Happenstance Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 It just seems to me that people who would want to buy Pikmin 3 or the Luigi game would probably already have a Wii U. There'll probably be a small peak but the console still really needs a system seller and those 2 are by no means it.
madeinbeats Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) Gamers being gamers can get too obsessive over sales numbers (high score) and 1st place status. ............................2012.............................................-$553,000,000 ............................2013..................................................$72,000,000 Edited June 5, 2013 by madeinbeats
Serebii Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 Everything's stable atm in Japan. 3DS dropped a bit 3DS LL 28,807 3DS 14,057 PS3 11,832 Vita 11,783 Wii U 6,680 PSP 5,807 Wii 1,171 Xbox 360 441
Rummy Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 Gamers being gamers can get too obsessive over sales numbers (high score) and 1st place status. That's all well and good but then you have to wonder what the fuck they're actually going with all the money! This is what annoys me the most, they HAVE the money, fucking use it!
D_prOdigy Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 That's all well and good but then you have to wonder what the fuck they're actually going with all the money! This is what annoys me the most, they HAVE the money, fucking use it! On a more serious note, people tend to over-estimate the size of Nintendo's 'war chest', and underestimate the cost of the quarter-to-quarter running of the company. Plus, being quite fiscally conservative is primarily the reason Nintendo has remained in such a strong financial position, through the good years and bad. I think they've blown far more of those reserves than they ever wanted to accounting for the current losses of Wii U. And they are spending money on third party collaborations like Bayonetta 2 - the sorts of deals which would have been unthinkable 5 years ago.
Zechs Merquise Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 On a more serious note, people tend to over-estimate the size of Nintendo's 'war chest', and underestimate the cost of the quarter-to-quarter running of the company. Plus, being quite fiscally conservative is primarily the reason Nintendo has remained in such a strong financial position, through the good years and bad. I think they've blown far more of those reserves than they ever wanted to accounting for the current losses of Wii U. And they are spending money on third party collaborations like Bayonetta 2 - the sorts of deals which would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. You do understand the difference between revenues, costs and profits don't you? The figures posted were profit - the bottom line. Profits are the sum of revenue and costs. So when Nintendo is in profit that is money over and above all costs. So when saying Nintendo made a profit of $500,000,000 or £30,000,000 or even $3,000,000 - it doesn't matter what the costs are. For them to have made a profit all costs must have been covered. Sony will have massive revenue streams (money coming into the company) but the reason it fails to make a profit isn't because its products don't sell, it is because Sony's costs exceed their revenue. So they are spending more than comes in. So when you say Nintendo have spent 'X' on running costs or spent 'Y' on developing a game with a second party, that is all taken into account on the balance sheet as a cost in that fiscal period. If Nintendo comes out in profit those costs aren't taken out of the profit - the profit is calculated from the revenues minus the costs. Only when Nintendo makes a loss would that be offset against assets held - ie money in the bank, property owned and equipment owned by the company. Even if Nintendo invests money into a building, company cars or new staff and that money comes from their 'war chest' it would still appear in the balance sheet as a 'cost' and be offset against revenue. Hence why if Nintendo invested in a new R&D building their profit would be less that fiscal period than usual due to the investment and set up of the building counting as a cost to company regardless of whether the money came as a loan or out of the 'war chest'.
D_prOdigy Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 You do understand the difference between revenues, costs and profits don't you? The figures posted were profit - the bottom line. Profits are the sum of revenue and costs. So when Nintendo is in profit that is money over and above all costs. Which is why it is rather convenient that that graph ends before the mahoosive losses Nintendo have made in the last couple of years. They're not sitting on anywhere near $10bn, let alone $30bn.
madeinbeats Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 They're not sitting on anywhere near $10bn, let alone $30bn. Lol, not intentional. add a -$553,000,000 on the Nintendo column. It hardly dents their total profit, which is still some $32 billion. That one year loss must have been a shock though, I'm sure they'll be thinking long and hard about that. Which is why it is rather convenient that that graph ends before the mahoosive losses Nintendo have made in the last couple of years. They were back in the black this year with 7 billion yen. So, so far they've only seen a loss of half a billion dollars.
RedShell Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 That's all well and good but then you have to wonder what the fuck they're actually going with all the money!
Zechs Merquise Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 Lol, not intentional. add a -$553,000,000 on the Nintendo column. It hardly dents their total profit, which is still some $32 billion. That one year loss must have been a shock though, I'm sure they'll be thinking long and hard about that. They were back in the black this year with 7 billion yen. So, so far they've only seen a loss of half a billion dollars. That year saw the 3DS launch, the Wii U manufacturing period and they built and opened a new R&D centre. All of those things are massive negatives on the balance sheet. Huge amounts of money are put down before and around a console launch. Many consoles aren't profitable until later into their life cycle.
Blade Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 That year saw the 3DS launch, the Wii U manufacturing period and they built and opened a new R&D centre. All of those things are massive negatives on the balance sheet. Huge amounts of money are put down before and around a console launch. Many consoles aren't profitable until later into their life cycle. Just to reiterate the above point to another example. At my old firm we have last year they opened a wills and probate department and recruited about 5 solicitors. Now those solicitors will need to have their salaries paid from day 1 plus there are all the other overheads. As it is a new department there are no clients and it will therefore take time to build up a client base It was no surpise therefore that although by the year end it made a gross profit, it made a net loss. You have to speculate to accumulate. I imagine it is same with any business when they first launch a new product/new service.
Rummy Posted June 5, 2013 Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) Just to reiterate the above point to another example. At my old firm we have last year they opened a wills and probate department and recruited about 5 solicitors. Now those solicitors will need to have their salaries paid from day 1 plus there are all the other overheads. As it is a new department there are no clients and it will therefore take time to build up a client base It was no surpise therefore that although by the year end it made a gross profit, it made a net loss. You have to speculate to accumulate. I imagine it is same with any business when they first launch a new product/new service. I was assuming the tables would be net profit, why would they be gross instead? Also I think we should probably discount the years before SONY/MS are in and knock that off Nintendo's running total(look at it just like the startup capital the others had to get running). Which is why it is rather convenient that that graph ends before the mahoosive losses Nintendo have made in the last couple of years. They're not sitting on anywhere near $10bn, let alone $30bn. Uhh...what mahoosive losses were these? Don't just use a silly word but not actually justify yourself. Remember, for a second, the Wii was one of the best selling consoles to date/of last generation and it turned a profit from day 1. Also remember, that these figures in this table aren't exactly miniascularite*, they're mahoosive too. *I made up this word. It means you can't argue against my point and you are wrong. Edited June 5, 2013 by Rummy Automerged Doublepost
Serebii Posted June 12, 2013 Posted June 12, 2013 Another drop this week for all 3DS LL 27,172 3DS 12,700 PS3 10,394 Vita 9,733 Wii U 6,330 PSP 5,076 Wii 1,060 Xbox 360 432
liger05 Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) from gaf The 3DS is getting some momentum at last. Wii U software sales in the UK awfully low. Edited June 13, 2013 by liger05
Rummy Posted June 13, 2013 Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) Whoever the hell made/put together that first one never did much maths or science - nothing is clearly defined. Is this pounds per unit? Average thousands/millions/billions per console? What? I'll presume millions of pounds, but really you need to label that shit up. EDIT: So. Being bored(read: drunk and appalled at bad data labelling) as I am, I ran it through a spreadsheet(which I foolishly closed without saving, noooo!) - assuming revenue to be in millions, and units in k sales. I have thusly calculated the following average revenue per unit; on that basis. EDIT: for all my hate on bad labelling(though I am/was drunk) - I mistakenly labelled the YTD absolute quantity sales to date as avg. it isn't average as there is nothing to average over; it's just calculated from other quantity figures(hence also why it doesn't match with quoted figures; I'd assume they round on each month but sum all on the end without rounding for YTD). So whilst the Wii U looks mildly in the lead as revenue per unit(assuming the figures I assume) - it is both 'next gen' compared to the rest and should be expected to be, but will also be inflicted by a bias in its lower sales. I wouldn't know what weight to assign anything, but only remind that the chart is arranged in order of total revenue anyway. Edited June 13, 2013 by Rummy Automerged Doublepost
Cube Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 http://ukie.org.uk/content/ukie-week-24-2013-uk-video-games-charts Latest UK top 10 1. The Last of Us 2. Animal Crossing: New Leaf 3. GRID 2 4. Tomb Raider 5. FIFA 13 6. Injustice: Gods Among Us 7. Far Cry 3 8. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - Legendary Edition 9. Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon 10. Assassin's Creed III The Last of Us is the biggest new IP launch since LA Noire, and Animal Crossing is the fastest selling 3DS game since Mario Kart 7.
Hero-of-Time Posted June 17, 2013 Author Posted June 17, 2013 I'm quite surprised that The Last of Us beat Animal Crossing for the top spot. I imagine that Animal Crossing will have better legs and remain in the charts longer though.
Cube Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 I thought the same. It's possible that lots of people bought AC digitally (although The Last of Us also had a decent digital price). But Animal Crossing will probably be in the top 40 for many months.
Daft Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Or the PS3 has been on sale for over six years and TLOU has had a massive marketing push, not to mention a year of buil up. Really not surprised about TLOU coming top.
Cube Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Or the PS3 has been on sale for over six years and TLOU has had a massive marketing push, not to mention a year of buil up. There's been The Last of Us marketing?
Debug Mode Posted June 18, 2013 Posted June 18, 2013 So because I'm not sure where exactly this should go because of how specific this topic is, I'll play it safe and post here. Scott Moffit insists Wii U is great value for money, will not be lowering the price despite the announcements by Microsoft and, most importantly, Sony. What the fuck are the guys at Nintendo smoking these days? There's absolutely no big, console selling titles due on the horizon until 2014 for general audiences and the PS4 sounds like it's going to come out in November with guns blasting. Shit, as much as I want X and Smash Bro's, I could pay just a little bit more to get a console which I know will have some awesome Japanese developer support AND Sony's recently amassed assets. I can see problems inbound.
Hero-of-Time Posted June 18, 2013 Author Posted June 18, 2013 I can honestly see a price cut being announced before the next consoles arrive. A number of games will be out by then, so it will make more sense to do it then. No point it cutting the price now if the software isn't there to drive the sales.
Recommended Posts