you only own a 360? i thought you also owned a wii.

The Gamecube was last place last gen, and Nintendo still made good profit off of it. You don't got to be top dog system to make money.

@jun581: anyway back on topic. Well to MS credit, they are trying to make money with the stuff they charge online; especially with XBLA. they don't really come cheap. But Ikagura is great so a lot of people are willing to pay for them.

Fact: Mark Wilson hates all consols except the 360. Kidding Kidding, don't hurt me.

So Mark, Metal Gear gonna make you by a PS3? I ask cause that seems to be the PS3 buy in game for a couple of my friends.

You know what makes even less sense than Microsoft caring so much about sales figures and the so-called console wars? Gamers caring.

The point isn't selling 100+mil consoles, which I don't think will happen during this console cycle, it's selling enough systems and games to remain relevant to both consumers and publishers to reach and sustain a profit.

I think this cycle shows that three consoles can thrive within the videogame industry and be successful. The more choices for the consumer the better off we all are. It's a great time to be gamer!

@Kyle81: The PS2 was first and it made tons of profit because of good competitive decisions. You can have both if good decisions are made.

A perfectly valid point. It will always bother me that, because we invest in commercial product A or B, we feel that it has to be represented in the best light out of all the other options, even if it can't possibly be that good.

I've been paying for Lost episodes on XBL because I don't have Tivo. Their online capabilities are amazing, although now that I also have a PS3, I'm starting to migrate a lot of my collection to that. Free online is pretty sweet.

I said this months ago. Who cares who "wins." As long as your system sells enough to make it worth putting games out on, there will be great games to play.

I had an Xbox 1 and that system was a dismal failure compared to the PS2. It was outsold something like 10 to 1.

Yet, amazingly, I played lots and lots of great games on that ugly black box. Halo 1 & 2, Riddick, GTA, Forza, Fable, Ninja Gaiden, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Crimson Skies, etc. etc.

Who cares if more people own a Wii? A publisher knows a good game on the 360 will move a million units.

Who's the number one music studio? Who's the number one film distributer? Who cares? Certainly not the shareholders. All they care about is whether Columbia or Fox or Paramount are profitable. And all I care about as a gamer, is whether there will be good games to play. So far so good.

Ask any Gamecube owner if having a console that makes the hardware manufacturer lots of money is better than having a console that loads of people own and is therefore not unceremoniously dumped by all the third party devs...

Well if we ignore the PS2 for the mean time, Xbox 360 is still first place for game to console attach ratio's. The Wii may sell a ton more than its competition but it still has a pretty poor game attach rate, although its been improving as of late.

@kagai: I agree completely, people seem to think that there can't be room for 3 consoles but there is, as is evident by sales today. PS3 for a while was considered to be in last place and done for, look how its doing now, its doing great. Thats not to say Microsoft isn't doing great either but they could certainly do better in Europe.

Of course Microsoft wants to be first, they've become used to it ever since Windows. I don't think that they ever anticipated being first either. I find it hard to believe someone at Microsoft actually thought the Zune could dethrone the Ipod. But you have to give them credit, they put themselves into a position to achieve it. If they don't end up losing money then stock prices stay stable and everyone sleeps happily in Redmond.

"But how can any major, innovative console manufacturer not be looking at the 100 million+ precedent set by the PS2 and realizing that no one but first place has a realistic chance of reaching such heights?"

So, in other words, quit listening to voices of reason and keep fanning the flames?

@Tepoz: Those times are over. I think companies are fooling themselves if they think they are going to pull off what Sony pulled off with the PS2 simply because that means supporting for a length of time much longer than what had been done in the past or will be done in the future.

And that can't really be done when you have more competition and a different global society added and blended to a perfection.

It's SORT OF like when Ford had the market to itself.

@photoboy: Gamecube did get some great games though. Maybe not as much as PS2, but it still got games that people loved. Xbox had games people liked too.....

@photoboy: At the same time, a console that loads of people own will see the most shovelware appear for it. I'm not disagreeing with the point you're making, just showing that it's got another side to it.

I don't think we will see any of these consoles (PS3, 360, Wii) reach as high as the PS2 did, with all due respect to the Wii. It won't be able to catch that mass because the demand for HD disc playback and games will gradually go up as we advance in 2008 and especially 2009.

The 360 won't either, simply because it labelled itself as the ultimate hardcore gaming console, to combat that portion previously married to Sony. It hasn't really got a franchise that reaches as far as, say, SingStar or Mario Kart. They get the Guitar Heroes and Rock Bands, yes, but as long as they're not exclusive, there's no point that the mass audience (read: casual gamer) sees to choose the 360 over the Wii. I expect Microsoft to announce a new system towards the end of 2009 and release it mid 2010.

The PS3 on the other hand, even with the aspired 10 years plan, I see fading away as Sony releases, and they will, the PS4. They might keep support for the PS3 up for 10 years and keep releasing downgraded versions of their first party PS4 titles for the PS3, but there is no way in hell they will stay appealing when new consoles with much superior hardware enter the field, especially once Nintendo does that.
Even at a super low price point, gamers will want the most recent console and get the most out of the experience.

Nintendo will have to release a more up to date piece of hardware (call it Wii2 or WiiHD or whatever) around then to stay competitive, even though their current business model is clearly catering to the people without HDTV. This has to lose its appeal at some point when more and more people migrate to HDTV. I don't see the issue with killing the Wii off in about 2 years time either - it's not like they're building a super high spec device that needs years to get the money back in that it ate up in production. And consumers aren't paying loads to buy it.

Then again, I'm no analyst, so my projections are probably bullshit. Sorry to take your time reading this.

@photoboy: That's not the same, though. Unless the bottom seriously drops out of the demand for one of the three, none of them is really in danger of being abandoned. The Wii is the dominant platform in terms of install base, the 360 dominates North America and has the highest software attach rate, and the PS3 will always have some Japanese support because of Microsoft's irrelevance in Japan. This generation is very different from last generation because there isn't one clear dominant machine.

While it doesn't hurt to be first, it does hurt not to be competitive, especially in this environment.

History has shown us repeatedly that no one stays as #1, especially if the entity in question is driven almost solely by hype and brand, if not "rich" recognition.

At the end of the day for Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony and everything else in between, it's a matter of how well they can entice us to support what they produce and just as importantly, how they can maintain our loyalty to their brand.

That, thankfully, is a matter of quality, which anyone from a long established entity to a start up has the potential to accomplish well.

Microsoft mainly cares because a highly successful console creates a largely self-sustaining sales engine. Better software leads to more console sales, which leads to more developers, repeat ad infinitum. Being in first can potentially drive your profits into the stratosphere. That being said, I've been saying the same thing as Pachter since the Gamecube days.

I like three-ways = )

Doesn't matter if Microsoft is first, second, or third, they're still hemorrhaging money.

I'm sure Xbox360 could be profitable just appealing to American fanboys, assuming the console didn't cost them so much to develop (and then subsequently replace all the damn time).

@Candlejack: you sound more credible than patcher on his other rants.

Honestly though, Microsoft shouldn't give a shit who's first or second. They are still making fuck tons of money either way.

@Ess:

There is one issue, however. While it is possible that a system in third place can make a profit and thrive, there is still the distinct possibility of the system failing before its time.

I'm sure many of us remember the trouncing of the Dreamcast by the PS2. Basically, gamers don't want to be caught in a situation like that again. Because of this, I understand why marketshare and other metrics are important to gamers. They need quantifiable assurance that they did not waste their money on a moribund system.

Of course, for the 360 and PS3 this is less of an issue. Both systems have established themselves sufficiently that they will continue to get software (most likely in the form of cross-platform releases) even if one pulls ahead of the other. And if GTA IV and COD 4 are represent the quality of multi-platform games, we have little to worry about.

@lordjoebill: The 360 started being profitable either last quarter or the quarter before. Sony is the only company still losing money on this generation.

I don't really care who's first or second. It's more important for Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony to get rich so they stay in business, especially Nintendo since it's a videogame exclusive company.

I thin this has been MS strategy for a while now. They could haveeasily been more agressiev with price cuts and stuff, but to them its far more important to show the business can be profitable.

Pachter's appearance on the KOXM (official Xbox Mag) podcast dated 4/18 is worth a listen. Quite interesting stuff and I had never heard him actually speak. Sounded saner than I would've guessed. Available on iTunes if you care about such things...

Is this already preparing the masses for not being number one? or two?

After all, the milestone of 100 million was already reached, so now the new milestone is what 130 million or whatever the PS2 is at?

Pachter may be right,but he's not realistic.Companies all over the world seek to be #1,whether it's in Video games or other Industries.For example,where I work..we're in third and yet we made a nice gain in profitablility/sales.We're still looking to be #1 though and that won't change.Unfortunately,I don't believe it'll happen for years in this economy.

@lionkitten:
thanks for that.I will get it tonight.

@lordjoebill: Actually, MS has been profitable for the past two quarters now, even with the extended RROD warranty. I believe SCE as a whole is back to profitability, but the PS3 hasn't made them a dime yet.

@Kyle81: Gamecube did get some great games though.

Indeed. Owning just a Gamecube was frustrating when I wasn't able to keep up with fighting games (though I was sort of until my Dreamcast died)

Still we had a lot of great games and I was never starved for something to play. It just depends on what you want, ya know?

Now I own a PS2, Gamecube (and Wii) and original XBox. The Gamecube games get a lot more play than the PS2, though I do need to start some RPG's I've been hoarding.

Activision was number one of 2007 right? I mean the comparison is still valid, but you can't call out the reigning champ just like that.

@rotcepsurt:
That includes the original xbox years too?

@kagai:

Took the words right out of my mouth. Great post.

@rotcepsurt: MS only appears profitable on paper. They really should be losing money still, but because they put the 1 billion loss to the RROD on a past quarters results. Technically they are still losing money, but since they went and applied 1 billion of loss before Halo 3 even came out, they appear profitable. They have not incurred the 1 billion loss yet, they just estimated how much it would.

It hides the loss from shareholders and makes it look like they are making money when they really aren't.

@enewtabie: Of course not, as a whole MS is still several billion in the whole with their gaming division, and they are likely never to recoup all that loss this generation.

All they care about is reporting a profit on their fiscal year statement periods. But overall Xbox division still has several billion to recoup.

You've got to try to be number 1 - otherwise what's the point?

Do you think Sierra and THQ sit around going:

Sierra: "You know, I'm really happy where I am, I knew Timeshift would be average and that's fine!"

THQ: "Too right! Saints Row 2 won't be anywhere near as good as GTA IV, but does it need to be?"

Ok, maybe Blacksite tried to be dull, but there's always an exception.

@lordjoebill: If by "hemorrhaging money" you mean "making a profit", then, you're correct.

@enewtabie: Hell no, LOL, but they've proved they have a legitimate presence in the market and their profitability continues to increase. They WON'T make all of that back this generation, but if they maintain current profits and don't screw up, they could possibly get back in the black sometime during Xbox 3's life.

@mind in rewind: Never mind, I just checked out some of the recent posts. At least they're making a profit on every unit sold. Aren't the initial losses a write-off, anyway?

@ManjiKengo: lol! Thanks :D I like Pachter though. Just like to hear him talk. He seems very intelligent and down to earth to me.

His projections....well. Some I can agree with, some seem a little far fetched.

@Kyle81:
Actually,I figured that but I was curious as to the response.I'd like to look at Nintendo/MS financials from the beginning(year to year) to see the overall picture myself.

@Kyle81: You can argue semantics but that's what companies do. They wrote off what would be a future loss a few quarters back and thus are making profit now. The 1 billion dollar write off is done, the money is set aside for repairs and sits atop their previous debt. Current operations are generating positive cashflow.