MS - Nintendo Union !!!
- Thread starter chaphack
- Start date
- Status
P4-Fan said:
there are more than two companies able to create a good graphics chips.
nintendo is as financially secure as you can be.
and MS has to loose a lot of money on each console just to be able to compete with the GC...
sony and nintendo make a lot of money in this branch, while MS is loosing even more (ala dreamcast++).. who should continue ? who should sop ?
What do you use to power your time machine? Mr. Fusion?
Grall said:
so true... but hey, this thread has been milked enough, i don't think there's anything useful to add.... it would be like trying to keep the PS3 thread(s) interesting...........
Nintendo already have a contract with ATI for there next console GPU and the GPU is already well underway.
BTW, you seem to be under the impression that Nvidia and ATI are the be all and end all of graphics chip companies. They're not, there are many more graphics companies and many of them are certainly capable of producing a great console GPU's, some have even done so in the past (Imagination Technologies for instance).
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Teasy said:
Do you have an actual source for that? (Or is this an assumption on your part?)
I agree, though nVidia and ATI are unquestionably the graphics chip market leaders in the PC space.
The project risk increase substantially if you go with a company who doesn’t design gaming chips on a regular basis.
But the major problem with using another company outside of ATI or nvidia is that you would have to monetize the development cost yourself instead of sharing the cost with the PC market. I don’t know what ati spent on its latest chip but nvidia spent around $400 million. The price tag will only go up in the future and that doesn’t include manufacturing cost. $400-$500 million means you need to sell a huge number of Zelda and super Mario games before you can even start recouping your manufacturing costs. The economics don’t work unless you have sales comparative to Sony. Even then I am willing to bet Sony will need to find other uses for its future PS chips or move to using standard graphics chips.
Not really compared to Sony and definitely not compared to MS.
Nintendo and Sony lose money on each console as well. Hohum. Even still, I think MS expected to lose money on its first console over all and doesn’t care. They always play the long game. They look at the profits that Sony makes in the console business and know they can make a good return on investment once they build up their franchise. Like it or not they are making good progress.
P4-Fan said:
there are more than two companies that design gaming chips on a regular basis..
on which chip ?
if you are talking about the xbox chip, MS did pay nvidia something like that but it was an advance on the chips they had to produce for the xbox.
so this amount of money was for some amount of xbox chipsets. so it includes manufacturing costs of a lot of chipsets.
and it dodn't only cover the gpu but also the others parts of the xbox chipset.
i saw this information and a lot more somewhere on these forums.
does nintendo have sales comparative to sony ? i don't think so.. but it seems to work rather well for them.
please define "standard graphics chips"
i thought having something like eight billion dollars in cash reserves would make nintendo financially secure.. am i wrong..
is it your guess or a fact ?
how much are they loosing for each console ? how much MS is loosing per console sold ?
what i see now are losses, losses, losses..
lower sales than expected..
maybe bigger losses than expected ?
good progress ?
we have yet to see profitability or even something that would suggest future profitability..
Grall said:You know it's time to lock a thread when even a board moderator is talking trash in it...
This is Beyond3D, let's keep the discussions at least somewhat serious shall we? Don't need the site's rep tarnished by childish behavior in the console section.
*G*
i think its obvious to everyone that i'm joking . I posted my feelings on this along time ago. IT be good if it happen but it wont happen unless both of thier next consoles fail. So untill then there is no point in discussing it.
JvD,
Of course you're joking, but I think it's INAPPROPRIATE with such jokes on a board like Beyond3D, especially from a board moderator who's expected to uphold a certain standard. If you lower that standard by example to the "yo momma" level, we can't but expect from the general population of the board to follow you down there and joke around.
That would be seriously tragic in my opinion.
*G*
Of course you're joking, but I think it's INAPPROPRIATE with such jokes on a board like Beyond3D, especially from a board moderator who's expected to uphold a certain standard. If you lower that standard by example to the "yo momma" level, we can't but expect from the general population of the board to follow you down there and joke around.
That would be seriously tragic in my opinion.
*G*
Grall said:
I dunno grall. I post alot on the 3d tech boards here and there is a ton of joking. The problem here is that people are so focused on thier view or feelings on something that anyone else saying something sends them into a blind rage. Some people know which buttons to push and so they do that . What we realyl need is to make people on the boards grow up and not loose the fun of this board. We should all be friends that can joke around and have a good time while discusing stuff.
I was referring to the NV30 development cost.Magnum PI said:
Something that is not exotic like their "cell" chip, a graphics chip that is sold in the PC and workstation market.
I am not saying they are endanger of going bankrupt. I am saying they can not win in a pissing contest with MS and Sony. And if they blow a console cycle they will eat through most of their cash.
Early in the cycle yes it is a fact. If you want the numbers go look them up yourself.
I think you’re missing the point. Entering a new business, especially one with the economics of the console business is expensive. It is almost guaranteed that they will burn through a few billion while they gain experience and market share. If people thought MS was going to instantly dominate the console business they were foolish.
As it is, MS has acquired itself a tentative 2nd place in market share and has shown it can put out a serious console. When XB2 and PS3 are released at the same time it will be interesting to see how Sony handles the competition.
If Cell finds it home in other devices it will not be exotic but generic. A PC graphics chip is exotic in that it only works in a PC.
Being different does not mean 'exotic' as this implies rarity and expense IMHO.
Or am I not getting at what you mean by 'exotic?'
The NV30 development costs were $400 million? If they were this is not to be taken as typical costs for the development of a graphics core but IMHO (again), as atypical and rather high. Of course I could be wrong but I am not assuming because it cost NVIDIA this much to develop a core it will also cost another company the same or more.
If Nintendo blow a console cycle Nintendo can rely on there other franchises to make money. Most of their money comes from their Gameboy product and a significant portion comes from places other than the Gamecube product (e.g. Pokemon). I do not buy the "..they will eat through most of their cash," because of this fact. It WILL possibly hurt Nintendo but eating through $8 billion dollars is not a given for simply missing a console cycle.
Nintendo does NOT typical lose money on each console sold. This may be out of date now but Nintendo always made money on NES, SNES and N64. Like I said this may have changed with the Gamecube but personally I doubt it. The Gamecube was designed to be inexpensive to manufacture as one of its primary targets. The source of this comment is something Howard Lincoln said when the N64 was launched.
If you want to prove a fact then the onus is on you to provide the evidence.
It is not a guarantee that you will lose billions when entering a market. It will be a guarantee if you do not prepare for this eventuality that you will go bust but MS did take care of this eventuality as they have money to throw at the XBOX at this time. If at any time Bill Gates et al decide the costs are not worth the benefit then expect MS to pull out. A venture this big can cripple a company even the size of Microsoft. They are not above the economies of scale. Intel were in a similar position a few years ago when they branched out, lost money on almost everything but their core business (processors) and refocused, i.e. sold the divisions that lost money. Even the mighty Microsoft is not above this but at this time the initial investment will make MS hesitate on such a large initial cost of manufacture for their next console.
A highly improbable but not impossible scenario is: if tomorrow people stop buying Microsoft OS' (their core business) then there reserves will dry up also.
Nintendo are still profitable and as long as they are they have no reason whatsoever to consider a vertical integration or even a partnership from one of their leading competitors (MS or Sony).
Being different does not mean 'exotic' as this implies rarity and expense IMHO.
Or am I not getting at what you mean by 'exotic?'
The NV30 development costs were $400 million? If they were this is not to be taken as typical costs for the development of a graphics core but IMHO (again), as atypical and rather high. Of course I could be wrong but I am not assuming because it cost NVIDIA this much to develop a core it will also cost another company the same or more.
If Nintendo blow a console cycle Nintendo can rely on there other franchises to make money. Most of their money comes from their Gameboy product and a significant portion comes from places other than the Gamecube product (e.g. Pokemon). I do not buy the "..they will eat through most of their cash," because of this fact. It WILL possibly hurt Nintendo but eating through $8 billion dollars is not a given for simply missing a console cycle.
Nintendo does NOT typical lose money on each console sold. This may be out of date now but Nintendo always made money on NES, SNES and N64. Like I said this may have changed with the Gamecube but personally I doubt it. The Gamecube was designed to be inexpensive to manufacture as one of its primary targets. The source of this comment is something Howard Lincoln said when the N64 was launched.
If you want to prove a fact then the onus is on you to provide the evidence.
It is not a guarantee that you will lose billions when entering a market. It will be a guarantee if you do not prepare for this eventuality that you will go bust but MS did take care of this eventuality as they have money to throw at the XBOX at this time. If at any time Bill Gates et al decide the costs are not worth the benefit then expect MS to pull out. A venture this big can cripple a company even the size of Microsoft. They are not above the economies of scale. Intel were in a similar position a few years ago when they branched out, lost money on almost everything but their core business (processors) and refocused, i.e. sold the divisions that lost money. Even the mighty Microsoft is not above this but at this time the initial investment will make MS hesitate on such a large initial cost of manufacture for their next console.
A highly improbable but not impossible scenario is: if tomorrow people stop buying Microsoft OS' (their core business) then there reserves will dry up also.
Nintendo are still profitable and as long as they are they have no reason whatsoever to consider a vertical integration or even a partnership from one of their leading competitors (MS or Sony).
- Status
Similar threads
