Messages

1

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 03, 2014, 05:10:36 AM »

...

...

Here's are a couple of links form Wikipedia that you two might find interesting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

Sorry there aren't any pictures.

Don't respond because I won't be back to read it.

Ever.

2

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 03, 2014, 01:29:16 AM »

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101212582

"Although Sony brought the PlayStation 3's costs down significantly during its lifetime, the company's intent was never to make money on the hardware, but rather to profit through sales of games and content," said Andrew Rassweiler, senior director, cost benchmarking services for IHS.

How can you call that a flop? Like I said, they did exactly what they set out to do - sell millions of consoles at their MSRP, even if it was at a loss (for a while). Doing what you plan on doing = not a flop. Not failure. Not failure. Not failure. Every extra controller, every licensed accessory, every game (especially digital) sold = profit, or at least break even to wear the PS4 is already being sold for more than it costs to build and Sony will join Nintendo in making money off of hardware sales.

Except they didn't do that. They didn't profit from the hardware, sure NOW they say that they never intended to (riiiiiiiiiight..., he said sarcastically), but they also didn't profit from software or peripherals nor anything else. They didn't make any profit AT ALL. The PS3 was one giant money sink from beginning to end.

Flop.

As for the PS4, we'll have to see if Sony has learned any real lessons but it's going to be near impossible to prove what with all the juggling Sony has been doing to hide their real losses as it is. And they've had years of practice at it.

In regards to disclosure: I bought an original PSX. Completely swore off Sony after that, and have never owned an XBox anything.

3

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 03, 2014, 12:00:53 AM »

We have no idea how much money Sony and Microsoft made (or un-made) from their respective divisions. We can't make such statements based only on speculation like this. We cannot say conclusively that the Xbox and PlayStation brands were unsuccessful as a whole because we do not have every piece of information to make such judgments.

Right now however after the disaster that was once known as Windows 8 I think it's safe to say Microsoft will take what they can get from the xbone. Sure it may have lost them money compared to ten years ago but I think it's safe to say right now the xbone is all they have atm. Sony has had to have made something on the PlayStation brand overall considering the relative haywire going on with that company just hemorrhagging money on half baked ideas in their other departments (see any smartphone they made before the Xperia Z or that bid they made on 3d TV)

We know that it was billions that were lost, by both of them, up until they started to try and obscure what was really happening. We'll never know the real extent of the damage but it was very sever. We also know that a company doing well isn't going to try and hide those profits by burying them under an umbrella division as Sony and MS have done.

Sony and Microsoft make up for their hardware losses with PSN/Xbox Live subscriptions and 3rd-party royalties.

Neither of them make enough from royalties or services to cover the kinds of losses that they've accrued. Again, billions. They've each lost billions.

How can that not be seen as anything but absurd?

4

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 10:06:52 PM »

What exactly is the point of this argument, anyway? Even if you're right that Sony and Microsoft are lying when they say their game divisions are profitable, how is that relevant to Nintendo and to us?

The point is that they're putting out hardware that is severely overpowered and selling it at a loss, meaning that they can't even afford to be putting the hardware out at it's actual cost because no one would buy it then. Now because the hardware is so overpowered that leaves a lot of power to dump into games. Problem is, the way Sony and MS "encourage" 3rd parties to do business, they're going to feel pressured to use all that power, even if the costs associated with it are so high that a multi-million selling game can fail to make back its budget.

The whole system is out of whack. Budgets have already blown up to the point where they're dangerously out of control and now they're releasing even more powerful hardware ensuring that budgets will continue to swell even more? They just don't seem to give a damn about whether 3rd parties can support this hardware but they will try and they will push for bigger and better because that's been the mantra for years from both Sony, MS and even other developers.

The only one who doesn't follow that ideology is Nintendo. They ensure that their hardware isn't so powerful that their own developers can't get a grip on it and put out games that will be difficult if not impossible to control the costs of. Yes, developers NEED those limits or they will kill themselves. That has been shown time and time again these last several years.

Missed that quote and there really is no reason to believe those budgets would have quadrupled.  EA is on record as saying next gen is 4% more costly.

Killzone: Shadow Fall’s lead designer on the PS4:

“The architecture is really cool because it’s easier to develop for, you get more memory, you get more hard drive space, you get more processing power so the architecture is easier,”

“It’s also a lot more demanding, because the production effort needed just to make a next-gen title now is not doubled; it’s quadrupled.”

“That’s because everything needs to look that much better.”

So things aren't okay since they aren't making money.

No they're not. But they will be making money again soon so it's not that big of a deal. Now if they were predicting to see losses for several years, now that would be a problem.

Nothing else needs to be responded to because you're simply splitting hairs at this point.

PS3 and 360 were sold (and are still sold) at prices that they know they aren't profiting from the hardware with. I don't know how you can call that a flop, especially when they sold over 80 million each. They didn't expect people to pay $1000 for their consoles, they are sold at their own MSRP. If you average the PS3's price at $450 over the past 7 years, that's $36 billion in revenue. If they sold, let's say, 1 million consoles, then you could call it a flop. No interest and no sales = flop. Selling 80 million systems  = not a flop.

80 millions systems and not a dime to show for it screams flop. Deny it all you want. They made NO MONEY AT ALL. Now I know you can read that. None. Nada. Zip. They're even more in the hole now because of the losses from the PS4 and XBone. No money. Lost a fortune on the deal actually. Didn't even break even which would be SOMETHING. Sony is completely in the red from ALL of their previous games profits because of the PS3. All of it gone. Poof! Up in smoke. MS is even worse off. They still haven't even made a dent on the losses from the original XBox, let alone the 360.

Failure.
Failure.
Failure.

If Nintendo had put out either the PS3 or the 360 with the same sales and even the same 3rd party support they would be gone today. G-O-N-E. No money means no company. Sony and MS are feeding off the entrails of their other divisions in order to keep their consoles going.

5

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 05:46:58 PM »

Financial statements for all companies including Nintendo's obscure a lot.   How much did Nintendo make off the 3DS last year?  How much on software development?  How much did they make on the Wii?  You can't find it. While Nintendo can't hide their overall results you won't find much in the way of detail.

When Sony and MS won't even list what they made or lost on their console business, that's a problem. Breaking down the 3DS vs Wii U income and losses is absolutely nothing compared to that. At least with Nintendo you get numbers.

NES was spectacular for sure. But the gaming crash cleaned out companies and left a void for consumers looking for games. I think it benefited them greatly that there were no competitors.

Or it could have failed instantly and drove Nintendo back to hanafuda cards and love hotels. Point being, EVERYONE at the time was saying the NES was going to fail. So much so that Nintendo had to promise stores that they would buy back unsold NES systems if it came to that.

Besides, again, who said there was anyone looking to buy games anymore? The fad was over. Or at least it was supposed to be.

With MS and the XBox though, everyone was certain they would easily become a huge player in the industry, even to the point of cockiness. Sure they're a big player now, but they haven't made any money yet. That's not good.

Multinational companies are open to all sorts of risk, but we were talking about a very specific risk.

Yeah. But Nintendo will show more of those issues than either Sony and MS who can easily play the slide of hand game and make it look like they're making a profit even when they're losing money because of all the pies they have different fingers in.

You care a lot more about Sony and Microsoft than I do.  They've had disappointments for sure, but they both seem to have learned a lot and I believe they will both be profitable because they are correcting issues instead of plowing ahead like Nintendo.

I care because they scare me. It wouldn't worry me if they weren't dragging the entire industry down this path of unsustainability. How many developers have gone under already? How many great games have been warped into carbon copies of yearly franchise rehases in an attempt to stem the blood flow? All I see is Sony and MS leading gaming to become more homoginized and less profitable. Eventually it won't be sustainable any more and I'm not even sure Nintendo could survive a crash of that magnitude.

If they can mange to get their act together, I wouldn't care so much. But right now one dumb move from either of them could take down any or even all of the remaining big developers. And as obsessed as 3rd parties are with Sony and MS they'll willingly walk right into it even if they know it will kill them. That combination of power and stupid really, really terrifies me.

An internal Sony developer has already stated that their PS4 budgets have quadrupled from the PS3 and PS3 budgets were already out of control. I don't see that as "learn(ing) a lot" or "correcting issues". Sounds like the same old business, different system.

Pretty much I've taken to the idea that as long as Nintendo is making money things will be okay. Since the Wii proved that 3rd parties are more than willing to burn their own market down in order to be seen as one of the "big boys", I've pretty much given up on all of them.

But I watch... because I'm expecting the worst. And that will most definitely be coming from either Sony, MS or most likely the both of them.

6

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 04:40:55 PM »

There is no way for me or anyone to look into the books because Microsoft doesn't publish them. A fun article to generate hits but can't be proven. I think the math is a little fuzzy too. The division is on track for 1B profit. Back out 2B in royalties and you are at 1 B loss. Yet somehow xbox is responsible for 2B loss?  Did the windows phone make 1 B profit? 

Mehdi has said the XBO will break even on day one and tear downs support that.

But it doesn't really matter if Xbox is a failure or not. You seem to be implying that because the competitors are wrong, Nintendo is right. Nintendo is losing money and the Wii U is being rejected by the market. They are not in a good position even if their main competitors are screwing up.

Sure, you can't 100% prove anything but MS and Sony have been trying their hardest to obscure what's really going on with their games divisions as of late. That's never a good sign.

As for weather XBone will break even or not, again we won't ever know that as, again, obscure and hide is the name of the game. Neither MS or Sony are ever going to be honest about what's really going on with their games divisions. Nintendo on the the other hand, has nowhere to hide so everything is in plain sight at all times.

And no, I'm not implying that Nintendo is right. I'm implying that Sony and MS don't have a single clue about how to deal with games. There is a smarter company out there who could easily show up and even blow Nintendo out of the water. That's always possible. What I'm saying is that if you're not making money, which Sony and MS are not, then you're a failure. Even if Nintendo didn't exist I would feel the same way. Sony and MS don't know how to deal with games at all.

Do I need to explain competition?  NES had none, Xbox had strong competitors. The 2 situations are completely different. And Nintendo did have game development experience with arcades ( DK) and game and watch.

Do I need to repeat DEAD INDUSTRY? Nintendo may not have had any console competition at the time but according to prevailing thought, there weren't even any customers for Nintendo to sell the NES to in the first place. I'd say that's far more of a miracle than the largest company in the world managing to barely get their foot in the door by blowing billions of dollars year after year.
 

That's speculative. Microsoft's biggest profits come from supporting businesses. I think dont think xbox is as unprofitable as you think and I dont think they'd be willing to support it indefinitely with losses. Apple/Amazon are their closest competitors in the cloud realm and they get by fine without dedicated gaming devices.

Speculative is it not. MS has stated themselves that the XBox was about getting into the living room before Sony could take it over. Business software is where they make most of their money today, but tablets and smart phones are beginning to eat into that heavily, and businesses want their employees to be as connected as possible so they can work them more hours. MS is currently failing miserably at adapting to that new market. For now the old market will sustain them, but as the old market fades, so will their profits.

It's another reason why they are so willing to continue dumping billions into XBox. They need those new revenue streams badly.

Yes, Iwata was disappointed in 3DS sales in 2011. I haven't heard him say he is now. 3DS hasn't dropped in price in 2.5 years and I can't believe it isn't raking in the dough. 2DS is just a good business move and not indicative that they are unsatisfied with the 3DS.

He stated it in 2012 as well. I believe I read it around the summer. He was discussing how huge the 3DS was in Japan but he was still disappointed in sales elsewhere. And yes, the 2DS is a good business move but having 3 different models at the same time? And in such a short period of time? Reminds me of the PS3 and it's absurd number of revisions. Again though, I'm not saying it's not profitable, just that Nintendo seems to be less than happy with how it's been doing.

See when you say things like that it makes me think you dont understand. If Nintendo held 100% of their cash in yen they would never be subject to currency gains/losses. Yen holdings mitigate the risk, they dont expose them to more risk.

Simply by virtue of doing business with companies outside of Japan they are exposed to risk. Their war chest is pretty much in tact, though it too fluctuates with companies outside of Japan, but their day to day and even yearly profits can swing wildly. Far more than either Sony or MS.

It's fair to say they haven't gotten the results they expected. I think that's different than saying they don't care about making profits on games.

And what results would those be? They haven't made any money on games at all and are set to come in 3rd in the last generation, down from 2nd the generation before. If MS would explain what all these losses are supposed to achieve then we might be able to make some sense out of it. But since all we have to go on is the fact that they've already stated that the XBox is a trojan horse to get their hardware into your home and in control of pretty much everything that you do, we're just going to have to go with that.

And at that, they have failed miserably.

I still remember when they anouced the first XBox and said they were expecting 300 millions sales within the first year. Ah... Good times. Good... times...

PS3 and 360 have both sold over 80 million consoles. There is no planet where you can call that a flop.

And neither has made any money for their respective companies. That, my friend, is the definition of a flop. Again, you can sell all the consoles and games you want but if you're not making any money (you know, the stuff that happens to be the life blood of companies?) you won't be doing it for long. Flops they are and flops they will remain, no matter how powerfully gaming fans want to pretend that they aren't.

NO MONEY == TOTAL FLOP

7

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 02:25:22 PM »

Microsoft had no first parties and no third party relations. They used an entrance strategy where they knew they were going to lose money initially. They are now fully entrenched in the industry and profitable.

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-earns-2-billion-per-year-from-android-patent-royalties-2013-11

As I've said before, you really need to take a good look at those books.

Besides, Nintendo didn't have any real 1st or 3rd party relations either when they started with the NES in what everyone was calling a dead industry. Didn't stop them from posting amazing profits from day one.

Sony made the mistake of thinking people would pay $300 extra for a blue ray player. It was a bad plan. Bad plans can cause you to lose money, I don't see a bad plan this round.

They didn't try to lose money and I dont understand why people think Microsoft and Sony intentionally lose money other than the original Xbox.  These are investor owned companies who only evaluate executives based on profit. Read their financials and you'll get an idea of how important it is for these investments to turn a profit.

No, they're not actively trying to lose money. That would be insane. But it does sound funny and grab attention, especially since no one seems to be able to come up with a better reason.

What it is is their actual goals have nothing to do with games. So their games systems are really their loss leaders until they get to where they really want to get, which is entrenched in your living room and you paying them for every bit of media that flows into your home. Why else would a company like MS be willing to loose so much over so many years with no sign of a return in sight?

Jigga what?  You think the 3DS is unprofitable?  You should read Iwata's quarterly comments. He clearly blames the financial struggles on the Wii U while having a 3DS love affair. He says fun comments like needing to see how the Wii U does over the holiday before deciding a long term plan for the Wii U. I'd think he'd be a little more upbeat about it if it were close to making a profit.

I never said the 3DS was unprofitable. I said that it's not making the kinds of profits that a lot of people seem to be assuming that it is. When they dropped the price they started selling at a loss, and it took them a while to make up that loss. We're now looking at 3 different 3DS versions on the market at one time ranging from $129 to $199. Nintendo is currently trying to scrape the market from both ends because it's not turning the kinds of profits that they were hoping it would by now. Hell, even Iwata himself stated that he's been disappointed with sales outside of Japan.

You don't understand currency conversion's impact on Nintendo. They keep a broad amount of cash in dollars and euros since they do business there. These get revalued back to yen and that change in value impacts Nintendo, not the money they hold as yen. The money held as yen will never have gains/loss associated with it since they report in yen.

I understand that but Nintendo still holds most of their currency in Yen and any fluctuations in the market can still greatly impact their resources and profitability.

8

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 01:54:39 PM »

Pretty much every game hardware company there ever was that isn't Nintendo sells the hardware at a loss in order to get it into as many hands as possible in order to make money on software. "Giving away the razor to sell the blades." They could probably do it Nintendo's way, but they want to do it that way, and the fact that virtually everyone else does it that way would lead me to believe it's (or at least it can be) an effective strategy.

It can be effective in certain industries but seeing as how Nintendo has been around since the early 80s and isn't going anywhere any time soon, you'd think some other companies would realize that the razor and blades method doesn't work with video games. It only works if you're not interested in making any money at all in the first place. And why would you be uninterested in making money? Because you're not interested in games at all to begin with.

I have a glucometer because I'm diabetic. The meter cost nearly nothing but the strips that I NEED to use it cost a fortune. I NEED to buy those strips to use that meter so they sell the meter at a loss because they know that they'll make that money back on the sales of strips.

How many games do I NEED to buy with a games console? If all it really does is plays games and doesn't come with a pack in, I would assume one. But I don't NEED to buy more than one if I don't want to. That's why the razor and blades model doesn't work with games. There is no intrinsic NEED to buy any more games and at that point, if you can't turn a profit from that one game, your console sale to me becomes nothing but red ink.

Printers and ink.

Except with Sony and MS you never make any money on the ink then release a new printer that makes the old printer obsolete and start the cycle all over.

When do they start turning a profit again?

Any other company would be smart enough to let their console division go at this point. MS is on their 3rd system in a row without seeing any return and Sony is, for all intents and purposes because of the huge losses the PS3 incurred for them, on their 4th. When is enough enough?

Everyone else got out. Atari, Sega, NEC, etc, etc. Why the hell are Sony and MS so adamant to continue losing money on games?

9

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 01:17:18 PM »

I wouldn't call PS3 or 360 flops in pretty much any sense of the word, but they're not as successful as as they look to consumers. Most consumers don't know or care how much Sony and Microsoft lost and how much Nintendo profited. It should matter albeit indirectly because how well a console maker performs affects a lot of things.

If the 3D0 was your favorite system of all time then you, your friends, hell everyone in the world could consider it the greatest system ever made! Means nothing in regards to whether it was actually profitable for the the company that made it though. And if your company isn't profitable you're doing it wrong.

If you're not making money, it's a flop. That's a period situation. But the PS3 and 360 were purposeful flops. Do you really think that companies as huge and varied as Sony and MS couldn't come up with a cost effective system that they could honestly sell for a profit from day one? Nintendo has been able to pull that off for almost every single piece of hardware that they've ever released.

Sony and MS have never been able to do that even once.

Why?

10

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 12:29:55 PM »

Yeah, this is just getting painful to read now, so I'm going to sheathe my sword and walk away while he's still only making an ass of himself.  I generally enjoy speaking with fanboys on this site, but usually they provide more entertaining discussion.

What's really harsh is how with so many games and systems Sony and MS have sold, they still can't seem to make any money. How is that possible? As for entertaining discussion, if you're not really interested don't comment. It's as simple as that.

The Xbox line has lost Microsoft money if you're looking at the whole life of the division, but what Microsoft really cares about is making a profit for the year, which they've been doing for a while now. I believe they've actually even made money on the 360 as a whole at this point after putting themselves in a bad spot with the red ring of death early in its life. They'll probably never make back the billions they spent on busting into the market, but they don't care.

MS isn't interested in making money at all. They're interested in stopping Sony from making inroads into the living room because that's what they're trying to do themselves. Kinect proved itself to be useless for gaming, but it's good as a user interface for the living room, apparently. Why the hell bundle something that's completely useless for gaming with your system and drive the cost up? Because they're not interested in gaming. Neither is Sony. If they happen to make any money off of games then that's just a side effect. They're both much more interested in controlling all of the media that you consume.

Whatever profits that MS has been making on the 360 recently are never going to make up for their losses from their first few years. Their losses from selling bellow cost added to what they lost from the lawsuit about the RRoD and the several billion dollars to fix that situation alone are going to take a while to dig out from under. Besides, there are no more hard numbers on their XBox division. They've buried it in a combined division so they can hide the losses. Apparently, the real numbers are closer to about $2 Billion lost each year, still.

Just like how Sony likes to hide their real hardware losses by selling components from their other divisions to their games division bellow cost so the numbers look better. Nobody ever really takes a good hard look at the books and everyone pretends that nothing's wrong. Par for the course.

As for MS not caring about all the money they lost on the original XBox, they should and so should you. Because of the huge losses that they've taking they've proven that they don't have a clue how to deal with video games. It's the same old story of throw money at it to make it better. Everyone's costs go up, developers go out of business and all of a sudden several million units sold, which used to be considered a smash hit, and a game still can't manage to break even let alone turn a profit. The entire situation becomes untenable and the industry as a whole begins to falter. Sony and MS don't care because they just want to push hardware that they can control into your living room on the backs of gamers. Everyone else can go bankrupt as long as they get what they want.

Yes, PS3 and 360 have been profitable for a while. Unless another RROD issue comes up, there is little reason to believe PS4 and XBO won't be profitable.

Gaug- Nintendo posted a 9/30 operating loss. Operating losses exclude currency adjustments. That means the Wii U wiped out all the 3DS and software development profits for the period. Ironically, Nintendo made a net profit for the period because of favorable currency adjustments. That info may be useful to you.

The original XBox didn't have any major hardware problems and MS still managed to lose around a billion dollars a year on it, that we know of anyway, and people say that is was a success. Neither did the PS3 and yet Sony still managed to wipe out every bit of money that they've ever made on games, and then some. You don't need a hardware disaster to lose money.

Nintendo isn't making money right now not just because of the Wii U but also because of the 3DS. It's selling great, yeah, but the hardware costs are still up there. That's one of the reasons the 2DS was released. They're really trying to get the costs down. I doubt they're making as much as you think on the 3DS even today. As the costs drop though, they'll make more. And the cost for the Wii U is dropping too. Shouldn't be too long before it becomes profitable as well.

Currency conversion is always an issue though. Especially when you're a smaller company like Nintendo who keeps all of their resources in one country under one currency, and liquid to boot. A small shift can easily wipe out your profit margins. Which makes it even more amazing that Nintendo has seen so few losses over the years.

11

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 02, 2014, 02:41:08 AM »

Nope. Wrong again. It was a financial success... maybe not next to the Nintendo DS juggernaut, but still. To say it wasn't would be a total fabrication.

Indeed, especially with it still getting new games in Japan every week, and more new games than the Wii U at that.

No, it was a flop. Just like the PS3 and the entire XBox line. It doesn't matter how many systems you sell or how many games get published for your platform if you never see any return on your investment. That's called bad business and for some reason it's not only acceptable but apparently encouraged now a days.

As has been and always will be in business, he who makes the most money wins. And that's always been Nintendo.

Or should I say makes any money at all???

12

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 01, 2014, 08:54:20 PM »

Sorry, but I must have missed all those millions of dollars in profit the Wii U's brought to Nintendo so far. Come to think of it, I think Nintendo must have missed them, too, given that the 3DS' dominance in Japan counterbalancing the Wii U's worldwide failure is the only reason Iwata still has a job at this point.

Just sayin', you can't play the "Nintendo is the only company that makes money off their hardware!" card when Nintendo's attempting to sell the Wii U at a loss and people still don't want it.

There is no card. That's how it is. The hardware losses for the Wii U have largely been atributed to currancy conversion and they're not very large at all. As has been said before, the Wii U makes a profit with a single software sale. Can Sony and MS say the same? And because of that the Wii U's losses are going to vanish this year.


As for your snaky comment about selling at a loss and nobody still wanting it, you have to agree that it's in pretty good company with the original XBox, the PSP, the Vita, the PS3, etc, etc. And honestly, we don't even know if people want the PS4 or XBone yet anyway. Remember how well the Wii U was selling at launch?


You're going to have to wait a while before we find out if the Wii U is the odd man out or if Sony and MS are going to be facing their own hardware sales issues once the holiday season is over and real world numbers come out.


Either way the Wii U is going to be very profitable for Nintendo. I highly doubt the same will hold true for the PS4 or the XBone.

13

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 01, 2014, 07:59:50 PM »

No, the Wii U is not the next PS3. The Wii U will actually make money for Nintendo.

?

And the PS3 does not? If I remember correctly, one only needs to buy one or two games to recoup the costs, similar to how the Wii U is now.


Or am I thinking of the PS4?

Sony isn't about to tell the truth in regards to their losses they're taking on the PS4. Just like how MS has been burying their loses from the XBox brand for years. Neither company made a penny off their last systems. MS has yet to make ANY money on gaming at all and Sony blew all of their previous profits from the PS1 and PS2 on the black hole they called the PS3. And that's without even mentioning the financial flops of the PSP, PSP Go, and Vita.


Nintendo is the only hardware manufacturer in the industry that doesn't appear to be alergic to actually making money. Meaning year over year their books actually balance out in the black. Both Sony and MS have a LONG way to go before they can say the same. Sure they've had years where they've turned a profit but just like budgeting at home if you spend $5,000 more than you make one year but spend $500 less than you make the next that doesn't somehow negate that $4,500 you're still out from the year before. It simply means that at that rate it's going to take you another 9 years before you can even manage to break even let alone say that you're even making a profit.


Or more simply put...

Making a profit now does not make up for all the money they (xbox 360 and PS3) lost  in the first 4 or 5 years they lost money on them.

What he said. ^^^

14

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U is the new PS3?

« on: January 01, 2014, 12:42:16 PM »

It's been a while since I've posted here, more than a year actually, but I feel the need to vent so...

No, the Wii U is not the next PS3. The Wii U will actually make money for Nintendo. That right there puts it light years ahead of BOTH Sony and MS' previous disasters.

As for the discussion pertaining to 3rd parties, I'm just going to repost my last post from more than a year ago on this subject verbatim, as it still stands:

All excuses from 3rd parties as to why their games aren't going to appear on *Whatever* Nintendo systems always boil down to "Nintendo won't pay us".

That's pretty much it.

I mean, wasn't it these same developers who also said that they couldn't make their games for the Wii because it wasn't powerful enough and that they needed as many systems as possible to port around to since development costs had gone up so much?

Ignoring the first issue (since Wii development was pretty much the same as last gen and therefor Wii games were a fraction of the cost of HD titles and didn't NEED to be ported to hell and back in order to make a profit), now they have another HD system, something developers claimed that they needed. Now all of a sudden... they don't need it any more?

Could it be because that box has the word "Nintendo" on it?

3rd parties will support Nintendo hardware again when Sony and MS leave the industry, and the way things are going that's not going to be that far off. Until then, don't expect much beyond token support, specifically under the auspicious veil of "outsourced" ports. And it's nothing that Nintendo can control or change without driving themselves out of business. Something Sony and MS would absolutely LOVE since they wouldn't actually have to make games anymore in order to sell their little boxes.

15

Nintendo Gaming / Re: Wii U gets little 3rd party love.

« on: December 12, 2012, 01:57:14 PM »

All excuses from 3rd parties as to why their games aren't going to appear on *Whatever* Nintendo systems always boil down to "Nintendo won't pay us".

That's pretty much it.

I mean, wasn't it these same developers who also said that they couldn't make their games for the Wii because it wasn't powerful enough and that they needed as many systems as possible to port around to since development costs had gone up so much?

Ignoring the first issue (since Wii development was pretty much the same as last gen and therefor Wii games were a fraction of the cost of HD titles and didn't NEED to be ported to hell and back in order to make a profit), now they have another HD system, something developers claimed that they needed. Now all of a sudden... they don't need it any more?

Could it be because that box has the word "Nintendo" on it?

3rd parties will support Nintendo hardware again when Sony and MS leave the industry, and the way things are going that's not going to be that far off. Until then, don't expect much beyond token support, specifically under the auspicious veil of "outsourced" ports. And it's nothing that Nintendo can control or change without driving themselves out of business. Something Sony and MS would absolutely LOVE since they wouldn't actually have to make games anymore in order to sell their little boxes.