All purpose sales and sales rumors/anecdotes thread next gen+

Status
Not open for further replies.
The greater social integration wasn't in response to Microsoft, it was because that is where the market was going. The 'immediacy' technology designed to get gamers gaming quickly wasn't in response to Microsoft it was because that's the standard in mobile. Day 1 camera support? No, Sony did cameras first.
Well I know for a fact that Sony's decision not to bundle the camera was 100% based on their knowledge that MS would launch with Kinect included, which would have allowed them to launch at a lower price point. And this was a great decision, in hindsight!

So yes, some of their decisions were absolutely in response to what the competition was doing. As it should be. That's my main point really. No business lives in their own bubble, apart from Nintendo it would seem.
 
How do you explain the fact that MS is only dropping the Kinect-less version $50 if there's no demand for Kinect?
Coz they don't care about Kinect! ;) Literally, have no interest ATM in moving Kinect units or not. It's not on their radar so they're just maintaining the status quo. They'll decide what to do with Kinect SKU later. No point adding a discount now and trying to manage inventory and possible retailer refunds and whatnot.

But from Reddit, Slickdeals, Cheapassgamer, Fatwallet, etc.. forums, everybody wants the Kinect bundle. They just absolutely do not want to pay $100 more for it.
At the same price, everyone would rather have the unit with more stuff (especially $150 more stuff going by standalone price) than not. The actual value is questionable. I'm sure it's not zero - people wouldn't mind spending $20 to have a voice-remote and Skype thing, I expect. But value in Kinect as anything more than the anaemic implementation we have and it appears it'll remain just isn't there. Hence people aren't buying XB1 for Kinect - they're buying it for the console and the games. Hence that's where MS's focus is.

I still don't get how that has anything to do with people who buy the Kinect version not buying games at the same rate as those who buy the castrated version.
Sorry, I didn't quite read your reply right. I wasn't saying people with Kinect buy less games; they probably buy just as much. I'm saying that XB Live stats show what games people are playing, and presumably show people aren't playing Kinect games or using Kinect in a huge way. These same stats show them (presumably) that the new units bought over Christmas and shown to friends are playing games, and they hope this is generates interest in others wanting to play those games, hence the price drop in the SKU that they think people want to buy (at the right price). And an ignoring of the Kinect SKU because it's mostly immaterial, a novelty seeing niche action but not anything that they can sell boxes to the mainstream with.

The value of Kinect to the platform is near zero. The value of Kinect in itself is non-zero as it brings features to the box, but the XB1 platform could lose Kinect completely and not be any worse off.
 
Not really, we're just looking at different data points. You are focused on the fact that the $499 Kinect version isn't and hasn't been selling and we are agreed on that. I'm looking at what happens when consumers have the choice between a system with and without Kinect and from what I've seen, the overwhelming choice is to get the version with Kinect. I understand this is all anecdotal and may not really be indicative of the entire market. But from Reddit, Slickdeals, Cheapassgamer, Fatwallet, etc.. forums, everybody wants the Kinect bundle. They just absolutely do not want to pay $100 more for it.

The problem with this statement is that we have a rather firm data point for which version people prefer. Everyone on Amazon has the choice between a system with and without Kinect - and we can see from the rankings that people are overwhelmingly choosing without Kinect. That is what the statement "Kinectless SKU being ranked 12th top selling in gaming on Amazon and the Kinect SKU doesn't even register in the top 100" shows us. At very least that data point strongly supports the position that people don't think the Kinect is worth $150.

Now if you were arguing that if they were the same price the Kinect version would be selling more I think everyone would agree. Not many people turn down getting something extra for free - even if they wouldn't otherwise purchase it.
 
Of course, the experience suffered because Sony didn't have the revenue stream from subscriptions in order to fund infrastructure improvements. Sure it was "solely an economic decision", but it was one that was only available because MS demonstrated that paid subscriptions that were reinvested in infrastructure provided a superior experience and that there was a market willing to pay for it.

It being solely an economic decision is what I said and which you posted taking issue with. And charging for services wasn't only available because Microsoft had already done it, charging for services is something of an old concept that predates even Microsoft and Xbox!

What are you talking about? PC gaming VS Console gaming?

Re-read your post. You asked: What other "market" are you talking about where people pay for multiplayer or "greater social integration"? Paying for decent multiplayer is now basically every market. Xbox, PlayStation and PC ecosystems. Sure you can do basic multiplayer for free but servers cost money, whether you pay for them as part of the service (Live, PS+), build your own or hire one (PC).

Well I know for a fact that Sony's decision not to bundle the camera was 100% based on their knowledge that MS would launch with Kinect included, which would have allowed them to launch at a lower price point. And this was a great decision, in hindsight!
I'd say that was part of the reason, I'm fairly sure that part of the reason was also - just like Microsoft - they actually had no games so its' value proposition was entirely questionable to begin with. Not that Sony every said - best as I can recall - that the camera was ever supposed to be part of every system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Coz they don't care about Kinect! ;) Literally, have no interest ATM in moving Kinect units or not. It's not on their radar so they're just maintaining the status quo. They'll decide what to do with Kinect SKU later. No point adding a discount now and trying to manage inventory and possible retailer refunds and whatnot.

Really? Think about this from a business perspective and put all your biases aside. The holiday promotions included discounts on both SKU's. They ended that promotion and came back with another one that is only for the kinect-less version. What does that tell you, just on it's face value? It tells me one of two things. Either 1) That they don't need to discount the Kinect version because they are selling just fine or 2) It doesn't matter, because the $50 reduction isn't enough to motivate buyers to buy the Kinect version - it isn't enough of a discount.

But, if it is option 2 then think about it. Why not offer the $50 off the kinect version as well? If it doesn't motivate sales, what is the harm in just doing it across all SKU's? Is it not even going to motivate 1000 sales? 100 sales?

It doesn't make sense AT ALL to not offer this discount on the Kinect version as well, unless they've seen from their Holiday sales that people actually prefer the Kinect version to the castrated version so they aren't offering that to people who they know will eventually pay the full price and are just now trying to get the people who are cash poor.

At the same price, everyone would rather have the unit with more stuff (especially $150 more stuff going by standalone price) than not. The actual value is questionable. I'm sure it's not zero - people wouldn't mind spending $20 to have a voice-remote and Skype thing, I expect. But value in Kinect as anything more than the anaemic implementation we have and it appears it'll remain just isn't there. Hence people aren't buying XB1 for Kinect - they're buying it for the console and the games. Hence that's where MS's focus is.

We're agreed on that to a point. As long as we're also agreed that the ridiculous narrative that was popular when the One was launched that it came with an "NSA SPY camera" is over and done with. Remember that the initial narrative was that people didn't want the Kinect because it was spying on them. It's a completely different thing to say that they want it but don't want to pay $100 for it than to say they don't want it because it invades their privacy, etc...

And really, you still have yet to come up with a reason why they would launch another new price promotion that only impacts the kinect-less version. Why isn't the $50 reduction also on the One version?

Sorry, I didn't quite read your reply right. I wasn't saying people with Kinect buy less games; they probably buy just as much. I'm saying that XB Live stats show what games people are playing, and presumably show people aren't playing Kinect games or using Kinect in a huge way. These same stats show them (presumably) that the new units bought over Christmas and shown to friends are playing games, and they hope this is generates interest in others wanting to play those games, hence the price drop in the SKU that they think people want to buy (at the right price). And an ignoring of the Kinect SKU because it's mostly immaterial, a novelty seeing niche action but not anything that they can sell boxes to the mainstream with.

Huh? Ignoring the Kinect SKU takes more effort than NOT ignoring the Kinect SKU. It's far easier to just do a $50 reduction across the board than it is to only reduce the Kinect-less version by $50. The holiday sales applied to ALL SKU's. Kinect and Kinect-less. This promotion is only for Kinect-less consoles. Why would they NOT include the Kinect version unless they've seen that they already have demand for that at the current price?

The value of Kinect to the platform is near zero. The value of Kinect in itself is non-zero as it brings features to the box, but the XB1 platform could lose Kinect completely and not be any worse off.

Again, not true. The value of the Kinect is somewhere between $0-$100. And since nobody else has brought it up, I will - Sure, there's a number of people buying the Kinect version with the intention of selling them on a second hand market to get some money back. But the mere existence of a second hand market tells you that it has value. If you go on craigslist or ebay, how much are Kinects selling for? $100? After the release of the stand alone Kinect at $140 all the prices of them shot up to at least $100.

I know - I was going to buy a Sunset Overdrive console without Kinect and buy a Kinect on the second hand market, until I looked around and the cheapest 2nd hand (new) Kinect was going for $100 in the state of California.

Either way, it doesn't matter. If people are buying One units and selling their Kinects on the 2nd hand market for $50 - then that is the value of the Kinect. $50. Right now, the value of the Kinect is still right around $100. That's what people are asking for them because that's what they can sell them for.

Bottom line is that there's a very good reason why this promotion is unlike the Holiday promotion that applied to all SKU's.

I'm trying to explain it, and I still don't see how your explanation of "They just don't care about the Kinect SKU" makes any sense at all. It's actually rather absurd on its face.
 
It being solely an economic decision is what I said and which you posted taking issue with. And charging for services wasn't only available because Microsoft had already done it, charging for services is something of an old concept that predates even Microsoft and Xbox!

No, what I took issue with was your assertion that Sony is so epic and awesome that they never respond to competitors. Of course everything is an economic decision. Except before MS started charging for Live, online gaming was free to everybody. MS proved that they could create another revenue stream and reinvest some of those profits into infrastructure to make the experience greater and Sony quickly realized that they couldn't match the online experience that Live offered without also charging customers for the experience.

This entire conversation is completely ridiculous. Do you really think that if MS never existed, you'd be paying for the right to play multiplayer games on the PS4 right now? Do you really think that if MS never existed your PS Network would have evolved the way it has in order to catch up with the competition?

Give me a break. If that's what you think then you are probably the only person on the planet that thinks that.

Why you can't just admit that Sony reacted to MS and Live and adjusted accordingly is so beyond reason that it is simply incredible. How are we supposed to take anything else you say seriously when you can't admit to what is an obvious fact to everybody?

Sony absolutely did the right thing in terms of reacting to what MS has done and charging for the online subscriptions and using that revenue to build a better infrastructure. I'm not arguing that at all.

Goddamn yes, I expect that if there's a number of subscribers paying for something then that something will be better than if it were just offered for free. And that is what we have here.

I have a PS3 and the network and interface and everything is ass compared to the 360. That "free" PS3 offering sucks balls compared to what I get on the 360. But yes, I have to PAY for those services on the 360. Everybody knows that, including Sony which is why on the PS4 you have to pay to play.

I don't have a PS4 so I don't know how far they've closed the gap or even if they've exceeded what MS offers. I do know that the network they've given us for the One is a pathetic shell of what we had on the 360. Yet, it's still far superior to what we were given "for free" on the PS3.
 
Really? Think about this from a business perspective and put all your biases aside.
What biases? I don't care about anything! I'm not the slightest bit emotionally (or financially) invested in these boxes and don't care whether they succeed or fail, so where would any bias come from?

Either 1) That they don't need to discount the Kinect version because they are selling just fine
Yes, but define 'just fine'. Just fine could be 3% of total XB1 sales, and it could remain at 3% whether it's discounted or not, so there's no point cannabalising profit on the 3% sold (made up numbers to represent the argument). Hypothetically, let's say MS have a million SKU units in stock. They stop making more. They could discount them to get rid of them, but if there's a slow demand, they could just slowly sell them over the next year and make back their money before closing that chapter completely.

or 2) It doesn't matter, because the $50 reduction isn't enough to motivate buyers to buy the Kinect version - it isn't enough of a discount.
Yep.

Why not offer the $50 off the kinect version as well? If it doesn't motivate sales, what is the harm in just doing it across all SKU's? Is it not even going to motivate 1000 sales? 100 sales?
Loss of profits on the Kinect units that would sell.

Let's look at the total market for XB1. And let's reference Phil Spencer when we do so....
Polygon said:
He also declined to discuss the breakdown of sales for systems that included Kinect versus ones that did not.

"We do see that there are differences in that mix depending on the market," he said. "But there are all kinds of factors that go into that."
Typical evasive PR answer. "Differences depending on market." There's the gamer market, the one the discount is aimed at, and there's the lifestyle market, the people Kinect is aimed at and selling to. The way I read it, the people who value the original Kinect vision are willing to pay top dollar. The people who'd pay less don't care to spend money on Kinect's voice control and fitness. $50 won't make any difference to them. This presumably played out in the post-holiday sales as I've already described - MS have the information that tells them dropping the Kinect SKU price won't make any difference to them. It'd also be hard to reach that audience. Advertising a Kinect price drop on gaming websites won't reach the guy who's been umming and erring about getting XB1 for XB Fitness for a few months now. Better to just leave the Kinect SKU alone and let these people get around to buying it.

As long as we're also agreed that the ridiculous narrative that was popular when the One was launched that it came with an "NSA SPY camera" is over and done with.
That narrative never came into my opinion. It's based solely on what content is available and upcoming for Kinect, what its functions are, what media attention it gets, and how much MS are pushing it or not.

Again, not true. The value of the Kinect is somewhere between $0-$100.
You missed my point. I said explicitly it has no value to the platform. XB1 with Kinect, with the option to add a 3D camera and Skype and voice control and play a few motion games, has no wider audience by and large (a smallish percentage if Amazon ranks are anything to go by, and that's the only numbers we have bceause MS don't want to talk about it) than XB1 without Kinect. If MS were to end the Kinect line tomorrow, sales of XB1 wouldn't plummet because Kinect was no longer available. It has about as much value as PS4's camera - it's a novelty feature with novelty appeal that some people kinda like, some people care nothing for. Where it was supposed to be the defining USP of the platform and differentiate it and be the XB1 experience, it's now kaput. Given its inconsequence, there's little point in MS trying to promote the thing, especially when there's squat new reasons to own one. If they cared, they'd be making Kinect content and advertising Kinect content and getting people excited for Kinect and then waving temporary price drops as a finishing push to get them to commit.
 
Do you really think that if MS never existed, you'd be paying for the right to play multiplayer games on the PS4 right now?
Probably, because it's a way to improve the income of the gaming division. If they can charge, they'd be stupid not to.

Do you really think that if MS never existed your PS Network would have evolved the way it has in order to catch up with the competition?
What was the competition MS was fighting when they improved XBLive form its earliest from? It went through many improvements to make it the premier service, right? But without any competition, right? Because competition isn't the only reason to do something. Making a better service and providing a better experience for your customers tends to get them to give you more money. A better XBLive meant more users and more income.

Exactly the same would happen with PSN if MS didn't exist. The Internet exists, and gaming companies would explore the possibilities of providing internet gaming and monetising it. That's the basis of innovation and creating new markets. You don't need someone to compete against in order to drive progress.
 
Not sure if anyone still cares on official numbers. Aquamarine released PS4 on gaf.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=147692585&postcount=1802

I'll have to dig around to see if anyone else made an extrapolation. But their LTD difference posted by cream sugar is now 3% Not sure who is leading or who is behind, I'm assuming PS4 is 3% ahead

December 2014
PS4: 1.07m
X1:?
WiiU:?
For all the NA talk it would be nice to have some world wide LTD figures to put things in the proper context.
 
Rough guesses:
PS4 18.5 million
XO 10.5 - 12 million

I think this is pretty close estimate and if so I'd say both platforms are doing well enough and if one makes the assumption that the NA market spends more, MS can feel better about their relative position due to their performance in NA. I do think Halo factored into MS's success this holiday and its a bit unfortunate that all the talk about the holiday has been reduced to bundles and price. Both MS and Sony have some important exclusives coming out this season which in addition to the inevitable adjustments in price should make this year rather interesting. Still early days for sure.
 
My guesses would be:
18.5-19M PS4
10-11M XB1

Only official information we have is 18.5M PS4s sold as of January 5th, and 10M XB1s shipped as of November 12th.

edit: pretty much what BRiT said.
 
I disagree that Kinect's dead & it's not being pushed. I just think they finally understood it's place with regards to gaming: fitness & dancing. Microsoft sent out an email to Xbox owners advertising Xbox Fitness, Shape Up, Just Dance 2015, Fantasia: Music Evolved & Zumba Fitness World Party. Makes sense to do it after the New Year for all those people with New Year's resolutions. They also advertised upgrading to Xbox One with Kinect & how it comes with a free digital copy of Dance Central Spotlight. I think that is one of the reasons we didn't see a $50 price drop on that SKU. It's a pity for me since I was wanting to buy a XB1 once I get my federal income tax refund in February(couldn't do it during the mega holiday promotion), but I won't buy an XB1 without Kinect. So if they don't drop the price on the Kinect SKU until March or later I may decide to hold off until then. I've waited this long, what's a few more months?

Tommy McClain
 
I disagree that Kinect's dead & it's not being pushed. I just think they finally understood it's place with regards to gaming: fitness & dancing. Microsoft sent out an email to Xbox owners advertising Xbox Fitness, Shape Up, Just Dance 2015, Fantasia: Music Evolved & Zumba Fitness World Party. Makes sense to do it after the New Year for all those people with New Year's resolutions. They also advertised upgrading to Xbox One with Kinect & how it comes with a free digital copy of Dance Central Spotlight. I think that is one of the reasons we didn't see a $50 price drop on that SKU. It's a pity for me since I was wanting to buy a XB1 once I get my federal income tax refund in February(couldn't do it during the mega holiday promotion), but I won't buy an XB1 without Kinect. So if they don't drop the price on the Kinect SKU until March or later I may decide to hold off until then. I've waited this long, what's a few more months?

Tommy McClain
Probably a good way for MS to gauge the interest in Kinect. If the idea is to promote the tech it seems to me they'd send an email announcing Kinect enhanced games or exclusives coming in 2015. Letting those new to the platform know about the tech and existing games doesn't show a commitment in my opinion as much as its educating them about the platform.
 
Of course everything is an economic decision. Except before MS started charging for Live, online gaming was free to everybody. MS proved that they could create another revenue stream and reinvest some of those profits into infrastructure to make the experience greater and Sony quickly realized that they couldn't match the online experience that Live offered without also charging customers for the experience.
Not everything is an economic decision. Sony's presented vision from the February 2013 reveal was games first, social, immediacy. None of these are economic decisions but passing on the real costs of your online infrastructure is.

But just so I get this straight, direct from the mind of RancidLunhcmeat, Microsoft were smart, sorry "epic and awesome" enough to work out that charging consumers for the overheard of running their service but Sony, poor confused idiots that they are, wouldn't have worked out that passing on the cost of running the online operation to consumers was the obvious thing to do. Right. :rolleyes:

This entire conversation is completely ridiculous. Do you really think that if MS never existed, you'd be paying for the right to play multiplayer games on the PS4 right now? Do you really think that if MS never existed your PS Network would have evolved the way it has in order to catch up with the competition?

Yes. Because server operations are expensive, I know, this is my job. Sony clearly had no idea how expensive things would become a few years down the line because scaling isn't anywhere like a linear progression and nor are the costs.

Why you can't just admit that Sony reacted to MS and Live and adjusted accordingly is so beyond reason that it is simply incredible.
If Sony just reacted to Microsoft, they would have done this at the start of the PlayStation 3 generation when there was no expectation that PSN multiplayer would be free (given Live) and when Sony's finances were already dire and they could have done with the revenue.

I have a PS3 and the network and interface and everything is ass compared to the 360. That "free" PS3 offering sucks balls compared to what I get on the 360. But yes, I have to PAY for those services on the 360.

So you know this, I know this, Microsoft but Sony didn't know this? They, a huge money-grabbing corporation, couldn't work out that passing on their online costs to consumers for services they used was the obvious thing to do? No, it was a reaction to Microsoft. Right :rolleyes:

Companies rarely react significantly to what the competition is doing because there's an underlying economics of business (R&D, investment, production, sales, long terms sales, profit projection) that dictates whether your business is successful or not and where can deviate from your plan.

Just because some other guy does something does not mean you should. If you're making a profit and they lower their prices, cutting profits thin or making a loss with the hope to recouping it later, do you do likewise? No, not if your business is on track or doing better than predicted. This is Sony at the moment. The holidays sale did wonders for Xbox One sales but PS4 sales were also strong. Microsoft's price cut did not measurably impact Sony therefore it would be folly for Sony to react to it.

Sony are focussing on what consumers want and what consumers are willing to pay which is why we saw no price cuts through 2014, except for the traditional holiday sales because people throw money around like crazy and every consumer market wants some of that.
 
Kinect is dead. There is just nothing kinect offers. Voice control got already old with Siri. MS and their studios could not figure out/or don't care to make cool Kinect games...which is the only thing that would count imo for the audience. Third parties aren't intetested atm to offer special usage in their games either.

MS isn't even interested anymore that this thing sells atm.

Imho, only a brave indie developer could change the momentum of Kinect if they manage to create a unique Kinect powered gaming experience...as an Indie dev, I would really look into this, the potential impact is huge imo.
 
I think this is pretty close estimate and if so I'd say both platforms are doing well enough and if one makes the assumption that the NA market spends more, MS can feel better about their relative position due to their performance in NA. I do think Halo factored into MS's success this holiday and its a bit unfortunate that all the talk about the holiday has been reduced to bundles and price. Both MS and Sony have some important exclusives coming out this season which in addition to the inevitable adjustments in price should make this year rather interesting. Still early days for sure.

It seems likely that the weighted average lifetime NPV of a English speaking country customer is 2 to 5 times that of the rest of the world, with three driving factors more purchases, online subs, and digital purchases. At one point it was probably 5 times, but the gap has probably closed to 3ish. Certainly, I do think that a US customer is worth probably 8-10 times an asian customer and 2 times that of a EU customer. So when you multiple that value edge by market share data, the US market is likely well over 50% of the total market in terms of NPV.
 
Probably a good way for MS to gauge the interest in Kinect. If the idea is to promote the tech it seems to me they'd send an email announcing Kinect enhanced games or exclusives coming in 2015. Letting those new to the platform know about the tech and existing games doesn't show a commitment in my opinion as much as its educating them about the platform.
I am enlisted in the Xbox live gold rewards
program. They have surveys from time to time in which you earn points. The last survey I took was 100% about Kinect and Fitness. That was last week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top