NPD June 2017 Sales Results

[iroboto]

Nowhere have I stated that I assume MS works the same way as Sony. But given everything you state in this very post about MS' experiments, why would you have any faith in them doubling down on first-party software development after they're done with XB1X?

If anything, after years in the console industry, experimenting in first-party developed and funded software, all they have to show for it is Gears, Forza and Halo, then why would you expect at all that Spencer would be able to see a bigger budget for game development approved at the corporate level? Certainly, the opposite is more likely?

That's a valid point. They would either continue on their trajectory towards more platform unification/features or they start focusing on first party again.

At the moment I would have assumed they would start to go back, but you're right that I see no reason for them to go back on that route either.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

MS took a lot of experimental risks. None of them successful. It's quite a stark difference from barely trying at all. Or unwilling to invest.

All three console companies take risks. Wii was a massive risk for Nintendo and paid off from a revenue/profit perspective even if most 'core' gamers eschewed the platform in the long term. Switch is also a huge risk, you're compromising portability on the go (compared to the compact Gameboy/DS) and performance when hooked up to a TV. Sony are on now their third console camera-based tech and Move initially flopped commercially. PSVR is unproven. PS3 was an utter commercial failure, allegedly PS3 broke even but it was a long way from the money hurricane that PlayStation and PS2 were. Sony buying OnLine and Gaikai still boggles the mind but Sony are still managed from Japan and they invest seriously looooong term. I can see it all games being streamed eventually.

Imo, it would be a critical error to assume Microsoft as a corporation operates or provides budgeting the same way SIEC/SCEA does. it doesn't matter how much revenue Xbox makes because it goes back to MS as a whole. The finance departments will provide an annual budget for Xbox, if Phil wants more money he needs to Fight for it against all the other major divisions at MS. You know the bread and butter departments like office, windows, azure, etc.

Definitely. Sony Interactive Entertainment are a big hitter inside Sony, Xbox is insignificant inside Microsoft. Neither Xbox or even gaming appears as a distinct executive role on Microsoft's leadership page - Phil Spencer is way down the executive food chain. Could you ever imagine Phil Spencer being promoted to CEO like Kaz Hirai was promoted from Head fo PlayStation to CEO of Sony? Never. Well, not any time soon. Gaming is a bigger deal for Sony because their corporate existence needs gaming to be profitable, whereas inside Microsoft Xbox driven revenue is insignificant compared to Office. Then there is Nintendo who have literally no other business.

 

[Phil]

Possibly, but given the lacklustre response to the current consoles, it's not something that can be expected. Maybe in ten years time, India and China will be buying enough consoles to push something over 150 million. But again, there's more competition. PS2 was so one sided, the total install base for the gen was like 200M, of which 150M was PS2. If the console market grows to 300M and PS5 or some machine gets 45%, (two consoles at 45%, one at 10%, say) it'll be <150M. that's with massive market growth, which we don't have.

So I give it maybe 10% chance some console released in the next 10 years will beat PS2's numbers.

With the number of people who bought multiple consoles, I'd say the PS2 "install base" was quite a bit smaller than 150 million. I owned around 2 - even the more expensive PS3 I owned two of that (1 original, 1 slim). Easy way to inflate the numbers.

Still on my first PS4 though. Matter of time though till I migrate to a slim version (or Pro).

 

[mrcorbo]

Neither Xbox or even gaming appears as a distinct executive role on Microsoft's leadership page - Phil Spencer is way down the executive food chain. Could you ever imagine Phil Spencer being promoted to CEO like Kaz Hirai was promoted from Head fo PlayStation to CEO of Sony? Never. Well, not any time soon. Gaming is a bigger deal for Sony because their corporate existence needs gaming to be profitable, whereas inside Microsoft Xbox driven revenue is insignificant compared to Office. Then there is Nintendo who have literally no other business.

Phil Spencer reports to Terry Myerson, who reports to Satya Nedella. I don't know if that qualifies as "way down the executive food chain".

 

[JPT]

With the number of people who bought multiple consoles, I'd say the PS2 "install base" was quite a bit smaller than 150 million. I owned around 2 - even the more expensive PS3 I owned two of that (1 original, 1 slim). Easy way to inflate the numbers.

Still on my first PS4 though. Matter of time though till I migrate to a slim version (or Pro).

We used to buy a couple every month, on the way home from drinking on friday/saturday to play and drink more at home. The local gas stations had bundles they sold for next to nothing in the end. So every home we ended up in after leaving the bars had at least a PS2 in it So yes, multiple consoles per buyer is real, but then again I doubt it was significant to skew the numbers that much.

Oh, Phil, go Pro ;P

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Phil Spencer reports to Terry Myerson, who reports to Satya Nedella. I don't know if that qualifies as "way down the executive food chain".

Well, Phil Spencer is on the bottom run of executive positions, there are none below him and his official leadership page on Microsoft.com says it all. They couldn't even be bothered to put his photo up. But my overall point was that for Sony and Nintendo gaming is massive. Seemingly less so in Microsoft.

 

[mrcorbo]

Well, Phil Spencer is on the bottom run of executive positions, there are none below him and his official leadership page on Microsoft.com says it all. They couldn't even be bothered to put his photo up. But my overall point was that for Sony and Nintendo gaming is massive. Seemingly less so in Microsoft.

Not sure you can take anything away from that. MS have been deliberately opaque about their corporate structure over the last number of years.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Not sure you can take anything away from that. MS have been deliberately opaque about their corporate structure over the last number of years.

The only thing I'm taking away is that Xbox and gaming is buried a layer deep into Microsoft's public face, as is the executive that runs it. In Sony and Nintendo, for what ought to be obvious reasons (profits, profits, profits), gaming is front and centre to those companies. Nintendo would be dead without gaming and Sony would be a great deal smaller. If you took Xbox out of Microsoft, the rest of Microsoft, or investors, probably wouldn't notice.

Gaming may be an absolute in market terms but its relative importance is varies between the three companies.

 

[mrcorbo]

The only thing I'm taking away is that Xbox and gaming is buried a layer deep into Microsoft's public face, as is the executive that runs it. In Sony and Nintendo, for what ought to be obvious reasons (profits, profits, profits), gaming is front and centre to those companies. Nintendo would be dead without gaming and Sony would be a great deal smaller. If you took Xbox out of Microsoft, the rest of Microsoft, or investors, probably wouldn't notice.

Gaming may be an absolute in market terms but its relative importance is varies between the three companies.

I still think you're reading more into MS's corporate structure than what is warranted, but you're clearly right about the relative importance of gaming to the overall business of those three. How this effects the status of those businesses is a matter of debate, though, and it's one that, in the case of MS, people have been consistently on the wrong side of for over a decade.

 

[dobwal]

Of course gaming has more significance to Sony's leadership than MS's leadership. But significance can be relative in the case where one company's annual profits is just 3-4% of another company's profit (Sony's $700 million to MS's $20 billion in 2016).

It's not even a question of money with the Xbox as $1 billion was invested at the start of the Xbox one's life and funneled to 15 first party exclusives. MS spent another $2.5 billion for Mojang which is part of Microsoft studios and falls under Phil. Include the acquisition of the GOW IP, devs behind Ori, Havok, Beam and Simplygon and it's pretty obvious that MS has thrown plenty of cash at gaming over the last four years.

It's more of a question of focus. While Sony and Nintendo focus on acquiring, growing and maintaining productive content creators to provide a portion of the content being delivered. MS in past seemed mostly focused on throwing money at acquiring established devs and paying second party devs to produce IPs. Given that even in the TV space content distributors like HBO, Netflix and Amazon have all readily moved into content production a while ago, MS's strategy seems passé.

Building a stable, productive and strong studio of first party developers simply can't be had by throwing a ton of money at it. Bungie was a lot cheaper acquisition than Rare but ended up being way more fundamentally important to the Xbox. Plus If so, MS would have done it already. It takes time, money, effort and leadership. If I were MS I would make it a priority to organically build up Microsoft studios and foster a talent base that can reliably create good to great IPs that appeal to the core market.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

With the number of people who bought multiple consoles, I'd say the PS2 "install base" was quite a bit smaller than 150 million. I owned around 2 - even the more expensive PS3 I owned two of that (1 original, 1 slim). Easy way to inflate the numbers.

Still on my first PS4 though. Matter of time though till I migrate to a slim version (or Pro).

I've two counters to that. Firstly, the same happens with the other consoles, so just as PS2 never had an install base of 150 million, PS3 and XB360 never had install bases of 80 million. Secondly, it's the only measure we have, especially in a discussion about sales. What else are we supposed to use to measure the size of a console market to consider the largest ever if not how many units were sold?

 

[mrcorbo]

The only thing I'm taking away is that Xbox and gaming is buried a layer deep into Microsoft's public face, as is the executive that runs it. In Sony and Nintendo, for what ought to be obvious reasons (profits, profits, profits), gaming is front and centre to those companies. Nintendo would be dead without gaming and Sony would be a great deal smaller. If you took Xbox out of Microsoft, the rest of Microsoft, or investors, probably wouldn't notice.

Gaming may be an absolute in market terms but its relative importance is varies between the three companies.

Remembered this discussion when I saw this. Looks like Phil made the big time.

https://news.microsoft.com/exec/phil-spencer-2/

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Phil Spencer 2? Surely it should be Phil Spencer X?

https://news.microsoft.com/exec/phil-spencer/ still exists.

 

[Deleted member 7537]

Of course gaming has more significance to Sony's leadership than MS's leadership. But significance can be relative in the case where one company's annual profits is just 3-4% of another company's profit (Sony's $700 million to MS's $20 billion in 2016).

It's not even a question of money with the Xbox as $1 billion was invested at the start of the Xbox one's life and funneled to 15 first party exclusives. MS spent another $2.5 billion for Mojang which is part of Microsoft studios and falls under Phil. Include the acquisition of the GOW IP, devs behind Ori, Havok, Beam and Simplygon and it's pretty obvious that MS has thrown plenty of cash at gaming over the last four years.

It's more of a question of focus. While Sony and Nintendo focus on acquiring, growing and maintaining productive content creators to provide a portion of the content being delivered. MS in past seemed mostly focused on throwing money at acquiring established devs and paying second party devs to produce IPs. Given that even in the TV space content distributors like HBO, Netflix and Amazon have all readily moved into content production a while ago, MS's strategy seems passé.

Building a stable, productive and strong studio of first party developers simply can't be had by throwing a ton of money at it. Bungie was a lot cheaper acquisition than Rare but ended up being way more fundamentally important to the Xbox. Plus If so, MS would have done it already. It takes time, money, effort and leadership. If I were MS I would make it a priority to organically build up Microsoft studios and foster a talent base that can reliably create good to great IPs that appeal to the core market.

2.2 billion.
https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/library/fr/16q4_sony.pdf