Average Joe's criteria when buying a console

[TheChefO]

"only Bose and Dell ranked higher than Sony overall"

That's funny. umm Marketing?

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/30/sony-trounces-msft-and-nintendo-in-brand-trust-survey/

 

[ElStupido]

"only Bose and Dell ranked higher than Sony overall"

That's funny. umm Marketing?

yeah, so?

 

[Powderkeg]

There is a big difference for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox#Market_share

Thanks for proving my point about the unreliability of Wikipedia.

Microsoft Xbox: 24 Million as of December 31, 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars

So which is it Wiki? 22 or 24 million?

Also the new Zelda will come out for the GC (think about how much a bundle could sell), whereas Xbox is dead.

I hardly think that matters since the Xbox is already dead and MS has already moved on to next gen. I mean sure, Nintendo could sell the Gamecube for the next 20 years and eventually outsell MS, but what difference would that actually make in the "console wars"?

In addition to the discussion:
That's why Sony can ask for more for its products just like Apple does.

Yeah, and how is Apple doing in their quest for control of the home computer market? Is that pricing scheme helping them gain marketshare over MS?

 

[Powderkeg]

Powderkegeg, you may, just may, want to consider a more local timeframe - 1 year before an event and 2 weeks after an event does not tell much about the impact of the event. that of course if you want to have a point.

Really? I may?

Or maybe I don't. Perhaps if you had a point I could decide.

 

[TheChefO]

Yeah, and how is Apple doing in their quest for control of the home computer market? Is that pricing scheme helping them gain marketshare over MS?

Bro where have you been!?! Apple took the world by storm years ago with their pricing strategy of doubling whatever their competitors charged while providing similar specs. This enabled them to be flush with profits and crushed the competition out of the market. This is why MS even got into games business in the first place.

 

[darkblu]

Really? I may?

yep. easily.

Or maybe I don't. Perhaps if you had a point I could decide.

hmm. could it be something along the lines that those two numbers (in the relation implied by you) show zilch wrt to the impact of halo2 on the xbox sales?..

 

[Blazkowicz]

See, I am an "enthusiast" in the PC space because I like to tweak stuff, explore new possibilities etc. But a machine used solely for entertainment residing in my living room should just be fun, instant-on, relatively cheap and easy to use.

All I want is to turn the thing on (which MUSTN'T go longer than a few seconds), start a game and enjoy it without any need to think about ANY sort of tech-related issues/questions. Because to me, a game console belongs into the same category as a TV or a DVD player - I'm just a "dumb" user and everything just works with no hassle. A "consumer appliance" kind of product.

Surely the discussion about the tech behind that is interesting as always, but speaking as a consumer, I think both MS and Sony are selling us the PC with different optics, Sony unexpectedly even moreso than MS it seems.

The point I'm trying to make is that Wii is the only product this gen that I can consider as a more or less "pure" game console. And unless PS3 really kicks serious arse in every regard and does all it's supposed to and more in a very conviniant way, Wii will be the only one I'll buy for the sole purpose of easy gaming fun.

I wonder if it will be possible to write "regular" SW for the PS3's OS, that would make it all much more interesting and open the possibility of a viable alternative to the Windows-based PC. But that's just wishful thinking on my side, methinks

I don't buy into the "pure gaming console" argument, we already saw that on forums for PS2 vs GC as the PS2 has a DVD drive. Who cares, it's still a console. Most people won't care about niche features such as getting MP3s and photos on the hard drive, or even networking. Moreover once you design a $$$ hot console, adding music playback, crap and web browser costs you about zero.. I still haven't forgotten the people on forums bitching about the PSP having media features.
If you wanna insert disc and press power, you can do it no matter computer like features there are that you won't ever need to see.

as for the PS3 OS allowing any kind of software to run, forget it. Linux kernel or not (Linux is only a kernel, tells nothing about the userland). The business model of a console is selling DRM'd hardware that can only run DRM'd licensed games. (and eventually a handful of non game software)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Wikipedia, always the most reliable source of info. (That's sarcasm)

It is when they provide reliable sources. The GC sales were from Ninty's financials, so we can take those as factual. The XB's can only be taken on faith.

Nintendo GameCube: 20.85 Million as of March 31, 2006
Microsoft Xbox: 24 Million as of December 31, 2005

I checked the dates at a glance, but admittedly missed the detail. Maybe MS sold an extra 2 or 3 million units in those 3 months. After Christmas.

It was very nice of you to give Nintendo those 3 extra months to add to their sales figures without counting MS's.

Nice of you to say MS have a 25% advantage without providing any sources at all. At least one of us tried to get some real figures to add substance to the debate, even if they weren't 100% accurate...

 

[Powderkeg]

yep. easily.

But why?

hmm. could it be something along the lines that those two numbers (in the relation implied by you) show zilch wrt to the impact of halo2 on the xbox sales?..

Really? That would imply that you have better, more relevent numbers that do show the impact Halo had on Xbox sales. Perhaps you would like to post them.

 

[Powderkeg]

It is when they provide reliable sources. The GC sales were from Ninty's financials, so we can take those as factual. The XB's can only be taken on faith.

Considering it's already been shown in this thread that they gave 2 different sets of numbers, and one of those numbers has 2 different dates attributed to it, perhaps you might like to rethink your claim that they are reliable.

I checked the dates at a glance, but admittedly missed the detail. Maybe MS sold an extra 2 or 3 million units in those 3 months. After Christmas.

Barely over 1 million would have been enough.

Nice of you to say MS have a 25% advantage without providing any sources at all. At least one of us tried to get some real figures to add substance to the debate, even if they weren't 100% accurate...

Let's look at your own figures. Roughly 20 million to 24 million, right? Of course the 24 million is 3 months older than the 20 million figure, so let's do this.

Let's assume for just a moment that MS did sell 1 million systems world-wide during the first 3 months of the year. That shouldn't be unrealistic. 333,333 systems per month spread out across every market in the world where the Xbox is sold.

Now, the Gamecube had around 20 million systems sold. 25% of 20 is 5. 5 plus 20 is 25, which puts us about where the Xbox would be.


Low and behold, it looks like a 25% advantage to me. Maybe it's a percentage point or two off, but no where near the 15% you claimed.

 

[scooby_dooby]

This doesn't have to be such a big argument, lets analyze the original statment:

The xbox outsold the GC because of that little baby called Halo.
- This is clearly rubbish, as PK pointed out less than 1/4 of xbox owners have halo. XBOX outsold GC cause it had many more 3rd/1st party titles for adults.

And even then, it's not like it outsold it by much.
- Sure worldwide it's close. In the west GC gets destroyed. Much of the XBOX sales must be due to system power, otherwise people would simply buy the PS2 which shares most of XBOX's games.

Because the game libraries are so completely different, I doubt that 'power' influences many peoples decision about XBOX vs GC, especially since GC was relatively comparable. People who want to play GC games will buy one, the others need to decide between XBOX or PS2 and that's where the power comes into play.

 

[darkblu]

Really? That would imply that you have better, more relevent numbers that do show the impact Halo had on Xbox sales.

nope, that would not imply anything of the sorts. i never said the numbers were incorrect, i said your halo 'argument' was bullocks.

Perhaps you would like to post them.

actually yes, i'll post one number so at least one of us would contribute something meaningful to this halo 'discussion':

number of halo copies sold (combined 1 & 2) as of January 2005: 12.8M

those over a platformbase of 24M xboxes as of December 31, 2005

now, without bothering to get any more recent info (note that nov to jan is a little bit short to call it a day for one of the biggest xbox titles) if we assume that only halo1 owners bought halo2 (which would be a gross underestimation), that's still a 1-to-4 attach rate of halo-to-xbox. if we assume (again, incorrectly) zero overlapping of halo1 and halo2 customerabase then that'd be 1-to-2 attach rate. so let's guestimate a more realistic rate of say, 1-to-3 - that's every 3rd xbox with a halo copy. if that's not a system pusher i don't know what is. but please, feel free to continue with the rant how xbox is not a halo machine - i'm enjoying it.

 

[scooby_dooby]

feel free to continue with the rant how xbox is not a halo machine - i'm enjoying it.

Nice try but he's not ranting about anything. He's pointing out that 3/4 of XBOX owners don't own Halo, so anyone claiming the 'only' reason XBOX sold 24million units is Halo is full of it.

 

[OtakingGX]

Considering it's already been shown in this thread that they gave 2 different sets of numbers, and one of those numbers has 2 different dates attributed to it, perhaps you might like to rethink your claim that they are reliable.

If you look into the sources for each set of numbers (none for 24 million, Microsoft's financial report for 22 million) you'll see which source is more reliable.

Let's look at your own figures. Roughly 20 million to 24 million, right? Of course the 24 million is 3 months older than the 20 million figure, so let's do this.

Let's assume for just a moment that MS did sell 1 million systems world-wide during the first 3 months of the year. That shouldn't be unrealistic. 333,333 systems per month spread out across every market in the world where the Xbox is sold.

Now, the Gamecube had around 20 million systems sold. 25% of 20 is 5. 5 plus 20 is 25, which puts us about where the Xbox would be.

Low and behold, it looks like a 25% advantage to me. Maybe it's a percentage point or two off, but no where near the 15% you claimed.

That's an incredible misrepresentation of data! I'm astounded! Since when does 20.85 round to 20? I'm sure Microsoft hadn't shipped exactly 22 million consoles by December, it was probably 21.624 and they rounded (22 sounds better after all).

And that brings you to the argument of shipped vs sold. Instead of trying to bring MS's numbers down to the equivalent sold units, why not inflate Nintendo's? They too, after all, have gotten paid for those by retailers already.

If you use the numbers 22 million in December and 21 million in March, and treat each as linear since release day, you'd expect that in March, 23 million Xbox's would be shipped as opposed to Gamecube's 21. That's 9.5% more. A far cry from 25%.

The great thing about statistics is you can misrepresent the data any way you want. I could say that "Gamecube has more worldwide appeal than Xbox" and point to numbers of Gamecube having a more even worldwide sales distribution, even if it only sold half the number of Xbox.

 

[fearsomepirate]

IMO, the Xbox beat the Cube because the Xbox had more games that appealed to a wider audience. The Cube simply didn't have anything to offer to non-Nintendo fans.

And Xbox didn't really have much to offer if you weren't a fan of militaristic themes. Maybe you're confusing the Xbox with the PS2. You can look at the sales. Xbox didn't pull ahead of GC worldwide until 2004, after Live had made a pretty significant buzz and connectivity had just plain sunk. And your ignorance of the Cube library is pretty sad. I have 28 counterexamples sitting on my shelf.

Your arguments don't mean much without some statistics. Halo 2 hype began in 2003, not 2004 and was part of the OMG GRAPHICS hype train that really got off the ground with Splinter Cell. You're going to need some raw polling data, but I think we can take for granted that games have influence beyond the immediate number of people who buy them. That both Halo and Live affected the market perception of the Xbox brand is undeniable. How many Gamecube reviews did we read between 2003 and 2005 that included the words, "Sadly, any online component is sorely missed, and the only multiplayer available is to players willing to hunch around a single TV," with the appropriate points docked? (It reminds me of all the "graphics are nowhere near PSP quality" reviews shortly after DS launched, which have mysteriously disappeared since people realized DS has some pretty sweet games.) Halo affected marketing, Live affected reviews, and both combined to give Xbox a stronger brand perception than Cube.

Also, you are living proof that Nintendo marketing failed and MS/Sony (mostly Sony) marketing succeeded. The raw facts will never convince you that there is actually a wider selection of games availabe on Cube than N64, or that there are more M-rated and T-rated titles, or that there is a lot of compelling software besides Mario Party. Sony's marketing juggernaut has done its job. Gamecube is for babies who like nothing but Mario, no matter how many touchdown passes Peyton throws in Madden 2006 or right hooks Holyfield lands in Fight Night Round 2.

BTW, I think we should look at the 4 million in terms of total marketshare. So out of around 140 million consoles sold this generation, 4 million is what percentage? There's a reason Microsoft wasn't trumpeting gaining 3% more of the total marketshare than Nintendo did at the last E3. Triumphing over getting more of someone else's tablescraps is absurd.

 

[pc999]

- Should I get the xbox, is it better than the PS2?
- Yes, it's a bit more powerful. The games usually do look a bit better on it
- Yes, but is it better?
- It's has some newer tech and the HD, so yes, you're getting "more" with your money
- But is it better?
- It's got some very good games, you'll have to look at the games library and see if they are for you.
- Is better?
- The multiplatform games in most cases look a bit better on xbox.
- Multiplatform? I don't play platform games, I want F1, hockey and rally games.
- Well, then you better get the PS2
- But is it better?

Forget casuals, these seems a thread about Wii vs XB360/PS3 the only diference is the level of detail. Underlying this is Plato quest.

First off, only about 20% of Xbox owners have Halo. 22-23% have Halo 2. So 75-80% of Xbox owners weren't influenced by Halo. The real saving grace of the Xbox wasn't Halo, it was Splinter Cell. Splinter Cell was the game that proved a high quality 3rd party game could sell very well on the Xbox, and once 3rd party developers had that proof many more of them were willing to support the Xbox system. That increased support led to a larger and higher quality game library, which resulted in more consumer support.

Finally we agree, althought I think that the hype about Live help it too.

Also the new Zelda will come out for the GC (think about how much a bundle could sell),

They have no interest in sell any GC more just Wii.

 

[darkblu]

Nice try but he's not ranting about anything. He's pointing out that 3/4 of XBOX owners don't own Halo, so anyone claiming the 'only' reason XBOX sold 24million units is Halo is full of it.

ain't it funny how of the whole, erm, discussion (hardly, but anyways) there's been between Powderkeg and me the one line you saw there was that one? how about actually subtantiating Powderkeg's "point"?

 

[AW0L]

i think in NA what ever system has the better version of madden. nba and mlb

 

[scooby_dooby]

ain't it funny how of the whole, erm, discussion (hardly, but anyways) there's been between Powderkeg and me the one line you saw there was that one? how about actually subtantiating Powderkeg's "point"?

I think he substantiated it just fine, holiday sales in the year previous to Halo 2 being released were roughly the same as when Halo 2 came out next year. Therefore it did not have a huge impact on system sales.

Now are you claiming that 2 years after the release of Halo 1, people were still buying it solely to play that game? It's ridiculous. XBOX had an awesome selection of FPS, Racing, Sports and Action games, it had signifigantly better graphics than PS2 and had a few great first party gems, it recieved the vast majority of western 3rd party support, especially in it's later years (completely unlike gamecube). The only thing it really lacked were japanese games, and good platformers like PS2 has.

No one is saying Halo didn't move systems, obviously it did, but this claim they only bought it to play Halo is garbage. I owned an XBOX for 3 years, yes Halo sold me on the system instantly, but in 3 years I played through Halo one time, never even finished Halo 2 (until a couple weeks ago I went back) and I never touched multiplayer. There was still a ton of good games, at least in the last couple years.

 

[darkblu]

I think he substantiated it just fine, holiday sales in the year previous to Halo 2 being released were roughly the same as when Halo 2 came out next year. Therefore it did not have a huge impact on system sales.

nope. as neither you nor powderkeg can say what the console's sales would have been that particular season without the heavy hitter halo2. btw, just as a small funny hint, pay attention how the system's sales moved in that particular november immediately after halo2 got released. note the itsy bitsy spike "in comparison to nov 2003"?

Now are you claiming that 2 years after the release of Halo 1, people were still buying it solely to play that game? It's ridiculous.

surely it'd have been so had i actually said that.

apparently not everybody who bought an xbox in 2003 got it for halo. fact is, though, a sufficient number of people did buy it. whether they bought it exactly during the holidays of 2003 or not is irrelevant. oh, and try not to discard factors like price cuts/bundles, expected major sequel's appearance (btw, seriously delayed), etc, etc. and last but not lest, did you bother to look at the attach rate of halo?

XBOX had an awesome selection of FPS, Racing, Sports and Action games, it had signifigantly better graphics than PS2 and had a few great first party gems, it recieved the vast majority of western 3rd party support, especially in it's later years (completely unlike gamecube). The only thing it really lacked were japanese games, and good platformers like PS2 has.

i get the feeling the above paragraph should somehow contribute to the discussion and yet i fail to see how. look, i can give you mirriads of examples of good games, no, brillinat games on various platforms that sold poorly, or insignificantly compared to system movers. so save the platform evangelizing for another discussion.

No one is saying Halo didn't move systems, obviously it did, but this claim they only bought it to play Halo is garbage. I owned an XBOX for 3 years, yes Halo sold me on the system instantly, but in 3 years I played through Halo one time, never even finished Halo 2 (until a couple weeks ago I went back) and I never touched multiplayer. There was still a ton of good games, at least in the last couple years.

so what is it - did halo move systems or didn't it? and by move i mean in the millions.

see, scooby, how many times you've played through halo after it sold you to the console is irrelevant, as is whether there were any other decent titles for the platform. what would be relevant is if you could find yet another xbox game with such a smashing attach rate. on every other system ever produced a title with such a prominent attach rate would be considered a major system mover. yet somehow on the xbox that turns out not to be the case, i.e. for a couple of the console's fans, namely you and powder, and that under certain fishy circumnstances having to do with proving "doubtless" supperiority over the competition. now isn't that adorable?