Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses $177m on Xbox in Three Months
Albanach writes "The BBC News are reporting in this story that Microsoft's Home Entertainment Division has filed a submission to the Securities and Exchange Commission reporting a loss of $177 million for the three months to 30 September 2002. The loss comes on revenues of $505m for the division that manufactures the Xbox games console. Microsoft are said to be prepared to spend $2 billion funding Xbox live over the next five years, suggesting it will be some time before the home entertainment division break into the black."
Of course... This could be an accounting tactic to allow them taxbreaks on their losses.
or is there something actually legitimate about this? Granted there's stiff competition in the home console market, but MS was throwing consoles at people in hopes that they'd recoup their losses with the sale of games. to hear that they're losing money with game sales seems odd to me.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
This is of course, how Microsoft takes over a marketplace. They are eternally funded, and can oulast anyone.
They'll chip away at Sony and Nintendo's profits until even these successful companies can't make a profit.
I wonder why they're trying to pull out of the DVR market. They say that there's no money in it. Maybe. I thinks that maybe it conflicts with their DRM agenda.
One of the tactics Standard Oil would employ was to sell oil and petroleum products well below cost, absorbing the loss for the sake of driving competitors to the point of ruin, and then buying their ruined competitors' assets.
Sony is a strong, powerful company. Nintendo is slightly less so. I think, however, that if you were to do a direct comparison, Microsoft has the ability to lose more money and stay solvent for longer than either Sony or Nintendo.
This tactic was found to be in violation of the Sherman act when applied to Standard oil. It's amazing to me that MS is able to get away with the same thing without its competitors screaming more loudly at the US government.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
AFAIK it's perfectly legal here.
They make a huge profit on the games, so maybe that's a loophole or something.
I don't begrudge people their money and I'm not an anti-corporate type. MS may be evil, but not for simply making money. Still, it's good to put numbers like $2 billion in perspective. The state I live in has about 8 million people. We're facing a budget shortfall (two-year budget, compared to MS's five-year plan) of about $2-3 billion, and people are flipping out -- school funding may be cut, roads might not get fixed or else taxes are going seriously up. One can argue about the reasons -- like government spending way too much already -- and it's not really important to my point. I just wanted to give that figure a context: It's a statewide disaster. Or an investment in making a line of video game hardware successful. Take your pick.
In the UK the XBOX has now put itself as the number 2 console , ahead of Nintendo's gamecube.
Xbox wins race of the also-rans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,
It's not dumping. Period.
Microsoft, like every other game console producer, takes a hit on the console. It isn't to put the other guy out of business (though sometimes that's a benefit), but rather, to get you hooked on a specific console. After that, they recoup their loss on the games. After all, who buys a console and then never buys a game? The only significant difference here is that Microsoft is banking on turning the profit in an online system, rather than just games.
Last year, the Sheetz gas station near us was selling gas for $0.95/gallon, significantly less than what they paid for it. It wasn't to kill the competitor, but rather to get people in the habit of filling up there. The money they made from their food, drinks, and various items inside the store made up their loss and they slowly raised the cost of gas to normal rates. I fully recognize that, but you know what? I still shop there and I'm not the only one.
Uhh, no, if you read it you'd notice that of $175 they were making per console, roughly $120 was from the console itself. $55 was from software and accessories.
Sony is not stupid. They do not sell at a loss. Sega sold at a loss and is now defunct as a hardware business. Nintendo sold the Gamecube at a slight loss but most accounts have them as about even now. Microsoft has billions it can throw down the drain, and so it sells at a loss.
Also, just a FYI, when Nintendo sells at a small loss it is almost meaningless to them, and I'll tell you why:
When a game is sold for $50, maybe $20 of it is profit. Of that, typically the console maker gets $5, and the game producer gets $15. However, Nintendo is in a special position in that it makes most of the really popular games for it's own console. Thus, if they sell at a $20 loss (which is about twice what most people estimated), but you buy the Gamecube and a single Nintendo produced game (which I guarantee you will), they've broken even, because they get all $20 of profit.
Microsoft, on the other hand, does not produce the games. Therefore, even if you are nice and say they're only losing $30 per console (which is way below most estimates), they need to sell 6 games just to break even. How many people do you know who have 6 XBox games? I don't know any. Every person I know with an XBox has less than 5 games, and typically has bought a single extra controller. Every person I know with a Gamecube has at least 5-6 games and most of them also buy 3 extra controllers due to the number of good 4 player games.
Something tells me MS is the only company really digging itself into a hole in the console business right now.
-[Blaine]- "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."