Makes it funnier to me lol.
Watching people parading that comparison was painful as fuck to anyone with a remote idea of how to interpret financials.
Xbox profits (*Accountability Margin) revealed in new FTC leak
- Thread starter John Elden Ring
- Start date
Watching people parading that comparison was painful as fuck to anyone with a remote idea of how to interpret financials.
It's like when the dolts cheer over revenue being up for Xbox with no mention of profit, at all.
Last edited:
There's a saying in finance:
"Revenue is vanity, profit is sanity, but cash is king."
Revenue is vanity = Anyone who talks about revenue alone is trying to swing big numbers around to make you feel good about their biz. This is Xbox right now.
Profit is sanity = When you add profit/loss into the equation, you get a much bigger sense of what the operation is all about and how money flows through it. Xbox clearly has no meaningful profits, or they would be boasting about them (as will any company).
Cash is king = this is the ultimate indicator of a business's success, cash flow is how you pay your employees, and it's how you survive overall, no one gets paid in future profit vouchers. Microsoft has a ton of this, hence Xbox still survives despite all their dumb moves in the market.
The amount of Xbox fans who don’t understand that revenue and profit are not the same thing is staggering.
Profit is the most important metric in business, but many people here hate the fact that Nintendo has too much dominance in that area.
Many were unhappy with the fact that the Nintendo Switch is more profitable than all consoles from Microsoft and Sony combined.
Many were unhappy with the fact that the Nintendo Switch is more profitable than all consoles from Microsoft and Sony combined.
Literally no one brings up Nintendo profits here? Of course a 7-year-old mobile tablet and 2D games are cheap to produce lol
One of my aquiantance says Nintendo underpays their employees a lot lower then let's just says KT, Namco, or Lasengle.
The only one they has is job security, and pension.
Who are you talking about? Who's said these things are is "scared" to bring it up? I've mentioned Nintendo making more profit than SIE and Xbox plenty of times, here and everywhere I post in fact.
But it's also very easy to see why they have larger profits:
1: Significantly cheaper hardware to produce, requiring less R&D and less production costs
2: Nostalgia banking on brand name to sell said hardware at very high profit margins
3: AAA games that cost significantly less than Sony or Microsoft's AAA due to aiming for less visually demanding standards
4: Nostalgia banking on brand name to sell said software at high profit margins (and barely reduce the price over long-term)
5: Keeping virtually all of their 1P games exclusive to their hardware. Creates a circular resonance of encouraging more hardware sales to sell more 1P software that stays at high MSRP for several years = big revenue and big profit margins.
Anyone who brings up Nintendo making more in gaming profits than Sony or even Microsoft, but don't have an understanding of how this is achieved, then they shouldn't be bringing the topic up in the first place.
Nice gate keeping right there. Your points didn't explain why WiiU failed and Switch succeeded in bringing profits to Nintendo.
It’s not the exclusivity of their first-party releases that keeps them profitable so much as the refusal to EVER discount old games.
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
More or less... could add a few myself but really not needed.
Important to note here that Nintendo's strategy on pricing of its first party games (keeping them at MSRP for years) is a great strategy. It's a consumer conditioning pitch above all - and there is value there that should rightfully be maintained. I think the Player's Choice Label is also a good strategy for maintaining value long term. But that equation certainly has a lot to do with the fact that the presence of modern big hitters from third-party publishers are largely missing from Nintendo's hardware. The latest COD or Destiny or GTA or the other slew of third party titles that release on a regular basis on Xbox/PS/PC will have a downward pressure on Nintendo's pricing of games... as a result of higher competition. This assumes that Nintendo were to come back to the high-end hardware business. There is too much choice competing for the dollar on PC/Xbox/PS. Nintendo's platform is currently largely shielded of that - completely different degrees of competition for the dollar.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you knew anything about even recent Nintendo history you'd know the WiiU DID bring them profits, for many of the reasons I outlined in the post you replied to, in fact. Or do you not remember seeing games like Mario Kart and Smash Bros. selling almost 1:1 with WiiU unit sales and netting in big profits even on that DOA system?
Agreed with this and it's something Sony should have tried emulating. Though, with the next point you bring up, I can understand why it would be harder in the case of Sony to do so: being the home for 3P also means competing with a lot of that 3P in some form or another, too.
Nintendo doesn't really have to worry about that because they basically have inoculated their own software brand from any 3P on their platform, so their customers don't often weigh buying a 3P game over Nintendo's own. They at most will pick up a 3P in addition to something from Nintendo themselves. But the choice of big 3P AAA titles on Nintendo's systems, or lack thereof, makes that really easy to do.
Sony may put out a ton of high-quality 1P titles but due to combination of not necessarily actively retaining a particular big IP as long as Nintendo has with Mario or Zelda or Smash Bros. (and at similar levels historically speaking; Spiderman is very recent relatively speaking, while GOW did 'decent' in sales up to GOW 2018, which was the breakout) and naturally being home for the big 3P AAA titles, they can't 100% replicate that effect. Maybe with some IP like Gran Turismo, but others are too new and have too much competition on Sony's platform to inoculate themselves (or Sony's 1P stable of releases) quite the same way Nintendo was able to.
Microsoft has it much worst, because they both lack the longevity of healthy, relevant IP retention over decades that Nintendo has, AND lack in terms of having a lot of modern, market-relevant AAA IP that are strongly associated with their brand the way Sony & Nintendo do. Their publisher acquisitions may be a means of trying to quickly remedy that problem, but they have obvious problems with that strategy and it's going to cause a lot more harm than good long-term not just for themselves but the entire industry.
Refusal to discount the old games 100% plays a big role. But, I still think the exclusivity does, too. It basically makes it so people have to buy a Nintendo console to play the game, and they make a lot of money off the hardware too, not just the games.
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
Big third party pubs and devs have no loyalty, third party devs in general have no loyalty even if they have platform favorites. Ultimately, the number 1 favorite is money, and all other considerations are secondary at best in nature. I have a critique in the way Sony caters to big pubs and devs and gives them too much undue power - which translates to dollars on a P&L and consumer conditioning. While the extreme of Nintendo is not something Sony should emulate and follow point by point, the other extreme, which is Sony's third party relations is not ideal either. Even MS is more extractive of its third party pub/dev relations than Sony is, despite helming a leaky ass boat in constant need of repairs. Mind you this is not something solely tied to this current administration but a carry-over, which is why I often don't shit on Jim Ryan and the current leadership over it, plus it's a meta business commentary, and more of an opinion on how to do business, and leverage position.
I think EA's "strategic partnership" with Xbox, in the run up and launch of the Xbox One encapsulated the problem well in a sort of microcasm, of course it's much more encompassing than just that example. There are very few examples in this industry when a third party pub felt so comfortable as to put their full weight on a scale to tilt it in one particular direction. And no, Sony's relationship with big Japanese pubs don't even measure, and context is always key. Obviously idiots need not apply to a debate on this topic.
I think EA's "strategic partnership" with Xbox, in the run up and launch of the Xbox One encapsulated the problem well in a sort of microcasm, of course it's much more encompassing than just that example. There are very few examples in this industry when a third party pub felt so comfortable as to put their full weight on a scale to tilt it in one particular direction. And no, Sony's relationship with big Japanese pubs don't even measure, and context is always key. Obviously idiots need not apply to a debate on this topic.
Last edited by a moderator: