Microsoft's biggest mistake this gen

LINK

What do you think?

execute this traitor!

This is the 360's WORST year by far.

Even at that, MW2 sold the most. Also, their exclusives sold well. Halo ODST sold over 2 million, Forza 3 crossed the million mark, and Halo wars isnt far behind.

I DO agree my exclusives for the 360 were decent at best. If anything, the multiplat sequals were the best part of this year imo.

I also think they REALLY need to do something w/ the console now. If you look at live, they've been keeping it fresh and easy to use. Millions lhave accounts.

They just need to make a new 360 model thats fresh w/ maybe more features. Dropping the price of live would be nice.

Biggest mistake is the RROD

Well, I think their biggest mistake is believing that a head start MATTERS, when never in the history of consoles has a head start determing which console is more successful. I still hear 360 fanboys talking about the 360's success as if the headstart was the cause of it. NO, if anything, the rush to be first is what led to the RROD which hurt MS financially. Further, the headstart hasn't shown any signs that it has provided additional success for the 360 that it wouldn't have had anyway. It is a popular brand with a growing fanbase REGARDLESS of when it launched. Hell, I was predicting LAST GEN that MS's next console would sell roughly 40 million at the expense of the PS brand and so far that has proven true. It had nothing to do with a "head start".

MS was smart to front load their first year with big games that grabbed people's attention. And with the PS3 launching at like $600, the 360 could have launched a year or more later and we'd still see the same level of success. The headstart arguement is BS.

As for the lack of first party? I'm no Xbox fan...and yet I disagree. MS has a decent number of exclusive titles and have bought a bunch of exclusive content as well. The PROBLEM seems to be that outside a couple exclusives, MS seems obsessed with IMAGE more than actual gaming. They only really promote the FPS type games with big tough guy heroes. And they have been extremely focused since day one with throwing money around trying to get all the biggest PS games on their console so they can brag about having PS games. That doesn't seem like much of a strategy to me. It certainly doesn't HURT them at all, but I don't think anyone is going to suddenly rush out and buy a 360 over a PS3 because now the 360 has a bunch of the same games. It is the "me too" console. No, people HAVE BEEN buying the 360 because of its exclusives. The problem is that MS should put moer emphasis on new and innovative exclusives. I mean, what happened to all those games Rare was supposedly working on? MS killed them because non-shooters weren't getting enough attention. Why is MS now pumping out Halo games like every year instead of trying to come out with new ideas and new games?

People can bash Sony for a wide variety of reasons. But the one thing you can't take away is that no company (debatably ever) has been as willing as Sony to create new IPs, promote new games and try new ideas,and stick by those games even if they don't sell particularly well.

They Listed ND as first party? I thought ND was 2nd party.

On topic, yes everyone knows first party studios are your base, with third party filling in the gaps. MS tried a different approach this Gen , Timed exclusives has paid off for the most part with the GTA DLC etc.

MS will have to get in gear to get there next console out the door after Reach drops because they won't have much left in the tank for this gen in terms of exclusives riding the hype train (maybe GEOW3).

MS having more studios is better for gaming because it pushes more quality titles and makes the competition with Sony (and in some opinions Nintendo) even better. It's sad because they closed down a lot of studios this gen and sold off some good IPS (mech warrior/crimson skies), you can't tell me it wouldn't be sweet to be playing current gen crimson skies.

Well, I think their biggest mistake is believing that a head start MATTERS, when never in the history of consoles has a head start determing which console is more successful. I still hear 360 fanboys talking about the 360's success as if the headstart was the cause of it. NO, if anything, the rush to be first is what led to the RROD which hurt MS financially. Further, the headstart hasn't shown any signs that it has provided additional success for the 360 that it wouldn't have had anyway. It is a popular brand with a growing fanbase REGARDLESS of when it launched. Hell, I was predicting LAST GEN that MS's next console would sell roughly 40 million at the expense of the PS brand and so far that has proven true. It had nothing to do with a "head start".

MS was smart to front load their first year with big games that grabbed people's attention. And with the PS3 launching at like $600, the 360 could have launched a year or more later and we'd still see the same level of success. The headstart arguement is BS.

As for the lack of first party? I'm no Xbox fan...and yet I disagree. MS has a decent number of exclusive titles and have bought a bunch of exclusive content as well. The PROBLEM seems to be that outside a couple exclusives, MS seems obsessed with IMAGE more than actual gaming. They only really promote the FPS type games with big tough guy heroes. And they have been extremely focused since day one with throwing money around trying to get all the biggest PS games on their console so they can brag about having PS games. That doesn't seem like much of a strategy to me. It certainly doesn't HURT them at all, but I don't think anyone is going to suddenly rush out and buy a 360 over a PS3 because now the 360 has a bunch of the same games. It is the "me too" console. No, people HAVE BEEN buying the 360 because of its exclusives. The problem is that MS should put moer emphasis on new and innovative exclusives. I mean, what happened to all those games Rare was supposedly working on? MS killed them because non-shooters weren't getting enough attention. Why is MS now pumping out Halo games like every year instead of trying to come out with new ideas and new games?

People can bash Sony for a wide variety of reasons. But the one thing you can't take away is that no company (debatably ever) has been as willing as Sony to create new IPs, promote new games and try new ideas,and stick by those games even if they don't sell particularly well.

RROD was their biggest mistake.

MS does fine with 1st party. I'd be willing to bet they've sold more 1st party software than Sony. What a mistake on their part.

Only fanboys deny the importance of games exclusive to the PC/360. Left4Dead 1&2, Gears of War 1&2, Alan Wake, Splinter Cell Conviction, Mass Effect 1&2, and more. There's 8 blockbuster games not on PS3. Just as good as exclusives from MS point of view.

I think the only mistake was the unreliable hardware. I see no problem with its lineup. Its incredibly large and diverse

Well, I think their biggest mistake is believing that a head start MATTERS, when never in the history of consoles has a head start determing which console is more successful. I still hear 360 fanboys talking about the 360's success as if the headstart was the cause of it. NO, if anything, the rush to be first is what led to the RROD which hurt MS financially. Further, the headstart hasn't shown any signs that it has provided additional success for the 360 that it wouldn't have had anyway. It is a popular brand with a growing fanbase REGARDLESS of when it launched. Hell, I was predicting LAST GEN that MS's next console would sell roughly 40 million at the expense of the PS brand and so far that has proven true. It had nothing to do with a "head start".

MS was smart to front load their first year with big games that grabbed people's attention. And with the PS3 launching at like $600, the 360 could have launched a year or more later and we'd still see the same level of success. The headstart arguement is BS.

As for the lack of first party? I'm no Xbox fan...and yet I disagree. MS has a decent number of exclusive titles and have bought a bunch of exclusive content as well. The PROBLEM seems to be that outside a couple exclusives, MS seems obsessed with IMAGE more than actual gaming. They only really promote the FPS type games with big tough guy heroes. And they have been extremely focused since day one with throwing money around trying to get all the biggest PS games on their console so they can brag about having PS games. That doesn't seem like much of a strategy to me. It certainly doesn't HURT them at all, but I don't think anyone is going to suddenly rush out and buy a 360 over a PS3 because now the 360 has a bunch of the same games. It is the "me too" console. No, people HAVE BEEN buying the 360 because of its exclusives. The problem is that MS should put moer emphasis on new and innovative exclusives. I mean, what happened to all those games Rare was supposedly working on? MS killed them because non-shooters weren't getting enough attention. Why is MS now pumping out Halo games like every year instead of trying to come out with new ideas and new games?

People can bash Sony for a wide variety of reasons. But the one thing you can't take away is that no company (debatably ever) has been as willing as Sony to create new IPs, promote new games and try new ideas,and stick by those games even if they don't sell particularly well.

ZIMdoom

You are dead wrond about MS launching first. That was the best thing they could've done. Sony a nd Nintendo had brand power, where MS was more new to the console market and Xbox 1 was not that good. If all consoles launched at the same time, Xbox would've been killed by PS3 and Nintendo Wii, simply of the name, Nintendo and Sony are more popular than MS, when it comes to consoles. Or we're more popular,MS has now made a name for itself with the 360.

Everyone, including myself would've just over looked the 360 if all consoles launched at the same time.

So detetmine a consoles success by how many it sales? Not by how much money they make off said console? MS launching 1st put them in the place they are right now, which is in 2nd with a lot more market share than they had with the oridinal XBOX. Even if Sony passes them the damage is done. Sony, by far, lost the most market share and will NEVER gain that back this gen. MS did what it wanted and that was to gain market share and make a profitable console. The only mistakes made this gen are by Sony. kingtito

1) generally speaking, more sales typically results in more money being made. More console sales means more game sales, more peripheral sales, etc, which result in more profit offsetting the loses made on consoles. At least until consoles are able to make a profit on their own.

2) Sales and making money has NOTHING to do with launching first. Sorry, but just saying it over and over again doesn't make it so. Launching 1st did not put them in the place they are right now. Making a powerful console at an affordable price and front stacking your first year with a large number of big and impressive titles is what put MS in the place they are in right now. You have ZERO proof that MS increasing their user base wouldn't have happened regardless of when they came out. Sony increased their user based for the PS2...they didn't launch first. Some would argue they didn't even have any games for a whole year. Yet people had respect and appreciation for the brand, and had a good idea of what games it would offer so they supported it. Mainstream appeal also helps to increase a consoles user base from one gen to the next. But NEVER has a headstart mattered in HISTORY....and there is ZERO evidence that MS has benefited from it this gen. That is a fact.

3) I would also argue that when you sell like 150 million consoles in a gen, you have nowhere to go but down. Sony was never going to increase their market share this gen no matter what they did. They could only lose market share, especially with the rising popularity of MS's console. It certianly didn't help that the PS3 was one of the most expensive consoles in history. Certainly the most expensive to survive.

4) I agree that Ms did what they wanted - gain market share and make a profit. The mistake is thinking that the headstart had anything to do with ANY of that. It didn't.

5) If you think ONLY Sony made mistakes this gen then there is no point in even talking with you beyond this post. You are clearly to blinded by fanboy goggles and your knowledge of experience in the gaming industry is too low to form a proper opinion.

You are dead wrond about MS launching first. That was the best thing they could've done. Sony a nd Nintendo had brand power, where MS was more new to the console market and Xbox 1 was not that good. If all consoles launched at the same time, Xbox would've been killed by PS3 and Nintendo Wii, simply of the name, Nintendo and Sony are more popular than MS, when it comes to consoles. Or we're more popular,MS has now made a name for itself with the 360.

Everyone, including myself would've just over looked the 360 if all consoles launched at the same time.

RAGINGxPONY

I doubt that HIGHLY. If that logic were true, then MS wouldn't have sold one single Xbox when they entered the market because they had no name and everyone would have overlooked it for PS2. Yet somehow, the Xbox beat the well known Nintendo brand and sold about 30 million consoles world wide. Gee, quite the feat for a company with no name...if you think MS is not a "name" or "brand" that people are aware of of course.

If MS can enter the industry at a time when Sony is dominating more than anyone in the HISTORY of consoles is dominating, and sell 30 million consoles...what makes you think their follow up console wouldn't be supported? Especially after all the work they did building brand recognition, first and second party games, getting MORE developer support, gaining more games that used to be Sony exclusive, etc. The fact is the XBox1 was a successful console that had a fair amount of support and costomer loyalty. That was only going to INCREASE going into this new gen, not decrease.

The funny thing is I am a Sony and Nintendo fan. I don't care for the but I respect it more than the original Xbox which I believe never should have EVER existed. The fact that I am defending the Xbox right now from people who are rewriting history claiming "XBox 1 was not that good" is the pinacle of irony.

[QUOTE="RAGINGxPONY"]

ZIMdoom

I doubt that HIGHLY. If that logic were true, then MS wouldn't have sold one single Xbox when they entered the market because they had no name and everyone would have overlooked it for PS2. Yet somehow, the Xbox beat the well known Nintendo brand and sold about 30 million consoles world wide. Gee, quite the feat for a company with no name...if you think MS is not a "name" or "brand" that people are aware of of course.

If MS can enter the industry at a time when Sony is dominating more than anyone in the HISTORY of consoles is dominating, and sell 30 million consoles...what makes you think their follow up console wouldn't be supported? Especially after all the work they did building brand recognition, first and second party games, getting MORE developer support, gaining more games that used to be Sony exclusive, etc. The fact is the XBox1 was a successful console that had a fair amount of support and costomer loyalty. That was only going to INCREASE going into this new gen, not decrease.

The funny thing is I am a Sony and Nintendo fan. I don't care for the but I respect it more than the original Xbox which I believe never should have EVER existed. The fact that I am defending the Xbox right now from people who are rewriting history claiming "XBox 1 was not that good" is the pinacle of irony.

No dude, it was able to sell that much because it had NO competition for the first year it was on the market. People actually took note of it and saw that it was a very good machine.

Such as myself, I was waiting for a PS3 all along, but i went into wal-mart one day and they had the 360 out so i could try it out, so I did and thought it was great, never saw such awesome graphics before. And that's when i bought my 360. I loved PS2 and thought the Xbox 1 was a joke. And if PS3 launched at the same time 360 did, I probably would've went with the brand i trusted, which was Sony!

Am sure alot of people would've done the same.

Sorry ZIM, MS launching the 360 before the PS3 was crucial to MS success this gen. The 10 million user base ensured devs would switch from exclusive Playstation development to multiplat. Because of the extra year there are always more possible sales on the 360. That's a fact.

MS got the hardcore early-adopting online gamers. That's why they have such a high attach rate. Then those gamers talk their friends into buying a 360 also.

If MS releases the 720 earlier than the PS4 the pattern will repeat again, but this time more people will jump in early and the lead will be 15 million instead of 8-10 million.

Sorry ZIM, MS launching the 360 before the PS3 was crucial to MS success this gen. The 10 million user base ensured devs would switch from exclusive Playstation development to multiplat. Because of the extra year there are always more possible sales on the 360. That's a fact.

MS got the hardcore early-adopting online gamers. That's why they have such a high attach rate. Then those gamers talk their friends into buying a 360 also.

If MS releases the 720 earlier than the PS4 the pattern will repeat again, but this time more people will jump in early and the lead will be 15 million instead of 8-10 million.

gamecubepad

Well, I think their biggest mistake is believing that a head start MATTERS, when never in the history of consoles has a head start determing which console is more successful. I still hear 360 fanboys talking about the 360's success as if the headstart was the cause of it. NO, if anything, the rush to be first is what led to the RROD which hurt MS financially. Further, the headstart hasn't shown any signs that it has provided additional success for the 360 that it wouldn't have had anyway. It is a popular brand with a growing fanbase REGARDLESS of when it launched. Hell, I was predicting LAST GEN that MS's next console would sell roughly 40 million at the expense of the PS brand and so far that has proven true. It had nothing to do with a "head start".

MS was smart to front load their first year with big games that grabbed people's attention. And with the PS3 launching at like $600, the 360 could have launched a year or more later and we'd still see the same level of success. The headstart arguement is BS.

As for the lack of first party? I'm no Xbox fan...and yet I disagree. MS has a decent number of exclusive titles and have bought a bunch of exclusive content as well. The PROBLEM seems to be that outside a couple exclusives, MS seems obsessed with IMAGE more than actual gaming. They only really promote the FPS type games with big tough guy heroes. And they have been extremely focused since day one with throwing money around trying to get all the biggest PS games on their console so they can brag about having PS games. That doesn't seem like much of a strategy to me. It certainly doesn't HURT them at all, but I don't think anyone is going to suddenly rush out and buy a 360 over a PS3 because now the 360 has a bunch of the same games. It is the "me too" console. No, people HAVE BEEN buying the 360 because of its exclusives. The problem is that MS should put moer emphasis on new and innovative exclusives. I mean, what happened to all those games Rare was supposedly working on? MS killed them because non-shooters weren't getting enough attention. Why is MS now pumping out Halo games like every year instead of trying to come out with new ideas and new games?

People can bash Sony for a wide variety of reasons. But the one thing you can't take away is that no company (debatably ever) has been as willing as Sony to create new IPs, promote new games and try new ideas,and stick by those games even if they don't sell particularly well.

I would agree if software sales actually backed up this claim. PS3 exclusives sales are poor, plain and simple. So it seems obvious people aren't buying PS3s for these exclusives. In my opinion, it's Blu-ray that is the main selling point for the PS3 not exclusives.

execute this traitor!

shoryuken_

Biggest mistake is the RROD

salxis

I disagree and I don't even have a 360.

RROD was by far their biggest mistake ever. And one of the reasons I don't have a 360 and don't plan to.

Despite not having 1st party studios, MS and 360 was able to sustain and increase market share compared to the original Xbox and have done so successfully since 2005. Also, the 360 library has a plethora of games, exclusive or timed, that have made the console a viable gaming platform.

You are correct that a head start can not, and has not, determined the winner of any gen. However, this does not mean that a head start doesn't matter (re. has no impact), it only means that it is only one of a number of factors, and can't by itself determine the winner. I think that the 360 would be doing much better than it currently is had it not been for the RROD, it's sharing of several high-profile games with the PC, and it's lack of focus on new IPs and first/second party dev't... so I certainly can't claim that the headstart guaranteed overwhelming success. However, if all those same factors were in place but with the 360 releasing a year later than the Wii and the PS3, it's not hard to imagine that it would have fared far worse than it has. So while I wouldn't say that a head start is the only thing or the most important thing, all things being equal being first to market is certainly a desirable thing, it DOES matter.dsmccracken

Consoles that were first to market in each gen:

NES - Genesis - Saturn - Dreamcast - 360

Consoles that "won"each gen by sales:

NES - SNES - PS1 - PS2 - Wii

So what possible evidence is there to say that the 360 coming out first made ANY sort of difference? I'm not saying coming out first is bad. I'm saying it has very minimal impact on whether or not that console will succeed. The 360 was going to sell 30 - 40 million regardless of when it launched. To argue otherwise is just ignorance of what happened last gen, MS's business plans and the realities of the gaming industry.

Naw, the 360's got a good share of quality exclusives in my book, though they may not be first party it doesn't change the fact that gears 2 is a great deal of fun

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]You are correct that a head start can not, and has not, determined the winner of any gen. However, this does not mean that a head start doesn't matter (re. has no impact), it only means that it is only one of a number of factors, and can't by itself determine the winner. I think that the 360 would be doing much better than it currently is had it not been for the RROD, it's sharing of several high-profile games with the PC, and it's lack of focus on new IPs and first/second party dev't... so I certainly can't claim that the headstart guaranteed overwhelming success. However, if all those same factors were in place but with the 360 releasing a year later than the Wii and the PS3, it's not hard to imagine that it would have fared far worse than it has. So while I wouldn't say that a head start is the only thing or the most important thing, all things being equal being first to market is certainly a desirable thing, it DOES matter.ZIMdoom

Consoles that were first to market in each gen:

NES - Genesis - Saturn - Dreamcast - 360

Consoles that "won"each gen by sales:

NES - SNES - PS1 - PS2 - Wii

So what possible evidence is there to say that the 360 coming out first made ANY sort of difference? I'm not saying coming out first is bad. I'm saying it has very minimal impact on whether or not that console will succeed. The 360 was going to sell 30 - 40 million regardless of when it launched. To argue otherwise is just ignorance of what happened last gen, MS's business plans and the realities of the gaming industry.

I said itbefore and Ill say it again, MS needs more exclusive first party games...Dont get me wrong I love upcoming ALAN WAKE, Mass Effect2,Halo:Reach and possiblely a new Gears of War game but we need new original ones!!!.....This reason alone is what made me get a ps3 :|

Get over it. The 360 is a success and it's in large part because it launched 1st. Launching 1st was MS only hope of cutting into Sony's market share. Guess what.....it worked. I don't understand why you're so head strong to understand this. I know you're a Sony fanboy but sometimes you just need to remove those glasses. It's 4 years into this gen and Sony is still in 3rd. kingtito

Guess what. The 360 launching first was the only hope for the sun to keep rising. Guess what...it worked! Thank goodness the 360 came out first because clearly, if it didn't, the sun would have disappeared!!!!!

Do you get it now?Just because you repeat something over and over, without any evidence to back it, doesn't make it true. You are confusing correlation with causation. Just because MS did two things doesn't automatically mean they are connected. And to continue arguing otherwise despite ZERO proof or evidence to back this up is just wrong and illogical. Meanwhile I have stated a number of different arguements showing that MS was going to improve their marketshare regardless of when they launched.

Your lack of logic only continues throughout this post by accusing me of being a Sony fanboy trying to take something away from MS. I am the one who is saying the 360 was going to be a success no matter what. It is yourself and the other lemmings making posts saying "Xbox wasn't that good" and "the head start was the only chance MS had to get people's attention" and "if not for the headstart nobody would even know what the Xbox is." Seriously, what kind of bizaro world have we entered when the SOny fan is saying MS was gauranteed to succeed and the MS fan is arguing that the 360 is worthless and only the headstart saved it?

I find that highly strange.

LINK

What do you think?

sayonara89

this is so true they have no 1st party they need good game some of them might not even be exclusive

It's a big problem for 360. It's at the point where it almost has nothing except multiplat games.Parasomniac

This "360 has no exclusives" argument is getting really annoying :? In fact it has more A+ exclusives than PS3...

making the xbox 360, that failed, dilapidated piece of garbage

Charging for online play is the biggest mistake and it ultimately has a negative impact on sales.

I realize that the xbox360 is cheaper than the ps3 and it should be. Not becuz you don't have to pay for online if you don't want to but becuz the quality of the ps3 is overall better.

I don't know if anyone has checked ebay lately but if I buy another ps3 it is bound to be from there seeing as I can get one for $200. I'm might consider buying a 360 for $50 off of ebay but not a $100.

Charging for online play is the biggest mistake and it ultimately has a negative impact on sales.

I realize that the xbox360 is cheaper than the ps3 and it should be. Not becuz you don't have to pay for online if you don't want to but becuz the quality of the ps3 is overall better.

Sonwhy

charging Online has far from been negative on the sales, as I prefer quality over quantity

While I agree 360 should be cheaper than ps3, there basicly the same in graphics, the only plus is the blu-ray feature that is actually helping sony sell

[QUOTE="Sonwhy"]

Charging for online play is the biggest mistake and it ultimately has a negative impact on sales.

I realize that the xbox360 is cheaper than the ps3 and it should be. Not becuz you don't have to pay for online if you don't want to but becuz the quality of the ps3 is overall better.

scarface_dm

charging Online has far from been negative on the sales, as I prefer quality over quantity

While I agree 360 should be cheaper than ps3, there basicly the same in graphics, the only plus is the blu-ray feature that is actually helping sony sell

The whole point is think of how many more 360's they would have sold had the online been free. As long as they keep charging for online play and the ps3 gets cheaper and cheaper eventually they are going to have to make the online free or cut off the 360 like they did with the previous xbox.

When sony drop ps3 for $200 who is going to pay $100 for an xbox and $50 after that to pay for online play when that only last 2 years and people expect ps3 to last at least 3 years. Given the money you put into both consoles over 3 years the ps3 is cheaper.

Biggest mistake is the RROD

salxis

[QUOTE="salxis"]

Biggest mistake is the RROD

Tjeremiah1988

Its not so much the xbox RROD but its rather how MS goes about fixing it. What I mean is whether to charge money to fix something that is their problem. It should have been fixed for free.

I think that this problem is common between next gen console owners and I think the way in which consoles companies have chosen to handle it after console owners have paid several hundered dollars for the machine and take good care of them is going to come back to bite the MS and Sony in the *** come next gen. When they think they can do it all over again and charge around $500 for a machine.

I know one thing I won't pay any more than $300 for a next gen machine becuz of all these breakdowns that console companies refused to fix for free. I will just keep playing ps3.

Biggest mistake? Hmmm.... Charging too much for certain accessories which in reality are standard PC components like the hard disk upgrades and the Wireless lan adapters, which have been customised to only work on the 360, those are my only complaints about MS. I don't really have a problem with XBLs gold service as the fees work out to mere pocket change per week I started reading that linked article and i personally disagree with the whole disillusioned statement of "Halo was the Xbox's saving grace" Halo was my 1st Xbox game, but after completing it i didn't go back to play it again. At the time, i wanted Malice over Halo but that wasn't out for ages, even then it wasn't what i hoped for. (After seeing tech demos of it) i've also tried Halo 2 and 3 and to be fair, i didn't like them, so i personally disagree with the halo statement, besides, my 1st retail game on the 360 was actually PDZ which i still would rather play than halo, sure the characters looked like plastic dolls but i enjoyed itQuadster

Yes, but one has to wonder how much MS relies on those over priced accessories to make their profits. Sony included everything in their console and who knows if they will ever make any money off the PS3. Meanwhile, MS released a bunch of "options" like memory cards, faceplates, HDDs, HD-DVD add on, etc...it sucks for the consumer who WANTS those things, but MS was quick to turn a profit. And I'm fairly certain that MS has a higher profit margin per add-on sold compared to per game sold.

Sorry ZIM, MS launching the 360 before the PS3 was crucial to MS success this gen. The 10 million user base ensured devs would switch from exclusive Playstation development to multiplat. Because of the extra year there are always more possible sales on the 360. That's a fact.

MS got the hardcore early-adopting online gamers. That's why they have such a high attach rate. Then those gamers talk their friends into buying a 360 also.

If MS releases the 720 earlier than the PS4 the pattern will repeat again, but this time more people will jump in early and the lead will be 15 million instead of 8-10 million.

gamecubepad

[QUOTE="salxis"]

Biggest mistake is the RROD

Tjeremiah1988

Not so much RROD but the lack of solution for RROD. Extra dab of thermal paste is not exactly a solution, nor is keeping up production and sales when there is a definite flaw.What, like 3 chipsets later and it's still a concern.

As for exclusives, well they paid for alot of exclusives early on and it's turning out to bitem big time. Just goes to show the easy way is not always the best way.

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]You are correct that a head start can not, and has not, determined the winner of any gen. However, this does not mean that a head start doesn't matter (re. has no impact), it only means that it is only one of a number of factors, and can't by itself determine the winner. I think that the 360 would be doing much better than it currently is had it not been for the RROD, it's sharing of several high-profile games with the PC, and it's lack of focus on new IPs and first/second party dev't... so I certainly can't claim that the headstart guaranteed overwhelming success. However, if all those same factors were in place but with the 360 releasing a year later than the Wii and the PS3, it's not hard to imagine that it would have fared far worse than it has. So while I wouldn't say that a head start is the only thing or the most important thing, all things being equal being first to market is certainly a desirable thing, it DOES matter.ZIMdoom

Consoles that were first to market in each gen:

NES - Genesis - Saturn - Dreamcast - 360

Consoles that "won"each gen by sales:

NES - SNES - PS1 - PS2 - Wii

So what possible evidence is there to say that the 360 coming out first made ANY sort of difference? I'm not saying coming out first is bad. I'm saying it has very minimal impact on whether or not that console will succeed. The 360 was going to sell 30 - 40 million regardless of when it launched. To argue otherwise is just ignorance of what happened last gen, MS's business plans and the realities of the gaming industry.

To argue otherwise is just ignorance of what happened last gen, MS's business plans and the realities of the gaming industry.

ZIMdoom

No internal Hard Drive. By far. Main reason why draw distance, and pop in are better on ps3 is because of this. Which was really dumb on microsoft part because this was a huge advantage that the XBOX had on the gamecube and ps2.

This is only a big deal in system wars, but out in the general market it doesn't matter at all. All most consumers see is the games that 360 has that ps3 doesn't. Gear of War, Halo, Mass Effect, and tons of other popular games fit this mold.

From a financial perspective the biggest mistake was letting sony time their price drop, and trying to compete $ per $ instead of under cutting the copetition faster. Instead Sony was able to match their price cut w/ their best software releases to date. Basically they're letting sony call the shots, and taking a beating on it. Maybe they're busy positioning the 360 for a big natal release in 10, but that might be too late. On the otherhand if Natal captures consumers it could float MS's momentium into the next gen.