[SakSquash]

I don't see that as a good gauge of a sucessful console.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Seems like Sony didn't think so because that's exactly the route they're going with PS3.

Very possible but we'll have to wait and see on that. It's just speculation at this point in time.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

If all we're talking about is profit, Nintendo is the winner of the last generation, hands down.

Not counting the DS, my understanding is the gamecube has been incurring losses in its 5th year out. So what do you mean by profits? Profits for the company in general, the gaming division, or just the console itself?

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Very possible but we'll have to wait and see on that. It's just speculation at this point in time.

It's no speculation that they'll be losing enormous amounts of money with every PS3 sold. The latest blow about the probability of 10-20% Cell yields is yet another nail in the coffin. The game sales should make up for hardware losses, but that's where speculation kicks in - we don't know yet if that will happen and we know for sure that they'll be losing money on hardware.

Not counting the DS, my understanding is the gamecube has been incurring losses in its 5th year out. So what do you mean by profits? Profits for the company in general, the gaming division, or just the console itself?

I mean both the console and the gaming division profits.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

It's no speculation that they'll be losing enormous amounts of money with every PS3 sold. The latest blow about the probability of 10-20% Cell yields is yet another nail in the coffin. The game sales should make up for hardware losses, but that's where speculation kicks in - we don't know yet if that will happen and we know for sure that they'll be losing money on hardware.

I mean both the console and the gaming division profits.

From the article you provided, only the gaming division is the most profitable, and NOT the gamecube itself. Gamecube is actually not profitable when it hit $99. PS2 on the other hand is profitable.

But what is saving Nintendo right now is the handheld. DS is outperforming the PSP by a lot, and thus you see that the whole division is doing better.

[Scoville]

Originally Posted by SakSquash

Well right now they are, since the technology is almost 7 years old. But when it first hit, it took a big loss like most consoles do.

Sony took a loss on console sales. They made up for that loss with the royalties developers pay per copy of any PS2 game they have manufactured. That's how the console industry is set up: hardware is sold at a loss in order to get it in the hands of as many people as possible, so they can buy games which actually generate profit for the hardware company. Taking a loss per unit of hardware does not mean the company is losing money.

Besides, you were wrong about the Gamecube. Nintendo actually broke tradition and sold the hardware at a loss at the start of this generation. It was a small loss, but they certainly weren't making a profit off system sales. I don't know for sure if they are still selling at a loss, but I would assume they are not.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

From the article you provided, only the gaming division is the most profitable, and NOT the gamecube itself. Gamecube is actually not profitable when it hit $99. PS2 on the other hand is profitable.

True, but it hit $99 in the fall of 2003, up until then it was the most profitable. The losses after the drop were estimated to be less than $10 per console, meaning that an acquisition of a single game or accessory would've probably alleviated them. Besides, the article is more than a year old, it very well might be profitable again.

But what is saving Nintendo right now is the handheld. DS is outperforming the PSP by a lot, and thus you see that the whole division is doing better.

Yeah, well aren't you forgetting the actual games?

Originally Posted by Scoville

Besides, you were wrong about the Gamecube. Nintendo actually broke tradition and sold the hardware at a loss at the start of this generation. It was a small loss, but they certainly weren't making a profit off system sales.

Anything to back that up? Because everything I've ever read on the matter said thet GameCube is the only last generation console that actually made profit on hardware sales in the beginning.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

True, but it hit $99 in the fall of 2003, up until then it was the most profitable. The losses after the drop were estimated to be less than $10 per console, meaning that an acquisition of a single game or accessory would've probably alleviated them.

Not necessarily. The article you showed only showed fiscal year ending in May 2005. You have a total of more than 100 million PS2's sold, and so much more games for them as compared to the Game cube. I hardly believe that the Game cube made more profit than the PS2. (Plus technology wise, people claim that the cube is more powerful, which most probably means it is more expensive to manufacture one than a PS2).

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Besides, the article is more than a year old, it very well might be profitable again.

Judging by the number of games coming out for it, it is very unlikely. Just like Microsoft, Nintendo has barely any support left for their system, and pretty much non-existing third party support. Without games for it, there is less money to be made from selling games to consumers. Compare that to the PS2 which is still going strong up till this day. Hell even SakSquash bought one

[Justice3838]

xbox was doing lousy here, in my opnion.
When Xbox360 came out, everyone wanted it for the graphics. I heard gameplay sucked. But, I might rack up the cash to get it.... yes i know, I fall under all the fads.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Not necessarily. The article you showed only showed fiscal year ending in May 2005. You have a total of more than 100 million PS2's sold, and so much more games for them as compared to the Game cube. I hardly believe that the Game cube made more profit than the PS2.

You can believe what you want, but it's not just this article, you can find the information that Nintendo makes the most profit in numerous places. Just google a little.

Plus technology wise, people claim that the cube is more powerful, which most probably means it is more expensive to manufacture one than a PS2.

It may have more advanced components, but it has less of them (no backwards compatibility chips, ie. the whole of PS1, no DVD playback electronics etc.) so it's not a simple comparison.

Judging by the number of games coming out for it, it is very unlikely.

Actually, I was talking about profitability of hardware, but even then, you said yourself that Nintendo mostly relies on first party titles. The biggest GameCube hits are made by Nintendo. That means on average they make a lot of money per game (the full retail price). Sony also has many first party games, but very few of them are among PS2's greatest hits. That means on average they make less money per game (only royalties).

PS2 is a one size fits all console. There's something for everyone on it so when a new Gran Turismo game comes out, for instance, only a relatively small percentage of PS2 owners will buy it. The others are not interested in driving games.

GameCube, on the other hand, mostly attracts a well defined demographic - Nintendo fans and those who like family entertainment. That means that when a new Zelda game comes out, a large percentage of GC owners will buy it.

Also, when there's not many games available for a platform, those that are stuck with it are more likely to buy any new game that appears on it. That's how it's possible to make money even at the end of a console cycle.

For more on Nintendo's strategy, read this excellent article.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

You can believe what you want, but it's not just this article, you can find the information that Nintendo makes the most profit in numerous places. Just google a little.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140455.html

And this article is dated Nov 2005. You do your googling sir

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Actually, I was talking about profitability of hardware, but even then, you said yourself that Nintendo mostly relies on first party titles. The biggest GameCube hits are made by Nintendo. That means on average they make a lot of money per game (the full retail price). Sony also has many first party games, but very few of them are among PS2's greatest hits. That means on average they make less money per game (only royalties).

Wow you sure know about Sony's games huh? Ratchet and Clank series (all three of them), sly cooper series (all three of them), Jak and Daxter series( all three of them), Socom US Navy Seals, God of War, Gran Turismo 3, Gran Turismo 4 etc... What do all these have in common. They sold a gazillion copies (they are part of the greatest hits program).

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

PS2 is a one size fits all console. There's something for everyone on it so when a new Gran Turismo game comes out, for instance, only a relatively small percentage of PS2 owners will buy it. The others are not interested in driving games.

But there are 100 million people who own a PS2 compared to 1/5 th of that who own game cubes so 10% of PS2 owners is equal to 50% of Gamecube owners.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

GameCube, on the other hand, mostly attracts a well defined demographic - Nintendo fans and those who like family entertainment. That means that when a new Zelda game comes out, a large percentage of GC owners will buy it.

Problem is, Nintendo doesn't have any major AAA titles for release till end of this year. Zelda slipped last year, and now it is a Wii simultaneous release. The gamecube has been completely abandoned.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Also, when there's not many games available for a platform, those that are stuck with it are more likely to buy any new game that appears on it. That's how it's possible to make money even at the end of a console cycle.

Or they might go buy games for other consoles for example or probably a 360 or PS2? Why do you assume that every owner of a gamecube doesn't own any other consoles? They probably go buy PS2 games instead, for which many games are still being released.

Just do me a favor and go to gamespot and look at the top 10 selling console games last month. Tell me how many are cube games compared to the PS2. Or go ask Capcom, who decided to port all the cube exclusive games to the PS2 because it sells more. Or Eidos who decided to completely dump the cube back in 2003 because of the lack of sales.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140455.html

And this article is dated Nov 2005. You do your googling sir

My pleasure.

Wow you sure know about Sony's games huh? Ratchet and Clank series (all three of them), sly cooper series (all three of them), Jak and Daxter series( all three of them), Socom US Navy Seals, God of War, Gran Turismo 3, Gran Turismo 4 etc... What do all these have in common. They sold a gazillion copies (they are part of the greatest hits program).

Wow, I sure do. I said their greatest hits (as in biggest sellers, not all games that achieve the platinum status) and those are games like GTA3 (US sales of 5,910,000) and GTA: Vice City (7,137,000). Out of Sony's own games, only Gran Turismo 3 seems to come close with 4,022,000, the others are around 2 million or below.

To quickly comment on the rest of your statements, I was just trying to give you some examples of how a console with a relatively small market can still make great profits. Maybe some of those don't make much sense in reality, but the truth is that Nintendo indeed makes tremendous profits, this way or another.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

My pleasure.

We are talking about the game cube here. I am in total agreement with you that the DS is selling well, but I thought we were talking about CONSOLE/CONSOLE GAMES sales not the handheld space, which Nintendo is still dominating.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Wow, I sure do. I said their greatest hits (as in biggest sellers, not all games that achieve the platinum status) and those are games like GTA3 (US sales of 5,910,000) and GTA: Vice City (7,137,000). Out of Sony's own games, only Gran Turismo 3 seems to come close with 4,022,000, the others are around 2 million or below.

All the games I mentioned to you are greatest hits (i.e. been in market for more 9 months, at least 400 K copies). Some like Ratchet and Clank and God of war sold close to 2 million, which is pretty darn good. Yes Grand Theft Auto sold in the 5+ million range, with GTA SA breaking records, but there is really no franchise on any other system (besides Halo probably) that can generate those crazy numbers.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

We are talking about the game cube here. I am in total agreement with you that the DS is selling well, but I thought we were talking about CONSOLE/CONSOLE GAMES sales not the handheld space, which Nintendo is still dominating.

As I said previously, when talking about GameCube being profitable, I meant GameCube hardware. As in, Nintendo not losing money on it. I also acknowledged that they were losing money on it after the $99 price drop, but not much. It's unclear whether that's still the case (again, talking about hardware).

The examples I provided about how GC as a platform might still be profitable are just speculation.

All the games I mentioned to you are greatest hits (i.e. been in market for more 9 months, at least 400 K copies). Some like Ratchet and Clank and God of war sold close to 2 million, which is pretty darn good. Yes Grand Theft Auto sold in the 5+ million range, with GTA SA breaking records, but there is really no franchise on any other system (besides Halo probably) that can generate those crazy numbers.

Well I know they're hits, they're just not Sony's greatest of the greatest. Raw numbers are on Sony's side, but percentages nicely illustrate my point about GC owners and Nintendo's games vs. PS2 owners and Sony's games.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, could we please return to the subject of... What was it, Xbox 360 and Japan?

[undeaf]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

(Plus technology wise, people claim that the cube is more powerful, which most probably means it is more expensive to manufacture one than a PS2).

That probably has little to do with it, the most obvious reason the gamecube is more powerful is because it's newer and as a result has a higher frequency CPU, I doubt that makes it any more expensive. Another likely reason that the PS2 is so weak is because it has some sort of weird convoluted-design CPU, but that probably contributes a lot to making it cheaper because sony makes it themselves while nintendo has to give IBM their cut(so for that reason it probably is actually true that the cube is costlier because it's more powerful). Besides the CPU, most of the other PS2 components are probably made by sony themselves, cutting the cost of the PS2 more. There's also the DVD costs, AFAIK most of that is actually royatlies to the DVD consortium. Lack of dual layer disc support might also cut gamecube costs a bit. Fanlessness is likely increasing the cost of the new PS2's.

[undeaf]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Seems like Sony didn't think so because that's exactly the route they're going with PS3.

The reason sony's making a ridiculously costly console is because they're having blue-ray piggyback on it. That drive will be expensive, and if they're going to be putting that much money into making it capable of using 50 gig discs, they better at least make the rest of it capable of taking advantage of Blue ray discs' space and speed.

[undeaf]

I think the reason why Microsoft's trying so hard in the Japanese market is that, rather than hoping for some significant spoils if they succeed, they just want to do damage to their competitors. If microsoft is trying as hard as possible to get a foothold in, and is breathing down sony's and nintendo's necks, it makes it harder for sony and nintendo to try to milk the Japanese market for all it's worth. This is not just in terms of revenue from console and game sales, but also in terms of deals with developers, if microsoft is showing serious interest in getting into the japanese market, then sony and nintendo have to put more effort into hanging on to them, and have to give them better deals.

This isn't the only situation in which microsoft seems to be using such a tactic, same thing in relation to apple with ms's entrance into the mp3 player market. It wouldn't matter if they didn't make much profit on them, or even if they sold them at a loss, if they can substantially cut into apple's main source of profits, they'd greatly reduce the ability of macs to compete with windows.

[Spiwak]

I hope they're unable to crush the smaller or locally concentrated markets. Something about Wal-Mart and Microsoft and these other huge companies bothers me.