They will need VR ASAP. I have anecdotal evidence of several people who bought PS4 + PSVR instead of Xbox One X during the holidays because of Sony's price cuts. When a new console + VR, which is completely new way to play games, costs as much as the new shiny One X, people hesitate on what is better value: more of the same, just prettier, or something new?
Console Failures and Successes *spawn*
- Thread starter Shortbread
- Start date
I would say XBO will do about 55-57 million before the next-gen of consoles comes around. XBO is already sitting between 35-37 million units sold, and possibly 40 million on the high-end.
Yeah I was being conservative with my numbers...but it only proves my point even more that it isn't a "failure"
I don't think anyone here took the position that MS was making more profit than Sony. I certainly did not.
I have been making commentary that the idea that a company would make decisions based on anything but 'profit', ie. some posters were implying corporations want to win more than just profit as being a factor; I assume EGO (from what I could read), is outlandish.
And I went to explain that marketshare while, is heavily biased with higher return on investment, market share is NOT directly correlated to higher ROI. Anyone studying business can see that in any industry, and especially so in industries where subscribers like Cable/TV, Telecomm/Mobile services have _exactly_ the same service and there is no incentive to own a mobile device subscription with 2 competing companies simultaneously; companies will differentiate themselves by offering varying levels of customer service, services, SLAs, coverage etc. That's why we have luxury brands, and discount brands, and mainstream brands.... they all do the same thing though which is provide cellular data and mobile voice.
Whereas in the console space, it's totally _Reasonable_ to own more than 1 console. They DO different things. They are different platforms with different strengths.
This incessant need to crown a winner makes no sense, unless you are an investor for that company. In which winning is defined by how much return you are getting back from investing into their company.
I agree decision are most of the time based on profit/revenue... But the decision leading to PS3 were stupid and it was normal Kuturagi was fired... From a business point of side it is one of the worst console since the PS1 release....
Worse than Xbox One by far...
That one is interesting, but also we've seen this type of thing happen with a lot of companies. I guess it's ego in a different sense? Too big to fail?There's a book on it, but it's like, instead of owning up to mistakes and trying to fix them, they try to cover things up to make it seem like things are fine and dandy.
Anyway, the long story short is that he got fired. And the shareholders put into place someone who had the passion to right the boat and make the right changes to make the business survive and thrive despite the set backs. And that's a sign of good leadership. They have to make tough choices and do things that are uncomfortable to survive, but in the end they do.
Xbox has had to do the same things, big mistakes were made and then immediately changes followed. Adapt or die right?
PS3 failed as a commercial venture - it never made money. It failed to maintain the brand popularity. It failed to introduce a whole new CPU paradigm into the world to be used everywhere, which was its intention. Motion controls in the controller basically failed too because they didn't become adopted everywhere. Failed to outperform its cheaper rival because they had the better GPU. There are few goals set out for PS3 that it managed, though of course it had its successes too, like mainstreaming BRD, providing a great media platform (most popular device for TV Netflix before TV sticks were a thing), and it was a success as a games machine in entertaining its users.
XB1 failed to become TV TV TV. It's failed to sell as many as 360, thus losing MS's hardware momentum. It failed to offer the best value price/performance, and has failed to prevent the rival getting more exclusives and offering a more numerous library of its core purpose. It's succeeded as a prized gaming platform by its fans, succeeded in making money (those believing MS can't turn a profit from 30+ million gaming machines, let alone 80 million last gen, need to tighten their tinfoil hats and stock up on the Koolade), succeeded in offering BC beyond anything any machine has done before, and whatever other successes its had - it's users are better positioned to comment than I!
XB1 failed to become TV TV TV. It's failed to sell as many as 360, thus losing MS's hardware momentum. It failed to offer the best value price/performance, and has failed to prevent the rival getting more exclusives and offering a more numerous library of its core purpose. It's succeeded as a prized gaming platform by its fans, succeeded in making money (those believing MS can't turn a profit from 30+ million gaming machines, let alone 80 million last gen, need to tighten their tinfoil hats and stock up on the Koolade), succeeded in offering BC beyond anything any machine has done before, and whatever other successes its had - it's users are better positioned to comment than I!
I already explained my point. As chris1515 said, they lost market share. It's a failure from this point of view. After the 360 success, they certainly didn't expect to be beaten by Sony in a 2:1 ratio.
Even if the XB1 is more profitable than the 360, i'm certain that they didn't meet their real goals.
Last edited:
Once again, MS and Sony sell basically the same thing. So, market share is determinant. Your comment doesn't apply to the console market.
Games cost about the same price, same thing for their online services. In such a situation, how could you make more money otherwise than with a larger market share ? You can't...
So, if i say Germany is a wealthier country than Spain, do i search a winner ? Facts are facts. There is no ideology behind facts...
Here is the truth : Sony makes more money with the PS4 than MS with the XB1.
So how do we define "gaming console failure?"
Do we define failure as individualized slices of a product or service (rather than a whole), specifically within the console space?
Do we consider WiiU a failure, a partial failure or a complete failure (because the platform did make money, but not at the rate Nintendo was accustomed too, especially after Wii's success)?
Does growth in one area, negate failure in others?
FYI: These questions/comments should be taken in the general fashion - on getting ones opinion(s).
Do we define failure as individualized slices of a product or service (rather than a whole), specifically within the console space?
Do we consider WiiU a failure, a partial failure or a complete failure (because the platform did make money, but not at the rate Nintendo was accustomed too, especially after Wii's success)?
Does growth in one area, negate failure in others?
FYI: These questions/comments should be taken in the general fashion - on getting ones opinion(s).
By recognizing that a binary state of success/failure when it comes to something that has as many different metrics of performance as a console is overly-simplistic. Once everyone agrees to accept that, a more nuanced discussion can take place from which some actual conclusions might be drawn.
A better question to ask might be, "In what ways and to what degree has console X failed and in what ways and to what degree has it been successful?".
There are 10 ways.
Not 50?
If I had sold 35 millions consoles, I'd say I would have succeeded. 35 millions is an incredible number !
Ergo XB1 is a success. period. No further discussions necessary.
Ergo XB1 is a success. period. No further discussions necessary.
Failure as a business? No.
Failure compared to the PS4? Maybe a bit, based on how close things were last gen.
Failure compared to the goal of half a billion always online, TV TV TV SPORTS boxes with their mandatory Kinects looming over service consuming, open walleted, sofa imprisoned cattle huffing voice commands at the Microsoft Movie Studios App?
Failure compared to the PS4? Maybe a bit, based on how close things were last gen.
Failure compared to the goal of half a billion always online, TV TV TV SPORTS boxes with their mandatory Kinects looming over service consuming, open walleted, sofa imprisoned cattle huffing voice commands at the Microsoft Movie Studios App?
In chess we'd probably classify what xbox did as as a blunder, and given their position coming out of last gen and where they are today, probably okay to call it a critical blunder.
Failure is only when they've given up hope and closed up shop. It's certainly a missed opportunity for Xbox division.
Failure is only when they've given up hope and closed up shop. It's certainly a missed opportunity for Xbox division.
Which is fine. However, you presented it as if yours was the only metric that mattered, and XBox is considered a failure because it failed in one aspect. As mrcorbo says, in reality there's a discussion about things the console (and any console/product/service etc for that matter) got right and things it got wrong. When one person presents a category saying, "it was a success here," the sane response can't be, "you're wrong, it was a failure because it failed there."
There is no one measure of success/failure that provides a suitable label and ends the discussion. Just like there's no one metric that determines if a game is good or not. In a review, generally a number of factors are weighed and an overall impression given. If people wanted to be able to classify consoles as successes or failures, a whole bunch of metrics and a system would been to be agreed upon. Or, alternatively, we keep it subjective at which point no-one can be wrong, unless their facts are.
Last edited:
For us as gamers, consumers, observers or whatever position you place yourself in, failure and success for a console is very subjective depending on how you prioritize the criteria. In business however, if the Xbox One platform is profitable for Microsoft, then I would have to think they would consider it a success. Didn't the Xbox division hemorrhage money earl in its lifecycle? If that is correct, then it is possible that the Xbox One will be the more profitable platform, even though many would argue it is a failure because it will likely sell quite a few less units. It is true that the 360 had a lot more exclusives than the One has enjoyed, but if throwing a bunch of money at exclusives didn't result in big profits its not hard to understand why Microsoft may have scaled back the dollars spent on those exclusives.
We have seen with each new generation there is a bit of a reset, so while a platform may underachieve in one generation, that doesn't seem to define the successor. The NES, SNES, and Sega Genesis were all considered highly successful. The Xbox One stands a good chance to match or exceed those consoles lifetime sales, and I just cant define that as a failure from the units sold perspective. But that's just me.
We have seen with each new generation there is a bit of a reset, so while a platform may underachieve in one generation, that doesn't seem to define the successor. The NES, SNES, and Sega Genesis were all considered highly successful. The Xbox One stands a good chance to match or exceed those consoles lifetime sales, and I just cant define that as a failure from the units sold perspective. But that's just me.
I basically agree with everything except for the motion controls. They did end up in basically every phone....
Using that same logic then Kinect is a success because Kinect is basically in every new Apple iPhone going forward, which is basically every phone from here on out.
