecified but possibly even larger amount thanks to the RRoD and replacing roughly half to two thirds of all the 360s made in the first three years.

The hilarious costs of last gen is a big reason why this gen are basically laptops with the screen cut off, compared to six years ago $400 million on a new hardware launch is nothing.
 

Stabinbac

New member
Nov 25, 2010
51
0
0
Ten Foot Bunny said:
Microsoft has also been REALLY stupid when it comes to game variety. While every other platform diversified their game portfolios, MS remained (and still remains) focused on dull military shooters. The 360 turned into the most horrible choice of platform if you're not a fan of CoD and all of its knockoffs.
That's largely because it's an American console, and most of the games you're suggesting are likely Japanese. The Japanese are nationalistic and xenophobic. Microsoft would gladly have them put all their games on the Xbox.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Tayh said:
Now, I'm not really into consoles, but are you guys actually encouraging a situation where Sony has the monopoly on Big Console Games?
Do you not know where monopolies lead?
Surely some competition is good to keep the companies on their toes.
Are you a Steam fan?

That question aside, you do understand that we're yet to have a single company bowing out lead to a monopoly, and it's unlikely to start here, right?
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
DirgeNovak said:
Sure, I don't want a monopoly, that would be bad. But I still want the Xbone to fail to some extent. Maybe not Dreamcast-fail, but at least Gamecube-fail.
The two are almost the same thing really. The Dreamcast actually sold half the number of consoles that the Gamecube did in it's short life span. The only reason Sega was really forced to abandon it was because releasing a few failed peripherals and a failed console all in a row is a good way to put yourself in an untenable financial situation requiring nothing less than hitting it out of the park.

Ironically, they did hit it out of the park, but most people were too busy waiting for the successor to the wildly popular PSX to notice.
 

DirgeNovak

I'm anticipating DmC. Flame me.
Jul 23, 2008
1,645
0
0
Vivi22 said:
DirgeNovak said:
Sure, I don't want a monopoly, that would be bad. But I still want the Xbone to fail to some extent. Maybe not Dreamcast-fail, but at least Gamecube-fail.
The two are almost the same thing really. The Dreamcast actually sold half the number of consoles that the Gamecube did in it's short life span. The only reason Sega was really forced to abandon it was because releasing a few failed peripherals and a failed console all in a row is a good way to put yourself in an untenable financial situation requiring nothing less than hitting it out of the park.

Ironically, they did hit it out of the park, but most people were too busy waiting for the successor to the wildly popular PSX to notice.
What I meant was I want Microsoft to get a good kick in the balls like Nintendo did with the GameCube, but not kill them as a console manufacturer like the Dremacast did to Sega.
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
Adam Jensen said:
Wow. How much would they lose if they didn't change all those horrible policies, I wonder.
I'm guessing that the 'Xbox Division' would have been renamed the 'Dish Washing Division'. The Kinect would be just as useless to them.
 

kilenem

New member
Jul 21, 2013
903
0
0
Strelok said:
Might help to post some articles to back it up, and fix your title, it is Microsoft that lost the money.

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/08/08/xbox-one-lost-microsoft-400000000-during-last-fiscal-year/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2456906/as-hardware-kills-microsoft-profits-ceo-nadella-seeks-comfort-in-software.html
http://n4g.com/news/1563679/xbox-one-lost-about-400-000-000-in-gross-margins-for-microsoft-during-latest-fiscal-year

Had a feeling they would be the first to bow out of consoles, who am I kidding, I couldn't wait for it. Though I didn't think we would start seeing the major signs this fast.
Ten Foot Bunny said:
Microsoft has also been REALLY stupid when it comes to game variety. While every other platform diversified their game portfolios, MS remained (and still remains) focused on dull military shooters. The 360 turned into the most horrible choice of platform if you're not a fan of CoD and all of its knockoffs.

I had the original Xbox and also the 360, but never owned a PS2 or PS3. In the last 13 years, the Xbox went from having a bunch of enjoyable titles to being little more than a U.S.-military-school primer. I eventually became downright jealous of PS3 owners who got to play games that had depth, flair, and artistic merit. Since the Xbone appears to be following in the footsteps of its predecessor's lack of variety, my next console will definitely be the PS4. If Microsoft wants the Xbox brand to survive, they really need to start courting gamers who aren't sugar-rushed 13-year-olds who won't play any game with more complexity than "if it moves, kill it."
I think it depends when you got the 360. Towards the end it became mostly military shooters but they did do a banjo, Kameo was a launch title. Mass Effect was a exlcusive. Plus Xbox live had a ton of different games. Once people finally figured out the playstation hardware, they started to port or make a ton games for the PS3.
 

Roxas1359

Burn, Burn it All!
Aug 8, 2009
33,758
1
0
kilenem said:
I think it depends when you got the 360. Towards the end it became mostly military shooters but hey did do a banjo, Kameo was a launch title. Mass Effect was a exlcusive. Plus Xbox live had a ton of different games. Once people finnaly figured out the playstation hardware and started to port or make a ton games for the PS3.
That's pretty much what happened to me. I started off with a 360 in 2007, and I loved it along with the game variety. Sure mine RRoD'd once, but I got it repaired for free and kept it until I upgraded to an Elite last year. Game wise, there was a plethora of things I loved with so many different genre, and I would get Live Gold time for Christmas and my birthday since I couldn't get a job since I was too young. But then around 2009 to 2010 I started to notice that the PS3 started to get more of the games that interested me, along with the Wii which I had gotten at launch and had since simply become my second GameCube. Over time I started see less and less variety in the 360, and I stopped with Live after it went up in price. Eventually got a PS3, region broke my Wii for those lovely imports that never came out of Japan, and now my 360 is my least played system.

Will I still play my 360? Yeah, maybe once or twice a year, but compared to my other consoles it's my least played now. For me it goes: PS2, PS3, Wii U/Wii (I use my Wii U more now), GameCube, 360.
 

Tayh

New member
Apr 6, 2009
775
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
Are you a Steam fan?

That question aside, you do understand that we're yet to have a single company bowing out lead to a monopoly, and it's unlikely to start here, right?
No, I despise steam, partly because it's well on the way to becoming a monopoly.
If MS bowed out and stopped supporting their console, then Sony's console would be the only AAA-console available, right?
If people had no choice but to use their console for most big games, what's to stop Sony from becoming lazy, complacent and anti-consumer?
 

A Weakgeek

New member
Feb 3, 2011
811
0
0
To people saying it's not a "monopoly", because of PC and Nintendo:

1) Triple A gaming on PC is not a thing for the vast majority of population. PC has never had the branding and media attention that the consoles have had. That the very possibility is foreign to most people, is a vast hurdle among with the price and the accessibility issues. ( Yes I'm well aware, building a PC, or especially buying prebuilt is simple, but its not something the vast majority of people are capable or wanting to do.) We, core gamers will always be the minority, and a small demographic when discussing as big of an industry as gaming has become.

2) Nintendo consoles have, and for the forseeable future will continue to have a vastly different demographic. The consoles have been carried by 1st party titles, excluding the massive explosion of the Wiimote titles in the last generation. (Something that the WiiU isn't even close to matching) It just currently seems unlikely that the 3rd party franchises that make up the backbone of the industry (GTA, Call of duty, Battlefield, Fifa, Madden, Need for speed, Forza, Gran turismo, Assasin's creed, to name a few) would suddenly find themselves successfully ported onto the WiiU, especially since unlike the Wii the install base is smaller than the PS4.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Did anyone read the articles? Or at least understand them? Computing and Gaming Hardware revenue increased $3.2 billion or 49%. Even if the Xbox One hardware is making a loss, the department isn't. Seeing as the focus is in process of shifting almost entirely to X1 from other platforms, the so called $400 Million loss is totally immaterial. There are bound to be losses when launching a new platform.

Or, to put simply, the xbone costs a ton to make, but once you've got one in your home, Microsoft will continue to sell you games and subscriptions with a much better profit margin, and you'll be committed to buying their crap because you bought the console. They still shifted well over 11 million consoles
 

ExtraDebit

New member
Jul 16, 2011
533
0
0
I hope they lose more until the console is deem total failure, anti-consumeristic greed had got to be punished and the only punishment these greedy bastard knows is losing their money.

Americans almost killed the gaming industry during the atari era, when will they learn? Just stop being so fucking greedy! and stop hiring CEO that doesn't even PLAY games.
 

A Weakgeek

New member
Feb 3, 2011
811
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
A Weakgeek said:
To people saying it's not a "monopoly", because of PC and Nintendo:

1) Triple A gaming on PC is not a thing for the vast majority of population. PC has never had the branding and media attention that the consoles have had. That the very possibility is foreign to most people, is a vast hurdle among with the price and the accessibility issues. ( Yes I'm well aware, building a PC, or especially buying prebuilt is simple, but its not something the vast majority of people are capable or wanting to do.) We, core gamers will always be the minority, and a small demographic when discussing as big of an industry as gaming has become.

2) Nintendo consoles have, and for the forseeable future will continue to have a vastly different demographic. The consoles have been carried by 1st party titles, excluding the massive explosion of the Wiimote titles in the last generation. (Something that the WiiU isn't even close to matching) It just currently seems unlikely that the 3rd party franchises that make up the backbone of the industry (GTA, Call of duty, Battlefield, Fifa, Madden, Need for speed, Forza, Gran turismo, Assasin's creed, to name a few) would suddenly find themselves successfully ported onto the WiiU, especially since unlike the Wii the install base is smaller than the PS4.
Actually AAA gaming is on its way out. Even Ubisoft admitted that they can't afford to keep spending 50 million on a basic AAA that has no guarantee of it selling.

Lots of devs died because of a AAA game not selling, and others are hurting.

And they copy paste everything in all their games. I can't imagine how much others spend who make the game entirely from scratch.

So in the near future AAA games will be foreign to an industry that is downshifting to a smaller scale. Like it was back in the 90s.
Fair enough. However, don't you think this will just further push Sony in the lead? It's not like the casual market will suddenly become more interested in the indie scene which can't afford to market their game to large demographics. It's not like developing for the WiiU is cheaper or easier (I'd imagine its the opposite, with the tablet and all), or that it has a better online store/community for smaller games to thrive on.

I'd imagine in that situation, continuing to milk old franchises (Like ones mentioned in my previous post) would be even more attractive to publishers, since the possibility of rehashing assets and less need for marketing. I'd also imagine that in this case it'd be less likely to try and port to the WiiU aswell.
 

Savagezion

New member
Mar 28, 2010
2,455
0
0
A Weakgeek said:
To people saying it's not a "monopoly", because of PC and Nintendo:

1) Triple A gaming on PC is not a thing for the vast majority of population. PC has never had the branding and media attention that the consoles have had. That the very possibility is foreign to most people, is a vast hurdle among with the price and the accessibility issues. ( Yes I'm well aware, building a PC, or especially buying prebuilt is simple, but its not something the vast majority of people are capable or wanting to do.) We, core gamers will always be the minority, and a small demographic when discussing as big of an industry as gaming has become.
This I find amusing because as I was growing up, in the 80s and 90s computers were shoved down the throats of kids because "computers are the future". They were right, computers are now the present. Now is a great time to encourage people to get in to computers. They are plug and play and very simplified. No one is asking people to solder on capacitors. It's more like square peg, square hole. Even if you don't know about computers you are still expected to know how to navigate one as part of a high school education. You don't have to be a hacker to learn how to check system requirements, install through a wizard, open a program, and post on forums if you run into a problem. PC gamers aren't like "Hah, figure it out noob". That is the console audience. PC gamers are more likely to get in a pissing match as to who can solve your problem faster. Sometimes it might become a pissing match over who has the better solution.

The core audience should be aware the platform to end all platforms is already here. Free online play (subscriptions are all but dead), virtually full backwards compatibility, make your own game on the system, plus illegal stuff as it is a truly open platform. (Not advocating, just stating fact.)

However, overall the PC is basically mandatory in the home. For the middle class, the largest demographic, avoiding learning basic computer skills is just choosing to be ignorant. Choosing to be ignorant doesn't make the PC no longer a viable alternative. That's like saying Playstation is already a monopoly because I am not interested in Nintendo (platformers) and Xbox (shooters) game libraries. That's just selective vision.

2) Nintendo consoles have, and for the forseeable future will continue to have a vastly different demographic. The consoles have been carried by 1st party titles, excluding the massive explosion of the Wiimote titles in the last generation. (Something that the WiiU isn't even close to matching) It just currently seems unlikely that the 3rd party franchises that make up the backbone of the industry (GTA, Call of duty, Battlefield, Fifa, Madden, Need for speed, Forza, Gran turismo, Assasin's creed, to name a few) would suddenly find themselves successfully ported onto the WiiU, especially since unlike the Wii the install base is smaller than the PS4.
The only point I will make here is that Nintendo has claimed it is open to M rated games. It's hardware is different for sure, however it is cheaper hardware to develop for which offers a competitive edge in that regard. I will gladly step down in graphical quality if Nintendo suddenly has some good M rated games as well as the usual kid friendly stuff. With risk being cheaper to develop for on the console this could spawn innovation in game design. Not saying it will but it holds potential. Then add in the "seeing what you want to see" bit I mentioned above. These are both viable competitors.

EDIT:
It's not like developing for the WiiU is cheaper or easier (I'd imagine its the opposite, with the tablet and all), or that it has a better online store/community for smaller games to thrive on.
This actually depends on the dev kit. With lower greaphic capabilities, it may be cheaper. A touch screen tablet shouldn't really effect that. Game development cost will lower and speed up as the devs get more familiar with it on both sides. PS4 devs will always be trying to get more horsepower out of it though. Wii-U horsepower can be gauged by last gen hardware, only slightly better.
 

JayRPG

New member
Oct 25, 2012
585
0
0
I don't see the Xbox One making any big comeback like the PS3 last gen.

The big selling point of the Xbox 360 was price and it released first, nobody wanted to spend $800 on a PS3 so the X360 got a huge head start.

PS3 sales ended up over taking X360 sales eventually when prices were dropped and that was because they essentially offered the same things except the PS3 also began to get the monopoly on JRPGs and other niche titles (and a blu ray player).

This time around though the PS4 was cheaper and shot out of the gate, it is also more powerful so it basically offers everything the Xbox One does but in most cases it offers them slightly better, and not only that, but how long do you think it will take for those same JRPG and specialty titles to flock to the PS4?

The X360 right now is essentially dead, it has a few AAA releases that are coming out on every other console, the PS3 on the other hand has 20+ exclusives coming out between now and Q2 next year.

There is no specialty market Microsoft can go for to boost Xbox One sales, they have all but abandoned the Kinect, which wasn't a big selling point (or very popular) to begin with.

The Xbox One has nothing to offer over the PS4 besides a very select few exclusives that look fairly generic, the only exclusive I'd want to play on X1 is Sunset Overdrive. I suspect most of it's initial sales were X360 owners who just went with the same thing.
 

joest01

Senior Member
Apr 15, 2009
399
0
21
Meanwhile Sony will start streaming games to their TV sets soon. Smell the coffee peoples :)

And yet, while these forums are full of Nintendo doomspeak and now, I guess, MSFT, it is Sony that we should all be worried about!

Absurd!