What profit numbers? You don't provide any of the info or how you calculate your 130% drop. You should be more thorough with presenting the information in your blog if you want users to believe you, instead of having them question your agenda, like on your news submission (which you didn't follow the submission rules by creating your own title and summary). Not everyone is going to look through a 50 page detailed financial document to find these numbers and calculate this %.

@colombo: check my reply on the news section.

there, i calculated on simple mathematics how the 130% arrived. And as i have mentioned, it is noteworthy and i agree with what darkride reported since what matters to us are game-related issues. in this issue, he reported that loss in the Entertainment Division. so i am surprised alot of people cannot comprehend on the topic.

on for the sake of discussion, why is it that suddenly revenues are all that matters when a lot of commenters especially 360 owners are always talking about profit. now darkride opened up a can of discussion about profits and suddenly the title was edited to please 360 owners? talk about double-standard.

in the past, users are allowed to create news title by themselves and put a spin into it and yet it is not altered? i bet that if this is about sony, we will not see moderators putting an iron hand about it.

"Do not add your personal comment or opinion to the news post, simply report the news in an easy to read and objective way. Always use the original headline of the source article for your N4G headline when possible."
http://n4g.com/Info/Posting...

Users have not been allowed to create their own titles in the past (unless you mean 16+ months ago). The title edit had nothing to do with 360 fanboys complaining. It was because the submitter didn't follow the rules.

"sensationalizing and inflating percentages"?!

That's just a dirty lie. I even provided the link. Just because Microsoft doesn't point out in their summary that MS Entertainment's profits have fallen 75% since the price cut to the tune of $361 million doesn't mean it's not true. Of course they aren't going to draw attention to that fact.

The numbers are there and there's no inflating of those percentages going on. That's simply what they are. Do the math yourself.

honestly believe that you are the only person that would point out this fact if it was true? You are missing information in your analysis. I understand that you want this to be true, and it very well might be, but you are going about it without all of the pieces.

So because no one else is running with the storey means it's not true? I provided the link, simply look yourself.

The reason no one else is picking up on this is NO ONE CARES! MS Entertainment is such a drop in the bucket compared to Microsoft's larger operations that when earnings are released MS Entertainment is hardly ever even mentioned. When Ford announces their earnings you don't see articles that say "Ford Credit Profit down 60%" because no one focuses on individual divisions of a company in the headlines.

I simply pointed it out because it's relevant to myself as a gamer and 360 owner but apparently other 360 owners don't want to think about it and don't want to discuss the potential consequences. It's funny, when Sony reports their numbers their no shortage of arm chair analysts weighing in on what Sony should do and what's fated to happen to SCEE but when it comes to the 360 you're not allowed to talk about it.

You have a good point here.

It could be related to the Zune for all we know, but it COULD also be laid at the feet of the Xbox 360. We just don't have enough info.

One theory is as valid as the other....

Commodore 64 just provided me the following link which I had missed.

http://www.microsoft.com/ms...

Although Microsoft attributes the the partial decline to reduced sales of MS Office for the Mac (which for some reason falls under MS Entertainment) this blurb caught my eye.

"Cost of revenue increased $52 million or 6%, primarily driven by increased costs associated with the Xbox 360 platform, reflecting the increase in console and video game sales."

Increased costs putting a strain on revenue due to an increase in console sales? Does that not sound like MS is taking a loss on the 360 hardware?

Oh dear darkie.

You are scratching in the dirt this time!

"Cost of revenue" = "Cost of goods sold"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
"Subtracting the cost of goods sold from the amount billed when selling the goods (sales revenue) produces the gross profit on the goods.

The net income, what most people understand as the business' income or profit, is determined by subtracting the cost of goods sold and the indirect expenses from the sales revenue."

Any and all goods sold incur COGS (accounting 101).
The COGS refers to the production cost of the unit.
As less units are sold, COGS goes down.
as more units are sold, COGS goes up.

the unit sales of the 360 are up, hence COGS are up.
that is why the report states " ....reflecting the increase in console and video game sales."

If you look into a comparable ps3 quarter, you will note that as ps3 sales go up, the ps3 COGS also goes up, and vice versa.

It is unfortunately unclear from this article whether the 360 hardware is actually sold at a loss or a profit.

The COGS figure merely shows that, as more product was sold, the expense of producing the product sold rose in step with the units sold.

I know you have an agenda, darkie, but please, keep it real man!

Gamertag is Darkridehex66. Say hi sometime.
Nothing here is a lie. The financial data I provided a link to0, the questions I ask I don't pretend to have the answers for. I'd love you to point out where I've lied. It's all merely speculation on my part to here what other people have to say about the issue.

You lied about that one part. Trust me.