Support NeoGAF

[Fox Mulder]

Everything about the console was handicapped from the gate. Price. Performance. Kinect. Games. OS.

Besides the controller the OG Xbox was pathetic. The X makes it way better but the OS still sucks.

I refused to buy an xb1 with Kinect and still hated how huge it was and with an external power supply. It was also loud.

The controller was great though with the rumble triggers being amazing in Forza for giving feedback on wheel spin and brakes locking.

 

[HeresJohnny]

The actual market response for several months after launch shows that online did not impact sales. Kinect did yes, and so did the high price.

They excluded 1/3 of the country approximately (according to Pew as of 2018 only 2/3 of U.S. homes have broadband). Whether that magically didn't affect sales on some stat summary or not is irrelevant; it is arrogance to believe you can cede 1/3 of your most important market and not have it affect sales profoundly.

 

[JoeyWestSide]

There is no winning or losing. The Japanese Playstation is 7 years older and has a much larger international market than the American Xbox (as most quality games were being made there during that time). Compare it by country, how many ps4s have been sold just in the US? Since Sony is so international, a large chunk of that 80+ million must be outside the US in Europe and Asia. Xbox however is known to do poor outside the Americas, which would mean almost all of its sales would be here.

 

[Tenaciousmo]

I remember that. It's funny how some will stick to certain things while ignoring Sony's stance on console crossplay. It's very ironic now looking back how it stayed with Microsoft even though they didn't follow through with it to Sony blocking crossplay and being very arrogant about it but most just shrugged it off.

To be fair online play on console is pretty new, Crossplay has never been industry standard, even for games on PCs linux/Windows/mac, and sometimes even between game clients. But xbox did make "good" this generation by a lot if the player base w[edit]as inverted I'm not sure they would play so nice with the ball...

 

[HeresJohnny]

Just having the next Xbox sell the same in Europe as the 360 would put the next Xbox in a good position. imo

They've missed the most important lesson: stop releasing $500 hardware. Their answer to the fumble with the original One was to release a One X at an equally prohibitive price. I don't believe Microsoft has a fundamental grasp of what it takes to be the market leader. We'll see if that changes going into next generation, but they're still making fundamentally flawed moves.

 

[haxan7]

For me buying PS4 over Xbox 1 came down to:

1. Bloodborne
2. Xbox underpowered
3. My trophies from PS3

In that order. As I posted before, MS looks set to dominate the next generation.

 

[Three]

4. Microsoft even before things became bad, was not pushing for as many timed exclusives as it did early in the 360's life. But the PS4 did, getting the rights to big games for extended periods of time. Why this was still doesn't make much sense since this was before Xbox fell way behind, but it gave the PS4 a lot of the "few games brought a year" audience. Same with timed DLC

This is false. It was xbox which had the timed exclusives at the beginning of this gen. Plants vs Zombies, Peggle, CoD content, FIFA UT. They had that "unprecedented partnership" with EA. Titanfall was initially meant to be multiplat but was bought outright later. What made it stop is that it was clear xbox wasn't on top anymore and economically it became harder for them to get this.

What timed exclusive did PS4 have at the beginning? What PS4 had was that they were a lot more supportive to Indies so they ended up supporting and getting a lot of hit indie games. That's it. In terms of big publishers they gained those later from selling well.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

They excluded 1/3 of the country approximately (according to Pew as of 2018 only 2/3 of U.S. homes have broadband). Whether that magically didn't affect sales on some stat summary or not is irrelevant; it is arrogance to believe you can cede 1/3 of your most important market and not have it affect sales profoundly.

It is relevant if the point of the thread is whether the online policies effected sales.

However I will give you arrogance. Luckily they didn't go through with it.

They've missed the most important lesson: stop releasing $500 hardware. Their answer to the fumble with the original One was to release a One X at an equally prohibitive price. I don't believe Microsoft has a fundamental grasp of what it takes to be the market leader. We'll see if that changes going into next generation, but they're still making fundamentally flawed moves.

Yet the X did better than the S as a revision for a longer period of time. and is made up of parts that break downs show would make profit at $500. Anything less would be notable losses.

The $500 Xbox One AT LAUNCH was due to the Kinect, so I don't think that the $500 issue will happen with next gen the way you're implying. I mean if they do go for it again it would be because the PS console is also $500.

This is false. It was xbox which had the timed exclusives at the beginning of this gen. Plants vs Zombies, Peggle, CoD content, FIFA UT. They had that "unprecedented partnership" with EA. Titanfall was initially meant to be multiplat but was bought outright later. What made it stop is that it was clear xbox wasn't on top anymore and economically it became harder for them to get this.

What timed exclusive did PS4 have at the beginning? What PS4 had was that they were not more supportive to Indies so they ended up supporting and getting a lot of hit indie games. That's it. In terms of big publishers they gained those later from selling well.

They were winding down on timed exclusives going into 2014 and up till TitanFall month. At that point there was no clear indication of how far back the Xbox was going to be left behind. The gap was not that big yet and I think people forget this.

 

[HeresJohnny]

Yet the X did better than the S as a revision for a longer period of time. and is made up of parts that break downs show would make profit at $500. Anything less would be notable losses.

The $500 Xbox One AT LAUNCH was due to the Kinect, so I don't think that the $500 issue will happen with next gen the way you're implying. I mean if they do go for it again it would be because the PS console is also $500.

Losing less is still losing, and of course the X has sold well for its first few months -- there is enough of a baked in audience that wants that new tech and will pay the money, but that audience is extremely small in the grand scheme of things and extremely niche. What did Microsoft gain from the One X aside from goodwill from the most already devoted? They released another expensive console at the end of the cycle with some good ideas that will no longer be fresh and exciting when the real next generation begins. They did nothing to better themselves with the mass market audience, which is what determines who wins and loses. Whether it is profitable or not isn't relevant, what is relevant is that NO system in history has ever sustained any kind of market dominance at a $500 or higher price point. It just illustrates how absolutely puerile Microsoft is when it comes to understanding what it takes to "win" a generation. They're not battling my opinion, but history. And they will lose, again and again, if they come out with $500 hardware. The market WILL NOT accept it.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

Losing less is still losing, and of course the X has sold well for its first few months -- there is enough of a baked in audience that wants that new tech and will pay the money, but that audience is extremely small in the grand scheme of things and extremely niche. What did Microsoft gain from the One X aside from goodwill from the most already devoted? They released another expensive console at the end of the cycle with some good ideas that will no longer be fresh and exciting when the real next generation begins. They did nothing to better themselves with the mass market audience, which is what determines who wins and loses. Whether it is profitable or not isn't relevant, what is relevant is that NO system in history has ever sustained any kind of market dominance at a $500 or higher price point. It just illustrates how absolutely puerile Microsoft is when it comes to understanding what it takes to "win" a generation. They're not battling my opinion, but history. And they will lose, again and again, if they come out with $500 hardware. The market WILL NOT accept it.

They only launched a "generation" console at $500 ONE time so not sure why you're basically writing therm off because of a mid-gen refresh that was already made to break even at barely any profit when it came out.

 

[HeresJohnny]

They only launched a "generation" console at $500 ONE time so not sure why you're basically writing therm off because of a mid-gen refresh that was already made to break even at barely any profit when it came out.

Not writing them off; but illustrating that broken thinking is still prevalent in their business strategy. I mean, at the board meetings did someone come out and actually say, "Hey guys, you know what'd be REALLY rad? If we released another $500 system!" They're still repeating doomed mistakes when it comes to the most fundamentally important thing: price.

EDIT: and not only that, but now they've shat up the water for their next machine by having this high priced machine in the mix. Think about it, if the X is still $500 or even $450 or even $400 when the next generation begins, how are they supposed to release a $400 next generation machine? They've muddied up their own water with the X, and my point is that it didn't really gain them anything. So while I applaud the specs and especially the features of the X, it would have been much smarter I think to save those ideas for a competitively priced next generation machine that actually stood a chance of becoming a dominant platform, especially since the machine is so reliant on 4k television penetration, which is still hit or miss.

 

[onQ123]

Random!

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

Not writing them off; but illustrating that broken thinking is still prevalent in their business strategy. I mean, at the board meetings did someone come out and actually say, "Hey guys, you know what'd be REALLY rad? If we released another $500 system!" They're still repeating doomed mistakes when it comes to the most fundamentally important thing: price.

This doesn't really work on a mid-gen refresh that already was costly tot he point they barely made profit on it. Not selling a mid-gen refresh at a launch doesn't seem like "repeating doomed mistakes' to be honest.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

I think less power and overprice play a huge part. No one want a damn eye of Sauron in their room. https://www.moddb.com/groups/humour-satire-parody/images/eye-of-sauron-20

 

[HeresJohnny]

This doesn't really work on a mid-gen refresh that already was costly tot he point they barely made profit on it. Not selling a mid-gen refresh at a launch doesn't seem like "repeating doomed mistakes' to be honest.

It's another $500 system. No more or less.

And while I completely agree that the X is going to appeal to a very small audience (hell, 4k television isn't even projected to be in half the homes in America by 2020 according to some forecasts), again I have to ponder: what did it gain them? Why fire those bullets when they could've been so much better saved for the next true generation/ But perhaps you are right and Microsoft's intent with the X was to sell an expensive system to a tiny crowd of enthusiasts who already love the brand and would've bought in at any price. If that was their plan, then yes, it was brilliant.

 

[Dr.brain64]

I blindly expected the X to be the next big thing. Instead nothing changed but some slightly better graphics. I wanted something more like a new os, new ui, new philosophy, new games (no more fps) etc etc...

 

[chinoXL]

I'm mainly a PlayStation guy but just picked up an X after getting an oled..for multiplats it's the go to, Sony exclusives all day tho for my pro. I don't care who won or lost gimme the games!!! Lol

 

[Louis Cyphre]

This is false. It was xbox which had the timed exclusives at the beginning of this gen. Plants vs Zombies, Peggle, CoD content, FIFA UT. They had that "unprecedented partnership" with EA. Titanfall was initially meant to be multiplat but was bought outright later. What made it stop is that it was clear xbox wasn't on top anymore and economically it became harder for them to get this.

What timed exclusive did PS4 have at the beginning? What PS4 had was that they were a lot more supportive to Indies so they ended up supporting and getting a lot of hit indie games. That's it. In terms of big publishers they gained those later from selling well.

If your sell well you wouldn't need to be making those deals on the first place. It's funny how Sony continues to get a free pass on how aggressive they are at exclusive deals. They don't just want to exclude others for a short period of time they want to go after the IP so that the game never comes out on another console.

Sony has been doing these deals way back. GTA games on the PS2 were very important for Sony. This gen started again with Destiny and No Man's Sky. Their E3 with Shenmue 3 and Final Fantasy 7 are all part of this venture to exclude other consoles. It's always been in Sony's DNA but Microsoft were always portrayed as the villain in these deals. We still hear excuses why Street Fighter 5 made sense.

Here you are doing the same thing, excusing Sony because they sell well. If you sell well you don't need to be so anti consumer. Same with console crossplay. That's why I take exception to the Sony fans who also portray this arrogant and exclusive attitude.

 

[Jigsaah]

One of the biggest pieces of misinformation spreading on the internet is that the online policies where the biggest factor in the Xbox Ones failure to be competitive worldwide in the market against the PS4. As well as it being competitive, but still losing, in it's strongest market, the US.

First, I want to point out that the Xbox One reveal and the Xbox One E3 2013 are not the same. Many people combine the two together, the Xbox One's E3 was pretty good and even brought back Killer Instinct. It was the online policies that gave Sony the E# win despite having imo, the worse conference, and sneaking by with the announcement of paying for online.

Now the first thing people forget is that the Xbox One sold 1 million in 24 hours just like the PS4, and was not far from the PS4's sales by years end despite the Xbox One only releasing in 13 countries. You could not tell for months were Xbox was headed because for the first several months since launch one could argue that the policies and the reversal did nothing to effect new Xbox excitement, and your argument would be correct.

The reason why Xbox ended up falling behind was because fans and Microsoft both could not tell where things would end up half a year later:

1. When Xbox One launched there was great demand. But releasing late in other countries would create an unnecessary uphill battle later. This wasn't obvious at first but it quickly came back to bite MS in the butt. Some would blame this on the old internet policies but the truth is it was mainly Kinect that led to the delay.

2. People had no problems paying over $500 for new console hype and the improved Kinect did have some interest initially. But once march came around people were not spending $500 for a console in the slow season. It became clear that the price would become an issue once TitanFall month did not go as expected, it still did ok, but given the amount of push the game and the bundle were given this would become a problem. Leading to a cheaper SKU options in the summer.

3. Kinect itself was a fad, but that wouldn't become obvious until TitanFall month AND Kinects performance once they introduced stand-alone SKU's. If you went just by the first several months it was really unclear that Kinect was a problem in the market. One could argue it wasn't, but it quickly proved to become worthless once it was put out on its own.

4. Microsoft even before things became bad, was not pushing for as many timed exclusives as it did early in the 360's life. But the PS4 did, getting the rights to big games for extended periods of time. Why this was still doesn't make much sense since this was before Xbox fell way behind, but it gave the PS4 a lot of the "few games brought a year" audience. Same with timed DLC.

Xbox One launching late in numerous countries was a disaster, and it was mostly because no one was able to see that Kinect was dying rapidly until several months after launch. I mention this since Kinect was the primary reason for the delay (language). Xbox One also having a high-price was also something that ended up hurting it once Xbox entered the spring months. Especially in Europe. It wasn't until the spring months that Microsoft started to realize they had to change strategies long-term.

But all the above combined had already given Sony a solid lead that was widening, and Microsoft by the end of 2014 had to result to massive sales and heavy advertising to win those months. But around that time Microsoft went to work on improving their services and developing a rebrand (S and later X) to try and revive the Xbox Ones image. Knowing that they would not be able to remedy some of the mistakes they made in the first 70% of 2013-14 and that they had to completely change strategies.

If Microsoft were able to change the price of Xbox, unbundle kinect, buy more timed games, and released in more countries by the end of 2013, I believe things would be different. But it took Microsoft too long to really start addressing numerous issues. In their defense however, for some of those issues it was not obvious they were theire. But even in spring 2014 when they noticed the many long-term problems they faced, they were still slow to react and it was only since summer 2016 that the fixes finally materialized to the point where now everything is back on track. That's 3 years too long.

But like I said, at first it was not obvious, and people blaming the online policies have ignored the first several months of the Xbox One's life.

I agree with everything, more or less. Would like to see evidence of your 4th bullet point. I'm not so sure about the whole 3rd pt timed exclusive deal.

Getting a PS4 without the forced camera made a huge difference. $400 and a choice vs a forced $500 console i think plays a huge role in buying decision making processes of the casual audience. Whether you wanna believe it or not, majority of gamers are casuals. As the digital age was starting to pick up steam i think that Sony began to eat up mindshare and it became a snowball effect. Gamestop employees recommending Sony over Xbox. Other outlets in my experience doing the same. The media taking considerable time to discuss Sony box for game reviews over Xbox. Then the narrative was always fluid. Spectacular (though inevitably hypocritical) strategy. Narrative moved like this

- Xbox has forced kinect and we dont
- We are the best place to play, more "p's" (1080 p vs 900p...etc)
- Xbox has power but I'm convinced we will have parity
- No parity...ok who cares Power doesn't matter, Xbox has no games

All with a dash of Mark Cerny claiming that you need 8 teraflops to do 4k and you got yourself an old fashioned propaganda machine.

I like Sony's games...but I hate Sony's personality and lack of ethics.

 

[ILLtown]

The things that people were dubious about, such as the bundled Kinect and the DRM, are things that MS did a particularly shit job of supporting/explaining.

Was there a single Kinect game shown at the first E3 after the Xbox One was announced?

There was also talk of some "family sharing" thing, but nothing was ever properly explained. The only benefit of their DRM plans for me would have been being able to buy games on disc and not have to swap discs every time I switch games, which is definitely cool, but for people who like physical media, one of the reasons they like it is because of the freedom to lend out, swap, trade in or sell games.

Sony had a much better grasp of what their early adopters cared about. They talked about power. They used technical terms. They got people who were willing to spend $400-$500 on a console hyped. MS didn't.

 

[Three]

If your sell well you wouldn't need to be making those deals on the first place. It's funny how Sony continues to get a free pass on how aggressive they are at exclusive deals. They don't just want to exclude others for a short period of time they want to go after the IP so that the game never comes out on another console.

Sony has been doing these deals way back. GTA games on the PS2 were very important for Sony. This gen started again with Destiny and No Man's Sky. Their E3 with Shenmue 3 and Final Fantasy 7 are all part of this venture to exclude other consoles. It's always been in Sony's DNA but Microsoft were always portrayed as the villain in these deals. We still hear excuses why Street Fighter 5 made sense.

Here you are doing the same thing, excusing Sony because they sell well. If you sell well you don't need to be so anti consumer. Same with console crossplay. That's why I take exception to the Sony fans who also portray this arrogant and exclusive attitude.

What a bunch of crock. Nobody excused anybody just that the they won over the timed exclusives like CoD and Fifa because of their market position. Initially the big publishers partnered with MS for those. Also why pretend things like Dead Rising 3 didn't happen that completely excluded other consoles, Titanfall 1 totally excluded others, or Mass Effect 1, or GTA4 dlc.

Nobody said these deals don't happen by both sides but you continue to try and portray one side as anticonsumer while the other does it 'for a short period of time'. I just said contrary to what was suggested in the OP PS4 had less of these at the beginning and MS more. I said nothing about who is a villian or who is good.
Your persecution complex is showing .
People didn't complain about things like Dead Rising 3, Mass Effect 1, and SFV because those deals were usual. They complained about Tomb Raider because the game was announced and went up for preorder on all platforms then was pulled during its second showing at Gamescom and MS were being unclear as to whether it was timed or not.
They went out and paid for a game in development to be excluded from other consoles and this was more obvious in this one particular case because they did it so late where consumers saw it happening. That's if you are talking about others and nothing said in this thread.

Nobody mentioned any of this tangent you plan to go on as to why Sony = bad, MS = good but persecuted by fanboys. I just said the OP is false, they had more exclusivity deals. Then things changed during the course of the gen. Also No Mans Sky is an indie game.

 

[Iced Arcade]

It's not rocket science to why they fell behind.

MS got arrogant and thought they could force kinect and charge $100 more that the competitor for generally the same experience.

You, me and the rest of forum dwellers are not the bread and butter of the market... mom/dad and casual fans are AND they seen 2 different price tags to play the new COD, Madden, Fifa ,GTA etc

 

[MayauMiao]

To me Microsoft first revealing the Xbox One and focus on TV TV TV SPORTS SPORTS SPORTS really did damage to the brand made worse by the always online DRM.

By the time did a 180 turn, it was too late.

 

[Akuza89]

There were many key factors in them failing this gen.

Kinect
Price
Underpowered
And
Policies

You can't say the policies didn't effect sales, as nearly every gaming news outlets wouldn't shut up about that and the fall out afterwards from Sony.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Given the initial head to head, Xbox One OG was destined to lose. Forced Kinect on people, $100 more and worse looking games. The first party games by MS and Sony the first few years were few and nothing special. But the third party games looked better on PS4.

Even when MS released Xbox One without Kinect, it was the same price. Given that, most people chose PS4 for power.

If MS released a standalone Xbox One for $300-350, the race would be closer.... at least in NA. PS systems usually sell much better in other markets.

 

[FranXico]

Even when MS released Xbox One without Kinect, it was the same price. Given that, most people chose PS4 for power.

When they stopped bundling Kinect, they also dropped the price.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

When they stopped bundling Kinect, they also dropped the price.

I meant, same as PS4.

 

[WaterAstro]

The main reason is games. Microsoft couldn't compete against Sony's top tier studios.

 

[joe_zazen]

people just hate green. they need a new color.

 

[Hoho for breakfast]

No, it was the internet policies and the more expensive price on a technically shittier console with a mandatory Kinect.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

What a bunch of crock. Nobody excused anybody just that the they won over the timed exclusives like CoD and Fifa because of their market position. Initially the big publishers partnered with MS for those. Also why pretend things like Dead Rising 3 didn't happen that completely excluded other consoles, Titanfall 1 totally excluded others, or Mass Effect 1, or GTA4 dlc.

Nobody said these deals don't happen by both sides but you continue to try and portray one side as anticonsumer while the other does it 'for a short period of time'. I just said contrary to what was suggested in the OP PS4 had less of these at the beginning and MS more. I said nothing about who is a villian or who is good.
Your persecution complex is showing .
People didn't complain about things like Dead Rising 3, Mass Effect 1, and SFV because those deals were usual. They complained about Tomb Raider because the game was announced and went up for preorder on all platforms then was pulled during its second showing at Gamescom and MS were being unclear as to whether it was timed or not.
They went out and paid for a game in development to be excluded from other consoles and this was more obvious in this one particular case because they did it so late where consumers saw it happening. That's if you are talking about others and nothing said in this thread.

Nobody mentioned any of this tangent you plan to go on as to why Sony = bad, MS = good but persecuted by fanboys. I just said the OP is false, they had more exclusivity deals. Then things changed during the course of the gen. Also No Mans Sky is an indie game.

You really have trouble reading. Did I say Microsoft was better? No, I said Sony always seems to scape by unscathed. Even now you try and use Tomb Raider as an example. Destiny is just as bad in that situation but like I said, Sony likes take it one step further, going after IPs so it never comes to another platform. Street Fighter used to be a Nintendo title and in the arcades yet somehow Sony saw an opportunity to take it away. Permanently. Tomb Raider is available now is it not?

They (Sony and Microsoft) are both bad, that's the whole point. Sony has always done these deals so don't try for one second its about who sells better and that's when Sony started doing it more. Every E3 has them onstage partnering with outside parties aside from this year's E3 because they know the bulk of their audience wants third party content.

The main reason is games. Microsoft couldn't compete against Sony's top tier studios.

Nintendo can but have failed multiple times. Even more so than Microsoft. Try again.

 

[ReBurn]

No doubt that Microsoft had issues from the beginning of the generation. Poor public perception before launch hurt them and then higher price for less powerful hardware was a drag on them. But I feel like Microsoft took the L seriously and they're going to come out swinging next generation. They're probably not going to ever match Sony's worldwide appeal, but I think next gen Microsoft will be a force.

 

[SaviourMK2]

I gave up on the Xbox after I bought their launch model for $500 only to have my console become horribly inferior in half a year and with a price cut and no compensation for people who faithfully day oned it. Halo 5 pissing me off to high hell didn't help.

 

[goldenpp72]

It isn't why it lost but it sure fucked them up.

 

[EDMIX]

Agreed. I don't think its reveal has anything to do why its doing poorly right now. MS loss this gen not based on how it launched, but how they continued to go about the rest of the gen. That reveal was only a few weeks of madness folks, this gen has been YEARS in. So I can't say a few weeks is why someone isn't buying a system for years on end. MS behavior and choices this entire gen is why they are moving less units. So I think its great they are gearing up for next gen PROPERLY, but it very much questions what on earth they were thinking for all those years.


It shouldn't be rocket science to figure out you'd need more content to beat out a competitor that has a onslaught of exclusives. The fact that they pretty much spent years ignoring it is probably the most shocking, so I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[LittleBusters]

It was a major fail that XBox One wasn't available in all of Europe on day 1. They essentially gave so many big markets to Sony exclusively for months. Fortunately all the localization work has been long since completed, so the next Xbox should launch simultaneous in all markets. Also Sony won't have the benefit of a clunky looking XBox to compete against, or a bad unveil/E3 from Microsoft. I assume the PS5 & XBox Next will launch simultaneously in Nov 2020 and that will be a straight up competition this time between 2 beautiful looking boxes, great game lineup and no scandals. Then we'll see how it really shakes out.

 

[EDMIX]

It was a major fail that XBox One wasn't available in all of Europe on day 1. They essentially gave so many big markets to Sony exclusively for months. Fortunately all the localization work has been long since completed, so the next Xbox should launch simultaneous in all markets. Also Sony won't have the benefit of a clunky looking XBox to compete against, or a bad unveil/E3 from Microsoft. I assume the PS5 & XBox Next will launch simultaneously in Nov 2020 and that will be a straight up competition this time between 2 beautiful looking boxes, great game lineup and no scandals. Then we'll see how it really shakes out.

Agreed completely. I think what will help XB do better next gen is them having a lay out right now of what they plan for those studios. Their biggest issue is this gen is show, this publisher legit was clueless on what was coming out besides Halo, Gears, Forza on repeat. I have no clue why they really thought such a set up would help compared to Sony and Nintendo. Next gen should be more competitive between the 2 vs a onslaught of exclusives on one end.

 

[Dlacy13g]

Contrary to what the OP says... Xbox One launch struggles or 100% associated with their early policies and choices for the console. Yes the console had some early sales that were positive but that can be directly associated with a percentage of their 360 fanbase who were going to stay loyal to the brand. Once they burned through those early adopters the price difference and power differential became a very apparent and were reflected in sales in a significant way.

Xbox has managed to carve out a nice base despite many struggles they had to overcome but let's try not to become revisionist as to what truly went down when it launched.

 

[Deuterion]

They've missed the most important lesson: stop releasing $500 hardware. Their answer to the fumble with the original One was to release a One X at an equally prohibitive price. I don't believe Microsoft has a fundamental grasp of what it takes to be the market leader. We'll see if that changes going into next generation, but they're still making fundamentally flawed moves.

It’s because they lost Robbie Bach and J. Allard who protected the XBOX from the stupidity that is Microsoft.

 

[Three]

You really have trouble reading. Did I say Microsoft was better? No, I said Sony always seems to scape by unscathed. Even now you try and use Tomb Raider as an example. Destiny is just as bad in that situation but like I said, Sony likes take it one step further, going after IPs so it never comes to another platform. Street Fighter used to be a Nintendo title and in the arcades yet somehow Sony saw an opportunity to take it away. Permanently. Tomb Raider is available now is it not?

They (Sony and Microsoft) are both bad, that's the whole point. Sony has always done these deals so don't try for one second its about who sells better and that's when Sony started doing it more. Every E3 has them onstage partnering with outside parties aside from this year's E3 because they know the bulk of their audience wants third party content.



Nintendo can but have failed multiple times. Even more so than Microsoft. Try again.

Says did I say they were better then continues to suggest Sony take it a step further. Is Dead Rising 3 available on other platforms? No? OK then. Is Bayonetta 2 available on anything but Nintendo when the first started on 360/PS3? OK then. I'm not even going to entertain this silly tangent of yours.

 

[Freeman76]

You are delusional.

MS lost because of that atrocious announcement, they lost the faith of their fans, and Sony swept up.

If you dont put the customers needs first, you wont be successful usually. MS are now doing that, and gaining significant ground as a result. Hell, I bought an X and i hated what MS did at the beginning of the gen. I was Sony Defense force for the first 2 years of this gen.

 

[MadViking]

I chose ps4 over Xbox one mainly because of power difference. Focus on kinect was another reason.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

You are delusional.

MS lost because of that atrocious announcement, they lost the faith of their fans, and Sony swept up.

Which with factual numbers we can prove this did not happen. At least nowhere near what you're implying.

The Xbox One sold great for several months until other issues became problems long-term and MS was too slow to react. I see no evidence that the online policies caused significant damage as it didn't show at all anywhere at launch and for the months following.

Kincet/Price, Power, , 13 countries, etc. those were what ended up hurting MS long-term not the online policies which they turned around SINCE launch.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

Contrary to what the OP says... Xbox One launch struggles or 100% associated with their early policies and choices for the console. Yes the console had some early sales that were positive but that can be directly associated with a percentage of their 360 fanbase who were going to stay loyal to the brand. Once they burned through those early adopters the price difference and power differential became a very apparent and were reflected in sales in a significant way.

Kinect, Price, 13 countries, and the power of the console had nothing to do with the online policies. The Xbox One sold well for months and was tracking "significantly" ahead of the 360 at first. Did all the fans stop coming after Titanfall months because of online policies? No, they stopped because of the lack of availability and the $500 price tag with forced Kinect.

I don't see WHERE the effects of the online did anything when you track the Xbox One since launch. I only see the other issues becoming prevalent months later. I know some people talk about a small group of no significance being confused about online at Gamestops but even some of those stories said they still brought the console. But regardless it can't have been a significant amount based on what we know for the first several months.

 

[Freedom Gate Co.]

It was a major fail that XBox One wasn't available in all of Europe on day 1. They essentially gave so many big markets to Sony exclusively for months. Fortunately all the localization work has been long since completed, so the next Xbox should launch simultaneous in all markets. Also Sony won't have the benefit of a clunky looking XBox to compete against, or a bad unveil/E3 from Microsoft. I assume the PS5 & XBox Next will launch simultaneously in Nov 2020 and that will be a straight up competition this time between 2 beautiful looking boxes, great game lineup and no scandals. Then we'll see how it really shakes out.

Agreed completely. I think what will help XB do better next gen is them having a lay out right now of what they plan for those studios. Their biggest issue is this gen is show, this publisher legit was clueless on what was coming out besides Halo, Gears, Forza on repeat. I have no clue why they really thought such a set up would help compared to Sony and Nintendo. Next gen should be more competitive between the 2 vs a onslaught of exclusives on one end.

I mean if it wasn't for the policies people likely would have went over sony more for only showing the control at their reveal and they would not have gotten away (partially) with sneaking the online multiplayer charge.

Also uh, Halo didn't even come out on Xbox One, a real one until 2015. No one was talking about Halo/gears/Forza until around then either, at least commonly. I mean you may not have liked them but MS released a lot of titles in its first few years. Also most flopped, but they were there.

 

[Dibils2k]

Being significantly underpowered in comparison to PS4 did some damage too. Even more than some. I remember the Call of Duty: Ghosts in 720p drama and all that talk about sub 1080p games.

under-powered AND £100 more expensive lol dead on arrival

 

[Dada55000]

Agreed. I don't think its reveal has anything to do why its doing poorly right now. MS loss this gen not based on how it launched, but how they continued to go about the rest of the gen. That reveal was only a few weeks of madness folks, this gen has been YEARS in. So I can't say a few weeks is why someone isn't buying a system for years on end. MS behavior and choices this entire gen is why they are moving less units. So I think its great they are gearing up for next gen PROPERLY, but it very much questions what on earth they were thinking for all those years.


It shouldn't be rocket science to figure out you'd need more content to beat out a competitor that has a onslaught of exclusives. The fact that they pretty much spent years ignoring it is probably the most shocking, so I'll believe it when I see it.

Actually, the initial reveal is what decides your first several years of success. Yeah, it's that important, first impressions and all that, that's the moment that decides whether or not somebody buys it for Christmas 3 years later. You fuck that up you need to spend years reversing it, like PS3. Hell, in the case of 360, you can coast off of a good showing and initial period, hardware failure be damned, well into your twilight year, even if you've got barely a couple of exclusives for several years by that point. XBone's showing was middling, so once it burned through the brand loyalty crowd, which was the early adopters for both Xbone and PS4 hence the initial parity in sales, it lost a lot of fire.

Funny thing, exclusives are not be all end all either. If your first showing is great, you can release a console with just a vague promise of games in the future and it will sell. If it's bad? There isn't an exclusive to mitigate that kind of damage. PS4 at this point could've been comfortably coasting off of 3rd party for a year and a half, and unit sales would see only a slight decrease, because of how well it presented itself in the critical period.

 

[Elfstar]

Truth is, Xbox as a brand has extremely less global appeal than Playstation, no matter what.

 

[Clear]

under-powered AND £100 more expensive lol dead on arrival

I think its more accurate to say that the One's performance simply didn't justify the price difference, the presence of Kinect not being a mitigating factor.

That it sold well initially simply demonstrates that Xbox has a sizeable devoted fanbase that will buy new hardware on launch, that it failed to gain momentum beyond that shows how low the appeal of the platform was/is for people who haven't already "jumped in".

MS lost because of price point and an over-reliance on the same handful of waning franchises. Sony had more momentum coming in, kept the messaging simple, and basically didn't get in their own way for the first time in many years.

 

[Moneal]

Which with factual numbers we can prove this did not happen. At least nowhere near what you're implying.

The Xbox One sold great for several months until other issues became problems long-term and MS was too slow to react. I see no evidence that the online policies caused significant damage as it didn't show at all anywhere at launch and for the months following.

Kincet/Price, Power, , 13 countries, etc. those were what ended up hurting MS long-term not the online policies which they turned around SINCE launch.

you keep saying xbox sold great for months, yet it only sold well compared to supply constrained consoles. the bad pr was a major factor in the overall sales this gen. here is an IGN survey on factors for buying new consoles back in july of 2013. Notice that Selling Used Games, Used Game fees and DRM were above a 3.5 out of 5 in importance.