Xbox 360 Sales May Exceed Microsoft's 10M Forecast

Jun 25, 2006
122
0
0
CorwinB said:
So at the moment, they probably lose less on the Premium than on the Core, but future cost reduction will comparatively help them sustain the Core price drops more. At the moment, the Core's purpose is mostly a marketing bullet point (we are under $300). But the Core package was designed with cost reduction in mind, in order to attract very cost-conscious emerging markets such as India and China in a couple of years.
Finally! A sane comment on the core pack.
 
Oct 24, 2004
4,169
0
0
MidgarBlowedUp said:
The problem with the Xbox brand is that it doesn't turn a profit for MS. Hell, they still have 5 billion dollars to make up from last gen.
Astute observation! Guess that about wraps it up for MS!

Um, what do you think MS employees do when they go into work every day? They're working to make inroads, to make progress, to capture marketshare and eventually become profitable. Don't know if you've heard, but they may even have a shot at winning North America some day.
 
Jun 26, 2004
62,861
0
0
MidgarBlowedUp said:
The problem with the Xbox brand is that it doesn't turn a profit for MS. Hell, they still have 5 billion dollars to make up from last gen.

Based on their profits, I think they can pull 5 billion in a few weeks.
 
Jul 21, 2004
1,116
0
0
MidgarBlowedUp said:
The problem with the Xbox brand is that it doesn't turn a profit for MS. Hell, they still have 5 billion dollars to make up from last gen.
Lets see with the Premium 360 costing about $325 to produce and the Premium PS3 costing almost $900 to produce which will be profitable first?
 
Jun 8, 2004
2,025
3
1,285
Canada
cartoon_soldier said:
What you think retailers love to just keep 360s for the heck of it?
I don't think they would want to, but here in Brampton, the Future Shop and Best Buy had mountains of 360s around the time of the PS3/Wii launches, and for at least a week afterwards.

When I say mountains, I mean mountains. The Future Shop had 360s stacked in the shape of a hill in the middle of one of their widest aisles. The hill was just a little shorter than me (I'm 5'-8.5"), but had about a meter radius. The Best Buy had them spilling out of the shelves and into the aisles, and stacked around a customer server counter (there were a ton of PS2s around that counter too, though). Both stores have multiple 360 kiosks.

I don't know if this is still the case. I don't see why it would change though since MS wants to make sure there's a lot of supply for the Christmas season.
 
Jun 26, 2004
62,861
0
0
If there's any "system seller" right now, it's Gears. Of course, that might not be the case, but I can't imagine that any other game is moving units. (and the PS2 sells on its own)

THat being said, if there are still mountains of Xbox 360s that aren't selling, well, people just don't want the system that much.
 
Jan 14, 2006
4,393
0
0
Enzed
Deku said:
Well the games industry in North America has in the past is based on a oligopolistic business models that engage in forms of indirect collusion. There's usually a price leader (not to confuse the term with a manufacturer with an advantage in price) who everyone follows. If the leader drops the price, the competitors (followers) follow suit.

Also, although the individual consoles are highly differentiated in the minds of hardcore gamers, it is not to the public and casual consumers of games.
I see your point, but just a quick rebuttal in terms of what I was saying.

That would have once been true, but the model has shifted. Even to the masses the consoles are no longer just game machine. With the advent of the PS2 and Xbox came them also being seen as DVD players. And now Sony trying to market it as a full-blown media centre.
The shift has also moved away in how the consoles are priced. It used to be that they sold above or close to their allocated cost. This is no longer the case as the functionality has moved on and they have tried to accommodate more and more features and power. Because of this there is a reluctance to compete directly on price and instead other methods are used, e.g. the 20GB PS3 and Core 360 are a form of price discrimination to appeal to more consumers through their willingnesses to pay and extract the most surplus out of the market.

We will not see the price wars of yesteryears in the foreseeable future. We will see price cuts, but not price wars.
Neither MS, Nintendo or Sony has as much to gain anymore because their product is becoming too differentiated. Nintendo with the wiimote; Sony touting it as a blu-ray and media centre, and MS with, err, live content like tv shows/movies? This is apparent to most, not just the hardcore gamer.
If what threeball was getting at was to happen we'd be seeing price meeting more of a market price (Nintendo and Sony launching at a higher price); a set of abstract rules. And that the consoles are substitutes to each other, but if MS were to drop the price of the 360 core to the Wii price would MS capture the Wii market? No. They'll increase sales, but not fully at the expense of Nintendo. Therein lies the fallacy of the statement.

As consoles become more and more heterogeneous the importance of price (obviously) loses its value in terms of competition.

Back in the days of Nintendo and Sega, and even N-S + Sony, price have been the dominating factor. I agree there, most immature sectors with duopolies/oligopolies follow that path, but it is no longer the case.
 
Speevy said:
If there's any "system seller" right now, it's Gears. Of course, that might not be the case, but I can't imagine that any other game is moving units. (and the PS2 sells on its own)

THat being said, if there are still mountains of Xbox 360s that aren't selling, well, people just don't want the system that much.

Perhaps Gears is the only single "system seller" at the moment, but the overall library as a whole, with games like Oblivion, GRAW, Viva Pinata, R6:Vegas, and more will help sell the system even more.

Gears might grab their attention, but the larger, more fully fleshed out, and impressive library will push them over the top.
 
Jul 21, 2004
1,116
0
0
M3Freak said:
I don't think they would want to, but here in Brampton, the Future Shop and Best Buy had mountains of 360s around the time of the PS3/Wii launches, and for at least a week afterwards.

When I say mountains, I mean mountains. The Future Shop had 360s stacked in the shape of a hill in the middle of one of their widest aisles. The hill was just a little shorter than me (I'm 5'-8.5"), but had about a meter radius. The Best Buy had them spilling out of the shelves and into the aisles, and stacked around a customer server counter (there were a ton of PS2s around that counter too, though). Both stores have multiple 360 kiosks.

I don't know if this is still the case. I don't see why it would change though since MS wants to make sure there's a lot of supply for the Christmas season.
Thats why the 360 sold so well. This isnt MS forcing Best Buy to purchase 360's this is Best Buy and Future Shop setting themselves up to capitalize on the demand. You add in the deals that Best Buy and particular Future Shop had on the 360 since the PS3 and Wii launched and you understand why those mountains have shrank or disappeared.
 
Jul 22, 2004
3,120
0
0
East Clintwood said:
I don't see the Xbox360 "winning" anything with the rate it's selling at. It sells exactly as good (bad) as the first Xbox and with that it's not relevant if and when they hit 10 million sold.
the ps2 was at how many millions when the xbox hit 10 million? how many ps3 will be sold when the 360 hits 10 million? which do you 3rd parties will look at for games?
 
Mar 3, 2005
23,925
4
1,225
Cincinnati
www.tehbias.com
East Clintwood said:
It sells exactly as good (bad) as the first Xbox
It sells as good or better this fall as the Xbox 1 did it's first fall...after a price cut to $199. It hasn't even been dropped to the magical price point yet. That is better than the original Xbox. Xbox 1 certainly would have sold worse if they had maintained the launch price into the second holiday season. Imagine what will happen after 360 price cuts.
 
Jan 19, 2005
10,799
0
0
Los Angeles
M3Freak said:
I don't think they would want to, but here in Brampton, the Future Shop and Best Buy had mountains of 360s around the time of the PS3/Wii launches, and for at least a week afterwards.

When I say mountains, I mean mountains. The Future Shop had 360s stacked in the shape of a hill in the middle of one of their widest aisles. The hill was just a little shorter than me (I'm 5'-8.5"), but had about a meter radius. The Best Buy had them spilling out of the shelves and into the aisles, and stacked around a customer server counter (there were a ton of PS2s around that counter too, though). Both stores have multiple 360 kiosks.

I don't know if this is still the case. I don't see why it would change though since MS wants to make sure there's a lot of supply for the Christmas season.
I've mentioned this before, but It seems to me that when you get to the end of the year, the systems that are the most visible and available are the ones that sell the best. You can't sell what you don't have.
 
Jun 6, 2004
25,732
1
0
DeadlySchnauzer said:
Finally! A sane comment on the core pack.
Initial intentions for the core have been subverted by PS3's debilitating pricing/manufacturing issues though. It's just not necessary at this point, it's proven hugely unpopular, it fragments the userbase, and cost reductions/die shrinks won't line up for a $100 price drop anytime soon.

Had things played out differently in the market, likely as Microsoft was initially forecasting, then sure... you can certainly see the need for a core SKU. But that's not how things went down. And so, you seriously think Microsoft's going to keep with a userbase fragmenting, commercially unpopular, loss taking SKU when they don't need to anymore?

About the only place I could a potnetial need for the core is in developing markets like Inida, China and Brazil. And then probably as the only SKU option... but in the USA? It's entirely unnecessary considering where the industry stands today.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Jun 15, 2004
8,284
0
0
jarrod said:
Initial intentions for the core have been subverted by PS3's debilitating pricing/manufacturing issues though. It's just not necessary at this point, it's proven hugely unpopular, it fragments the userbase, and cost reductions/die shrinks won't line up for a $100 price drop anytime soon.

Had things played out differently in the market, likely as Microsoft was initially forecasting, then sure... you can certainly see the need for a core SKU. But that's not how things went down. And so, you seriously think Microsoft's going to keep with a userbase fragmenting, commercially unpopular, loss taking SKU when they don't need to anymore?

About the only place I could a potnetial need for the core is in developing markets like Inida, China and Brazil. And then probably as the only SKU option... but in the USA? It's entirely unnecessary considering where the industry stands today.
you're referencing the market as it is today, but most industry analysts say the number of consumers who are willing to pay a premium (>$300) is drying up. Hardcore gamers who are aware of the total value of the package are of course going to shun the "tard pack", but I doubt mass market consumers are going to treat it the same way.
 
Jun 7, 2004
77,909
2
0
Oregon
jarrod said:
About the only place I could a potnetial need for the core is in developing markets like Inida, China and Brazil. And then probably as the only SKU option... but in the USA? It's entirely unnecessary considering where the industry stands today.
I agree about the "where the industry stands today" comment. I still thin the Core should have been kept in MS's proverbal back pocket for when it was needed. As is, it won't have any real impact until a $100 price cut. I still think the 360 will be at a $199/$299 configuration when Halo 3 ships, and that the lower SKU will sell like hotcakes when it does, even in the US. So it has a role to play in every market...just not at this price.
 

DenogginizerOS

BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
Mar 25, 2005
16,111
9
0
United States
As long as there are an enormous population of stupid people in America (which there is), then there will always be a place for the core. People are buying cores this Xmas as gifts. The most common story I hear is that the friend/relative goes to buy the core and the sales clerk tells them about the premium. The friend/relative then confirms that those things that come with the premium can be bought separately. Once confirmed, the friend/relative calmly retorts, "If he needs those things later, he can come back and buy them himself."
 
Jul 27, 2005
3,729
0
1,150
jarrod said:
About the only place I could a potnetial need for the core is in developing markets like Inida, China and Brazil.
And bizarrely they release a bundle with a Premium 360, Kameo, PGR3 and PDZ, a faceplate and media remote. Go figure that one out :lol
 
Sep 14, 2006
1,253
1
985
Florida
DenogginizerOS said:
As long as there are an enormous population of stupid people in America (which there is), then there will always be a place for the core. People are buying cores this Xmas as gifts. The most common story I hear is that the friend/relative goes to buy the core and the sales clerk tells them about the premium. The friend/relative then confirms that those things that come with the premium can be bought separately. Once confirmed, the friend/relative calmly retorts, "If he needs those things later, he can come back and buy them himself."
hey hey... I have a core... well and a premium.. but the core isn't too bad.. got a mem unit used for $12...
 
Jun 6, 2004
25,732
1
0
GhaleonEB said:
I agree about the "where the industry stands today" comment. I still thin the Core should have been kept in MS's proverbal back pocket for when it was needed. As is, it won't have any real impact until a $100 price cut. I still think the 360 will be at a $199/$299 configuration when Halo 3 ships, and that the lower SKU will sell like hotcakes when it does, even in the US. So it has a role to play in every market...just not at this price.
Thing is, it'll be more viable to drop the premium to $299 sooner than it would the core to $199. That's why I think we're in for a SKU reshuffle probably this spring, not to mention the other inherent benefits it brings (matching PS3 feature for feature, defragmenting usersbase, percieved price drop, etc). Given Microsoft's historical tendencies to go for bundles over price drops though, I just find this scenario much more likely with how the market's headed.


Nerevar said:
you're referencing the market as it is today, but most industry analysts say the number of consumers who are willing to pay a premium (>$300) is drying up. Hardcore gamers who are aware of the total value of the package are of course going to shun the "tard pack", but I doubt mass market consumers are going to treat it the same way.
Well, that's the other scenario I can see happening. If they hold on to the core, no price drop until a year from now (in time for Halo 3) at the absolute earliest.
 
May 14, 2005
3,386
0
0
MidgarBlowedUp said:
The problem with the Xbox brand is that it doesn't turn a profit for MS. Hell, they still have 5 billion dollars to make up from last gen.
Keep in mind, you're talking about a company that makes 13 billion dollars a quarter. Personally, I think MS goals are more oriented to "taking control of the living room" than making another billion dollars a year.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Jun 15, 2004
8,284
0
0
jarrod said:
Thing is, it'll be more viable to drop the premium to $299 sooner than it would the core to $199. That's why I think we're in for a SKU reshuffle probably this spring, not to mention the other inherent benefits it brings (matching PS3 feature for feature, defragmenting usersbase, percieved price drop, etc). Given Microsoft's historical tendencies to go for bundles over price drops though, I just find this scenario much more likely with how the market's headed.
who said they had to maintain a $100 difference between the premium and core though? I could see a $100 price drop on the premium and a ~$75 drop on the core of MS wants to move in that direction. Couple that with the introduction of a new large HDD and a small drop on the 20 gig HDD (to maintain the core / premium value proposition overall) and you're pretty much where you started. Really, a $75 drop would put them under the price of the Wii, and there's no way Nintendo could move the price lower until at least a year from now. I see that as perfectly viable, and additionally it would put both Sony AND Nintendo into an uncomfortable position.
 
Jun 6, 2004
25,732
1
0
Nerevar said:
who said they had to maintain a $100 difference between the premium and core though? I could see a $100 price drop on the premium and a ~$75 drop on the core of MS wants to move in that direction. Couple that with the introduction of a new large HDD and a small drop on the 20 gig HDD (to maintain the core / premium value proposition overall) and you're pretty much where you started. Really, a $75 drop would put them under the price of the Wii, and there's no way Nintendo could move the price lower until at least a year from now. I see that as perfectly viable, and additionally it would put both Sony AND Nintendo into an uncomfortable position.
Er, Nintendo could easily pricedrop or counter bundle at any moment... in fact I'd imagine that was the reason for doing a $50 premium over what the industry expected. If we see MS do anything this spring, expect an immediate Wii response to $199 (likely dropping Wii Sports in the process) and probably a unilateral DSL drop to $99.

It still costs Microsoft a bit over $300 to produce each 360... even a $75 drop for the core anytime soon seems like it's pushing it, especially with the breathing room Sony's given them. Like I said before, either core's phased out early this year, or 360 holds pricepoints until Halo 3. Anything else just isn't going to happen.
 

Nerevar

they call me "Man Gravy".
Jun 15, 2004
8,284
0
0
jarrod said:
Er, Nintendo could easily pricedrop or counter bundle at any moment... in fact I'd imagine that was the reason for doing a $50 premium over what the industry expected. If we see MS do anything this spring, expect an immediate Wii response to $199 (likely dropping Wii Sports in the process) and probably a unilateral DSL drop to $99.

It still costs Microsoft a bit over $300 to produce each 360... even a $75 drop for the core anytime soon seems like it's pushing it, especially with the breathing room Sony's given them. Like I said before, either core's phased out early this year, or 360 holds pricepoints until Halo 3. Anything else just isn't going to happen.
I don't think the public would take well to a price drop of the Wii less than 6 months from the release date of the console. When MS was forced to take that action in Europe they basically had to give away 3 games or so to the early adopters to save face. I just don't think Nintendo can do that. At best they can "remove" Wii sports from the initial package and sell it as a seperate game alongside the console for $200.

Additionally IIRC MS hasn't moved to 65nm for the 360 chips, which will significantly help their cost-reduction plans. Then when you include the fact that a core pack user must pick up at least 1 pricey peripheral to play games (every core user will) MS earns back a good chunk of the core before game sales are even counted. I just don't think it's out of the question.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,901
0
0
Windsor, UK
Geoff9920 said:
Keep in mind, you're talking about a company that makes 13 billion dollars a quarter. Personally, I think MS goals are more oriented to "taking control of the living room" than making another billion dollars a year.

also keep in mind that regardless of their longterm goals, if the shareholders don't start seeing some more positive results they will want action.

Just because they have shitloads of money doesn't mean they can just play with it with no responsibilities
 

duk

Banned
May 10, 2006
8,487
0
0
I think the prices will drop 50 bucks on the core and premium. They don't need to drop 100 bucks.

249 Core with pack in game
349 Prem with pack in game
 
May 14, 2005
3,386
0
0
mrklaw said:
also keep in mind that regardless of their longterm goals, if the shareholders don't start seeing some more positive results they will want action.

Just because they have shitloads of money doesn't mean they can just play with it with no responsibilities
Come on man, we both know that the 360 isn't like the xbox when it comes to losing money. Quit with the doom and gloom.
 
Oct 19, 2005
26,635
1
0
Geoff9920 said:
Keep in mind, you're talking about a company that makes 13 billion dollars a quarter. Personally, I think MS goals are more oriented to "taking control of the living room" than making another billion dollars a year.
If profit wasn't relevant to MS this generation we would've seen a single, hard-drived Premium 360 for $299 launched. The entire deal with the 360 (compared to the original Xbox) is that it's built to be profitable and that positive cash flow needs to be balanced with marketshare.
 
Jun 24, 2004
5,795
0
0
Geoff9920 said:
Keep in mind, you're talking about a company that makes 13 billion dollars a quarter. Personally, I think MS goals are more oriented to "taking control of the living room" than making another billion dollars a year.
So why dont they try? Compared to the PS3 the 360 offers less functionality besides gaming (browsing, an OS, next gen media drive) and both dont even work as HDD video recorder (with the PS3 at least offering external USB HDD capability and an OS to make that possible).
 
May 14, 2005
3,386
0
0
charlequin said:
If profit wasn't relevant to MS this generation we would've seen a single, hard-drived Premium 360 for $299 launched. The entire deal with the 360 (compared to the original Xbox) is that it's built to be profitable and that positive cash flow needs to be balanced with marketshare.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you're competely misreading reading what I wrote. I was merely pointing out that the loss of 5 billion dollars isn't as signficant an impact to MS as it would be to Sony or Nintendo. I wasn't saying that they don't care if they make money or not.
 
Mar 31, 2006
17,055
3
1,090
www.soulcreator.com
quetz67 said:
So why dont they try? Compared to the PS3 the 360 offers less functionality besides gaming (browsing, an OS, next gen media drive) and both dont even work as HDD video recorder (with the PS3 at least offering external USB HDD capability and an OS to make that possible).
because MS will want you to do all of that on a PC w/ Vista and simply stream it to your 360. That's why, with the exception of xbox live video downloads, all of the 360's media functionality can actually be done with a Core system.

Basically, Sony wants you to eventually do all of that on the PS3 itself, while MS wants you to use your 360 to supplement your existing PC functionality.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Jun 10, 2004
59,901
0
0
Windsor, UK
Geoff9920 said:
Come on man, we both know that the 360 isn't like the xbox when it comes to losing money. Quit with the doom and gloom.

I wasn't saying it was the same. Just countering those posts saying 'oh but MS have piles of cash they can do what they want'.

They can't.

360 might be an improvement and might be enough to satisfy shareholders that gaming is a good outlet for MS's energies.
 
Jun 6, 2004
25,732
1
0
Nerevar said:
I don't think the public would take well to a price drop of the Wii less than 6 months from the release date of the console. When MS was forced to take that action in Europe they basically had to give away 3 games or so to the early adopters to save face. I just don't think Nintendo can do that. At best they can "remove" Wii sports from the initial package and sell it as a seperate game alongside the console for $200.
Exactly... the $50 premium plus Wii Sports bundled was Nintendo's way of future proofing an immediate drop. They have an easy means to sweeten the deal for early adopters too with free Opera browsing (which would shift to a premium after the pricedrop).

Nintendo thought things out so they wouldn't need to "save face" after the fact, it's glaringly obvious.


Nerevar said:
Additionally IIRC MS hasn't moved to 65nm for the 360 chips, which will significantly help their cost-reduction plans. Then when you include the fact that a core pack user must pick up at least 1 pricey peripheral to play games (every core user will) MS earns back a good chunk of the core before game sales are even counted. I just don't think it's out of the question.
Even with a memory module purchase, I doubt the core makes a return... after you factor in retail markup and distribution costs incurred, that $325 goes up a little farther too. Bit different from the premium, which is evidently already profitable (or close to it)... what I said before still holds, Sony's shifted the landscape for 360 and Microsoft actually has the opportunity to look at trying to make money on this thing for a change. And I suspect that's exactly what they'll do.
 

hadareud

The Translator
Oct 18, 2004
22,703
1
0
England
mrklaw said:
I wasn't saying it was the same. Just countering those posts saying 'oh but MS have piles of cash they can do what they want'.

They can't.

360 might be an improvement and might be enough to satisfy shareholders that gaming is a good outlet for MS's energies.
MS shareholders are pretty satisfied as it is, there are not many companies that would get them as much money as MS does. A few defensive ventures that don't actually bring money in will neither break Microsoft's nor the shareholders bank.
 
Jun 6, 2004
25,732
1
0
duk said:
I think the prices will drop 50 bucks on the core and premium. They don't need to drop 100 bucks.

249 Core with pack in game
349 Prem with pack in game
A $50 drop is barely worth the effort, Nintendo and even Sony would probably match it the same day. The psychological impact from a $100 drop is far greater and probably worth the wait... but it'd be too much loss for Microsoft to do this spring. That's why a SKU reshuffle makes some sense this spring, it's a far less expensive move, it's still an effective pricedrop and puts some pressure on rivals immediately after launch.
 
Sep 20, 2005
18,195
44
1,335
Nerevar said:
I don't think the public would take well to a price drop of the Wii less than 6 months from the release date of the console. When MS was forced to take that action in Europe they basically had to give away 3 games or so to the early adopters to save face. I just don't think Nintendo can do that. At best they can "remove" Wii sports from the initial package and sell it as a seperate game alongside the console for $200.
If I recall correctly, the first Xbox was launched at an inflated price in Europe.
 
Sep 29, 2006
525
0
0
Toronto
quetz67 said:
So why dont they try? Compared to the PS3 the 360 offers less functionality besides gaming (browsing, an OS, next gen media drive) and both dont even work as HDD video recorder (with the PS3 at least offering external USB HDD capability and an OS to make that possible).
Now this is just for me, but I completely disagree with you're definition of what should be in the living room.

-Browsing (yeah I know that there is a huge difference in opinion here, but personally it's not something I want)
-an OS (Really??? most people want to deal with Linux in the living room?)
-Next gen Disk Drive (did you miss the HD-DVD drive that's currently for sale?)
-USB HDD (The 360 does support this, although with limited functionality)

All in all I prefer the 360 as a node to my computer that stores my music/videos/pictures to the PS3 "I am the hub" idea.
 
Jun 7, 2004
3,914
0
0
charlequin said:
If profit wasn't relevant to MS this generation we would've seen a single, hard-drived Premium 360 for $299 launched. The entire deal with the 360 (compared to the original Xbox) is that it's built to be profitable and that positive cash flow needs to be balanced with marketshare.
The goal is still the same as on Xbox.. The execution however is different and more balanced it seems. Get it?
 
quetz67 said:
So why dont they try? Compared to the PS3 the 360 offers less functionality besides gaming (browsing, an OS, next gen media drive) and both dont even work as HDD video recorder (with the PS3 at least offering external USB HDD capability and an OS to make that possible).
Browsing? A bit superfluous.
An OS? On my television?
Next Gen Media Drive? Available.

The thing that's most valuable on my 360 as a Media Hub is its ability to recognize my iTunes playlists and stream 120 gigs of music from a FireWire drive plugged into my MacBookPro instantly and with no limitations on size. PS3, in this regard, fails the "I Want To Listen To Only El-P Beats While I Straighten Up The Living Room" Media Center Litmus Test.

Although I suppose all this functionality exists in YDL right now. How does that work anyway? Is it like Boot Camp or Classic where you can just switch? Do you still have access to your messages and friends list? (...play a game...?)
 
Jul 21, 2004
1,116
0
0
quetz67 said:
So why dont they try? Compared to the PS3 the 360 offers less functionality besides gaming (browsing, an OS, next gen media drive) and both dont even work as HDD video recorder (with the PS3 at least offering external USB HDD capability and an OS to make that possible).
There may be a thing or two that the 360 doesnt do, but conversly that is the case with the PS3 as well. Talking about now not some time in the future, because other than the Blu-Ray drive the existing 360's also have the capability to be updated to support everything the PS3 does.

Tell me how well the PS3 streams media across the network?
Tell me how well the PS3 plays custom soundtracks while you are playing?
Tell me how well the PS3 plays 720P games on a 1080i only HDTV?
Tell me how good the PS3 online service is?
etc., etc.
Tell me how well put together the overall presentation of the services the systems provide. How well are the integrated and fully functional. Crappy implementations of functionality dont impress.
 
Jun 7, 2004
6,243
30
1,350
East Clintwood said:
I don't see the Xbox360 "winning" anything with the rate it's selling at. It sells exactly as good (bad) as the first Xbox and with that it's not relevant if and when they hit 10 million sold.
Are you kidding? You're saying that high sales combined with a higher than average attach rate is irrelevant? WTF???
 
Oct 6, 2006
418
0
0
MidgarBlowedUp said:
The problem with the Xbox brand is that it doesn't turn a profit for MS. Hell, they still have 5 billion dollars to make up from last gen.
A bigger problem is to the brand is that it's hot only in US. One region can carry the console so much... US covering 60+% of the market is certainly not healthy.
 

open_mouth_

insert_foot_
Jun 9, 2004
3,591
11
1,435
The 360 is going to take North America with relative ease, imo. Wii may end up as the world-wide leader, but 360 won't be too far behind. PS3 will face a monumental collapse from last generation. Worldwide share may look something like this: 36% Wii, 34% 360, 30% PS3.

Profitability-wise the Wii and 360 will both do extremely well and PS3 will make Sony bleed. The pricepoint, the 1+ year delay to market, and all the bad press will make the PS3 a very tough sell in the next few years compared to the 360 and the Wii. NeoGAF will never be the same :D
 
Jun 7, 2004
77,909
2
0
Oregon
Dr. Kitty Muffins said:
If I recall correctly, the first Xbox was launched at an inflated price in Europe.
Yeah. So inflated MS dropped the price by a huge chunk something like two months after release, and gave a couple of free games to everyone who bought the system before the drop.
 
Oct 19, 2005
26,635
1
0
Shompola said:
The goal is still the same as on Xbox.. The execution however is different and more balanced it seems. Get it?
Yeah. My point was that "Microsoft has lots of money" isn't a counter-argument to "it would be expensive to drop the price." Xbox 1 was intentionally sold as a loss leader to break into the field, while 360 is very specifically being managed with the intent of minimizing losses as far as possible while making inroads on the market. It's true that a straight-up $100 price drop in spring would be a pretty powerful strike against Sony, but it's very possible that the economics aren't good enough for Microsoft to do so (especially since they seem to be sitting in a reasonably comfortable place already).

Pulling a Melbourne Shuffle on the SKU setup will be largely perceived as a $100 price drop and is almost certainly less costly for Microsoft than a real $100 cut, so I think jarrod is being reasonable in predicting it's what we might see, especially since that still leaves MS room for a real $50 cut in the winter if they need it.

Geoff9920 said:
I wasn't saying that they don't care if they make money or not.
Yeah, my reply was more strident than was apparently warranted. :)