mckmas8808
Legend
scooby_dooby said:
Well technically speaking how would he know if they done the best they could? Does he work for MS?
Jan NPD hardware stolen from GAF
- Thread starter superguy
- Start date
Well technically speaking how would he know if they done the best they could? Does he work for MS?
Can you do better by trying less than your best?scooby_dooby said:
scooby_dooby
Legend
mckmas8808 said:
Technically speaking he prefaces his coments with 'from what I know' which answers your question.
Basically it's his opinion they've made the best of the situation they were in, it has nothing to do with how hard they 'tried' and that verb was never in the discussion until you created it.
You could try your hardest and have a complete failure. A success takes both effort and good decisions, not just effort alone.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Of course you can. You make a smarter decision. Make a smarter decision, may require less effort and result in more success.Shifty Geezer said:
In other words, I could try to do something 110%, but if I make the wrong decision(which would not be through lack of 'trying), it doesn't matter how much I tried, it's still a failure. Or, I could half ass it, but happen to make a couple smart decisions, despite a lack of effort on my part, would still be successful.
mckmas8808
Legend
scooby_dooby said:
Agreed. Since it's his opinion there's no reason for me to explain how I feel about his opinion.
By trying I'd assume that factors in the decision making too. In trying to solve a problem you choose a solution and then attempt to implement it. If you try your hardest, the decision you make will be the best you can given the available information and your ability to probem solve. If MS tried the best they can, they chose their solution and acted on it to the best of their ability. If they were to try again, as hard again, in the same circumstances, without hindsight, they'd choose the same solution and solve it the same way, because the decision making process would still be the same.scooby_dooby said:
The only way your definition can be valid is if MS's decision making process wasn't the best they could do (based on their trying their hardest, not to be confused with the best possible). Maybe they didn't take it seriously, didn't research it enough, just flipped a coin to decided on worldwide launch or not, and then no matter how much post decision effort they put in, it's not the best they could manage.
It's perhaps right to say that 'the outcome was not the best outcome possible, but given that MS tried their hardest, it was the best they could achieve' (not making the argument for MS at all either way).
This is one of those daft English Semantics things that crop up every once in a while and doesn't have any bearing on consoles, so I'll shut up now
Last edited by a moderator:
scooby_dooby
Legend
No because your skill as a decision maker does not depend on the effort you put into something, it more of those unquantifiable skills like vision, timing, reading the market, a little luck even.
For example flops like SegaCD did not fail through lack of effort, everyone tries their hardest so the don't lose their job, it was simply a bad decision.
We're really arguing semantics though, the basic point was that the comparison with MS's efforts here, and SegaCD or Saturn or some other past failures is not really warranted. Not only did they 'try' but they are actually doing well.
For example flops like SegaCD did not fail through lack of effort, everyone tries their hardest so the don't lose their job, it was simply a bad decision.
We're really arguing semantics though, the basic point was that the comparison with MS's efforts here, and SegaCD or Saturn or some other past failures is not really warranted. Not only did they 'try' but they are actually doing well.
That seems a very narrow definition of success, since it obviously forces the discussion to be around total units sold to date.one said:
Much more critical would be momentum, mind share and developer support. It appears that Xbox 360 is doing better than Xbox in this regards (outside of Japan) but I will grant that given the low supply numbers it's difficult to really gauge. If I recall--and can use anecdotal evidence--the first Xbox launch seemed lackluster. I had no plans to even buy it several months after it came out, but then some family members gave it to me as a gift.
This felt different than the PS2 and Dreamcast launch by a good stretch. Though now that I'm thinking about it, it reminds me a bit of the GameCube launch, so perhaps the PS2 launch had just saturated everyone's need for a new console.
scooby_dooby
Legend
one said:
Not really following your logic there. Since a console is totally supply limitd at launch, there is no advantage in the launch period with a worldwide launch. They would sell every unit they could make regardless if they launched worlwide or not.
The impact of the worldwide launch, will be the sales AFTER supply catches up in all regions, so at the end of 06 we'll have some idea of how successful the strategy was, and end of 07 we'll really know.
scooby_dooby said:
That's still too short term.
To really tell how well the strategy worked you'll have to wait until 2011, when the 360 has had a 6 year lifespan and the next MS system is about to come out. Then you can look at total sales and profit margins and see what kind of success it was.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Powderkeg said:
I dunno, I think the goal of a WW launch is to build up that initial install base across the world, rather than roll it out over a 12-16month period. So the real advantage should come in that last 12 months where supply is caught up, and you're selling in regions you wouldn't be otherwise.
After that, there's sales aren't really attributed to the ww launch since you would be in those territories already, sure you gained some mindshare by growing your install base early and that will continue to pay-off, but it really becomes about the games at that point and that always ends up deciding who sells more.
Of course, that depends (again) on how you define success. Is success...Powderkeg said:
-Selling more 360s than Xbox1s? Seems very likely that will happen.
-Selling more 360s than PS3s? Seems pretty unlikely that will happen.
-Being more financially successful than Xbox1? Seems pretty hard NOT to do that.
-Being more financially successful than PS3 or Rev? Hard to say if we'll even be able to tell.
-Leveraging the 360 to sell more MS products and technology (MCE PC, WMDRM, etc.)?
-Winning mindshare of developers?
-Winning mindshare of consumers?
-Establishing a brand so that Xbox 360+1 will be #1?
-Having better exclusive games?
-Having better multi-platform games?
Part of the problems on this board (and those all round the Net) is that everyone is coming at with different definitions of success. Presumably, you'd like to think that all that consumers would be concerned with is how happy they are with their console, and all developers would care about is how much they like the technology and platform, etc. etc., but that's clearly not the case.
So what are we talking about? Is this the "B3D Console Business Strategy Forum", or the "B3D Console Technology Forum"? What is it that everyone cares about so much?
scooby_dooby said:
Again, you are thinking too short term.
The Xbox sold nearly 25 million units in slightly over 4 years time. They managed to sell over 10 million units in the last year alone.
If the Xbox had had 2 more years on store shelves it would have been at near 45 million at the end of it's lifecycle, and that's a much more respectable number.
By launching the 360 a year earlier than their competition they are assured of a 6 year lifecycle, gaining 2 more years on store shelves, and still being able to launch it's successor a year before the competition again without having to rush the launch at all.
So, when Sony gets ready to release the PS4 they'll have to ask themselves if they want to let MS launch another system with another full year headstart in sales, and absolutely no pressure for MS's launch. They have to decide if they want to give MS the chance to have a well planned, and well prepared for launch.
If they don't want to give MS that chance they'll have to cut the PS3 lifecycle a year short and launch the PS4 in only 5 years time, and give MS a full year longer to increase their userbase.
If they decide they want to beat MS to market they'll have to cut to a 4 year lifecycle, and give the 360 2 years longer on store shelves to build up their userbase.
Not to mention the long-term profitability issue.
The 360 should begin to turn a profit in around 18 months after launch. A 6 year lifespan gives them 4 and a half years of profit. Waiting another year wouldn't have helped those long term sales a bit, and might have killed the short term sales by going head to head with the PS3.
If you look past the right now, and consider a strategy that extends beyond a single generation, then the years headstart nnow leads to huge payoffs years down the line.
mckmas8808
Legend
Powderkeg said:
No not really. We have seen so far that Sony could give two craps about MS and what they are trying to do with the 360. I mean really we still today don't know much about the damn PS3.
Sony is working on their own schedule, not MS's.
mckmas8808
Legend
expletive said:
Well my bad I shouldn't have said "don't give a crap". We all know they give a crap, but what I meant was they will do things on their time or/and when they think it's right not when MS wants them to do something.
Sony is already proving this now. We still don't know what RSX is, the speed of the Blu-ray player, price of the PS3, release date, look of the controller, launch games, look or gameplay of real PS3 games, online setup, OS GUI, or little extras like PSP -> PS3 connectivity.
