SegaXtreme

Home	Forums	What's new	Resources

Xbox division down $4 billion

Whitesnake - Sep 28, 2005

		Whitesnake		Sep 28, 2005
			http://news.com.com/2061-10797_3-5884322.h...84322... Will the Xbox 360's early release help clear this debt? :wanker

		Mask of Destiny		Sep 28, 2005
			Well the original XBox was a last-minute hacked together device and there was no way they were ever going to break even on the device, but I don't think that was really the point. The XBox was an attempt to get a foothold in a market dominated by a competitor with a lot of market momentum. The XBox 360 on the other hand is clearly designed and priced to make money over it's lifespan. I also expect that they'll have a stronger market position for a number of reasons which will help towards that goal. Will they make back the 4 billion they lost on the XBox? Probably not this generation, but I expect that they will over time.

		Mr. Moustache		Sep 29, 2005
			Microsoft loses nearly $150 on every X-box sold, that's an old figure, manufacturing cost's have gone down, but so have the price of the X-box, so I doubt it's far off. Microsoft said early on in the game that they were willing to lose up to 5billion on the X-box. It wasn't meant to be a money maker, it was simply a foot in the door so they could have some sort of foothold in the next generation. Poor X-box sales actually help MS's bottom line. The same applies for Sony, they actually lose money every time someone buys a PS2. Not nearly as much as MS though, and they make it up in software sales. Nintendo on the other hand pulls a small profit from their hardware sales, when the GC came out it was estimated that it costs approx. $100 to manufacture, I doubt they're pulling a huge profit now with it being $99, but at the very least they're probably breaking even or taking an extremely small loss.

ExCyber

Sep 29, 2005

	
	
		
		
			The same applies for Sony, they actually lose money every time someone buys a PS2.

I doubt that this is true anymore, as the PSTwo looks fantastically cheap. Do you have a source?

		Quakester2000		Sep 30, 2005
			Looks like bill cant buy that island that he wanted for chistmas anymore

Mr. Moustache

Sep 30, 2005

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by ExCyber@Fri, 2005-09-30 @ 04:08 PM



I doubt that this is true anymore, as the PSTwo looks fantastically cheap. Do you have a source?



[post=140103]Quoted post[/post]

You're actually right on that, my mistake.

	
	
		
		
			Taken from gamedailybiz.com:



We disagree with management views about hardware pricing, and think that a hardware price cut could spur software sales. We expect Sony to continue to sell the redesigned PlayStation 2 for $149 until supply and demand are in balance, and then to cut the price to as low as $99 in front of the Xbox 360 launch. It is our belief that the redesigned PS2 carries a manufacturing cost of less than $99, and we believe that Sony suffered the ignominy of being unable to satisfy holiday demand in order to increase its gross profits over the short term.

Up to the point of the PSTwo Sony was certainly taking a hit on the hardware sales, albeit much smaller than MS's.. I've been hearing some crazy stuff about the manufacturing cost's of the PS3 being outrageousley high($500ish), and that's before you start tacking on the hard drive, which most likely will be sold seperately.

That's why I think Nintendo really has the best long-term hardware strategy. They come straight out of the box with cheap, yet comparabley powerful hardware, everyone wonders why they can still pull huge profits with such low sales. It's simple, they keep it cheap, and they keep it to themselves. Though if they don't include HD-TV support with the Rev. I'm going to be horribly disappointed, and even turned off a bit, it'll feel like It's missing something that should be there. Simply because by the end of it's life cycle HD-TV will be the standard most likely.

ExCyber

Oct 2, 2005

	
	
		
		
			Though if they don't include HD-TV support with the Rev. I'm going to be horribly disappointed, and even turned off a bit, it'll feel like It's missing something that should be there. Simply because by the end of it's life cycle HD-TV will be the standard most likely.

Most likely what you'll see is that the system itself supports HD, but only big-budget games will use anything higher than 480p. Given what Iwata has been saying about trying to reduce development costs, I highly doubt that Nintendo is going to have a big push to support HD.

		Whitesnake		Oct 4, 2005
			http://www.forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?ti... Interesting article i found when googling. It says the Revolution will not support HD and they are more or less being accused of their lack of vision like when they disregarded the online gaming console boom. Google finds quite a lot of articles on the Revolution not supporting HD

ExCyber

Oct 4, 2005

	
	
		
		
			It is accurate that at this time we will not support high-definition [on Revolution]

This only says that Nintendo isn't supporting HD on Revolution right now. They almost certainly mean that the current SDK and QA process don't support HD, not that the system can't do it. And frankly, they'd be nuts to make developers worry about HD support right now, when HD adoption is not very congruent with their primary target market.

edit: also, don't forget that 480p is not HD.

		Pearl Jammzz		Oct 4, 2005
			what is considered HD then?

		mal		Oct 4, 2005
			AFAIK 720p, 1080i and 1080p.

Mr. Moustache

Oct 5, 2005

	
	
		
		
			Originally posted by ExCyber@Wed, 2005-10-05 @ 02:57 AM



This only says that Nintendo isn't supporting HD on Revolution right now. They almost certainly mean that the current SDK and QA process don't support HD, not that the system can't do it. And frankly, they'd be nuts to make developers worry about HD support right now, when HD adoption is not very congruent with their primary target market.



edit: also, don't forget that 480p is not HD.



[post=140279]Quoted post[/post]

That's a fairly old quote, since then Nintendo has been very iffy about HD support, just about split down the middle on whether to include it or not. I understand the revolution of the revolution involves absolutely nothing with HD, in pure specs alone the Rev. may be comparable, but most likely slightly less powerful than the other 2, and if you say, have a game on the other 2 in HD and then on the Rev. in standard resolution, it'd be like night and day.

But yes, I can see that point, doesn't mean the system can't output HD, just that they aren't pushing for it atm. That would be a much smarter line to use rather than, "we don't plan to include HD support"... we'll see though.

ExCyber

Oct 5, 2005

	
	
		
		
			That's a fairly old quote, since then Nintendo has been very iffy about HD support, just about split down the middle on whether to include it or not.

You say "whether to include it or not", but I think that mischaracterizes the issue. There are several major aspects to "supporting HD":

1) Making the hardware able to do it: This should almost be a non-issue, since any modern GPU can support HD resolutions, and after that it's just a matter of bandwidth. A single HD-capable DVI/HDCP output shouldn't be very expensive at all if the logic is on the GPU die.

2) Supporting HD in the SDK and development tools: This means that libraries have more code paths, which makes internal QA and developer support harder/more expensive.

3) Supporting HD in the certification and QA process: This means that testing cycles will be longer (more scenarios to test), and testers will probably need new equipment.

4) Requiring developers/publishers to support all of the above: Makes development more expensive (which is contrary to Iwata's stated position) and Revolution less attractive as a target platform.

Basically, what I'm guessing is that Nintendo isn't worried about #1, they're worried about #2-4. In any case, talk of "will Revolution support HD" is missing the crux of the matter, which is that Revolution supporting HD means nothing in and of itself, and the real question is the capacity in which Nintendo will decide to support it. It's not a yes/no question.

	
	
		
		
			in pure specs alone the Rev. may be comparable, but most likely slightly less powerful than the other 2, and if you say, have a game on the other 2 in HD and then on the Rev. in standard resolution, it'd be like night and day.

I don't think that can be taken for granted. We'll have to see how effects and texture quality compare given that a higher resolution requires a higher fill rate and larger textures to achieve the same general image quality/complexity at the same framerate...

		KuKzz		Oct 7, 2005
			You know Ex-Cyber, sometimes you can reply with 2 words instead of several paragraphs

		ExCyber		Oct 7, 2005
			Says who?

		Mr. Moustache		Oct 8, 2005