Microsoft will not sell the Xbox One for a loss

Microsoft sold the original Xbox and Xbox 360 for losses when they were released in 2001 and 2005, respectively, but the company says that won't be the case with its upcoming Xbox One game console.

Yusuf Mehdi, the chief marketing and strategy officer of Microsoft's Xbox business, revealed the financial fact at the Citi Global Technology Conference in New York on Wednesday, saying Microsoft is "looking to be break even or [achieve a] low margin [profit] at worst" for each console sold. Mehdi went on to note Microsoft plans to be aggressive with its pricing, however.

"And as we can cost-reduce our box as we've done with 360, we'll do that to continue to price reduce and get even more competitive with our offering," he said, according to a GameIndustry International article.

Microsoft's Xbox One will cost $499 when it launches Nov. 22, with the console now in full production. Microsoft recently revealed it will include a bundled headset with each console, something it originally didn't plan to provide despite each Xbox 360 being sold with a headset. Each Xbox One sold will include the console, next-generation Kinect sensor and a single controller and headset.

At the same event, Mehdi noted that the company's current console, the Xbox 360, is now "incredibly profitable" and that Microsoft plans to support it for at least another three years.

Source: GameIndustry International via Polygon | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google launches offline apps for Chrome to take the web browser to the next level

Next Story

Microsoft shows off first Xbox One TV ad with NFL tie-in

80 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Still it is a price difference. Yes I have enough money saved up to get both consoles and some games at the same time. However, to better SAVE MY MONEY. I chose one console. And the console that won was the cheaper one: PS4. I will eventually get an XBox One, but not for a while.

$100 makes a big difference when we are talking about parents purchasing for their kids. They see the two side by side and choose the cheaper one. This is what I did for myself. If the Xbox was cheaper, I would have purchased that first.

Likewise, I purchased the PS3 a couple years after it launched because it was more expensive than the 360. Yeah I got my 360 when both consoles were out

babyHacker said,
This doesn't change the fact that the PS4 is cheaper. My money goes for the better value.

So then it goes for the XB1 right? I mean, you're getting way more for your money, making the XB1 of better value.

What is the "way more" part exactly? Kinect? Me and my mates started playing Fifa 13 on my PS3 the other night when the PS Move screen came up and we all started laughing. Motion sensors are a gimmick and you can't use them on real gaming situations, at leas not when you try to play properly.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
What is the "way more" part exactly? Kinect? Me and my mates started playing Fifa 13 on my PS3 the other night when the PS Move screen came up and we all started laughing. Motion sensors are a gimmick and you can't use them on real gaming situations, at leas not when you try to play properly.

Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it's not a worthy piece of kit. Let's not forget it' s not just about motion sensing either.

I;m still on the fence about which console will be my next purchase but i can see that for the extra cost, you get a lot more. Even if it's just the much better quality headset or, in some markets, the bundled game.

MikeChipshop said,

So then it goes for the XB1 right? I mean, you're getting way more for your money, making the XB1 of better value.


And PS4 with PSN+ comes with a year supply of games for just 450bucks total price.
Not even Kinect 3.0 could compete with that.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
What is the "way more" part exactly? Kinect? Me and my mates started playing Fifa 13 on my PS3 the other night when the PS Move screen came up and we all started laughing. Motion sensors are a gimmick and you can't use them on real gaming situations, at leas not when you try to play properly.

Yes you can, head tracking, body tracking, hand gestures, the heart rate monitor on the kinect 2.

Any number of things creative game debs can make use of without you ever letting to of the controller but enhancing the game experience.

Shadowzz said,

And PS4 with PSN+ comes with a year supply of games for just 450bucks total price.
Not even Kinect 3.0 could compete with that.

460 anyway, without a crappy kinect imitation, and a supply of rented games not chosen by you. I'll also wait till launch and see how the rented games look the first year, I don't expect many debs to give away their top games for a brand new console for their rent service.

I'll take a quality console, with a halite live service a useful motion controller that can actually be useful while controller gaming for such things as head tracking over that.

And we'll see what MS does as far as free games come launch, if games with gold gets some kind of Xbox one variant. Also full Skype integration everywhere, smart glass, the ability down the line to lend and borrow digital games. There just so much more being offered with the Xbox.

Josh_LosAltosHills said,
When MS sells the XBOX One without a Kinect (and they will) then I will buy one. GTA V and continued updates for the 360 will keep me entertained.

They wont

They said it with the Surface RT too (even though it has 49% profit margin, god dammit). Now look how well it is doing.

Microsoft needs to cut the price to be competitive with Sony, before they get irrelevant in another field.

CanonCygnus said,
They said it with the Surface RT too (even though it has 49% profit margin, god dammit). Now look how well it is doing.

Microsoft needs to cut the price to be competitive with Sony, before they get irrelevant in another field.


Price of RT dropped to $349, and so the margins declined to under 20%.

I kind of would have liked for them to take a hit on each.... Like what good does it do them in the competitive space? the ps4 is going to be sold at a loss, and if Microsoft wants that 100$ extra, what is it for besides being profitable? We all know Microsoft has loads of cash... Im not saying its bad in general, im just sayin' they could have easily taken the hit...

Now in the end, IF the pre-orders are looking good and everything is green... well heck, there is no reason to lower... but I mean it would be a sad, sad day if they realize a month later its not working.

What utter nonsense. Microsoft will have spent billions on R&D, advertising, manufacturing and licensing, which needs to be accounted for. It will take years to turn a profit on the hardware and that's assuming a steady sales trajectory. We all know how Nintendo had to slash the price of the 3DS and Wii U after poor sales, which remains a possibility for the X1 given its high price point and the competition.

There is no doubt that Microsoft and Sony have both decided to play it safe this generation and haven't pushed hardware like in previous generations, but Microsoft is certainly exaggerating that here.

You don't apply the entire R&D and marketing cost to the console sale because it also creates the game and service revenue. What they're interested in with the console sales is not having the earnings go down if sales go up. Cellular carriers are a good example. AT&T has reported "lower than expected earnings due to higher than expected smartphone sales" quite a few times over the last few years.

They pushed hardware, however... the rise of hardware power in the last decade is declining. Moore's law is broken a long time ago, we have (generally) surpassed our needs.
The PS3 would be fine with similar tech but a better GPU and RAM, they could leave the CPU unchanged if they wanted too (especially since a better GPU and RAM means less work for the Cell)

Shadowzz said,
They pushed hardware, however... the rise of hardware power in the last decade is declining. Moore's law is broken a long time ago, we have (generally) surpassed our needs.
The PS3 would be fine with similar tech but a better GPU and RAM, they could leave the CPU unchanged if they wanted too (especially since a better GPU and RAM means less work for the Cell)

Moore's law came with a kill switch, it lasted long past the kill switch, you also seem to fall in the usual Moore's law trap, thinking its a about performance, it's not about performance, it's actually about transistor count, and as far as I'm aware it's still valid. Though it probably won't be for long. But as I said, Moore himself when he stated the"law" never expected it to last this long in the first place.

They should be making a good margin with it based on off the self computer parts. The real original Xbox 1 was built from slightly modified pc hardware.

BiGdUsTy said,
Still AMD based x86 hardware custom or not.

And? Neither MS nor Sony uses the chip that comes from AMD plants.
Both have (heavily) customized the chip, MS released details on this, Sony's are still far away it seems.
MS manufactures the chips them selves... And as usual, Sony will too.

Right now, one is more expensive by $100 for what has been considered a novelty accessory. Plus the XBox One has been slowly losing all of the things that originally made it truly next gen.

XBox One and Kinect for $399 too? Easy winner. Better online system so far and I prefer their controller.

However, as it is right now, PS4 is $100 cheaper where their exclusives aren't just FPS, third party apps don't require a paid account, and their online service offers good free games? Easy choice for me.

Don't forget PSN+ and it's big supply of free games
PSN+ makes it worth to own a Vita, and since the Vita is horrible (great piece of hardware, Sony screwed it up though)...The PS4 should do fine too

I really wish that Forza 5 was coming to PS4, otherwise I would have got that any day of the year... The PS4 is just slimmer and just nicer in general but I still don't understand how Microsoft will need a external power supply even though the Xbox One is enormous, just compare that to the PS4.

I'm interested in seeing how the PS4 stays cool. It's a lot of power in a small space, so hopefully it's engineered well.

One advantage size give you is quiet operation, and they designed the Xbox One to be a set top box for streaming video and such. I remember when I first got my 360 thinking it would also be my DVD player. I gave that up the first movie I tried to watch over that fan noise. If not noise, it may just be for aesthetics. Larger boxes look better in your component rack. The PS4 looks more a game machine rather than a home theater component.

Enron said,
I'm interested in seeing how the PS4 stays cool. It's a lot of power in a small space, so hopefully it's engineered well.

Wut, its a (modified) laptop CPU in there.
Might get quite warm, but nothing it cant handle.

Shadowzz said,

Wut, its a (modified) laptop CPU in there.
Might get quite warm, but nothing it cant handle.

That's the thing. My MacBook Pro idles at over 70 C and has major performance issues. I probably got a defective product though, which reminds me, I need to get rid of it soon.

Enron said,

That's the thing. My MacBook Pro idles at over 70 C and has major performance issues. I probably got a defective product though, which reminds me, I need to get rid of it soon.


Sounds like a defect, macbooks usually don't turn into spaceheaters when idling/low usage. Thats Acers that usually do that (or low-end HP's)

Shadowzz said,

Wut, its a (modified) laptop CPU in there.
Might get quite warm, but nothing it cant handle.

The APU in the Xbox One has very little in common with the jaguar laptop CPU anymore, did you even read ay articles from the event MS held explaining the design of the APU?

I've always thought the XBOX's were extremely cheap for what you get.
500 bucks for an XBOX ONE is a steal.
People pay more for smartphones and other electronic devices that don't even compare to what's involved with an XBOX and what they can do.
Even HD PVR boxes cost that much, and they only give you cable.

LUTZIFER said,
I've always thought the XBOX's were extremely cheap for what you get.

Not at all if you count the 60-70$ crazy game prices.

francescob said,
Not at all if you count the 60-70$ crazy game prices.

That's for new releases. You can wait a couple months and get those games for like $40 or less on Amazon.

Enron said,

That's for new releases. You can wait a couple months and get those games for like $40 or less on Amazon.


Or a fraction of that price on Steam. PC games are always 10-20$ cheaper, and far more cheaper during humble bundle or steam sales.

francescob said,

Or a fraction of that price on Steam. PC games are always 10-20$ cheaper, and far more cheaper during humble bundle or steam sales.

Disc based DRM games cost more because used resales are figured into the price.

francescob said,

Or a fraction of that price on Steam. PC games are always 10-20$ cheaper, and far more cheaper during humble bundle or steam sales.

I have to admit, PC gaming is the best. personally I missed that simply because I don't have a gaming PC. all I have is work PC and laptops

francescob said,

Or a fraction of that price on Steam. PC games are always 10-20$ cheaper, and far more cheaper during humble bundle or steam sales.

New release console games vs PC sale games. Apples to Oranges.

Spicoli said,

Disc based DRM games cost more because used resales are figured into the price.


Yet the price gape for new games was exactly the same even when you could sell used PC games as well?

MikeChipshop said,

New release console games vs PC sale games. Apples to Oranges.


Because console games are TOOOOOTALLY different?

francescob said,

Because console games are TOOOOOTALLY different?

Yup, completely different industries currently, also comparing to sale items. You're wrong and you know it.

MikeChipshop said,

Yup, completely different industries currently, also comparing to sale items. You're wrong and you know it.

No I'm not. To the end-user console games are noticeably more expensive and you have nothing to counter that argument. Just because they're different market it means nothing, to the end user the game is virtually the same, and actually, most of the times have much better graphics and loading times on PC (and free online).

francescob said,

No I'm not. To the end-user console games are noticeably more expensive and you have nothing to counter that argument. Just because they're different market it means nothing, to the end user the game is virtually the same, and actually, most of the times have much better graphics and loading times on PC (and free online).

Whatever you say man, what ever you say.

Although you're still flawed as you were comparing full price new games to games on sale. Why would any one even think that's an even keel?

MikeChipshop said,

Whatever you say man, what ever you say.

Although you're still flawed as you were comparing full price new games to games on sale. Why would any one even think that's an even keel?


I didn't compare the full price games to sales, I said that the games are overall cheaper and that includes also when they're brand new and sold at full price: a new just-released full-price PC game is usually 10 or 20$ cheaper than the new just-released full-price console counterpart including when it's sold boxed in stores. You can't deny that: the prices are and have always been much worse on consoles, even when PC games weren't sold digitally.

But, even if we compare digital versions, consoles regularly have downloadable console/account-tied games/DLCs sales as well but the prices are rarely nearly as good as steam or bundles, sometimes the DLC prices are so bad that it's cheaper to just re-buy the GOTY or some other complete edition of the game. You can't deny that either: xbox/ps3 online sales are a joke compared to the steam sales despite the games having the same restrictions.

francescob said,

I didn't compare the full price games to sales, I said that the games are overall cheaper and that includes also when they're brand new and sold at full price: a new just-released full-price PC game is usually 10 or 20$ cheaper than the new just-released full-price console counterpart including when it's sold boxed in stores. You can't deny that: the prices are and have always been much worse on consoles, even when PC games weren't sold digitally.

But, even if we compare digital versions, consoles regularly have downloadable console/account-tied games/DLCs sales as well but the prices are rarely nearly as good as steam or bundles, sometimes the DLC prices are so bad that it's cheaper to just re-buy the GOTY or some other complete edition of the game. You can't deny that either: xbox/ps3 online sales are a joke compared to the steam sales despite the games having the same restrictions.

Ah just reread your original comment and i see now that you were indeed comparing console sales against PC sales, so my apologies.

what i will say however that three months back i got Far Cry 3 of off XB games on demand for £14.99. I'd originally gone on Steam to get it and it was £20. Hopefully we'll be seeing more digital sales on the new consoles that compare to current Steam and Origin sales.

francescob said,

Or a fraction of that price on Steam. PC games are always 10-20$ cheaper, and far more cheaper during humble bundle or steam sales.

PC games don't compare at all.

Console games you put hit play and you get great graphics.

Now to compete with the next gen consoles you would need a PC in the 1500 range, or triple the cost of the console, and for those that care many times he power consumption.

On top of that you have the graphics issue, especially for those who don't have an overpriced gaming rig. Graphics needs to be tweaked and tweaked and re-tweaked, it's really quite annoying. Most people don't understand how to do this anyway, it's a core gamer thing. And after you're finally happy, the game leaves the small starting area and your frame rate drops to half as you enter the bigger more detailed game world... And then you get bigger better weapon with fx with cause framedrops and so on.

And I know you're going to mention nvidia experience now, and I know that if you actually use it like I do, I know you know as well as I do, that's a BS argument. It targets 30fps at the high end, and frequently causes framedrops with its suggested "optimized" settings.

HawkMan said,

PC games don't compare at all.

Console games you put hit play and you get great graphics.

Now to compete with the next gen consoles you would need a PC in the 1500 range, or triple the cost of the console, and for those that care many times he power consumption.


Are you really telling me a 1.6-1.7GHz 8-core AMD, and I put emphasis on AMD and 1.6-1.7GHz, requires a 1500$ computer to match? AMD has made 8-core desktop models, 4GHz(!) Models, for a while and they're quite pieces of garbage compared to the Intel quad-core models, being easily beaten in most benchmarks despite having twice the cores. And the xbox one CPU has less than half the frequency of AMD's desktop processors, so it likely barely compares to an Intel dual-core. Not to mention that the graphic core they chose is already below mid-range specs. They're not selling the consoles on a loss this time, the hardware is nothing special to what the 360 or the PS3 were, also they're trying to sell media centers rather than consoles so they had to save even more on the hardware for this console generation.

I hardly doubt you'll ever need to spend even twice the console price to play the same games. But even in the unlikely event you had to, the consoles hardware will stay the same just as the games prices will never change: the price advantage of the console hardware will only last few months before the PC hardware prices drops enough to dramatically reduce the price gap.

HawkMan said,

On top of that you have the graphics issue, especially for those who don't have an overpriced gaming rig. Graphics needs to be tweaked and tweaked and re-tweaked, it's really quite annoying. Most people don't understand how to do this anyway, it's a core gamer thing. And after you're finally happy, the game leaves the small starting area and your frame rate drops to half as you enter the bigger more detailed game world... And then you get bigger better weapon with fx with cause framedrops and so on.

Graphics issue? Console games are famous for framerate drops just as well, even in games that were already crippled by the developers to run at sub-720p resolutions with reduced textures. With a 4770 I bought 3 years ago (100$) I still play every game at 1920x1280, a much higher resolution, sometimes also keeping antialiasing on, with the framerate hardly suffering.

BTW I remind you that the xbox one and PS4 developers are still targeting 720p-30FPS. Unbelievable!

HawkMan said,

And I know you're going to mention nvidia experience now, and I know that if you actually use it like I do, I know you know as well as I do, that's a BS argument. It targets 30fps at the high end, and frequently causes framedrops with its suggested "optimized" settings.

Why should I mention that? As I said unless you prefer buying crippled computers just to spend all your money on a console, a mid-range computer should be perfectly able to play the games. But when for 1$ (Humble Bundle Origin) you can get: Dead Space, Dead Space 3, Mirror's Edge, Crysis 2 Maximum Edition, Medal of Honor, Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box; I doubt it will take long before you fill the console price difference with the money saved on games.

Edited by francescob, Sep 7 2013, 12:25pm :

$100.00 difference on a game console is pretty big, especially in this bad economy. People this holiday season will be shopping deciding which console to get, and the chances of them choosing the $100 less PS4 is pretty high. Microsoft should take a loss on the Xbox One, its not like they will go broke.

If someone has a choice between a console b itself or a console and a game I'm sure most people will pick the latter

Sorry, it's really not. Especially when a single game costs $70. The people buying these consoles at launch really can afford the difference. And you'll see that for months both consoles will sell as fast as Microsoft and Sony can make them. Personally, the $100 is more than justified for the increased capabilities of the Xbox via Kinect.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
$100.00 difference on a game console is pretty big, especially in this bad economy. People this holiday season will be shopping deciding which console to get, and the chances of them choosing the $100 less PS4 is pretty high. Microsoft should take a loss on the Xbox One, its not like they will go broke.

Mmmmm....man i could have sworn i read a study that showed that during the bad economy 1 time, expensive purchases actually go up. Its the everyday, small extras we ween away from.

Rudy said,
If someone has a choice between a console b itself or a console and a game I'm sure most people will pick the latter

Huh? We're talking about a $499 luxury item. Anyone who has the disposable income to buy a PS4 + Game at $460, has the disposible income to buy a XBox One + Game at $560. Those who don't probably should hold off from buying either and invest in a financial literacy course.

It is true that the games are considerably expensive and will add up more than the console. The Xbox One and the PS4 offer about the same amount of power and quality of games, but differ in features and exclusive game titles. Don't forget the Wii U is still out there also. Microsoft should take a loss, many successful products and companies had to take losses to be successful.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
$100.00 difference on a game console is pretty big,

Its not big. people pay 600$ for a phone or tablet once or twice a year where they are basically junk after a year, consoles are up-to-date for at least 5 years. plus xbox is a better and more capable machine

That's absolutely ridiculous, the average Joe doesn't shell out 600 dollars once or twice a year for a new phone or tablet. People have to pay for cable, insurance, electric, mortgage/rent, heating oil, car payments, groceries, and misc. Game consoles actually become out of date by about every year or so that goes by, because new more powerful PC processors and graphics cards are released.

S3P€hR said,

Its not big. people pay 600$ for a phone or tablet once or twice a year where they are basically junk after a year, consoles are up-to-date for at least 5 years. plus xbox is a better and more capable machine

Once a year I could agree.... and for a small percentage of users, me included. Twice a year? No way. My 920 is almost one year old and I am looking to replace it before Christmas if something appealing will be out; for example a Lumia 5", 1080, or something else as well.

ModernMech said,

Huh? We're talking about a $499 luxury item. Anyone who has the disposable income to buy a PS4 + Game at $460, has the disposible income to buy a XBox One + Game at $560. Those who don't probably should hold off from buying either and invest in a financial literacy course.


Call it what it really is. Saying 499.99 not $500 and that's what they are charging then there's the tax's stop letting these company's and marketers try to make you think its cheaper then just calling it 500 saying that its 499 and you don't think its 500 same thing is done with gas 3.78 and 9/10th of a cent its really 3.79 buy omitting that 10th of a cent to make it look cheaper same is done with the .99 scam and they use you see the TV ads ONLY 19.99 ITS GOD DAMN 20$ NOT 19

MikeInBA said,

Mmmmm....man i could have sworn i read a study that showed that during the bad economy 1 time, expensive purchases actually go up. Its the everyday, small extras we ween away from.

you are right. bad economy. high unemployment. people spend more buying expensive items to enjoy while sitting on their fat posterior.

Lone Wanderer Chicken said,
$100.00 difference on a game console is pretty big, especially in this bad economy. People this holiday season will be shopping deciding which console to get, and the chances of them choosing the $100 less PS4 is pretty high. Microsoft should take a loss on the Xbox One, its not like they will go broke.

Console, plus headset, plus controller, plus HDMI lead, plus Kinect, plus (in many markets) an bundled game.

I'm sorry man but that's $100 difference is pittance considering what you're getting. It's false economy to think any thing else.

S3P€hR said,

Its not big. people pay 600$ for a phone or tablet once or twice a year where they are basically junk after a year, consoles are up-to-date for at least 5 years. plus xbox is a better and more capable machine

Uhhhh you do know there are people out there that have 5 year old (or more) flip phones right? And everybody on the planet has a tablet? My parents do not.

well I see new smartphones everywhere and they cost average 600$ or 200$ on contract which you pay for the phone with your over priced contract. anyways. the point is consoles lifespan is about 5 years at least. xbox 360 came on 2005 and this is 2013 and they are going to support it and release games for 3 more years that is 11 years. I don't think you get it. or you're biased.

Lol smartphone argument, give it a rest. By far most people get phones on contracts and pay it off monthly.

100$ might sound like peanuts to some of you, reading the replies... for many people its enough to pick a PS4 first and get an XBO somewhere down the line.

And not every single frigging game is 60-70USD, maybe on XBO.
But on PSN with a PSN+ (which most PS3 gamers already have anywho) will have games a lot cheaper. I regularly see launched titles being on PSN+ sale for 50% off or more. and so you know, the promise is made that Gaikai (eventually) supports all PS1-2 and 3 games for the PS4, purchase once, play everywhere is finally mandatory for PS4/PSV. I can personally bring in a supply of 30+ games I've gotten for free in just 8 or so months of using PSN+.... (which i can share with a 2nd PS4, kinda like family sharing but available since PSX launch)

Oh and you get 2 new games every month for free with PSN+. (4 if you also happen to own a PSV, 6 if you also keep the PS3).... , which is 50bucks for a whole year.

So for 450 bucks people can buy a PS4 and a whole year supply of games.....
Which one sounds more interesting for the average joe? Add PSN+ into the picture and XBO is down like a clown.

Shadowzz said,

Oh and you get 2 new games every month for free with PSN+. (4 if you also happen to own a PSV, 6 if you also keep the PS3).... , which is 50bucks for a whole year.
.

For free... Oh, so you don't have to pay for PSN+ anymore now...

And you don't "get" them, you rent them.

MightyJordan said,
It's £429. If they couldn't make a profit from that price point, then they'd be in for some PS3-esque rough beginnings.

They have Kinect bundled plus they pay royalty to sony for Blu-ray disc. but I don't know why people are so fussy about 100$ price difference for a device where games are 70$ and they are willing to pay 600$ for a phone which is obsolete in less than a year. consoles last for 5 to 8 years at least

Edited by trojan_market, Sep 5 2013, 9:53pm :

I kind of doubt people are being fussy. There's fanboy arguments and then there's the real world. It might make a bigger difference in markets where $100 is a lot of money and not the cost of dinner and drinks for two.

Spicoli said,
I kind of doubt people are being fussy. There's fanboy arguments and then there's the real world. It might make a bigger difference in markets where $100 is a lot of money and not the cost of dinner and drinks for two.

Yeah but then effectively those markets can't afford the games can they?

S3P€hR said,

They have Kinect bundled plus they pay royalty to sony for Blu-ray disc.

8 other companies created the Blu-Ray format, not just Sony.

kravex said,

8 other companies created the Blu-Ray format, not just Sony.


9 actually.
And Sony gets most of the licensing income IIRC as they invested most into it, and almost single-handedly made it conquer over HD-DVD.

Shadowzz said,

9 actually.
And Sony gets most of the licensing income IIRC as they invested most into it, and almost single-handedly made it conquer over HD-DVD.

Sony as a company doesn't get any of it, the bluray alliance gets it.

Shadowzz said,

9 actually

Sony, Samsung, LG, Sharp, Pioneer, Panasonic, Hitachi, Sharp and Thompson. That's Sony + 8 who was the 10th company ?