How do manufacturers like Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft lose money?

#11LinetrixPosted 10/10/2012 8:53:27 AM
ZombieAkane posted...
Foppe posted...
Nintendo is the only company that earn money for each sold unit.


Huh? How the **** does that work?


Simple. Nintendo sells ancient, cheap tech for a premium. Sony and MS sell state-of-art tech for less than it is worth. Basically Nintendo gives you the middle finger while Sony and MS actually care for their consumers.
---
It doesn't matter the additional notes say opinions aren't trolling. The Notes are wrong and your opinion is trolling - GameFAQs moderation
#12TottentanzPosted 10/10/2012 8:55:42 AM
........cracks knuckles.......

R&D for the next gen

Stock being produced and sitting in warehouses

Paying for projects that flop(Resistance 3)

Paying dev teams

Paying people to redesign the hardware

Release hardware revisions

Paying people for market research

Designing updates to the OS

Online

Re-designing online

Forging new partnerships

Paying for exclusive content

Paying for repairs covered by warranty

Paying to maintain websites including IP names according to patent laws and new net ids(Halo.XXX for example)

Paying lawyers on retainer

Court Settlements

.......song over....
#13ZombieAkane(Topic Creator)Posted 10/10/2012 8:59:45 AM
Whaaaaat? That's crazy.

My dad actually owns a Nintendo Wii, it WAS cheap. Like just over half price of a PS3 or Xbox360.

I've never really bothered with his Wii cause I favour MMORPG games, but damn.

So, if i buy a PS3 now, am I supporting Sony or just helping them break even?

How does PS3 makes money from the games themselves? Does that not go to the manufacturers?
---
i5 2500k@4ghz | MSI Radeon 6990 | 8GB DDR3 | Antec Dark Fleet DF-10 | Gigabyte Z68AP-D3
#14link5003Posted 10/10/2012 9:01:15 AM
Linetrix posted...
ZombieAkane posted...
Foppe posted...
Nintendo is the only company that earn money for each sold unit.


Huh? How the **** does that work?


Simple. Nintendo sells ancient, cheap tech for a premium. Sony and MS sell state-of-art tech for less than it is worth. Basically Nintendo gives you the middle finger while Sony and MS actually care for their consumers.


The funny thing is that I bet that you actually believe this.
---
3DS Friend Code: 1461 - 6679 - 3387
Please PM me with your Friend Code if this is not a FC thread and I'll do my best to add you.
#15TottentanzPosted 10/10/2012 9:01:21 AM
Linetrix posted...
ZombieAkane posted...
Foppe posted...
Nintendo is the only company that earn money for each sold unit.


Huh? How the **** does that work?


Simple. Nintendo sells ancient, cheap tech for a premium. Sony and MS sell state-of-art tech for less than it is worth. Basically Nintendo gives you the middle finger while Sony and MS actually care for their consumers.


http://www.1up.com/news/vita-proprietary-memory-cards-wont-be-cheap

http://www.techspot.com/news/45505-sony-changes-psn-terms-to-block-class-action-lawsuits.html

Paying to get access to online play for Live despite almost no games having dedicated servers and the bombardment of ads.

I see nothing but love there.
#16FoppePosted 10/10/2012 9:03:31 AM
First the developers have to pay a fee to be able to develop PS3 games.
And then Sony take a piece of each game sold.
---
GameFAQs isn't going to be merged in with GameSpot or any other site. We're not going to strip out the soul of the site. -CJayC
#171shadetail1Posted 10/10/2012 9:07:28 AM(edited)
ZombieAkane posted...
So, if i buy a PS3 now, am I supporting Sony or just helping them break even?

Those are basically the same thing, at this point. The PS3 *is* selling at a profit now, but Sony dug a pretty big hole for themselves with the disastrous launch. They're going to be deep in the red for a while.


How does PS3 makes money from the games themselves? Does that not go to the manufacturers?

Sony is also a game development studio, so they make plenty of games themselves. And third-party developers have to pay licensing fees to get their games on Sony's platform.
---
Religion is like spaghetti: either stiff and fragile, or wet and limp.
#18Rennik RepotsirPosted 10/10/2012 9:07:27 AM(edited)
Simple, if you split the cost of manufacturing to each individual product over a given time and sell it at a lower than the production price per unit.

Plug the numbers: http://www.calculatorweb.com/calculators/profitcalc/
---
FREE BUMP!!!
I bored; eat it...</post>
#19Waggy17Posted 10/10/2012 9:44:15 AM
What's interesting is that Nintendo, as far as I'm seeing, is already selling out all their presales for Wii U despite the fact that their system is "dated." They are also now able to sell their system, which is "comparable" to the PS3 and 360 (more powerful than either, but not by a generational leap necessarily, and the system is releasing at a later date) for a cheaper price than when the other systems debuted (much cheaper than PS3; however, Wii U's basic SKU is the same as the 360's Core system, while Wii U's Deluxe SKU is barely cheaper than 360's Premium. One must also consider that the price of the Wii U includes the GamePad which drives up the cost). I also believe that the Wii U will not sell at a loss compared with the other systems' performances from what I've read.

It's interesting because everyone is supposedly highly anticipating the release of Sony and Microsoft's next systems, and I'm sure the new systems will be great; however, with the trends we are seeing, specifically relating to the topic of this thread, the next generation could destroy the gaming industry. If the rumors of what is to come with the next generation are true, these systems will be expensive, and Sony/Microsoft will continue to sell their systems at a loss (I honestly have no desire to get the next Sony or Microsoft offering, as I find great value in the PS3 and never cared much for Microsoft. Surely, they are aiming initially at the early adopter, but this is not a "healthy" plan, considering the losses expected and the fact that a higher selling point may lead to lower sales figures). The only advantage they are likely to gain is in the graphics department, which more and more is becoming irrelevant. Epic has been hawking their newest engine and pushing hardware manufacturers to up the ante, but even their new engine is scalable enough to be played on mobile platforms. While Nintendo's newest offering may not compare systems being released in a year or two spec-wise, the difference will not be similar to the discrepancy between the Wii and other consoles of its generation. Software developers will no longer have quite the hurdle they had in porting software, and some will even have the incentive to develop for Nintendo as it will probably be cheaper. Add to that the fact that Nintendo will include support for traditional control schemes along with the, arguably, best motion control support, and things don't look so bad for Nintendo.

Related links: http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/09/08/the-ten-year-decline-of-sony/
http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/02/the-rise-of-costs-the-fall-of-gaming/
http://gengame.net/2012/07/wii-u-will-not-be-behind-next-generation/
---
[iQ]Waggy/Time2Pan[iQ] - 1814-6320-1343 || [PHX]Cinder - 3670-8922-4025
http://gephx.webs.com/
#20MetroidJunkiePosted 10/10/2012 9:49:58 AM
Linetrix posted...


Simple. Nintendo sells ancient, cheap tech for a premium. Sony and MS sell state-of-art tech for less than it is worth. Basically Nintendo gives you the middle finger while Sony and MS actually care for their consumers.


You can probably build a PC that curbstomps both the Ps3 and 360 for the same price either of them cost. Just saying.