KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Remember that the 360 sold relatively poorly out the gate, as it was preceded by the Xbox and most people were waiting for Sony's new console. It was a combination of 599 US DOLLARS and Gears of War that lead to the 360 taking off.
I think the Xbox One's launch is more comparable to the ps3's early years, which saw high launch sales due to its predecessor's popularity, followed by a very steep drop off due to its price.
It remains to be seen how far they'll fall relative to Sony circa 2007, but they lack the advantages Sony had that allowed them to recover gracefully: being the de facto HD console of choice in Japan and much of Europe, and having a splattering of additional exclusives because of that that would pad their already strong first party line up, helping them prop up sales globally.
I think Xbox One reaching 80 million will depend heavily on the reception of its media features, and whether Microsoft can land an exclusive game that's "the next big thing". I, personally, don't think the former will be perceived as being different enough from ps4 to swing enough sales in their direction, and the latter is completely unknowable.
Good points, we're pretty much at a big question mark, so early in the race, but I still believe those 200 million sales are out there (this takes into account the 10 year sales, not just when the new console launch).
It's really scary that this basic explanation of free market competition is even needed. This is just the way things go. If Sony gets "arrogant" they will be beaten back just like the XB1 was. Simple as that.Apple and Samsung are winning the smartphone war because they make and sell the best value proposition. Samsung offering the better value proposition is why they began to eat Apple's marketshare.
If dominance breeds complacency, to the extent that the company's products no longer offer sufficient value proposition, then they will lose marketshare.
If Sony becomes too dominant with the PS4 and that results in them resting on their laurels, and their product consequently stops being the more compelling for the consumer market, then they will be "punished" by the consumer market. If they become dominant and yet continue to strive to provide the best value proposition, then they will be "rewarded." But that's on Sony, or Microsoft, or Nintendo, or EA, or Activision; it's not on the consumer.
That is the nature of competition. And that is how it should be.
The onus is on the maker to make compelling products, not on the buyer to buy or think kindly of them, and try to create false balance, regardless of whether they are compelling.
I have nothing to add, just think this post bears repeating.Wrong.
MS shot themselves in the foot early. So hardcore gamers decide to "stick it to the man" and goto PS4. The softcore/casual people probably still think that Xbox One still has the DRM policies in place. They also go for the PS4 due to that. Not to mention its cheaper.
So now what you have, are a bunch of people (especially folks on the Gaf) who are trying to find any type of "evidence" that their choice was the right one. You want your purchase to be justified. You want the other console to suffer so that you dont feel as though you are missing out on anything. Its understandable.
It has nothing to do with Halo. And the stock and sales so far also have zero bearing. Threads like this are becoming the most annoying thing about neogaf lately.
Its a console war.. I get it. But some people here act like the war is already over, and those people are the ones who are trying to justify their purchase with evidence that is hardly an indicator of anything.