Originally posted by daxus
Had Microsoft of given away the XBox on street corners, they would no doubt currently of surpassed the PS2 sales worldwide (I assume!)
Would this be a successful entry into the console market?
-
An all round excellent first post daxus - and one I completely agree with.
Had Microsoft of given away the XBox on street corners, they would no doubt currently of surpassed the PS2 sales worldwide (I assume!)
Would this be a successful entry into the console market? -
If they do eventually start making a profit and fulfil their original aim of XBox (which was setting up a global broadband service wholly owned by MS) - yes, that will be a success. Like I said, it doesn't have to be elegant or fair and it can take as long as Microsoft needs. They'll need a lot, but that's not a problem when you're Microsoft.Comment
-
Actutally I don't agree with this, I've worked on projects costing many hundreds of millions of dollars and they have still gone down the pan/performed badly - look at the web for another example, how many billions where wasted on that?Originally posted by daxus
I certainly not saying that its not easier to release a product if you have a large budget but the corporate & stock market expectation is much higher.
Look at what MS have actually acheived:
1) Number 2 in the console race
2) Highest attach rate of any launch
3) Highest spec console - not easy as you are doing this blind
4) Obtained a large number of decent exclusives
5) Highest online take up rate
6) Most importantly - built up a gaming brand from near zero
I think if they get the timing right then they will be in a strong position for Xbox2.Comment
-
"Look at what MS have actually acheived:
1) Number 2 in the console race (Nitpick: not yet)
2) Highest attach rate of any launch (Meaningless, and therefore quite telling in the larger scale of things)
3) Highest spec console - not easy as you are doing this blind (They just threw a bunch of PC components together after their competitors had announced their specs. That's why XBox was so expensive - it was hardly designed at all)
4) Obtained a large number of decent exclusives (No comment, other than 'obtained' is right)
5) Highest online take up rate (Very false)
6) Most importantly - built up a gaming brand from near zero (Yes)"
Just about any other company would be ruined by all the ****ups/expenses XBox has racked up. But it doesn't matter. Because MS has money!Comment
-
Lots of companies waste millions and millions every single year and they do not go bust. I think you show a lack of understanding just how badly most large business are run.Originally posted by Manta Ray vs Guitar
The last independant set of figures (if you can call them that) had MS at 100,000 more units than GC, I wasn't aware of a forth console that was between the xbox and the ps2?
Attach rate is actually very important to the profitabilty of the manufactor, particualrly as MS makes the largest loss. Everyone knows that the manufactor makes back the money lost on hardware sales via royalites on software sales. Plus if people are buying your console and 1 or 2 games at the same time, then never buy any more games then its not good for the long term market for that manufactor.
While I'd certainly agree that the xbox is a pc with a few changes it does require either luck or a certain amount of skill to get the spec right. Go in to low and you will be laughed at for being under powered, go in to high and you will be losing money you need'nt have. I also think that the xbox has the highest built quality (headset excepted) across all three consoles - look at the attention to detail on the pad alone.
Please provide global online take up rates to support your arguementComment
-
Edge confirmed that Xbox isn't number 2 yet. I think it's because of GameCube's large lead over it in Japan (Though they are close).
This thread has gone very off topic anyway. It's meant to be about Microsoft's stupid PR people who act like young fanboys on Gamefaqs!
Comment
-
Over 2 Billion US dollars.Lots of companies waste millions and millions every single year and they do not go bust. I think you show a lack of understanding just how badly most large business are run.
Over 2 Billion US dollars.
Over 2 Billion US dollars.
Over 2 Billion US dollars.
Over 2 Billion US dollars.
Over 2 Billion US dollars.
I don't keep a close eye on the numbers, all I know is what I read on the gaming-age forums. Nintendo's last official sales figure disclosure had them several hundred thousand units ahead of Microsoft's last official sales figure disclosure, which was two or three months earlier. MS's sales since then haven't taken them past Nintendo's figures. I think the ones you're talking about were an estimate used by Sony at E3. It has since been proven false. That's what I heard.The last independant set of figures (if you can call them that) had MS at 100,000 more units than GC, I wasn't aware of a forth console that was between the xbox and the ps2?
Attach rate is ****ing crucial to the profitablity of the manufacturer. That was launch attach rate. Could you get a more poignantly meaningless figure? Things haven't been so great since then. Don't get me wrong - people are buying more titles (3rd party titles, anyway) for XBox than they are for Gamecube, but that's a pretty random thing to bring up. It's like me saying Nintendo has sold more purple consoles than MS - it's such a specific boast that it just makes you think about what they're not boasting about.Attach rate is actually very important to the profitabilty of the manufactor, particualrly as MS makes the largest loss. Everyone knows that the manufactor makes back the money lost on hardware sales via royalites on software sales. Plus if people are buying your console and 1 or 2 games at the same time, then never buy any more games then its not good for the long term market for that manufactor.
I can't believe you're gifting them this. A) MS is losing money it needn't have. B) It's so ****ing patsy. Oh, they're so clever - they didn't lose more money than the insane amount of money they're losing now.While I'd certainly agree that the xbox is a pc with a few changes it does require either luck or a certain amount of skill to get the spec right. Go in to low and you will be laughed at for being under powered, go in to high and you will be losing money you need'nt have.
Which pad? The hated original or the controller S? And what do you mean 'attention to detail'?I also think that the xbox has the highest built quality (headset excepted) across all three consoles - look at the attention to detail on the pad alone.Comment
-
Just to interject here on an already OT discussion: What exact involvement did MS actually have at the hardware level? I know they've clearly got a team and/or a small outfit they've bought at some point to make ergonomic mice and keyboards, but I question how much involvement they had with the hardware of the Xbox. I would have thought they'd have drafted a performance spec and then just let the hardware specialists get on with it.Originally posted by tankplanker
?Comment
-
Stu's question:
They did the same as Nintendo, they came up with the spec and brought in the processor and graphics unit, everything else in pretty much off the shell (excluding board design).
First, a question as I don't know, is the 2 billion dollars is that how much they have lost, or is that how much they have spent not including income?Originally posted by Manta Ray vs Guitar
The amount of money that you have lost is pretty irelvant, if you can only afford to lose 10 million and you lose 100 million then you are in trouble, if you lose 2 billion and you can afford 20 billion out of petty cash, then no problem.
Regardless whether you agree or disagree with the concept the current mindset at Microsoft and Sony is that they need to dominate the set top market, with the winner having a Windows type monoply, making 2 billion seem like small change.
I don't think you will find me disagreeing that MS could have done this alot cheaper, personally they should have just brought Sega.
I think alot of problems and misunderstandings around figures comes from the lack of a single, truly global sales tracking company. Also most of the figures that people quote are meaningless - shipping figures includes consoles that are sitting in warehouses for example.
Attach ratios are impossible to accuratly track once the console has been brought, hence why no one produces them post launch. Your arguement makes no sense, my point was that more people brought more games at launch for the xbox than for the other two consoles. This is no mean feat when there were so few big name sequels at launch.
MS could have come to market with a greatly over or under spec'd console, either would have resulted in a bigger losses. Hitting an mature market against well estabished and funded players requires cash, lots of it. Please tell me how they could have launched a console from zero into this market place without losing money initally?
Ok, on the joypad it has a high quality rubberised cable between the actual unit and the plug. It has a proper break away section. The plug itself has a rubber/plastic shield. The overal feel is of a quality product.
And the hated orginal comment is a little low, MS have fessed up to this mistake - although I prefer the larger pad.Comment
-
In a way you are right. At this particular point in time the MS console arm is exactly like a dot com start up, burning money at an incredible rate trying to get traction.Originally posted by tankplanker
But, you talk as if MS are here and the job is done, and it's not. They are still burning cash at an incredible rate. And it is still conceivable that MS console dreams may go down the tubes.
I am neither for or against MS and their approach, I have a GC and an XBOX, and a PS2 to boot... It probably was the only way for MS to go, to be honest. But, I do take issue with people stating that MS is somehow doing better than Nintendo.
It appears that Nintendo are quite happy with a smaller market share in which they can make a profit. Instead of gunning to be the market leader and spending the money to do it. So long as Nintendo can sell enough consoles to shift enough games that those concerned make a profit I get the impression they will quite happily co-exist along side whatever else is going on.
Whereas MS have quite clearly set themselves to win or die trying. Which is nothing less than you'd expect of them. Bill Gates has often been quoted as saying that the problem with most people is that they don't think big enough...Comment
-
That's the figure that's been given for setting up the XBox Live network alone. Both?First, a question as I don't know, is the 2 billion dollars is that how much they have lost, or is that how much they have spent not including income?
This is what I've been saying. You think I'd disagree with this?The amount of money that you have lost is pretty irelvant, if you can only afford to lose 10 million and you lose 100 million then you are in trouble, if you lose 2 billion and you can afford 20 billion out of petty cash, then no problem.
Regardless whether you agree or disagree with the concept the current mindset at Microsoft and Sony is that they need to dominate the set top market, with the winner having a Windows type monoply, making 2 billion seem like small change.
You didn't understand my argument. I'll just say it's an impressive achievement for the time and move on.Attach ratios are impossible to accuratly track once the console has been brought, hence why no one produces them post launch. Your arguement makes no sense, my point was that more people brought more games at launch for the xbox than for the other two consoles. This is no mean feat when there were so few big name sequels at launch.
Yes.MS could have come to market with a greatly over or under spec'd console, either would have resulted in a bigger losses. Hitting an mature market against well estabished and funded players requires cash, lots of it. Please tell me how they could have launched a console from zero into this market place without losing money initally
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111And the hated orginal comment is a little low, MS have fessed up to this mistakeComment
-
There is no way that they have spent 2 billion dollars setting up xbox live - thats a headline figure. That will be the total provision over the next few years and will not include revenue generated from sales of the xbox live kit or any charges (if any) made to publishers for the live service.
I can't find the actual recent figures on MS's web site for profit/loss, only last years.
I did find this:
Where MS still claim the highest attach ratio (I guess they still mean inital attach, but for current sales) and 1/2 million subscribers to xbox live. I don't think MS would take too many liberties with these figures unless they want to face the wrath of the SEC as this was an official briefing.
I've also found the following quote, which says why I don't think Nintendos approach is going to work long term unless Nintendo start spending money on improving the brands perception in the marketplace
Nintendo obviously has a very strong position - they make most of the games that get sold for their console, they also have cross selling going on with the GBA, but if they do not start growing their overal market they will eventually end up in big trouble.Originally posted by Robert J. Bach , chief xbox officerComment
-
Maybe u need a career change d00d. ^_^Originally posted by tankplankerComment
-
OMG
Few points. I guess the figures will have to be found but I was under the impression that the Sony network had more users than XBL anyway.
From what I remember, $2bn was the spend before any income. But some simple maths (2bn/userbase) reveals some pretty high costs there!
How is saying that the org controller is hated "low"? It is accurate. Its not a fight with a dirty low blow ffs.
Going on about attach ratios....Well, it is impressive. If we ignore the fact that it needs bigger attaches to make a profit. And that it sold less than it should have at launch (and throughout its life so far) so the estimates were revised.
I am thinking about this long term and the costs will have to be recouped - there are no free lunches and all that.
So, when they lose a ton of money at launch and then have to drop the retail price quicker than the manufacturing costs whilst simultaneously getting a smaller userbase than the business plan was built on. And then launch an expensive gaming network [with low overheads admittedly] with a lower penetration than expected (10% is lower than expected and from a lower than expected userbase too). I am forced to wonder, why?
And "How" are they going to recoup that?
You can chuck as much money at a problem as you want but the PS2 is even more successful than its phenomenally popular younger brother. It is ridiculously popular if truth be told and in Japan, the range of the PS2 would stop most people from getting anything else.Comment
-
Only figures I can find at the moment for Sony are shipped figures, which is unfair to compare against the actual subscriber figures from MS.
MS's costs will have been amortized across the inital xbox development period (xbox 1) and so will be written off against any future profit (xbox 2 or 3).
As I said before, MS feel that they cannot be left behind in the set top box race, they obviously feel that their future market dominance is threatoned by Sony otherwise they wouldn't be spending this sort of cash. For gods sake, they pulled out of the PC controller marketplace and they had a 55% share it that.
I ask again, what would you have done different? (other than buy Sega, cause that was my idea
)
I'm not posting again, I simply cannot express my thoughts in a cohesive manner, so sorry for wasting everyones time.Comment
Comment