Microsoft's biggest mistake this gen

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.

jrhawk42

Biggest mistake is the RROD

salxis

Bingo. My entire lunch table has 360's and one kid was saying how he has gone through 4 360's A YEAR because of the Red Ring of Death, and another kid was saying how his Modern Warfare 2 disc got completely destroyed last night.

The first kid also said his cousin's 360 just broke (His 4th or 5th one), and Microsoft actually said they wouldn't fix it, but he could go to Best Buy and trade it in for the Modern Warfare 2 Elite edition (Which is actually a really sick deal).

I see what you're saying, believe me.. When you look at who launched first gen by gen versus who "won", they do not match up. Therefore coming out first did not decide who won. I understand and concede that. But that does not mean that it has no impact, as you initially said. You have since modified "no" into "minimal" impact. How do we calculate the difference between minimal and impactful? That would seem to be a matter of opinion, unless you have a formula that formalizes such a determination and the exact stats to plug into that formula. Bottom line, all that your list of first to launchers vs. "winners" proves is that first to market doesn't equal victory, NOT that it has no impact. What evidence is there to suggest that ANY one factor led to any console winning thoughout the various gens? Do we know quantifiably EXACTLY why the NES beat the SMS? We know what factors go into sales: games (especially exclusives), price, hardware (graphical power, features, controller, etc.), advertising and other marketing activities, distribution. No console wins or loses based on any one of these factor, they all contribute to success or failure. We know that exclusives (for instance) aid in the success of a console, but do we have any hard evidence that they do? We know because it makes sense, it speaks for itself, it's common sense.dsmccracken

I say minimal because I can't honestly say it had ZERO effect. However, launching first did not help MS build up brand loyalty...they had that already. Launching first did not help MS build up hype for their console...they had that already. Launching first did not get gamers interested in the 360...they had that already.

Did launching first help them get developer support? No...that was generally talked about before launch. It also didn't help them

Meanwhile, one could easily make the case that Sony had hit the ceiling for a single conser user base. There was practically ZERO way for Sony to increase their userbase beyond what the PS2 had. So it was either going to stay the same or decrease. Practically every analyst predicted that the 36o would see increased market share primarily due to increased success and popularity of the Xbox and increasing customer satisfaction with the PS2 (DRE, no online, etc).

Further, MS made sure to listen to the criticism aimed at Sony during the PS2 days of "having no games for thier first year". So MS made sure that during their first year they had a steady stream of impressive games to get people interested. I'm sure it also helped that they falt out killed the Xbox forcing people to buy a 360 if they wanted to see new games.

Also helping the 360 MORE than a headstart? How about the closest competitor (in terms of games and style and audience) was almost double the price and hadn't announced any big launch titles? How about making sure to announce at E3 before launch the former Sony exclusives they gained?

So I can't help but look at everything that has happened over the last 4 years or more and think that EVERYTHING had more of a role than a head start. Especially since every console ever made sees its greatest success I honesly can not see how a headstart could come anywhere close to helping the 360 compared to all these other factors. It would be like someone saying there is a whole crowd out there who bought the 360 for no reason other than it came out first. I don't buy it. People may have bought it for MANY reason, but launch day wasn't one of them.

The 360 is a success for COUNTLESS reasons...a head start isn't one of them. The head start is a myth perpetrated by lemmings who, if you follow SW long enough, actually think the PS2 won because it came out first and the only reason the Xbox lost was because Sony had a head start.

No Micro$oft's biggest mistake this gen was making Windows Vista give out authorization prompts for user account control to administer accounts.

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.

rp108

Agree.

I disagree, even the PC-360 games are outselling PS3 exclusives. From a business point of view, it makes perfect sense.GulliversTravel

This, too. There are now 27+ Million PS3 owners worldwide, yet, despite them bringing out good exclusives, they don't sell as well as 360 exclusives do, even when 360 has less exclusives than PS3. Why? I, too, think that it's all because of Blu-Ray that helps them sell the console.

[QUOTE="rp108"]

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.

garland51

Agree.

I disagree, even the PC-360 games are outselling PS3 exclusives. From a business point of view, it makes perfect sense.GulliversTravel

This, too. There are now 27+ Million PS3 owners worldwide, yet, despite them bringing out good exclusives, they don't sell as well as 360 exclusives do, even when 360 has less exclusives than PS3. Why? I, too, think that it's all because of Blu-Ray that helps them sell the console.

[QUOTE="garland51"]

[QUOTE="GulliversTravel"]I disagree, even the PC-360 games are outselling PS3 exclusives. From a business point of view, it makes perfect sense.nhh18

This, too. There are now 27+ Million PS3 owners worldwide, yet, despite them bringing out good exclusives, they don't sell as well as 360 exclusives do, even when 360 has less exclusives than PS3. Why? I, too, think that it's all because of Blu-Ray that helps them sell the console.

By what I said, I mean talking about Sony's 1st/2nd party exclusives not selling very well on the PS3, while Microsoft's 1st/2nd party exclusives are selling very well on the 360. 3rd party exclusives (if any) excluded. But I can see your point.

microsofts mistake started the time they let the xbox go ,

only 4 yrs they gave it ,

i got my xbox 2 yrs before the 360 came out i mean come on , ,

that was mistake 1

mistake 2 -release 360 with faults as follows

-scratches disc-sti,ll does no remedy has been made nor effort to repair those that do

- rrod -ya ms 3 yr plan only works for older consoles

- e74 error another failure which is caused by hard drive

mistake 3

-not including the following

free online

wifi

and charging 199,99 for a hdd less 360 , ,

and the biggest mistakes are below this line you thought the above were mistakes that will cause failure

well here it goes

-dropping all their first party development studions only keeping rare turn 10 and bungie

trying to out perform nintendo when they knew it was too late, -by releasing natal i feel thats exactly what their doing instead of releasing core titles

once this thing comes youll see more milo /viva pinata etc games none cares about

and not dropping the price on many things such as

wifi cards

-games

- controllers actually they rose in price- 59,99 for a 360 controller , -they used to be 49,99 and 39,99 -discontinued wired

so ya um they need to improve not disimprove

The biggest mistake Microsoft has made it that they simply don't have enough 1st party studios, especially now that they've lost Bungie. That was a huge loss for Microsoft, but a great move on Bungie's part.

And they really haven't made any progress in correcting this. They bought Ensemble, which was a great studio, and then shut them down after one game, which got good review scores over all and sold well.

RRoD is another huge problem, but I don't think it will matter in the long run. People who want an Xbox are going to get one next console cycle, RRoD or not.

That isn't a mistake. I think many people are missing the big picture here. MS wanted to be a player in the video game industry. And now they are. The Xbox brand is just as recognized WORLDWIDE as either the Playstation or the Wii. They did a masterful job of outmanuvering Sony this gen and are rewarded with what all large corporations want, BRAND RECOGNITION.

Love it or hate it, You know what an Xbox 360 is and that is not to be underestimated. They have plenty of time to develop studios. As long as they have strong 3rd party support they are golden. They don't have to win, they just need to compete.

For example: What is the best selling game currently? Modern Warfare 2 and guess what? You can get it on the 360.

Their biggest mistake was releasing a console with such crappy build quality. In the long run, it was a pretty shrewd move to get out there before the PS3, but it cost them quite a bit.

cpu on an xbox is a xenon processor as compared to the cell proccessor on the ps3... apparantly since xbox was the first hd console to launch and the proccesser was easier to develope for all the publishers used that as the base to make all the multiplat games... this hurt sony.

I have been dying for a first party baseball game from Microsoft. It's ridiculous that if you're a baseball fan that there isn't a single acceptable baseball simulator game. 2K sports baseball games are not acceptable, they're pathetic. I have a PS3 but I prefer the 360 controller and online. I'll probably buy MLB 10 the show but if MS made a baseball game I'd be very interested. DA_B0MB

microsofts mistake started the time they let the xbox go ,

only 4 yrs they gave it ,

i got my xbox 2 yrs before the 360 came out i mean come on , ,

that was mistake 1

mistake 2 -release 360 with faults as follows

-scratches disc-sti,ll does no remedy has been made nor effort to repair those that do

- rrod -ya ms 3 yr plan only works for older consoles

- e74 error another failure which is caused by hard drive

mistake 3

-not including the following

free online

wifi

and charging 199,99 for a hdd less 360 , ,

and the biggest mistakes are below this line you thought the above were mistakes that will cause failure

well here it goes

-dropping all their first party development studions only keeping rare turn 10 and bungie

trying to out perform nintendo when they knew it was too late, -by releasing natal i feel thats exactly what their doing instead of releasing core titles

once this thing comes youll see more milo /viva pinata etc games none cares about

and not dropping the price on many things such as

wifi cards

-games

- controllers actually they rose in price- 59,99 for a 360 controller , -they used to be 49,99 and 39,99 -discontinued wired

so ya um they need to improve not disimprove

mariokart64fan

Abandoning the PC platform completely. No Microsoft PC games since 2007.

It might not be the best year for the 360 but it does a decent job in the multiplatform department. As long as there's good games coming out I don't care if they're exclusive or not.

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

This post is epic. You said all I've previously said (I started the same topic about the head start excuse being BS a while ago) and more (I never thought about how many new IP's Sony developers have started). You win the cookie of the week.

Biggest mistake is the RROD

salxis

It true..... otherwise I could've still own a 360.

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

Headstarts dont mean automatic win, but 360 still has a 7 million lead on PS3 that dosent appear to be going away, even if PS3 outsells 360 month to month.

There is truth in this, BUT RRoD (60% FAILURE rate) IS STILL an important factor that hampers the X360's success. 8)

Abandoning the PC platform completely. No Microsoft PC games since 2007.

harjyotbanwait

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"]I see what you're saying, believe me.. When you look at who launched first gen by gen versus who "won", they do not match up. Therefore coming out first did not decide who won. I understand and concede that. But that does not mean that it has no impact, as you initially said. You have since modified "no" into "minimal" impact. How do we calculate the difference between minimal and impactful? That would seem to be a matter of opinion, unless you have a formula that formalizes such a determination and the exact stats to plug into that formula. Bottom line, all that your list of first to launchers vs. "winners" proves is that first to market doesn't equal victory, NOT that it has no impact. What evidence is there to suggest that ANY one factor led to any console winning thoughout the various gens? Do we know quantifiably EXACTLY why the NES beat the SMS? We know what factors go into sales: games (especially exclusives), price, hardware (graphical power, features, controller, etc.), advertising and other marketing activities, distribution. No console wins or loses based on any one of these factor, they all contribute to success or failure. We know that exclusives (for instance) aid in the success of a console, but do we have any hard evidence that they do? We know because it makes sense, it speaks for itself, it's common sense.ZIMdoom

I say minimal because I can't honestly say it had ZERO effect. However, launching first did not help MS build up brand loyalty...they had that already. Launching first did not help MS build up hype for their console...they had that already There is hype for any major launch, true, however there was added hype in launching by itself, being the sole HD console on the market... so no, that extra hype would NOT have existed without a head start. Launching first did not get gamers interested in the 360...they had that already You honestly don't think that certain gamers who lean towards the "early adopter" spectrum bought the 360 who would have normally bought the Sony offering had it hit the market first?

Did launching first help them get developer support? No...that was generally talked about before launch Talked about, but there's a big difference between talk and seeing a console with a large install base to provide the incentive that would eventually snare FFXIII et al. It also didn't help them

Meanwhile, one could easily make the case that Sony had hit the ceiling for a single conser user base. There was practically ZERO way for Sony to increase their userbase beyond what the PS2 had. So it was either going to stay the same or decrease. Practically every analyst predicted that the 36o would see increased market share primarily due to increased success and popularity of the Xbox and increasing customer satisfaction with the PS2 (DRE, no online, etc). That the 360 would build on the Xbox was obvious. Show me the analyst that predicted that 3 years in, the PS3 STILL wouldn't have passed the sales leadthat the 360 established with the head start that you say had no impact. Strange that the current sales lead that the 360 enjoys more or less mirrors the sales of that head start...

Further, MS made sure to listen to the criticism aimed at Sony during the PS2 days of "having no games for thier first year". So MS made sure that during their first year they had a steady stream of impressive games to get people interested. I'm sure it also helped that they falt out killed the Xbox forcing people to buy a 360 if they wanted to see new games. I could argue that both of these points (1. decent games during the head start and 2. the abrubt shut-down of the Xbox) are subsets of the headstart itself and therefore aid my argument rather than yours.

Also helping the 360 MORE than a headstart? How about the closest competitor (in terms of games and ****and audience) was almost double the price and hadn't announced any big launch titles? How about making sure to announce at E3 before launch the former Sony exclusives they gained? Please point me to where I claimed that no factors aided MS "more." I'm sure that the initial PS3 price was a major factor, no doubt. More major than the head start? Sure, why not. I never said that the head start was the "most" critical cause of success.

So I can't help but look at everything that has happened over the last 4 years or more and think that EVERYTHING Everything is a big list. Is "everything" responsible for millions of sales being made while Sony didn't even have an HD console on the shelves?had more of a role than a head start. Especially since every console ever made sees its greatest success I honesly can not see how a headstart could come anywhere close to helping the 360 compared to all these other factors. It would be like someone saying there is a whole crowd out there who bought the 360 for no reason other than it came out first. Actually, there is, and market researchers call them early adopters. They're actuallyquite important to marketers and researchers, ESPECIALLY intech-related industries.I don't buy it.People may have bought it for MANY reason, but launch day wasn't one of them.

The 360 is a success for COUNTLESS reasons...a head start isn't one of them. The head start is a myth perpetrated by lemmings who, if you follow SW long enough, actually think the PS2 won because it came out first and the only reason the Xbox lost was because Sony had a head start. Two things here... though the head start isn't a "myth", even if it was it certainly wasn't the creation of lemmings. I mean, myGod, how many times have cowssaid something along the lines of "the 360 is onlyahead of the PS3 because of the head start!"

their refusual to fix RROD after all these years on the new consoles is the biggest mistake

Their biggest mistake was not making sure that their hardware was at least a little more reliable, I don't know if the one year headstart was the cause of this or not but rechecking for any error in their hardware should of been their number one priority. As for their lack of first party studio, I kind of find their lineup to be pretty good.

Headstarts dont mean automatic win, but 360 still has a 7 million lead on PS3 that dosent appear to be going away, even if PS3 outsells 360 month to month.

XboximusPrime

Uhmmm...if the PS3 outsells the 360 month to month that lead WILL go away. That is sort of the exact definition of "going away" in this example. The fact is that the 360 relies on the NA market for roughly HALF of its total sales. Sony sells fairly steady in all markets, but slowly due to launching at the worst price point imagineable. If this thanksgiving weekend is an indication of upcoming holiday sales and future NA sales, then that 7 million lead will disappear very quickly. Because the only thing keeping the 360 at that steady pace is the NA market and SOny's - so far - lack of success.

However, I would also argue that simply "holding ground" isn't a sign that of the headstart being a "success" because clearly this proves MS has been unable to capitalize AT ALL on the headstart. Even with a cheaper console with bigger game library, they are unable to capitalize. That is one more reason I say they would have seen equal success no matter WHEN they launched (within reason). I think they were going to have a 40 million user base this gen simply because of the brand and the games and people looking for a new console that isn't sony. If the 360 didn't launch first, those people still would have bought a 360...just a year later and the numbers would be the same, albeit slightly higher month to month to compensate.

1)There is hype for any major launch, true, however there was added hype in launching by itself, being the sole HD console on the market... so no, that extra hype would NOT have existed without a head start.You honestly don't think that certain gamers who lean towards the "early adopter" spectrum bought the 360 who would have normally bought the Sony offering had it hit the market first?

2) Talked about, but there's a big difference between talk and seeing a console with a large install base to provide the incentive that would eventually snare FFXIII et al.

3) That the 360 would build on the Xbox was obvious. Show me the analyst that predicted that 3 years in, the PS3 STILL wouldn't have passed the sales leadthat the 360 established with the head start that you say had no impact. Strange that the current sales lead that the 360 enjoys more or less mirrors the sales of that head start...

4) I could argue that both of these points (1. decent games during the head start and 2. the abrubt shut-down of the Xbox) are subsets of the headstart itself and therefore aid my argument rather than yours.

5) Please point me to where I claimed that no factors aided MS "more." I'm sure that the initial PS3 price was a major factor, no doubt. More major than the head start? Sure, why not. I never said that the head start was the "most" critical cause of success.

6) Everything is a big list. Is "everything" responsible for millions of sales being made while Sony didn't even have an HD console on the shelves?Actually, there is, and market researchers call them early adopters. They're actuallyquite important to marketers and researchers, ESPECIALLY intech-related industries.

7) Two things here... though the head start isn't a "myth", even if it was it certainly wasn't the creation of lemmings. I mean, myGod, how many times have cowssaid something along the lines of "the 360 is onlyahead of the PS3 because of the head start!"

dsmccracken

I appreciate being able to continue responding to someone who is providing thoughtful, rational posts. It's refreshing to have a real debate with someone who isn't acting like an ignorant fanboy. Anyway:

1) Given the launch price of the PS3 and the constant media reports of delays and production issues, etc...I don't think the media would have made a difference if MS launched later than it did. I think MS was already a proven competitor in the market and they had the media more or less on their side already. Sony, as I've said, had nowhere to go but down. And true, I honestly do not think that "early adopters" would have just gone out to buy ANY console that came out first. Sure, I'm sure there are people out there like that, but I think in terms of total gamers/customers that number is so small to be completely meaningless. I am confident that most people bought the 360 because they wanted the new Xbox. They liked the Xbox and what it offered, they liked MS's titles and they wanted to play online with XBL. Speaking for myself and people I know, their console buying decisions are primarily based on past experience, upcoming games and features. If all things ARE equal...they go with price and therefore typically wait for price drops. They don't rush out and buy it launch day if they don't truly want the console. I also truly believe that in gaming, the "early adopters" are mainly fans, gamers, and/or people who buy more than one console anyway. I highly doubt the wishy-washy are there just to take part in a line.

2) I'm not really convinced that the 360 fanbase cares about FF13. But aside from that, keep in mind MS announced they would get GTA, they would get Capcom and Resident Evil and many other groups as well. If someone is chosing between Halo and RE and GTA and they find out all those games will now be on Xbox, whereas previously 2/3 were Sony only...I think that playsa HUGE role in making up their mind.

3) I concede this point. Analaysts expected the PS3 to sell 100 million again. But that was before Sony announced a $600 price tag. Also, as I've said right before posting here...I would argue the fact that the 360 hasn't been able to capitalize on the headstart AT ALL is proof that the headstart is not important. Those 7 million probably would have bought a 360 anyway, just at a later date. If the headstart mattered, there should be some sort of evidence of this. Like MS selling more consoles than analysts originally projected, or by constantly INCREASING their lead due to a lower price and/or more games. But none of this has happened. I think this is because there was a certain number of people who wanted a 360 and a certain number willing to buy the high-priced PS3. Although this may all change as prices continue to drop below the previous norm of $299.

4) Ms could have done the exact same thing even if they were launching on the exact same day as the PS3.

5) I never meant to imply that you stated it was THE most important. My point was mainly that if the headstart is the very last thing on the list of MS's benefits...is it really a benefit at all? I would argue no after considering the other points and how much important and relevant they are in the customers purchasing decisions.

6) Early adopters exist for almost any technology related product and its launch sales. However, I've never before heard this theory that "early adopters" are a group that will just buy ANYTHING that comes out first. The Concept of early adopters refers to consumers who WANT a product and buy it first because the want to be one of the first to own it. So there was always going to be early 360 adopters and early PS3 adopters no matter WHEN the consoles came out. I've never seen a study or report that would lead me to believe there are early CONSOLE adopters who will just buy ANY console because it comes out first and they have to have it.

7) Perhaps you are right about that. But frankly, I probably posted in those threads as well making the same arguements.

1) Given the launch price of the PS3 and the constant media reports of delays and production issues, etc...I don't think the media would have made a difference if MS launched later than it did. I think MS was already a proven competitor in the market and they had the media more or less on their side already. Sony, as I've said, had nowhere to go but down. And true, I honestly do not think that "early adopters" would have just gone out to buy ANY console that came out first. Sure, I'm sure there are people out there like that, but I think in terms of total gamers/customers that number is so small to be completely meaningless. I am confident that most people bought the 360 because they wanted the new Xbox. They liked the Xbox and what it offered, they liked MS's titles and they wanted to play online with XBL. Speaking for myself and people I know, their console buying decisions are primarily based on past experience, upcoming games and features. If all things ARE equal...they go with price and therefore typically wait for price drops. They don't rush out and buy it launch day if they don't truly want the console. I also truly believe that in gaming, the "early adopters" are mainly fans, gamers, and/or people who buy more than one console anyway. I highly doubt the wishy-washy are there just to take part in a line.

2) I'm not really convinced that the 360 fanbase cares about FF13. But aside from that, keep in mind MS announced they would get GTA, they would get Capcom and Resident Evil and many other groups as well. If someone is chosing between Halo and RE and GTA and they find out all those games will now be on Xbox, whereas previously 2/3 were Sony only...I think that playsa HUGE role in making up their mind.

3) I concede this point. Analaysts expected the PS3 to sell 100 million again. But that was before Sony announced a $600 price tag. Also, as I've said right before posting here...I would argue the fact that the 360 hasn't been able to capitalize on the headstart AT ALL is proof that the headstart is not important. Those 7 million probably would have bought a 360 anyway, just at a later date. If the headstart mattered, there should be some sort of evidence of this. Like MS selling more consoles than analysts originally projected, or by constantly INCREASING their lead due to a lower price and/or more games. But none of this has happened. I think this is because there was a certain number of people who wanted a 360 and a certain number willing to buy the high-priced PS3. Although this may all change as prices continue to drop below the previous norm of $299.

4) Ms could have done the exact same thing even if they were launching on the exact same day as the PS3.

5) I never meant to imply that you stated it was THE most important. My point was mainly that if the headstart is the very last thing on the list of MS's benefits...is it really a benefit at all? I would argue no after considering the other points and how much important and relevant they are in the customers purchasing decisions.

6) Early adopters exist for almost any technology related product and its launch sales. However, I've never before heard this theory that "early adopters" are a group that will just buy ANYTHING that comes out first. The Concept of early adopters refers to consumers who WANT a product and buy it first because the want to be one of the first to own it. So there was always going to be early 360 adopters and early PS3 adopters no matter WHEN the consoles came out. I've never seen a study or report that would lead me to believe there are early CONSOLE adopters who will just buy ANY console because it comes out first and they have to have it.

7) Perhaps you are right about that. But frankly, I probably posted in those threads as well making the same arguements.

Abandoning the PC platform completely. No Microsoft PC games since 2007.

harjyotbanwait

It's a known fact that Microsoft banks on multiplat games for their console. If Sony were to give more multiplat games the treatment they are giving Bayonetta (Sony assisted face-lift), Microsoft really has something to worry about in the games department. All they'll have is a superior online service, and even the Playstation Network is getting a premium service comparable to LIVE.

The way they handle their first party titles and rushing the 360 out to the market.

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

VeryGnawty

If you think that the 360 failed, what do you think of the PS3?

HMM their bigges mistakes couldonly define the next 12 days of xmas song

on the first day of xmas ms gave me -1 hefy bill on the 2nd day of xmas ms gave me 2 problems -2 problems and 1 hefty bill

on the 3rdday of xmas ms gave me 3 weeks for waiting 2 problems and 1 hefty bill

on the forth day of xmas ms sent me 4 repair bills 3 weeks of waiting 2 problems and 1 heft bill

on the fifth day of xmas ms gave me 5 rings of death 4 repair bills 3 weeks of waiting 2 problems 1 hefty multiplayer bill

on the sixth day of xmas ms gave me 6 minutes on hold 5 rings of death 4 repair bills 3 weeks of waiting 2 problems 1 hefty live bill

on the seventh day of xmas ms gave me 7 excuses 6 minutes on hold 5 rings of death 4 repairbills 3 weeks of waiting 2 problems 1 hefty live bill

on th eighth day of xmas ms sent me 8 cardboard boxes 7 excuses 6 minutes on hold 5 rings of death 4 repair bills3 weeks of waiting 2 problems 1 hefty live bill

on the 9th day of xmas ms sent me 9 wrong addresses 8 cardboardboxes 7 excuses 6 minutes on hold 5 rings of death 4 repair bills 3 weeks of waiting 2 big problesm and 1 hefty live bill

on the 10th day of xmas ms sent me 10 more hard drive failures 9 wrong adresses 8 cardboard boxes 7 excuses 6 minutes on hold 5 rings of death 4 repair bills 3 weeks of waiting 2 big problems and a hefty yr of xbox live bills

on the 11th day of xmas ms gave me 11 representitives in 1 phone call 10 hard drive failures 9 wrong addresses 8 cardboard boxes 7 excuses 6 minutes on hold 5 red rings of death 4 repair bills 3 eeks of waiting 2 problems and hefty yr of xbl bills

on the final day of xmas

microsoft sent me 12 dollars worth of phone bills 11 representitives on a phone 10 hard drive failures 9 wrong addresses 8 cardboard boxes 7 bad excuses 6 minutes on hold 5 rings of death 4 repair bills 3 weeks of witing 2 big problems 1 hefty xbox live bill

Microsoft definatly needs some more exclusives that are JUST 360 exclusive...but its hard for them to do that when they have to support the PC aswell.

Actually I think Microsoft is feeling pretty good about itself. Everytime someone posts one of those NPD (or whatever) sales update, we see game sales for the 360 overwhelmingly dominanting the other platforms. So they managed to destroy the competition in profit-making despite the phenomenon we are witnessing now of PS3 exclusives winning the most in end of year awards. Note, i'm not commenting at all on game quality. If this thread is discussing Microsoft from a business point of view, its clear they did extremely well.

As for the future. Well I see it going PS3, because everyone I know wants a Blue-Ray player at least by the time Avatar hits the discs. Throw in their critically dominant exclusives... My uncle, who doesn't game, was thinking on getting a PS3 as a blue-ray player. I showed him some footage of Uncharted 2... now it's practically a done deal.

Microsoft definatly needs some more exclusives that are JUST 360 exclusive...but its hard for them to do that when they have to support the PC aswell.

destro123

Why would they do that? This is a business and they want to make money, so by releasing games on both, they make more money. It must be an easy porting job from one to the other because a lot of games are PC/360.

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.