Microsoft makes $357M profit on games

Gaming division has happy holidays, generating more than $3 billion in revenues from October to December.

Last October, Microsoft's entertainment and devices division, the segment of the software giant that includes the Xbox 360 business, posted its first quarterly operating profit. Based on the strength of Halo 3, the division managed to finish the July-September quarter $165 million in the black.

Microsoft's Xbox business proved it isn't a one-hit wonder today when the company released its latest financial results, which saw the division more than double the previous quarter's operating profit. For the company's second fiscal quarter (the three months ended December 31), the entertainment and devices division posted $357 million in operating income on revenues of $3.06 billion.

In a conference call with investors, Microsoft senior vice president and CFO Chris Liddell said the console had reached a record tie ratio of seven games for every system sold, with the gaming division's revenues beating the company's previous investor guidance by $90 million. Although the revenue growth was minor (about 3 percent) over the same period the year before, the company's gaming business had turned an operating loss of $302 million over the 2006 holiday quarter.

For the first half of the fiscal year, the entertainment and devices division's revenues have been up more than 25 percent. For the full year, Microsoft said it expects the segment's revenues to increase 21-24 percent.

The company did not release specific earnings for the Xbox 360 today. However, it did revisit its 2008 Consumer Electronics Show keynote address. In that presentation, Microsoft execs trumpeted the fact that the console generated $3.5 billion in software, hardware, and other revenue from January to November 2007, saying that the total surpasses that of the PlayStation 3 and Wii combined. During today's conference call, Liddell said that for the holiday quarter alone, the total amount spent in the US on Xbox 360 hardware, software, and accessories was twice that of the PS3, and 27 percent more than on the Wii.

The rest of Microsoft's business divisions met or exceeded the company's expectations, and the company brought in total revenues of $16.37 billion, with $6.48 billion in operating income.

298 Comments

  • samedizombie

    Posted Feb 3, 2008 2:45 pm PT

    And as the god Wii looked around he smiled, for there were no more worlds to conquer.

  • teirdome

    Posted Feb 1, 2008 9:11 am PT

    Big grats to the evil empire of M$. Years of giving cash to gamers has finally paid off and the 7 game attach rate is phenomenal.

  • flyingdutchdog

    Posted Jan 30, 2008 3:34 pm PT

    @TheKungFool

    Your still living in the world of the PS2 illusion. The 360 list is far more diversified than the PS3. Your list pales in comparison. Quite frankly, the PS3 has as many shooters. For every game you mention as being different I can name two in the same genre on the 360 with more and different games to be released.
    It is the year 2008 .... I suggest that you start living in that year before you get to far gone and cannot return.

  • ElMapoX55

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 4:55 pm PT

    this game was awesome man playin it is the best xbox 360 is wicked

  • thebeast619

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 12:26 pm PT

    i did look and they are solid. i just think the ps3 have more to offer, it just my opinion im not trying to disrespect any one who have a 360

  • majestikk

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 11:29 am PT

    Thebeast619 must of never heard of Mass Effect

  • topgod

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 9:57 am PT

    I agree with TheKungFool, MS should be loosing by now. They've even bumped up the prices on some of the contents in marketplace. They just need to stop and drop out of the game industry.

  • TheKungFool

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 9:10 am PT

    XJRockCrawler - "LOL, PS3 has better selection!?! WTF are u smoking?"

    I own both systems, but I too feel the PS3 has a superior selection, both currently and upcoming. The 360 is only good if all you want to play is Shooters. But when I look at other genres (survival horror, platformers, actioners, rpgs, racing) its the Sony system that shines. With "Heavenly Sword", "Drake's Fortune", "Ratchet & Clank FToD", "Warhawk", "Folklore", already here and "Final Fantasy 13", "Metal Gear Solid 4", "GranTurismo5", "Killzone2", "Star Ocean IV", "LittleBigPlanet" and such all on the way, trust me, we have just as many, if not more worthy exclusives, and thankfully, they're not all shooters.

  • LProjektST

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 8:21 am PT

    Thebeast619 forgot to look at the games list for the 360; way more than the ps3

  • Devvy01

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 6:56 am PT

    Oh happy , happy , joy , joy.

  • XJRockcrawler

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 4:55 am PT

    LOL, PS3 has better selection!?! WTF are u smoking?

  • Rhubarb9

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 4:50 am PT

    so when will they start going plus from the xbox brand?

  • Nokols

    Posted Jan 29, 2008 12:02 am PT

    I was gonna buy a Xbox 360, but my cousins got the ring of fire under a month, so I ditch the idea. I wanted a Wii, but that was sold out everywhere STILL. So now I got a PS3, I didn't know what to expect, but i'm rather enjoying it. I would like to have all 3 console though, so flame away you fanboys like I care, I want to play what I think is fun. Maybe when I get a job I will buy a Wii and 360, heh, a man can dream can't he?

  • Apolou

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 6:04 pm PT

    I hate people that say that the 360 only have one good game, halo but thats a lie they just can't handle that 360 have more exclusive games then ps3 right now. So if you don't know any games the 360 have don't talk and do everyone a favor and shut up.

  • SHACKR

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 5:53 pm PT

    they actually made profit

  • Eclipse_ShinRa

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 4:13 pm PT

    @thebeast619
    Lol, you are funny the 360 has great line up and way more then just Halo

  • thebeast619

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 3:43 pm PT

    xbox360 is a good system but i wont buy it untill they show me one good game out side of halo. to me the ps3 have a much better selection

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 3:07 pm PT

    Autolycus pointed out " Sure its free, but is it really?"
    Yes, it's really free. And that's why it's free, because of the microtransactions. If anything, XBL has proven that microtransactions are a viable buisness model. As long as the core upgrades to PSN are intact (in game XMB, friend lists, voice, etc) all the rest is gravy. Also, GT5 wouldn't be the first game to charge for extra tracks and cars, and won't be the last, and the lack of damage didn't stop the last 4 GT games from making their way onto the top 20 best selling videogames of all time. Now it sounds like you're just attacking the PS3 for the sake of attacking. Home's not even out yet, and already you hate it.

  • Autolycus

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 2:38 pm PT

    BTW, according to our Sony Rep. "Jan" HOME will be set up to charge. You will get a dinky little house thats free. You can only put so many items in it, but if you want to upgrade items you'll have to pay. Also gran tursimo 5 is projected to be release for cheap and sold cars and tracks as needed ( which is a nightmare to handle online ). DO we know if GT5 is going to have damage or realistic handling ( gt4 did not, coming from someone who is Champ Car certified to race ). Gran Turismo lets you fly across the grass with no side effect, lame.

    SOrry off topic. Point being, sony's system wont be free because the "HOME" you get is pathetic, the furniture you get is pathetic and you'll have no place to store you trophies cause the trohpy cases are going to cost money. ( all according to our store rep ). Sure its free, but is it really?

  • Treblemaka

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 2:30 pm PT

    WhooHooo glad I own some microsoft stock.

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 1:43 pm PT

    Thanks for the input guys. That's shed some light on XBL for me. I only had one friend with a 360 so most of those things didn't apply to me when I was an XBL subscriber but I can see how you could justify a bit of a price premium if you used these features.

  • ullerw_basic

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 12:51 pm PT

    I see someone commented that you have too much time on your hands darkride, this is true lol. But you do bring up some valid points. The charge on xbox live does at times make it seem less attractive that the PSN; however, it is a much more developed system than PSN. This could just be time; however, we will see in the coming year if Sony really branches the PSN out. On the other hand, having the cost for xbox live has for the most part prevented developers from charging for games to play online. MMO's are the current exception to this rule, and I believe they shouldn't be aloud to charge, but thats my theory. I have heard that SOCOM may be charging for online play, but this is a rumor that I cant back up. If this is the case, then it is actually worse than XBOX live, as it will likely cost around $10 per month noting current trends. This would put the cost to play just one game at more than the cost to have XBOX live. This may be the trend; however, in the future, for games to charge on both XBL and PSN, in which case we would likely see the XBL become free. I think this would actually be a great loss for the community though, as it would effectively cost everyone more. Either way, it will be interesting to see how each company develops their online network, and we will likely see one copying the others business model for online gaming.

  • qiwihead

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 12:26 pm PT

    darkride66: The reason so many people prefer Xbox Live to PSN is features: XBL has a unified friends list, the ability to access the friends and messages menu in-game, more downloadable content, and, arguably, an easier-to-navigate menu system. Sony claims that Home will address the first two items, and if that is true and is done well, then it will be very difficult for Microsoft to argue that XBL is worth $50/yr. Until then, XBL is clearly the better service. It also seems to be better supported by devs than PSN is, but I don't have a PS3 yet so I can't confirm that myself.

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 12:03 pm PT

    I could probably find some if I looked, just like the multiple shrinelike 360 sites that abound. That's not what I'm after though. You mention this throng of disgruntled PS3 owners. Unlike the widespread, well documented rrod problem you mentioned, I have found no such information from any credible sources regarding the widespread problems you claim the PSN has, nor the dissatisified PS3 games who are legion, according to your assessment. If these issues do truely exist, how is it that they have been ignored by the gaming media who frenzy at the hint of blood in the water? I'd be interested to hear about these issues and causes of them if you ever come across anything. Otherwise I'm going to assume these rumors are like Bigfoot sightings, true in the minds of believers but not to be taken to seriously until confirmed by someone other than people who's passenger seat of their truck is taken up by a beer cooler.

  • Autolycus

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 11:47 am PT

    darkride, do you have sites showing the overall greatness that should be PSN?

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 10:56 am PT

    Autolycus, I see where you're going with this but my point is that this perceived problem with the PSN is not documented, like the RROD problem (using your example). Of course I don't base all my views on my own personal experiences, but it certainly colors my opinions. However, I still try to keep an open mind. You mention the disgruntled masses of PS3 users, unhappy with the lack of games and slow and unstable online. Personally, I don't know a single disgruntled PS3 owner and have never heard of such widespread network connection issues as you describe. I've looked for some credible source online that describes the type of issues that you mention, but I can't find anything (even the number of players online has never been an issue for me). Usually the rumors of these issues are confined to fanboy wars on various forums. Have you ever come across anything that documents these problems? If so, I'm not being facetious, I'd just like to give it a read. The communication issue on the PSN is something that Sony heard and has addressed, based on the pre-release info of Home, but right now that is something that would be nice that XBL has over the PSN. That, to me, doesn't justify the cost, though. The more I look into this, the more I'm beginning to believe that there isn't much of a difference between PSN and XBL, other than the cost. I've come across several articles that mention XBL to be a feather in the cap of the 360, but none of them really explain why that is. It's almost like a mass delusion, like American Pie being a good movie.

  • samedizombie

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 10:43 am PT

    It's really great to see that microsoft made so much money from their games division. Let's hope they put some of it into making sure that games like Gears of War on the PC are fit for release instead of making their wonga on the backs of saps, (like me) who stupidly expected the game to actually work when they got it home.

  • Autolycus

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 10:25 am PT

    OKay so following that same theory, if I've never had a xbox360 that went bad, everyone else must be wrong and the system must be awesome. sure some people have had the RROD, but I havent so everyone else is wrong? Sorry doesnt work like that. Personal experience for you is one thing, but mass personal experience is what truely defines a system and right now, mass users arent very happy w/ ps3. Sure they have exclusive games, but that doesnt mean they are worth owning the system. where as xbox has bioshock, halo ( if you are into it ), better frame rates, more games, more stable online service, more people using the online service, a faster online service, instant communication without having to hold on to a phone or worry about background noise oh and if you are on a budget you can get one for $279.00

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 9:52 am PT

    Thanks for your input, iory2. I've never had to wait an abnormal amount of time to download demos or videos, but I've had one friend complain everything is slow on his PSN. I've concluded this has more to do with an individual's connection and router than anything else, because using the PS3 at both my brother's and my one friends house (and my own PS3) don't seem to have any issues. You're numbers for download and install seem more than a little exaggerated based on my experiences. The PSN has a nice assortment of downloadable titles but the 360 certainly has the advantage currently in this regard, simply due to having been out longer. I've never come across a PS3 game that charges for online. Who's doing that?
    I have noticed at a friends house that XBL was handy when you hook up with friends to play online. Personally, I never used it as I only know one person with a 360, and our gaming tastes were quite different. So, so far I'm hearing that the only thing that warrents the additional costs of XBL is the ability to hook up and chat with friends. I use a phone for that, normally. COD4 is certainly simple to see which friends are playing online and jump into their games. Is there anything else anyone can think of that sets them apart?

  • iory2

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 9:33 am PT

    "darkride66"
    Could someone make an informed comment on the merits of XBL and paying for it vs PSN? This has certainly been a money maker for Microsoft, but this is a crucial matter for those people who are still on the fence on which system to buy."

    XBL is not a reason to buy xbox 360 over ps3 is just one of them, now somethings that are supperior on xbox live are, 1 you dont have to wait 6 hours to download a 1.5 gigs demo like on psn then another 30 min to install it, you have way more game content on it like xbl arcade and xbox originals that is just starting and will grow and give you alot of awsome games from the first xbox,
    theres a lot of great games you can dowload from live arcade.
    PSN is just light on content and slow, while playing madden 2008 on a friend's ps3 i noticed he would have to go to dashboard to get in contact with his friends while u can access ur friends list and send pics , start chatting through mic or send text messages on XBL.

    I could go on with this but i think for now this is enough Edit: extra note some games on the ps3 will require you to pay additional services to play online so its not that "free"

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 9:27 am PT

    Autolycus noted " It now leaves the cost of online into the hands of the developer." So, no different from PC games then? You think putting the onus on the game developers to look after the multiplayer is a bad thing? I would think that would be more of a cost effective solution for Sony. And how does Home fit into this? Won't it be in the best interest of game developers to play by the system rules that Home sets out? So far I haven't noticed any connection problems with RFOM, Warhawk, COD4 or Burnout. COD4 was a little slow connecting at the beginning but they fixed that quickly. I understand the 360 had the same initial server problems. I certainly don't agree that the PSN fails ultimately because my personal gaming experience has been great. Althought I can see problems developing with lazy programmers in the future, in reality there doesn't seem to be any problems. You're arguements are somewhat hypothetical in that they don't seem to be problems in practice. I was shooting for more end user comparisons that differentiate the two services that justify a price premium with XBL.

  • Autolycus

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 8:34 am PT

    darkride66 - Could someone make an informed comment on the merits of XBL and paying for it vs PSN? ( reply ) --- Hmm I am trying to get this into th emost simple way possible for you or anybody to understand. XBOX Live has rules and can be intergrated ( VERY EASILY ) into any game. MS worries about the network speed, the archiecture, cheating, etc.

    PS3 is open ended, but that doesnt make it better. It now leaves the cost of online into the hands of the developer. They hold their own servers, they pay for their own bandwidth, and worst of all they support its technical problems. They are 100% theres and nobody elses. SO now if you want to create an online game for PS3, to coincide w/ the 1 player game, you have to hire poeple to engineer your network. Support your network. Build your network and maintain your network. So the profits on yoru game have now just gone down considerably. It was engineered wrong so future upgrades are major PITA and overall user experience is worsened because of all of these errors ( EA HAD ALL THESE PROBLEMS ).

    So, what is the benefit of having to pay for it? Less connection problems, less time to make a game, zero cheating, better intergration between ALL developers ( since all the developers use the same xbox live API's/code ).

    Don't get me wrong a free online would be sweet, but given the realm of video games, its simple not an intelligent way to go online. JUst like PS3 in general, on paper the free service is awesome. In real life, it fails. There is no possible way that half the halo 3 members when online @ once ( as an example ) that PSNET could even come CLOSE to handling all the data. Heck same for madden.

  • Autolycus

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 8:02 am PT

    i soley came in here to see on the ps3 fanboys throw a fit and likewise for the 360 fanboys. pathetic. here's an idea.... go outside and make a difference to the world.

  • demoralizer

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 6:45 am PT

    It always turns in to the same debate no matter the topic.

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 28, 2008 5:35 am PT

    flyingdutchdog. Again, you people prove my point. Even a relatively pro 360 post, because it didn't profess undying love for the console gets me the label of a Sony fanboy. I don't really understand what's wrong with some people around here. I guess I'll have to take the high road and steer this conversation back towards legitimate debate.
    It's been noted several time that XBL is worth paying for because it's a superior service. Having extensively used XBL and the PSN I don't really comprehend what you're paying for on XBL. Could someone make an informed comment on the merits of XBL and paying for it vs PSN? This has certainly been a money maker for Microsoft, but this is a crucial matter for those people who are still on the fence on which system to buy.

  • osxgp

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 11:45 pm PT

    darkride66, I think you have too much time on your hands.

  • flyingdutchdog

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 10:30 pm PT

    ok darkride66 ... seems no one can have a decent conversation with you without you short circuiting your grey matter. It appears many here are turned off by your rantings of the same sh*t over and over again. You are a Sony fanboy as much as you deny it,. When you start saying things like bowing down to the 360 like a white idol, it is a sure sign of aggressive defeat. And all this because you have to pay five dollars a month to play online with a better online service? I think there is much more to it than that. I don't rag on the PS3 because it has an inferior online service .... I just don't use it anymore .... it is as simple as that and I do wish you could adjust your thinking likewise. Use your PS3 online and be happy with it if you think it to be superior ... just leave the 360 and its very happy and satisfied customers alone now. You made your point .... please let it sit now. There is nothing new you can do or say to sway anybody to your way of thinking. Especially when you lost all your creditbility in your post to ne0man. We all know how you have all three systems (whoopee). Wouldn't you have more time to play on all 3 if you weren't on here so much? I have two of the systems and I have time because one of the systems mostly sits idol for weeks at a time ... maybe thats why it has failed to boot 3 times .... its angry with me for ignoring it.

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 9:10 pm PT

    ne0man pointed out "I think you've made your point. You are a fanboy." A gaming fanboy maybe. I love my 360. It's fantastic. Bioshock kicked copious amounts of butt. I'm also having a great time with my PS3. Big deal. I hate how any criticism of the 360 results in "You're a huge Sony fanboy!" Both systems have their pros and cons, deal with it. Here's a clue about spotting Sony fanboys. Sony fanboys don't generally admit to standing in line waiting for the 360 at launch. They also, don't repeatedly profess how much fun they've had with their 360 or pick 360 titles as their favorite games. Because someone happens to enjoy not one, not two but all three consoles doesn't somehow make them a Sony fanboy simply because they don't fall to their knees and worship the 360 like some white idol. You want to debate issues relevant to gamers on these forums, please do so. If you read opinions that run contrary to your own and you can't handle that, why on earth would you post? Try engaging others in intelligent conversation. And that goes for all y'all. You know who your are. Have a look at iebubu. That's how you add to conversation.

  • iebubu

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 8:15 pm PT

    darkride66 you are missing the whole point. Yes PSN is free and yes XBL does cost $, but you definitely see the difference. Its interesting to see how each companies strengths have helped them during this console generation. Sony is an electronic manufacturing company and have benefited from their experiences by making a console that is very reliable. Microsoft, a software company, has created an operating system for console that is unmatched. Yes we have to pay for online play, but its implementation and execution are far better than anything Sony, or Nintendo for that matter, can create. You must play to your strengths and all 3 companies are doing just that, and they will prosper because of it. Oh by the way I do plan on picking up a PS3 when MGS4 comes out, so no I do not have a preference.

  • ne0man

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 6:36 pm PT

    hey darkride66 I think you've made your point. You are a fanboy, and you will refute everyone's comments in a pro-ps3 way. You've been saying the same thing for ages! hey are you happy with psn?? WHEEEE!! great, so keep playing, enjoy yourself and let the others pay the extra money, their choice, what in it for you? nothing, so enough with that already, you're making me sick

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 6:16 pm PT

    Ozzie234 mused "You're just stuck with your Ps3 counting those pixels watching movies. Nothing else to do."
    Actually, I'm quite addicted to multiplayer on COD4. I'd recommend it 100% for FPS fans of either the 360 or PS3. I'm darkridehex66 on both the PSN network and XBL so say hi if you ever see me. Oh wait, that's right. You have to pay extra to do that on XBL. I guess you'll just have to say hi if you see me on PSN. If you do look me up on XBL all you'll be able to do is say to yourself "Hey, there's that guy. If only he paid MS an additional $60 dollars like I did he could say Hi to me. What a goof for not paying MS an extra $60 dollars a year so he could have the privilege of playing and talking to his friends. He must feel real dumb doing the exact same thing on the PSN network for free." I think you may be able to look at my stats on XBL though. Knock yourselves out.

  • ne0man

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 4:15 pm PT

    @JackfnBurton
    you should copy that comment of yours and post it everywhere around here. that is THE spirit!! Enough said

  • Ozzie234

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 2:14 pm PT

    I'm pretty certain you haven't got the 360 darkride66. You're just stuck with your Ps3 counting those pixels watching movies. Nothing else to do. LOL.

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 1:44 pm PT

    technowiz999 mentioned "Oh and by the way MS doesn't need Halo to make a profit." Of course they do. They need all the good news they can get. The MS game division has lost billions since back in the old X-Box days. It's the rest of MS that props up their gaming division. It's nice that the MS gaming division is making money now, but I seriously wonder if they'll be able to turn a profit overall before the new 360 hits in 2009, 2010 when you take into account the billions they've had to write off due to faulty consoles. I hope so. The 360 has great titles and deserves to make some money despite the boneheaded decisions by some to rush this untested hardware out to the market.

  • DeanCorleone

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 1:38 pm PT

    Nice profits for MS. Happy to see the company keep trucking regardless. Anyone that mentions PS3 in this topic as a defensive subject is just retarded. I enjoy good consoles, and good games. MS enjoys good profits and good releases - and the world still goes round. I can't wait until PS3 and 360 are as old as SNES. Maybe another random computer company will decide to step into the console wars. This would only mean good things for us as a competative consumer. Don't be company, product, or brand loyal person, you are confirming that you are no better then that of a rambling idiot, thats just my opinion. I just wish consoles would steal the keyboard/mouse setup from PCs. I do miss FPS's from PC as compaired to console.

  • technowiz999

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 11:08 am PT

    What is with all the Bill Gates comments? He's barely even involved in the company anymore. He owns a large portion of MS stock, but hes no longer president. He doesn't make many decisions, he lets his underlings do all that and he can just sit back and manage his charity. He's a good guy so stop ripping on him.
    Oh and by the way MS doesn't need Halo to make a profit. In 2006 they got almost the same profits and they didn't even come out with a Halo. I think their profits should be bigger though when they are getting so little competition from PS3.

  • JackfnBurton

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 9:06 am PT

    I love watching console players fight. Can someone explain to me why you even care that someone uses a different console than you do? I game on a PC, others don't. So be it. To each their own. Who cares? Seriously, it's like the PC versus Mac thing. What do I care if you like Macs? It didn't come out of my wallet so what's the big deal? So, Johnny has a 360 and Tommy has a PS3. If you want to fight about it find a FPS that works on both platforms and duke it out online. Competition is good - Microsoft wouldn't have bothered to develop the Xbox were it not for the success of the original Playstation, which stands on the shoulders of the Genesis, and the Super NES, and so on and so on. Each platform exists thanks to the success of the ones that came before it. So you guys may as well learn to love and get along! LOL

    You think I want to go back to the days before Intel and AMD went to war? PC tech today is what it is thanks to that. The way Intel was going if it weren't for the threat of AMD we'd all till be gaming on Pentium II's today. And all that PC tech trickles down to consoles as well - pry open your 360's and PS3's and look closely at what's inside if you don't believe me. But more important, console tech is what it is today thanks in part to to Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo et all being at each other's throats since before some of the people in here were even born. It's a GOOD thing. We're all gamers here. We're on the same side. Rejoice, for these are wondrous times in which we live. The other side isn't going to go away. Ever.

  • darkride66

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 8:56 am PT

    flyingdutchdog pointed out "The quality control is not as bad as you make it out to be." But this is coming from a guy who hasn't had one, or three, units fail on him. Of course you don't see a problem, you're one of the lucky ones with a working console. Based on the 30% fail rate (and 10% on their "new" consoles) that even Microsoft admitted to that's almost 5 million console owners who have had a less than stellar experience. That's shoddy, and it could have been avoided if they had listened to what their own people were telling them. As for the PS3 sales numbers, I talk myth and reality only because these sales figures are easily accessible and certainly don't tell the "PS3 iz doomed" story you hear parroted so often. Being pro PS3 doesn't automatically make me anti 360, but if you read a slight bias against the 360 that's not surprising. I've said before, out of all 3 systems I own I like my PS3 the best. My reasons is simply the reliability of the console. If my 360 didn't leave me in a lurch so often I'd be singing a different tune, and I know it will only be a matter of time before this refurb unit they sent me dies as well. It's a vicious cycle. Send in a bad unit, have it replaced by refurbed bad units. There's nothing fanboyish about that. I'm just one of the poor bastards that have been repeatedly burned by the 360 hardware.
    And finally, again with the online. This is simple. Both online services play online games. One is free. What's not to understand about this? If you want funky friend management pick XBL till Home comes out. For me, I just want to play games online. PS3 does that, no hassle, no lag, I never have to wait to play a game, and this service is free. Having used XBL since the days of the old Xbox, it really wasn't that hard for me to let go, but that's just my opinion. I could care less about better buddy management, and I sure ain't paying extra for it. I just want to hop online and virtually slag some like minded gamers.

  • Eclipse_ShinRa

    Posted Jan 27, 2008 5:50 am PT

    @geomyr
    When Bill Gates dies.. Guess where 98% of his money goes?

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Tags

microsoft   profit

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

Halo 3 Boxshot
Halo 3

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    47 of 59,148
    X360 Rank:
    15 of 1,498
    Tracking:
    72,195 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    33,622 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    17,301
  • Number of Players:

    1-4, 16 Online | Offline Modes: Competitive, Cooperative, Team Oriented | Online Modes: Competitive, Cooperative, Team Oriented

  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. halo 3
    2. halo
    3. bungie
    4. fps
    5. master chief
  • Mature Rating Description

    Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close

Related Games

Recent News

See All News »

Site Blogs